Translation talk:Colossians

introduction/purpose

I'm new to wikipedia, thank you to Jdavid2008, I'm not sure how to do this.

I am using the Greek New Text from Bible Works 6. I'm sure it isn't the best text because it is an electronic version which does not discuss textual variants.

This is more of a hobby than anything else, so if someone wants to introduce textual variants, that is great!

Typically, I will be using Greek that I learned in Divinity School; when applicable, I will use BGAD and possibly Thayer's Lexicon.

Thank you for any help anyone can give,

p.s. can someone tell me how to footnote? Thank you,

Ilumixochi

Chapter 1 Notes/Questions

I'm taking my time after verse five b/c I need to work out the meaning of the Greek along with the grammar. I'm getting a lot of help from Harris ""Colossians and Philemon"" Ilumixochi

Footnote style

@Alephb: In general, I'm still working out the best format for footnotes on here (reading docs and seeing what folks have already done). There's definitely a difference between what we need, which are really translation notes, contrasted with actual footnotes that originate in other forms of primary-source material and are expected to be reproduced in Wikisource pages (e.g., see Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_1.djvu/13).

Regarding your recent update (diff), not only are periods typically at the end of end/footnotes in most physical articles and books, they also appear in Wikisource examples (e.g., see Help:Footnotes_and_endnotes#Footnotes), so I think it might make sense for you to revert your change. What do you think?

Ah, I see. So you were trying to put a period inside the note. Makes sense. But the footnote period was displaying outside the note (click here to see what it looked like and try reading through the first sentence of the translation). Now that I see where the period was supposed to go, I'll go ahead and put one in. I didn't see that you put the period there and was figuring it was just left over from some earlier editor, so I just snatched it out without discussing.

I've been using the <ref></ref> style of notes, but I'm open to suggestions as to how else we should do it. I've been using refs because it's easy and I hadn't seen anyone use anything better here, but I'm open to suggestions. Alephb (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: Ah, gotcha gotcha. Thank you for the fix.  :) Yes, I'm using <ref></ref> atm too, and I think they make sense for now. Moving forward, I'm wondering if we'll want different sections for different types of notes (e.g., one section for text-critical notes, one for lexical/translation notes, etc.). Maybe we'll simply cross that bridge if/when we get there. 👍

For now, I'm questioning the header designation "Footnotes" vs simply "Notes" given the distinction I mentioned above.

I'd be perfectly happy to see either "Footnotes" or "Notes' sections at the end of the book pages. Pick whichever you like; I'll happily abide by it. As for dividing things into text-critical vs. lexical/translation notes, I'd have a harder time making those divisions, at least in portions translated from Hebrew, because so many of the difficulties in the Hebrew Bible include both lexical/translation and text-citical difficulties around the same word or phrase. Alephb (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Translation header unexpected output

@EncycloPetey: Greetings! Following Template:Translation_header#Documentation and Help:Interlanguage_links#Syntax, I added original = [[el:Προς Κολοσσαείς]] to the translation header on Translation:Colossians, but now [[el:]] appears at the top of the page. Thoughts? Thank you! :) --Austinjalexander (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've corrected the syntax. It's not well documented, but the language and original are there to create an interwiki link in the margin, not in the text of the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)