![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
{{ User:Aiden/Template:Christianity}} Over time the template seems to have grown and grown and grown. Usually this can be prevented by keeping the links in the template directed towards main articles. This allows the reader to start with the general article and move on to the more detailed sub-article if he or she so wishes. However, as is especially the case with the links to various divisions of Christianity, it seems that the template has become more of a list of articles. After taking a look at some other templates, I found the Islam template to be a very good example of using main articles, not to mention a clean and simple layout. I took the liberty of adapting that template, along with various suggestions that have been posted here, into a new template. Please let me know what you think. — Aiden 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it has been discussed before, but the Slav cross really should be used on this page (in the template), to give this page more accuracy. Rocky87 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Its the idea of changing the image that has been discussed before. The cross most frequent in Orthodoxy is the three-barred cross (scroll to "Eastern Cross"). Rocky87 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You have convinced me with your first sentence. It is already displayed lower on the page, anyway. I would just like to point out that the Pope's cross is quite different from the Slavic one, though, and i think it has quite a different meaning. Rocky87 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the use of either Ichthys or Chi-Rho monogram will be more appropriate and neutral symbol to use INSTEAD OF any type of cross, because the Latin cross IS NOT the universally representing symbol of the christian world (especially eastern christians, who believe that it is a mutilated form, a stripped-down version of the Resuscitating cross, also misrepresented as 'the tri-bar orthodox cross'), to not count those denominations and sects, which do not justify the use of cross/crucifix symbol at all. For short - let's remove the latin cross and replace it with some more neutral symbol that could be considered as universally representing christianity. -- Zigisz 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to start off by saying "Most Christians believe". It's rather presumptuous, and I don't see how anyone could claim to be able to truthfully say that or document such things. A more neutral phrase would be preferred. 69.181.1.157 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
Note they also say "most Christians share"
69.181.188.254 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous - it assumes that only people in some organized Christian group are really Christians. Also, it assumes that the people in those organized groups definitely agree with the stated doctrine of the church. An example, the Catholic Church, while it presumes to have a defined doctrine, has many members in various countries who have radically different views on Catholic and Christian doctrine. Or, the Episcopal Church in America has an ongoing dispute on the role of gays in the church that radically differs from the Anglican church in Africa. And these are only examples.
It's clear that anyone presuming to claim that "most Christians" believe any particular doctrine is not being accurate or fair.
I don't understand why this article is not allowed to be edited and I tried to figure out how to request the change, but it is incomprehensible on this site.
This is a good example -- what the hell is a template? This jargon stuff just makes me want to scream. If Wikipedia is to succeed you have to understand that people don't talk like this. Also, if you make it easier for people to talk back and edit easily in the right place, you won't have a problem with people doing what you don't want. I think the biggest issues could be eliminated if the user interface were improved. 69.181.188.254 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I went to your page. Could not figure out how to add a comment there. I posted a reply at the userpage Andrew created to reply to me, if you want to see a more extensive discussion of this.
69.181.188.254 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the disgusting trend of using collapse/expand sections hasnt totally taken over this template. But it needs to be pointed out that the current usage to hide the East/West/Reform sections doesnt appear to be useful. For one, the sections are too small to need hiding as separate elements. Second, these sections are only showing on the left side of the template, wasting all that space on the right. (Presumably the reason for using the collapse sections ITFP was to save space). - Ste vertigo 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is too long as it is and could stand to be trimmed rather than expanded. -- SECisek 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Quantum Burrito created Template:Collapsible Christ which has proved useful on a couple of pages so far: Father and OT. I propose to move the contents to a separate page like this so that they can be maintained only once, and read into both the normal Template:Christianity and the collapsible version, like this test version. I'll leave the idea here for a week for responses before doing it.
I'd propose to keep the page history & this talk with the contents by moving this Template:Christianity to Template:Christianity contents, then changing Template:Christianity from a redirect to just top and tail the box around the contents. Template:Collapsible Christ would be similar. OK? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, can we make the main template collapsible, usually open by default but collapsed on pages such as Father and OT? - Fayenatic (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't the text Catholic Pope link to Pope rather than Bishop of Rome? the former is the article that actually covers the topic of Catholic popes. 68.54.206.193 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we add a "Criticisms" section? Every other religion has one.-- ॐJesucristo301 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just an alert. Supercessionism doesn't sound like a foundational Christian doctrine to me. Perhaps it is American terminology for something I am more familiar with by another name, say Covenant Theology. However the alert is this. Supercessionism is also listed as an article on the anti-semitism template. The current article at supercessionism only references a Jewish writer and Catholic statements. I suspect there is some definitional lack of clarity here. If supercessionism is a foundational Catholic doctrine and anti-semitic, then everything's as it should be. But somehow I don't think this is quite right. Cheers. Alastair Haines 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The nav box should only appear on articles that are listed on the template. Hence the "Part of a series on..." at the top. The portal link should appear on Chritianity-related articles that are not part of the series. This is consistent with nav box usage throughout WP. Also, there is now the footer {{ Christianityfooter}} which can be added and is 100% identical to the old nav box, which is overused right now. Please help with the change over. Best. -- SECisek ( talk) 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it your belief that both the footer and the nav box should be on every single Christianity related article? I don't think you will find much support for that position. Can you cite me chapter and verse? I agree that usage is probably inconsistent and that is why I have dedicated several days in an attempt to exercise some common sense usage of the Wikiproject Christianity nav boxes. Pitch in, if you can.
Of 250+ removals of the nav box over the last few days, only 3 have been reverted. It seems those three were because because the removals were misunderstood, based off of the revert edit summaries. I think that indicates broad consensus for the switch over. -- SECisek ( talk) 10:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why? See above, are we going to have the footer and the Nav Box on every page? If you think Christianity and slavery is one of the 30 or 40 most important articles about Christianity in all of Wikipedia, go ahead and it add to the box. If consensus is with you, it will stand. You may want to refresh yourself on what that box is and what it isn't at Wikipedia:Article series and Wikipedia:Navigational templates -- SECisek ( talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is why it is refered to as a "Nav Box" in every case...-- SECisek ( talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it, well done! -- SECisek ( talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, though technically in a Catholic church, seems to be more based on Greek orthodox iconography (it's from a part of Italy that was very heavily influenced by Byzantine culture for centuries). AnonMoos ( talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, this has been discussed before, and digging through the archives I came across: I think that the use of either Ichthys or Chi-Rho monogram will be more appropriate and neutral symbol to use INSTEAD OF any type of cross, because the Latin cross IS NOT the universally representing symbol of the christian world (especially eastern christians, who believe that it is a mutilated form, a stripped-down version of the Resuscitating cross, also misrepresented as 'the tri-bar orthodox cross'), to not count those denominations and sects, which do not justify the use of cross/crucifix symbol at all. For short - let's remove the latin cross and replace it with some more neutral symbol that could be considered as universally representing christianity. --Zigisz 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) I know someone has mentioned the fish, and someone objected, but what about the Chi-Rho? It is similar to the manuscript image suggested in that it was a nomina sacra used in old manuscripts of the gospels.- Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And to throw one more idea out there, I have seen Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg used on the Christianity portal and other places. It may not be as overtly related to one Christian group as the Cefalu image.- Andrew c [talk] 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
by the way jesus had nails through his ankles and not his feet, also jesus never did the sign with his hand as shown on the first picture when you type in jesus change it!!!
I chose the image because I'm tired of seeing an svg symbol. I want something made by an arist. It is a painting. Of Jesus. Who all Christians believe in. Jehovah Witnesses don't use the cross and neither do Mormons. It doesn't matter what chapel it comes from or what denomination. It's one about Jesus. So I hope all of you understand now.-- Angel David ( talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There was this foolishness that was never resolved. It is the exact same debate. The link again is: Talk:Christianity/Archive 45#lead image. -- SECisek ( talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I personaly liked Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, I'll have you know. -- SECisek ( talk) 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
.
This section is for discussion regarding the current image on the template box.
In the meantime, I've created a more stylized cross for use in the template box. I understand if at a later date it will be changed to another symbol, but in the meantime I think
is an improvement on
only in an aesthetic sense. I compared Islam's template box with Christianity's and thought we needed something more dynamic and interesting than a black cross. If this change is distasteful to anyone, feel free to revert to the previous cross (Christian Cross.svg)
, or a version of the gold cross without the red backdrop (Gold Christian Cross no Red.svg).
murraytheb موري (
talk)
07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I code monkeyed the words from this template onto the Buddhism one; the horrific monster I created resides at User:Fishal/Jesustemplate. I don't know how to add the collapsible sections for the denominations. I do know how to change the colors, but don't know what color scheme to go with. (Buddhists have orange, Jews have blue, Muslims have green... Christians just don't have a representative color.) I welcome anyone to edit that page to make improvements, even though it is in my user space. ...And might I add, can we please trim some of the content down? The template is so big, it's barely useful for navigation. Fishal ( talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Easter pastels would be Christian colors only if the Christian Easter was about bunny rabbits and candy. The colors of the Christian Flag is white, red, and purple. They stand for purity, sacrifice, and royalty. These are also the colors Christ is shown wearing in art (not all at once) unless the artist in going for more realism (brown).
The flag is often shown with dark blue instead of purple for seeming three reasons. (1) True purple looks bad with red. (2) The purple quickly fades when the flag is on display to a blue or the like. (3) The canton is taken as blue because of the pattern of the US flag. Purple (or red) however is a better choice as a Christian color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be trimmed down. The mass of text is so overwhelming, it's barely useful as a navigational tool. I'd say nearly all of the theology links need to go, especially links not directly related to Christianity (monotheism, history of theology). People interested in theology can click on Theology and get specific topics there. Most of the history links too, and I'd say all of the important figures links. This is supposed to be for the broadest possible topics related to Christianity; otherwise it just isn't useful. Fishal ( talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Back on Nov. 26 you removed the "Christianity" template from List of Christian denominations, replacing it with a portal. Why? Tb ( talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Right here:
{{
Christianityfooter}}
Enjoy! --
SECisek (
talk)
02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the direction we are heading. I phased it down to about 125 pages last fall. Since that time, other editors reached consensus to bring it down to under 75 pages. I suspect it will continue to be replaced by the footer. Some pages I saw had the Arminianism, Methodism, Protestantism, and Christianity Nav box. Clearly, there has to be a limit. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so. There was next to no negative reaction to the latest scale-back. -- SECisek ( talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, is there a way to make the template thinner? The width of the box is playing havoc with my attempts to fit a picture above it on the Christianity article while still getting the text to wrap. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested we should be "focused on ridding Wikipedia" of this template and I think Carlaude's suggestion that I did borders on assuming bad faith. The template should appear on pages that it LINKS to and the footer or portal link should be on pages that are related but not featured on the box itself. There has been broad, cross-subject agreement on this. When I have a chance, I will again cull the box off of non-linked pages unless there is broad consensus not to. Happy Christmas all. -- Secisek ( talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20#Template:Collapsible Christ about making this template collapsible. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand you. If it still shows what you changed try a refresh, but do no change this without discussion here.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is the Anglican Church under the Catholicism section, while I am aware the AC can be very Catholic in some branches it can be very protestant in others. Also, it views itself as a Protestant Church doesn't it? Gavin Scott ( talk) 10:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Can this simple:Template:Christianity please be added to Template:Christianity. I don't know what the correct template for Admin help is.
Done. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[1] I like it. It makes the template prettier, but keeps the symbol that everyone's agreed to. Nice cross. Fishal ( talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not like it. It's not supposed to be "pretty" in a iMac sort of way. I opt for a return to the basic, solid cross this template used to have for years. "Prettification" of Wikipedia with sparkly icons with shadow effect is a curse, Wikipedia isn't the gnome desktop. Just my opinion. More opinions will be needed before we have anything like a " WP:CONSENSUS" on this. -- dab (𒁳) 07:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
in fact, this is the proper diff. I repeat that the current icon looks absolutely cheesy. It is not acceptable in the long term. There may be intermediate suggestions modifying the plain black cross, I suppose, but this one is simply beyond the pale, it looks as if it was taken from some cheap and badly designed bible thumper website sporting animated gifs and blink tags. -- dab (𒁳) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to add Swedenborgians to the Non-trinitarian section. In case there is confusion, the New Church teaches that J.C. is the one and only God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are symbolic aspects of him. Please comment. 134.84.96.56 ( talk) 07:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In the long term, the link in the template under "Trinity • (Father • Son • Spirit)" must be to the article God the Son. It is an indictment on our priorities that GoS is so poorly developed. We should be exposing it to more traffic in the hope of attracting people to co-operate in building it.
Most of the Christian views of Jesus article is completely irrelevant to the Nicean formulation this template implies.
History tells us Christian boffins took centuries debating human and divine aspects of Jesus' nature, quite distinctly different issues to the considerations of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the relationships within the Trinity implied by the term "God the Son". These are just two issues covered by Christian views of Jesus, without mentioning the many other contentious debates relevant to an article with that title like: virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from death, promised Messiah and so on.
If we are to link to an article that is more developed than God the Son, we would probably do better to link to Son of God; although this is simply erroneous in the relevant subsection. I also note we have an article on Jesus' foreskin but not one on Jesus' divinity. Some pretty commonsense priorities seem to be a little out of wack here. ;)
I'll be correcting the template unless a plausible (rather than questionably pragmatic) case can be made for some alternative. Cheers all. Alastair Haines ( talk) 08:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
But yes, lots of problems. If you haven't already you should join WikiProject:Christianity, see if you can wrangle anyone to help out.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
While I'm here I'd like to ask why we have the odd ordering: Catholic - Protestant - Orthodox.
It would seem the logical and historical thing to have: Orthodox - Catholic - Protestant.
I'm presuming we just don't have enough Orthodox readers willing to kick up a justified fuss about this.
It has not escaped the attention of scholars that Acts progresses from the establishment of Eastern churches (notably Antioch and first use of the name "Christian") through to a church in Rome; and that Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations trace their descent to these respective eastern and western communities of NT repute.
It should be remembered that adopting the tripartite categorisation is original research unless based on precisely the scholastic consensus mentioned in the last paragraph. Deviation from its logic is also original research and prone to error and bias. Alphabetical order, for example, would suggest all are undifferentiated elements of one superset; however, the reality is that they are well known to have differentiated internal relationships. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are sisters, where Protestantism is a daughter of Catholicism, a "niece" if you will to Orthodoxy, not a sibling.
I'd be curious to hear what specific objections people could throw at the traditional O-C-P ordering; or any defence (original research or not) for the current (star-wars) ordering—C-P-O(?!). Alastair Haines ( talk) 09:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a very small thing I support - but I could care less - and you are correct, "we just don't have enough Orthodox readers willing to kick up a...fuss about this" Orthodoxy is sadly the stepchild of Christianity on Wikipedia. -- Secisek ( talk) 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel strongly? -- Secisek ( talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
{{Religion
|religion = Christianity
|image = [[File:Christianity Symbol.png|85px|Christianity]]
|width = 18em
|bold = no
|header1 = <center>[[Jesus|<span style="color: #000000;">Jesus</span>]] [[Christ|<span style="color: #000000;">Christ</span>]]</center>
|data2 = [[Virgin birth of Jesus|Virgin birth]]{{·}} [[Crucifixion of Jesus|Crucifixion]]{{·}} [[Resurrection of Jesus|Resurrection]]
|header3 = <center>Foundations</center>
|data4 = [[Christian Church|Church]]{{·}} [[New Covenant]]{{·}} [[Twelve Apostles|Apostles]]{{·}}|header5 =
|data5 = [[Kingdom of God|Kingdom]]{{·}} [[Gospel]]{{·}} [[Timeline of Christianity|Timeline]]
|header6 = <center>[[Bible|<span style="color: #000000;">Bible</span>]]</center>
|data7 = [[Old Testament]]{{·}} [[New Testament]]{{·}}
|data8 = [[Books of the Bible|Books]]{{·}} [[Biblical canon|Canon]]{{·}} [[Biblical apocrypha|Apocrypha]]
|header9 = <center>[[Christian theology|<span style="color: #000000;">Theology</span>]]</center>
|data10 = [[Trinity]]{{·}} [[God the Father#Christianity|Father]]{{·}} [[Son of God#.22Son_of_God.22_according_to_the_New_Testament|Son]]{{·}} [[Holy Spirit]]{{·}}
|data11 = [[History of Christian theology|History of]]{{·}} [[Christian theology|Theology]]{{·}} [[Christian apologetics|Apologetics]]
|header12 = <center>[[History of Christianity|<span style="color: #000000;">History</span>]] and [[Christian tradition|<span style="color: #000000;">Traditions</span>]]</center>
|data13 = [[Early Christianity|Early]]{{·}} [[Ecumenical council|Councils]]{{·}} [[Creed|Creeds]]{{·}} [[Mission (Christian)|Missions]]{{·}}
|data14 = [[East-West Schism]]{{·}} [[Crusades]]{{·}}
|data15 = [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]]
|header16 = <center>[[Christian denomination|<span style="color: #000000;">Denominations</span>]]</center>
|data17 = <center>'''[[Catholicism|<span style="color: #000000;">Catholicism</span>]]'''</center>
|data18 = [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]{{·}} [[Eastern Catholic]]{{·}}
|data19 = [[Independent Catholic Churches|Independent Catholic]]{{·}}
|data20 = [[Old Catholic Church|Old Catholic]]
|data21 = <center>'''[[Protestantism|<span style="color: #000000;">Protestantism</span>]]'''</center>
|data22 = [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]]{{·}} [[Anglicanism|Anglican]]{{·}} [[Anabaptist]]{{·}}
|data23 = [[Baptist]]{{·}} [[Methodism|Methodist]]{{·}} [[Adventism|Adventist]]{{·}}
|data24 = [[Evangelicalism]]{{·}} [[Holiness movement|Holiness]]{{·}} [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]]
|data25 = <center>'''[[Orthodox Christianity|<span style="color: #000000;">Orthodoxy</span>]]'''</center>
|data26 = [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodoxy]]{{·}}
|data27 = [[Oriental Orthodoxy|Oriental Orthodoxy (Miaphysite)]]{{·}}
|data28 = [[Syriac Christianity|Syriac Christianity <small>(Nestorian Assyrians)</small>]]
|data29 = <center>'''[[Nontrinitarian|<span style="color: #000000;">Nontrinitarian</span>]]'''</center>
|data30 = [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]{{·}}
|data31 = [[Latter Day Saint movement]]{{·}}
|data32 = [[Unitarianism]]{{·}} [[Christadelphians]]{{·}}
|data33 = [[Oneness Pentecostalism]]
|header34 = <center>Topics in Christianity</center>
|data35 = [[Sermon|Preaching]]{{·}} [[Prayer in Christianity|Prayer]]{{·}} [[Ecumenism]]{{·}}
|data36 = [[Christianity and other religions|Relation to other religions]]{{·}}
|data37 = [[Christian movements|Movements]]{{·}} [[Christian music|Music]]{{·}} [[Christian liturgy|Liturgy]]{{·}}
|data38 = [[Liturgical year|Calendar]]{{·}} [[Christian symbolism|Symbols]]{{·}} [[Christian art|Art]]{{·}} [[Criticism of Christianity|Criticism]]
}}
Recently I have been working on standardising all of the Religious templates. This template is the one for Christianity. If there are no objections then I will impliment the template. The Quill ( talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.143.122 ( talk) 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I suggest and request that the default state of this template be "collapsed"? At present the large open box takes up a lot of "real estate" on the screen of the various articles that use it. The screen should primarily fulfil the main purpose of the article, which is that subject itself. By contrast the purpose of this box/template, surely, is to allow the reader, if they so choose, to open up and explore at a tangent away from the article. Any objections to "default collapsed"? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The 80 articles in WikiProject Christianity's Top-importance category have been reconciled with {{ Christianity}} per discussion elsewhere. They will now form the scope of WikiProject Christianity's Core topics work group. -- Secisek ( talk) 08:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposal that passes with no complaint is a licence for bold action. This is article space, there are no rules. What changes have you objected to? They were very minor. I am trying to assume good faith on your part here. It seems the only thing short of formating, which I conceded, that you have objected to is Gospel which was not changed. You are attempting to make a change that is being objected to. -- Secisek ( talk) 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
For at least the last 250 edits, since at least 24 February 2007, Gospel has been listed under Foundations. That is 2+ years of consensus. It should stay as it has been until the merge proposal plays out. John Carter proposed the navboxs be reconciled with the top importance articles with no complaint on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum where you are a contributor. I am sorry if you feel this blind sided you, but the tweaks here are really quite minor - compare with the last version, one edit by you I'll add. Almost nothing was removed and a few things were added where space already permited. What do you think should be here that isn't? -- Secisek ( talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We have establsished it has been there a long time. You have made numerous edits to the template in that time and have not seen fit to move it until now. The Gospel is THE very foundation of the Church for many Christians. It can rest there until there is a determination on the merge. After all this time, what is your rush now? -- Secisek ( talk) 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would think you would know how Wikipedia works, but if you need a reminder: the process is 1. Change 2. Revert 3. Discuss. You made a change, I reverted, the discussion is on. I proposed the merge a few hours before you posted that you, "do not see any merge discussion really going on". I could have boldly meged the two myself since you said you would not oppose, but I wanted to wait and see if anybody else had an opinion, since neither you nor I "own" the article.
We are working on gathering consensus right now. As an aside, to suggest that the Gospels - the actual books of the canon which contain the good news - are not a foundation of Christianity speaks volumes. They contain the totality of everything Christians know that Jesus ever said or did. They are, according to some, the cornerstone of Christianity and such a fact is easily cited. See the Oxford Companion to the Bible, for one. -- Secisek ( talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is Anglicanishm not listed as a Denomination of Christianity, Non trinitarianism is not usally considered a branch of Christianity while Anglicanism is listed as a distinct branch in all articles regarding Christianity, I will try to change this.-- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that Anglicanism was listed as Protestant on the chart but it actually is listed as Catholic, I just wanted to keep consistency with the article and it was already achieved-- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Every other article on a religion has a relevent and attractive image in the lead; Islam's article is much better for it. We're stuck with this brutish and unimaginative puritanical, 2D entity. I added an image which IMO makes the Christianity article much more attractive to the reader. It is the cross in the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem on top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is located at the traditional place of Calvary were Christ was crucified. Thus it is undisputably an image which is relevent to all Christians. The Church itself is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Catholics, Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Christians. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The previous concern regarding the mosque is now taken care of. I have cropped the mosque out of the image. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As referenced above, 5 months ago-- to add a new Christianity article to this template-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). Carlaude: Talk 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} I would request that the heading in the side box that currently reads "Denominations" be changed to "Traditions", as the term "tradition" in the history of Christianity is a broader term, encompassing many denominations, while still delineating the key differences among Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Non-Trinitarianism. Further, a "denomination", particularly in the Protestant tradition, is a much more narrowly defined group than the page indicates.
Creynolds2011 ( talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know why it is so wide? It seems like we could make it about 80% of its current width and the whole thing would still be only one or two lines longer. Carlaude: Talk 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to include Eastern_Catholic_Churches in the Catholic section under Denominations?
I'd have done it myself but I need to learn more wiki first. It mentions Roman Catholic, Anglican, Independent Catholic, and Old Catholic, so I figure Eastern Catholic should be represented there. It's not the same as Eastern Denominations. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
{{ User:Aiden/Template:Christianity}} Over time the template seems to have grown and grown and grown. Usually this can be prevented by keeping the links in the template directed towards main articles. This allows the reader to start with the general article and move on to the more detailed sub-article if he or she so wishes. However, as is especially the case with the links to various divisions of Christianity, it seems that the template has become more of a list of articles. After taking a look at some other templates, I found the Islam template to be a very good example of using main articles, not to mention a clean and simple layout. I took the liberty of adapting that template, along with various suggestions that have been posted here, into a new template. Please let me know what you think. — Aiden 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it has been discussed before, but the Slav cross really should be used on this page (in the template), to give this page more accuracy. Rocky87 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Its the idea of changing the image that has been discussed before. The cross most frequent in Orthodoxy is the three-barred cross (scroll to "Eastern Cross"). Rocky87 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You have convinced me with your first sentence. It is already displayed lower on the page, anyway. I would just like to point out that the Pope's cross is quite different from the Slavic one, though, and i think it has quite a different meaning. Rocky87 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the use of either Ichthys or Chi-Rho monogram will be more appropriate and neutral symbol to use INSTEAD OF any type of cross, because the Latin cross IS NOT the universally representing symbol of the christian world (especially eastern christians, who believe that it is a mutilated form, a stripped-down version of the Resuscitating cross, also misrepresented as 'the tri-bar orthodox cross'), to not count those denominations and sects, which do not justify the use of cross/crucifix symbol at all. For short - let's remove the latin cross and replace it with some more neutral symbol that could be considered as universally representing christianity. -- Zigisz 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to start off by saying "Most Christians believe". It's rather presumptuous, and I don't see how anyone could claim to be able to truthfully say that or document such things. A more neutral phrase would be preferred. 69.181.1.157 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
Note they also say "most Christians share"
69.181.188.254 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous - it assumes that only people in some organized Christian group are really Christians. Also, it assumes that the people in those organized groups definitely agree with the stated doctrine of the church. An example, the Catholic Church, while it presumes to have a defined doctrine, has many members in various countries who have radically different views on Catholic and Christian doctrine. Or, the Episcopal Church in America has an ongoing dispute on the role of gays in the church that radically differs from the Anglican church in Africa. And these are only examples.
It's clear that anyone presuming to claim that "most Christians" believe any particular doctrine is not being accurate or fair.
I don't understand why this article is not allowed to be edited and I tried to figure out how to request the change, but it is incomprehensible on this site.
This is a good example -- what the hell is a template? This jargon stuff just makes me want to scream. If Wikipedia is to succeed you have to understand that people don't talk like this. Also, if you make it easier for people to talk back and edit easily in the right place, you won't have a problem with people doing what you don't want. I think the biggest issues could be eliminated if the user interface were improved. 69.181.188.254 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I went to your page. Could not figure out how to add a comment there. I posted a reply at the userpage Andrew created to reply to me, if you want to see a more extensive discussion of this.
69.181.188.254 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the disgusting trend of using collapse/expand sections hasnt totally taken over this template. But it needs to be pointed out that the current usage to hide the East/West/Reform sections doesnt appear to be useful. For one, the sections are too small to need hiding as separate elements. Second, these sections are only showing on the left side of the template, wasting all that space on the right. (Presumably the reason for using the collapse sections ITFP was to save space). - Ste vertigo 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is too long as it is and could stand to be trimmed rather than expanded. -- SECisek 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Quantum Burrito created Template:Collapsible Christ which has proved useful on a couple of pages so far: Father and OT. I propose to move the contents to a separate page like this so that they can be maintained only once, and read into both the normal Template:Christianity and the collapsible version, like this test version. I'll leave the idea here for a week for responses before doing it.
I'd propose to keep the page history & this talk with the contents by moving this Template:Christianity to Template:Christianity contents, then changing Template:Christianity from a redirect to just top and tail the box around the contents. Template:Collapsible Christ would be similar. OK? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, can we make the main template collapsible, usually open by default but collapsed on pages such as Father and OT? - Fayenatic (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't the text Catholic Pope link to Pope rather than Bishop of Rome? the former is the article that actually covers the topic of Catholic popes. 68.54.206.193 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we add a "Criticisms" section? Every other religion has one.-- ॐJesucristo301 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just an alert. Supercessionism doesn't sound like a foundational Christian doctrine to me. Perhaps it is American terminology for something I am more familiar with by another name, say Covenant Theology. However the alert is this. Supercessionism is also listed as an article on the anti-semitism template. The current article at supercessionism only references a Jewish writer and Catholic statements. I suspect there is some definitional lack of clarity here. If supercessionism is a foundational Catholic doctrine and anti-semitic, then everything's as it should be. But somehow I don't think this is quite right. Cheers. Alastair Haines 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The nav box should only appear on articles that are listed on the template. Hence the "Part of a series on..." at the top. The portal link should appear on Chritianity-related articles that are not part of the series. This is consistent with nav box usage throughout WP. Also, there is now the footer {{ Christianityfooter}} which can be added and is 100% identical to the old nav box, which is overused right now. Please help with the change over. Best. -- SECisek ( talk) 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it your belief that both the footer and the nav box should be on every single Christianity related article? I don't think you will find much support for that position. Can you cite me chapter and verse? I agree that usage is probably inconsistent and that is why I have dedicated several days in an attempt to exercise some common sense usage of the Wikiproject Christianity nav boxes. Pitch in, if you can.
Of 250+ removals of the nav box over the last few days, only 3 have been reverted. It seems those three were because because the removals were misunderstood, based off of the revert edit summaries. I think that indicates broad consensus for the switch over. -- SECisek ( talk) 10:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why? See above, are we going to have the footer and the Nav Box on every page? If you think Christianity and slavery is one of the 30 or 40 most important articles about Christianity in all of Wikipedia, go ahead and it add to the box. If consensus is with you, it will stand. You may want to refresh yourself on what that box is and what it isn't at Wikipedia:Article series and Wikipedia:Navigational templates -- SECisek ( talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is why it is refered to as a "Nav Box" in every case...-- SECisek ( talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it, well done! -- SECisek ( talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, though technically in a Catholic church, seems to be more based on Greek orthodox iconography (it's from a part of Italy that was very heavily influenced by Byzantine culture for centuries). AnonMoos ( talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, this has been discussed before, and digging through the archives I came across: I think that the use of either Ichthys or Chi-Rho monogram will be more appropriate and neutral symbol to use INSTEAD OF any type of cross, because the Latin cross IS NOT the universally representing symbol of the christian world (especially eastern christians, who believe that it is a mutilated form, a stripped-down version of the Resuscitating cross, also misrepresented as 'the tri-bar orthodox cross'), to not count those denominations and sects, which do not justify the use of cross/crucifix symbol at all. For short - let's remove the latin cross and replace it with some more neutral symbol that could be considered as universally representing christianity. --Zigisz 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) I know someone has mentioned the fish, and someone objected, but what about the Chi-Rho? It is similar to the manuscript image suggested in that it was a nomina sacra used in old manuscripts of the gospels.- Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And to throw one more idea out there, I have seen Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg used on the Christianity portal and other places. It may not be as overtly related to one Christian group as the Cefalu image.- Andrew c [talk] 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
by the way jesus had nails through his ankles and not his feet, also jesus never did the sign with his hand as shown on the first picture when you type in jesus change it!!!
I chose the image because I'm tired of seeing an svg symbol. I want something made by an arist. It is a painting. Of Jesus. Who all Christians believe in. Jehovah Witnesses don't use the cross and neither do Mormons. It doesn't matter what chapel it comes from or what denomination. It's one about Jesus. So I hope all of you understand now.-- Angel David ( talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There was this foolishness that was never resolved. It is the exact same debate. The link again is: Talk:Christianity/Archive 45#lead image. -- SECisek ( talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I personaly liked Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, I'll have you know. -- SECisek ( talk) 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
.
This section is for discussion regarding the current image on the template box.
In the meantime, I've created a more stylized cross for use in the template box. I understand if at a later date it will be changed to another symbol, but in the meantime I think
is an improvement on
only in an aesthetic sense. I compared Islam's template box with Christianity's and thought we needed something more dynamic and interesting than a black cross. If this change is distasteful to anyone, feel free to revert to the previous cross (Christian Cross.svg)
, or a version of the gold cross without the red backdrop (Gold Christian Cross no Red.svg).
murraytheb موري (
talk)
07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I code monkeyed the words from this template onto the Buddhism one; the horrific monster I created resides at User:Fishal/Jesustemplate. I don't know how to add the collapsible sections for the denominations. I do know how to change the colors, but don't know what color scheme to go with. (Buddhists have orange, Jews have blue, Muslims have green... Christians just don't have a representative color.) I welcome anyone to edit that page to make improvements, even though it is in my user space. ...And might I add, can we please trim some of the content down? The template is so big, it's barely useful for navigation. Fishal ( talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Easter pastels would be Christian colors only if the Christian Easter was about bunny rabbits and candy. The colors of the Christian Flag is white, red, and purple. They stand for purity, sacrifice, and royalty. These are also the colors Christ is shown wearing in art (not all at once) unless the artist in going for more realism (brown).
The flag is often shown with dark blue instead of purple for seeming three reasons. (1) True purple looks bad with red. (2) The purple quickly fades when the flag is on display to a blue or the like. (3) The canton is taken as blue because of the pattern of the US flag. Purple (or red) however is a better choice as a Christian color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This needs to be trimmed down. The mass of text is so overwhelming, it's barely useful as a navigational tool. I'd say nearly all of the theology links need to go, especially links not directly related to Christianity (monotheism, history of theology). People interested in theology can click on Theology and get specific topics there. Most of the history links too, and I'd say all of the important figures links. This is supposed to be for the broadest possible topics related to Christianity; otherwise it just isn't useful. Fishal ( talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Back on Nov. 26 you removed the "Christianity" template from List of Christian denominations, replacing it with a portal. Why? Tb ( talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Right here:
{{
Christianityfooter}}
Enjoy! --
SECisek (
talk)
02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be the direction we are heading. I phased it down to about 125 pages last fall. Since that time, other editors reached consensus to bring it down to under 75 pages. I suspect it will continue to be replaced by the footer. Some pages I saw had the Arminianism, Methodism, Protestantism, and Christianity Nav box. Clearly, there has to be a limit. -- SECisek ( talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so. There was next to no negative reaction to the latest scale-back. -- SECisek ( talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, is there a way to make the template thinner? The width of the box is playing havoc with my attempts to fit a picture above it on the Christianity article while still getting the text to wrap. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested we should be "focused on ridding Wikipedia" of this template and I think Carlaude's suggestion that I did borders on assuming bad faith. The template should appear on pages that it LINKS to and the footer or portal link should be on pages that are related but not featured on the box itself. There has been broad, cross-subject agreement on this. When I have a chance, I will again cull the box off of non-linked pages unless there is broad consensus not to. Happy Christmas all. -- Secisek ( talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20#Template:Collapsible Christ about making this template collapsible. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand you. If it still shows what you changed try a refresh, but do no change this without discussion here.-- Carlaude ( talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is the Anglican Church under the Catholicism section, while I am aware the AC can be very Catholic in some branches it can be very protestant in others. Also, it views itself as a Protestant Church doesn't it? Gavin Scott ( talk) 10:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Can this simple:Template:Christianity please be added to Template:Christianity. I don't know what the correct template for Admin help is.
Done. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[1] I like it. It makes the template prettier, but keeps the symbol that everyone's agreed to. Nice cross. Fishal ( talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not like it. It's not supposed to be "pretty" in a iMac sort of way. I opt for a return to the basic, solid cross this template used to have for years. "Prettification" of Wikipedia with sparkly icons with shadow effect is a curse, Wikipedia isn't the gnome desktop. Just my opinion. More opinions will be needed before we have anything like a " WP:CONSENSUS" on this. -- dab (𒁳) 07:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
in fact, this is the proper diff. I repeat that the current icon looks absolutely cheesy. It is not acceptable in the long term. There may be intermediate suggestions modifying the plain black cross, I suppose, but this one is simply beyond the pale, it looks as if it was taken from some cheap and badly designed bible thumper website sporting animated gifs and blink tags. -- dab (𒁳) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to add Swedenborgians to the Non-trinitarian section. In case there is confusion, the New Church teaches that J.C. is the one and only God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are symbolic aspects of him. Please comment. 134.84.96.56 ( talk) 07:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In the long term, the link in the template under "Trinity • (Father • Son • Spirit)" must be to the article God the Son. It is an indictment on our priorities that GoS is so poorly developed. We should be exposing it to more traffic in the hope of attracting people to co-operate in building it.
Most of the Christian views of Jesus article is completely irrelevant to the Nicean formulation this template implies.
History tells us Christian boffins took centuries debating human and divine aspects of Jesus' nature, quite distinctly different issues to the considerations of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the relationships within the Trinity implied by the term "God the Son". These are just two issues covered by Christian views of Jesus, without mentioning the many other contentious debates relevant to an article with that title like: virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from death, promised Messiah and so on.
If we are to link to an article that is more developed than God the Son, we would probably do better to link to Son of God; although this is simply erroneous in the relevant subsection. I also note we have an article on Jesus' foreskin but not one on Jesus' divinity. Some pretty commonsense priorities seem to be a little out of wack here. ;)
I'll be correcting the template unless a plausible (rather than questionably pragmatic) case can be made for some alternative. Cheers all. Alastair Haines ( talk) 08:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
But yes, lots of problems. If you haven't already you should join WikiProject:Christianity, see if you can wrangle anyone to help out.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
While I'm here I'd like to ask why we have the odd ordering: Catholic - Protestant - Orthodox.
It would seem the logical and historical thing to have: Orthodox - Catholic - Protestant.
I'm presuming we just don't have enough Orthodox readers willing to kick up a justified fuss about this.
It has not escaped the attention of scholars that Acts progresses from the establishment of Eastern churches (notably Antioch and first use of the name "Christian") through to a church in Rome; and that Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations trace their descent to these respective eastern and western communities of NT repute.
It should be remembered that adopting the tripartite categorisation is original research unless based on precisely the scholastic consensus mentioned in the last paragraph. Deviation from its logic is also original research and prone to error and bias. Alphabetical order, for example, would suggest all are undifferentiated elements of one superset; however, the reality is that they are well known to have differentiated internal relationships. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are sisters, where Protestantism is a daughter of Catholicism, a "niece" if you will to Orthodoxy, not a sibling.
I'd be curious to hear what specific objections people could throw at the traditional O-C-P ordering; or any defence (original research or not) for the current (star-wars) ordering—C-P-O(?!). Alastair Haines ( talk) 09:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a very small thing I support - but I could care less - and you are correct, "we just don't have enough Orthodox readers willing to kick up a...fuss about this" Orthodoxy is sadly the stepchild of Christianity on Wikipedia. -- Secisek ( talk) 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel strongly? -- Secisek ( talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
{{Religion
|religion = Christianity
|image = [[File:Christianity Symbol.png|85px|Christianity]]
|width = 18em
|bold = no
|header1 = <center>[[Jesus|<span style="color: #000000;">Jesus</span>]] [[Christ|<span style="color: #000000;">Christ</span>]]</center>
|data2 = [[Virgin birth of Jesus|Virgin birth]]{{·}} [[Crucifixion of Jesus|Crucifixion]]{{·}} [[Resurrection of Jesus|Resurrection]]
|header3 = <center>Foundations</center>
|data4 = [[Christian Church|Church]]{{·}} [[New Covenant]]{{·}} [[Twelve Apostles|Apostles]]{{·}}|header5 =
|data5 = [[Kingdom of God|Kingdom]]{{·}} [[Gospel]]{{·}} [[Timeline of Christianity|Timeline]]
|header6 = <center>[[Bible|<span style="color: #000000;">Bible</span>]]</center>
|data7 = [[Old Testament]]{{·}} [[New Testament]]{{·}}
|data8 = [[Books of the Bible|Books]]{{·}} [[Biblical canon|Canon]]{{·}} [[Biblical apocrypha|Apocrypha]]
|header9 = <center>[[Christian theology|<span style="color: #000000;">Theology</span>]]</center>
|data10 = [[Trinity]]{{·}} [[God the Father#Christianity|Father]]{{·}} [[Son of God#.22Son_of_God.22_according_to_the_New_Testament|Son]]{{·}} [[Holy Spirit]]{{·}}
|data11 = [[History of Christian theology|History of]]{{·}} [[Christian theology|Theology]]{{·}} [[Christian apologetics|Apologetics]]
|header12 = <center>[[History of Christianity|<span style="color: #000000;">History</span>]] and [[Christian tradition|<span style="color: #000000;">Traditions</span>]]</center>
|data13 = [[Early Christianity|Early]]{{·}} [[Ecumenical council|Councils]]{{·}} [[Creed|Creeds]]{{·}} [[Mission (Christian)|Missions]]{{·}}
|data14 = [[East-West Schism]]{{·}} [[Crusades]]{{·}}
|data15 = [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]]
|header16 = <center>[[Christian denomination|<span style="color: #000000;">Denominations</span>]]</center>
|data17 = <center>'''[[Catholicism|<span style="color: #000000;">Catholicism</span>]]'''</center>
|data18 = [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]{{·}} [[Eastern Catholic]]{{·}}
|data19 = [[Independent Catholic Churches|Independent Catholic]]{{·}}
|data20 = [[Old Catholic Church|Old Catholic]]
|data21 = <center>'''[[Protestantism|<span style="color: #000000;">Protestantism</span>]]'''</center>
|data22 = [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]]{{·}} [[Anglicanism|Anglican]]{{·}} [[Anabaptist]]{{·}}
|data23 = [[Baptist]]{{·}} [[Methodism|Methodist]]{{·}} [[Adventism|Adventist]]{{·}}
|data24 = [[Evangelicalism]]{{·}} [[Holiness movement|Holiness]]{{·}} [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]]
|data25 = <center>'''[[Orthodox Christianity|<span style="color: #000000;">Orthodoxy</span>]]'''</center>
|data26 = [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodoxy]]{{·}}
|data27 = [[Oriental Orthodoxy|Oriental Orthodoxy (Miaphysite)]]{{·}}
|data28 = [[Syriac Christianity|Syriac Christianity <small>(Nestorian Assyrians)</small>]]
|data29 = <center>'''[[Nontrinitarian|<span style="color: #000000;">Nontrinitarian</span>]]'''</center>
|data30 = [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]{{·}}
|data31 = [[Latter Day Saint movement]]{{·}}
|data32 = [[Unitarianism]]{{·}} [[Christadelphians]]{{·}}
|data33 = [[Oneness Pentecostalism]]
|header34 = <center>Topics in Christianity</center>
|data35 = [[Sermon|Preaching]]{{·}} [[Prayer in Christianity|Prayer]]{{·}} [[Ecumenism]]{{·}}
|data36 = [[Christianity and other religions|Relation to other religions]]{{·}}
|data37 = [[Christian movements|Movements]]{{·}} [[Christian music|Music]]{{·}} [[Christian liturgy|Liturgy]]{{·}}
|data38 = [[Liturgical year|Calendar]]{{·}} [[Christian symbolism|Symbols]]{{·}} [[Christian art|Art]]{{·}} [[Criticism of Christianity|Criticism]]
}}
Recently I have been working on standardising all of the Religious templates. This template is the one for Christianity. If there are no objections then I will impliment the template. The Quill ( talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.143.122 ( talk) 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could I suggest and request that the default state of this template be "collapsed"? At present the large open box takes up a lot of "real estate" on the screen of the various articles that use it. The screen should primarily fulfil the main purpose of the article, which is that subject itself. By contrast the purpose of this box/template, surely, is to allow the reader, if they so choose, to open up and explore at a tangent away from the article. Any objections to "default collapsed"? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The 80 articles in WikiProject Christianity's Top-importance category have been reconciled with {{ Christianity}} per discussion elsewhere. They will now form the scope of WikiProject Christianity's Core topics work group. -- Secisek ( talk) 08:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposal that passes with no complaint is a licence for bold action. This is article space, there are no rules. What changes have you objected to? They were very minor. I am trying to assume good faith on your part here. It seems the only thing short of formating, which I conceded, that you have objected to is Gospel which was not changed. You are attempting to make a change that is being objected to. -- Secisek ( talk) 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
For at least the last 250 edits, since at least 24 February 2007, Gospel has been listed under Foundations. That is 2+ years of consensus. It should stay as it has been until the merge proposal plays out. John Carter proposed the navboxs be reconciled with the top importance articles with no complaint on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum where you are a contributor. I am sorry if you feel this blind sided you, but the tweaks here are really quite minor - compare with the last version, one edit by you I'll add. Almost nothing was removed and a few things were added where space already permited. What do you think should be here that isn't? -- Secisek ( talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We have establsished it has been there a long time. You have made numerous edits to the template in that time and have not seen fit to move it until now. The Gospel is THE very foundation of the Church for many Christians. It can rest there until there is a determination on the merge. After all this time, what is your rush now? -- Secisek ( talk) 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would think you would know how Wikipedia works, but if you need a reminder: the process is 1. Change 2. Revert 3. Discuss. You made a change, I reverted, the discussion is on. I proposed the merge a few hours before you posted that you, "do not see any merge discussion really going on". I could have boldly meged the two myself since you said you would not oppose, but I wanted to wait and see if anybody else had an opinion, since neither you nor I "own" the article.
We are working on gathering consensus right now. As an aside, to suggest that the Gospels - the actual books of the canon which contain the good news - are not a foundation of Christianity speaks volumes. They contain the totality of everything Christians know that Jesus ever said or did. They are, according to some, the cornerstone of Christianity and such a fact is easily cited. See the Oxford Companion to the Bible, for one. -- Secisek ( talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is Anglicanishm not listed as a Denomination of Christianity, Non trinitarianism is not usally considered a branch of Christianity while Anglicanism is listed as a distinct branch in all articles regarding Christianity, I will try to change this.-- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that Anglicanism was listed as Protestant on the chart but it actually is listed as Catholic, I just wanted to keep consistency with the article and it was already achieved-- Sfcongeredwards ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Every other article on a religion has a relevent and attractive image in the lead; Islam's article is much better for it. We're stuck with this brutish and unimaginative puritanical, 2D entity. I added an image which IMO makes the Christianity article much more attractive to the reader. It is the cross in the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem on top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is located at the traditional place of Calvary were Christ was crucified. Thus it is undisputably an image which is relevent to all Christians. The Church itself is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Catholics, Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Christians. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 05:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The previous concern regarding the mosque is now taken care of. I have cropped the mosque out of the image. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As referenced above, 5 months ago-- to add a new Christianity article to this template-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). Carlaude: Talk 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} I would request that the heading in the side box that currently reads "Denominations" be changed to "Traditions", as the term "tradition" in the history of Christianity is a broader term, encompassing many denominations, while still delineating the key differences among Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Non-Trinitarianism. Further, a "denomination", particularly in the Protestant tradition, is a much more narrowly defined group than the page indicates.
Creynolds2011 ( talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know why it is so wide? It seems like we could make it about 80% of its current width and the whole thing would still be only one or two lines longer. Carlaude: Talk 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to include Eastern_Catholic_Churches in the Catholic section under Denominations?
I'd have done it myself but I need to learn more wiki first. It mentions Roman Catholic, Anglican, Independent Catholic, and Old Catholic, so I figure Eastern Catholic should be represented there. It's not the same as Eastern Denominations. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |