Template talk:Christianity sidebar/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  link change requested 

message: Can we add a "Criticisms" section? Every other religion has one.--ॐJesucristo301 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look under the "Topics in Christianity" header, last link. We already link to the criticism article which is what the other religious navigational templates do. The criticisms page is pretty poor though, so efforts to source and clean up that page could be a productive endeavour.-Andrew c [talk] 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Christianity 

message: 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)
replies: text: Easter pastels?  Or bright Yellows? Bytebear (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Christian Flag is hardly a place to get colors for all of christianity. Its use is limited -- mainly American and Protestant.  I think natural tones (yellows, nice [read: not ugly] tans/browns, or light near-cyan blues) would be most appropriate. murraytheb موري (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Practice template-- please help

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, but please edit Template:Christianityfooter to match. It's meant to be another version of the same set of links. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: 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)
replies: text: Because the Christianity footer replaced it on most articles. Feel free to add it there. -- SECisek (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the template was too big and unweildy!  Where can I find the footer?  Tb (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: thanks! Tb (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Question; I noticed your removal of this template on several articles with the explanation that the topic was no longer on the nav box. Does that mean that the topic was once on the box and got removed? Some of these topics are very important to Christianity. Curious. Thanks. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the right thing here is really to phase out the template entirely, and focus on the footer.  A series as big as "Christianity" is just too big to be sensibly approached by the template strategy IMO.  Tb (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I like it!  Thanks for your work. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer it.  So that absolves me of the commitment I made to User:Fishal/Jesustemplate?  Fishal (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Phasing out the template entirely is a bad idea. The footer is harder to use since, for starters, few reader will notice the footer. It is just one or two people, such as Secisek, focused on ridding Wikipedia of this useful template.--Carlaude (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Which image?. Template seems to be fine. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the template width = 18em. Does this help. --Carlaude (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does nothing. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase out

message: 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)
replies: text: See Template_talk:Christian denominations#Anglicanism--Carlaude (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, the Anglican church identifies itself as "Catholic and Reformed", NOT Protestant.  The Anglican church, therefore belongs in the Catholic section, not the Protestant section.  Can someone please put it back where it belongs? Bill Ward (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this dialogue about another template? --BozMo talk 20:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be perfectly correct; Anglicanism is both partly Catholic and Protestant and neither wholly Protestant or Catholic.  Refer to the Anglican Church referring to itself as the “Middle Way”.  Considering how Wikipedia redirects “Catholic” to the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicanism should have its own category, just like “Orthodoxy” does.  If I could figure out how to change this here myself, I will.  If I ever can, I will. Nuada79 (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican Church 

message: Can this simple:Template:Christianity please be added to Template:Christianity. 
I don't know what the correct template for Admin help is.
:This template is only semi-protected. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English Wikipedia

message: 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)
replies: text: Anything more than a couple links deep from the main Christianity articles are in pretty sorry shape - have been since 2k6 at least. The concepts of God the Father and God the Son are very advanced theology - which are very depreciated in Protestant circles (from what I can tell) and very VERY depreciated in people who have only a casual understanding of Christianity: most people. Not sure what to do about it, but there you have it.
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)
replies: text: When I try poking to find life at WP:Chrnty it doesn't seem to stir much up. But, then again, I probably haven't tried that hard. When I just hook in and start articles and edit them, people seem to wind up at those pages. If something's worth doing, we should probably set an example and start doing it. Hopefully people will follow. I'll see about taking your advice when I come back from a month of Wikibreak. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might poke around some of the Christianity related articles as well - at least do an audit to see what articles Need Work.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[God the Son]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Orthodox catholic protestant makes the most sense to me as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, neglected stepchild Cinderella, a cute metaphor. :) Any volunteers to be Prince Charming and promote Othodoxy to #1 and top of the list of Christian denominations? It's rather nice to do the right thing for people, even when they're not around. :) I vote you make the change Secisek. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think "Catholic - Protestant - Orthodox" would be based on the group size, but I am fine with "OCP" for history. --Carlaude (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Cath - Prot - Orth? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I object. Please consider changing the particular pages that are overwhelmed by it instead-- to make it "collapsed" on those pages, or just removing it in favor of "" instead. --Carlaude (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default collapsed 

message: The 80 articles in WikiProject Christianity's Top-importance category have been reconciled with  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)
replies: text: If you and other "WikiProject Christianity's Core topics" group people want (or wanted) to discuss to contents of this page you should have discussed it here-- or at least posted a notice here to that effect. --Carlaude (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I never said you did add it. --Carlaude (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While John Carter proposed the navboxs be reconciled with the top importance articles with "no complaint" on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum, that does not make it a "rule"-- or a rule that overrides the fact that changes that are objected to need consensus on that page that is changing. --Carlaude (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: 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)
replies: text: Anglican is listed as a Denomination in the template, just not a branch. This is because, for one thing, it does not have major subdenominations. As for Nontrinitarianism-- it is list often on Christianity pages. If you and I disagree-- then you cannot always rely on Wikipedia a indicator of how things really are. --Carlaude talk 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicanism 

message: 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).  19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding new article links, only [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list|Top-importance Christianity articles]] 

message: 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.  07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reduced width looks good. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Under Catholic