Template talk:Christianity sidebar/Archive 2

message: Gnosticism articles are using the Christianity template.  Though some segments of the Gnostic circles have been influenced by Christianity, Gnosticism is not Christianity, nor is Christianity Gnosticism, so I thought I'd create a Gnosticism template.  I was using this template as a template ( pardon the pun :D ), in the process I accidently edited this template by mistake.  I quickly restored it. Sorry about that.
:LinuxDude 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opps 

message: Currently, about half of the Apostles have this template on their respective pages.  I've always understood the "part of a series" templates should only appear on pages listed in the template itself.  Is that use too narrow? -Acjelen 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of this template 

message: *I see once again the template says Jesus was the son of God - this is POV insertion.
*I see once again the Crusades have been removed from the template - again this is POV deletion.
*Is see the template still says it is "part of a series" when actually there is no certainty that every article in which it appears is co-ordinated with other articles. Instead it is a means of stamping the POV of this template on every article on which it appears. Wikipedia ought to prohibit these "part of a series" expressions. --JimWae 02:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template is POV 

message: I see once again the template says Jesus was God the Son - this is POV insertion. Only took about 5 weeks for it to happen again --JimWae 04:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template is POV once again 

message: Perhaps this has been discussed previously but what about a category that lists all articles that actually have the template on them? Like this? Netscott 09:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cyde, the shared navigation guide doesn't really make sense. Cuñado   - Talk 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template linked category?

message: The template has sections on "Christian theology", "Christian Church", etc. but couldn't we add a section to the template about Christian politics? Such as a link to the Christian right and the Christian left and other articles about different Christian political movements? Beno1000 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not directly related to the religion as are the other sections. —Aiden 19:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian politics. 

message: Would it make sense to put a link to Books of the Bible in this template?  Or would that not work since that page also includes the Jewish canon? /blahedo (t) 22:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books of the Bible 

message: First an observation: seems to me that many of the POV issues discussed above could be best solved by having subtemplates.   After all, Christianity is a sufficiently broad topic that Christian theology or History of Christianity or Christian music could easily support their own navigational templates.   Maybe some of these exist, I haven't looked that hard, but it seems like a lot of the additions proposed above (e.g. books of the Bible, Paul and other major historical figures) could best be accomodated by a heirarchy of Templs.
Now, that said, I was surprised not to find a navigational template on Nicene Creed.   I think there's merit to one on Early church history, which itself could be part of one on History of Christianity.   (Of course "History of Xty" is within the scope of this one, but I think there could easily be a similarly-sized template just for it.)    Anyone else have opinions on the merits of such a template? - PhilipR 14:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtemplates / Early church history 

message: "Not widely known" is the flimsiest reason I've ever heard of for removing content, even if it was correct. The Septuagint is the most widely-quoted OT translation in the NT, and remains the official OT of the Eastern Churches, or over 300 million Christians. I'm therefore putting it back where it belongs.
:We already have a link to the main OT article; there is no need then to link to a specific translation. —Aiden 14:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were merely a translation I'd agree with you, but it represents a variant textual tradition from that found in the modern Hebrew that differs several major respects. (Hebrew examples that agree with it have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so these are not just artifacts of translation.) Also, it is a singlularly prominent text in Christian history, for several centuries being the only OT text in regular use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LXX 

message: Would the article Christian views on contraception be relevant to include in this template? Lyrl 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. —Aiden 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian views on birth control 

message: I've again removed :Category:Christianity. Christianity is far too broad to have a single category for all related articles. Such a category simply isn't useful; it makes it difficult to browse articles related to Christianity as a whole as opposed to those pertaining to some particular branch or practice and there are dozens of subcategories available for subject-oriented grouping. -choster 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Christianity

message: There have been NPOV objections to the template claiming (as if it were a fact) that Jesus is the son of God.  One problem is, the Jesus article is neutral as to whether Jesus is the son of God or not.  I think another problem is an inconsistency in this template.  The "God the Father" does not link to an article on the Christian God, it links to an article on "God the father" that discusses various beliefs of God as father.  Indeed, we also already have a similar article on views of the son of God.  I fixed the link so that "Son of God" in this template links to that article. Slrubenstein   | Talk 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me how stating Christian belief as Christian belief is a violation of NPOV. This is clearly the "Christianity template" and in Christian faith, "God the Son" is clearly Jesus, not the "study of Christ" nor an article about references to 'Son of God' in the Bible. —Aiden 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  son of god link 

message: I, personally, have some problems with the template, as it gives not a single Non-Trinitarian view. Unitarianism, Binitarianism, Arianism, Modalism, Ebionism, many forms of Messianic Judaism and Mormonism are all arguably valid expressions of Christianity and should be given at least some mention. Therefore, I propose that "The Trinity" be replaced with "Trinitarianism" and "Nontrinitarianism," as to have "The Trinity" in big bold letters depicts it as the sole, one-and-only option. אמר  <B>(desk/poll)</B> 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same respect, you should discuss your changes (especially volatile ones such as removing the Trinity from a Christianity template) before making them. No one even had the chance to voice their opinion before you made the change. Nonetheless, as I said in my edit summary, according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight we can and should mention the Trinity. Oh, and I seriously doubt Mormonism is becoming "one of the largest Christian denominations". Catholicism, Orthodoxism, and Protestantism all profess Trinitarian views. —Aiden 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiden, I believe that we have a misunderstanding. If you take a look at the last edit in the edit history that I wrote, you will see that I moved Trinitarianism down to "Doctrine" where it appears most appropriate, where Nontrinitarianism was listed directly under it (those are the two main viewpoints in Christian theology in terms of the Godhead, yes?), where I gave an entire section to the "main figure of Christianity" (i.e. Jesus, as discussed on Talk:Jesus). I respectfully request that we come to come compromise on this issue, and where I would be more willing to discuss this at length now, my wife is requesting my presence in bed to get some sleep. :-) אמר  <B>(desk/poll)</B> 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without further comment I am soon going to restore my edits, keeping the Trinity intact as it was before. אמר  <B>(desk/poll)</B> 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The issue has been resolved with Jim's compromise version. It works much better than linking simply to Trinitarianism rather than to fundamental concepts such as God. —Aiden 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other editors elsewhere have voiced their opinions favorably about removing the controversial links altogether and giving Jesus a section all to his own. The Trinity is a doctrine, and not a universally accepted on within Christianity as discussed earlier, and there is a section already in the template dedicated to doctrines that it would fit more appropriately under. אמר  <B>(desk/poll)</B> 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So keep the Template as it is and add a link to nontrintarianism at the bottom. —Aiden 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: A series is an organized collection. A set is a collection which may be organized or may not be. Set more accurately describes the collection of articles in the template - and the collection of articles in the <<category:Christianity>>. Right now we include Yoga and several even more unrelated things in the "series" of articles on Xty. --JimWae 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, are we not scholarly here JimWae? In that light woud you kindly refrain from using the non-standard abbreviation Xty for Christianity? Second, you are dragging up old coals. There's nothing new here in your arguments that wasn't already previously discussed and argued ad nauseum... do you have something new to bring to the table? Netscott 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third, this template is not on the Yoga article, what was the point your were trying to make? Netscott 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see your point about Yoga if anything change the template wording to "related to Christianity". Netscott 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the wording to "related to"... not sure if it will stick... but I do see your point in that regard. Netscott 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a series - more an unorganized set 

message: From Cambridge Online Dictionary:
Series (set of books)noun [C] plural series:a set of books published by the same company which deal with the same subject.</tr>
Wikipedia the publisher (company) has a set of articles which deal with the same subject... ergo they have a series of articles. Netscott 07:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JimWae, if a set is ordered alphabetically it thereby constitutes a series does it not? Netscott 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A '''series''' of aricles, the definition

message: I like it While I prefer the additions to the template (if for no other reason than the fact that they are apparently based on my earlier proposal), I imagine that they're going to get reverted. Does anyone want to talk about leaving in any of these additions first? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent revision

message: Is Jews for Jesus a valid part of this series?   Justforasecond 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is such a small group that it should remain linked from the 'denominations' article. —Aiden 05:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the Jews for Jesus article have this template?  I've removed it but someone keeps putting it back.  Justforasecond 15:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me Sure? Why not? Why is the other user removing it? I suggest posting to his talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a straw poll over this now concerning this article, if anyone wants to weigh in. Many of the arguments seem to be leaning towareds "If an organization is arguably Christian, it should have this template", and i'm fairly certain that is a substantial change in usage which would require quite a deal of work by someone to stamp probably hundreds of articles with this template. Homestarmy 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note also that the arguments for inclusion of the template given by the person setting up the straw poll are less than accurate. He ignores what has been  explained to him (that the link to series on the template goes to the general christianity cat and that the template already is on a number of articles not on the template). JoshuaZ 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews for Jesus

message: How do I add that to another template? I already accidentally messed up this template up once while trying to find what line added that in. I narrowed it down to the second to last paragraph, but I couldn't get beyond that. It looks like my edit stood for about a minute before I managed to revert it, so I could easily have bothered quite a few people. I don't think I'm going to continue trying that, seeing as this template goes out to easily a hundred, possibly two hundred or more articles, and each minute probably creates problems for dozens of people. -NorsemanII 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "This box" section at the bottom 

message: There has been a lot of debate as of late over the NPOVness of the Christianity template. The Judaism template does a very nice job of keeping -very- NPOV by including many links in a more compact fashion. The Christianity template could do with some extra compacting, so I move that we see how small we can make it, and then possibly take some pointers from them. אמר  <B>(desk/AMA)</B> 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an awful lot there. Some might argue that they cram too much in. It's an aesthetic choice, really. Personally I prefer to be inclusive of content, but that doesn't appear to be the consensus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism Template 

message: Both these templates appear at Christianity. Mostly duplicated content. Thanks. --Quiddity 00:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, in the past I have endorsed the abbreviated nature of the current Christianity template, but I now think that was just foolishness.  :-)     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The model given here, with merged templates, is problematic for me for a couple of reasons. Aesthetically, it simply doesn't appeal to me, and I don't particularly care for the open book (probably a Bible?); I would prefer something more condensed (especially after the series of line breaks) and that uses a logo or more iconic imagery (cf. the icythus above.) Outside of my petty concerns, I have serious misgivings about the histories and traditions section: why are Syriacs their own category in the East? Where are the Assyrians? How did you choose the Western groups that are represented? I would also like to see more Easterners in the important figures section, but that's neither here nor there. This is a good start, though... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the template taking into account what you said.  I replaced the Bible pic with a pic of Jesus (Sermon on the Mount).  Christianity is about Jesus ... everybody agrees on that.  I don't think symbolism is nearly as communicative or compelling as either the Bible or Jesus pics.  The Jesus pic looks really good, and communicates that it is about Jesus ... and it shows His authority.  I squeezed one line out of the template, beyond the tradition section lines (your area of criticism).  The traditions section comes largely from what was the theology template.  In that template, we hashed things out a while back.  Syriac Christianity INCLUDES the Assyrian Church (and these traditions are not about particular churches, but thought traditions), but in the interest of getting along I included both.  I included all the traditions from the Eastern Christianity template.  The Western groups were hashed out previously.  Yes, there are more Protestant traditions, but that is just the way history has worked out.  We had a hard time before getting Eastern figures.  The only one recommended prior as a major pivotal figure among post-Schism eastern was Palamas (of course, pre-Schism figures are also eastern, as well as western).  If you have other candidates, please bring them forward for discussion.  The last row are just figures from the past century.  In the sweep of time Barth, Graham, and JP2 may fall off the mantle, but I thought it would be good to have a couple modern figures.  I made a few other changes, for example, I added New Covenant - Supercessionism and Apostles - Church - Gospel to the Foundations list (and removed from other parts of list - the other church link is a different article).  I thought these were good adds.  The only one you might wonder about is Supercessionism, but though it's not always talked about, Christianity doesn't exist without supercessionism, and it has been believed implicitly by the whole Church from the beginning.  If the New Covenant and the new Mediator do not supercede the previous order, then the Gospel message is made vacuous.  I think it is worth the link.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Template:Christian theology]] 

message: Hey, why is this link here at all?  What is it's purpose?  And why is it linked to the "One Holy, ... church"?  Why not link it to "Christian Church"?  If you want to link it to "One Holy, ... church", then why not write that as the text for the link?  I understand the difference between the adjective catholic and the Roman Catholic church.  Rob 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not write the link text in full? Because it's long and the template is narrow.  One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is how the united Christian Church understood itself in the earliest centuries, and is still that which most churches (with one or two notable exceptions) must consider themselves a part of, in some sense, in order to be a Christian church. Looking at both articles they should probably be merged, but the one with the longer title is more comprehensive. (And I spotted one inaccuracy right off in Christian Church: The term "catholic" long predates the Nicene Creed.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Church Link 

message: As a Lutheran I am flattered that we get our own link on this template... But why is Lutheranism singled out on this template and not so many other major Protestant denominations?  I can somewhat understand the inclusion of Anglicanism, since it seeks to strike a balance between Protestantism and Catholicism.  But even Anglicanism is listed on the Protestantism page.  I feel that in the interest of keeping the template concise, both denominations should be removed.  Fishal 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Lutherans and Anglicans

message: I just removed User:KitHutch's addition of Methodism, in favor of a discussion first.  It may be a good add, but the reason I didn't include it before is because there are already links to Evangelicalism, Arminianism, and Anglicanism; all of which can lead one to Methodism, especially the first two.  I tried to include all major movements (or schools of thought) that weren't already covered by a greater movement, and had a unique contribution that is significantly different than the other movements.  Is that really true of Methodism?  What significantly different contribution is covered in Methodism that is not covered by Evangelicalism and Arminianism?  As an example, on the chart Restorationism is supposed to cover the Cambellite movement, Mormonism, and other movements (instead of having a link to each one).  Now, it may be that some already there should be removed.  We can discuss that.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as a worldwide movement, Methodism is very significant -- certainly significant enough to be included.  Mormonism is not, strictly speaking, a Christian faith.  It is its own.  Cambellite movement is not significant enough.  So that is not a fair comparison.  Methodism is so much more important than Anglicanism -- that's why it came about, because Anglicanism had become so dead.  Definitely include Methodism in the template! Pastorwayne 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As a worldwide movement, Methodism has more followers than Anglicanism and Lutheranism, which are included on this template.  In fact, only Roman Catholicism and the Baptist movement have more members in Western Christianity. KitHutch 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Since there were no objections, I added Methodism back to the template. KitHutch 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents of New Template - Traditions 

message: Netscott changed the intro phrase to "Part of a series of articles on" saying in the edit note "(every article that has this template is a part of this alphabetically listed series of articles either related to or on the subject of Christianity.)".  I originally had "This article refers to some aspect of".  I thought it was an  good intro phrase, and it would avoid the major controversy earlier on this discussion page.  What do you all think?     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the odd part, the "controversy" has been dead and over for a long time... so why did you change the wording then? (→Netscott) 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought it was good wording.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, have you had a chance to see Template:Judaism, Template:Islam, Template:Buddhism, Template:Lutheranism, Template:Arminianism, etc? (→Netscott) 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already knew that was the typical wording.  I just wanted to avoid some extended debate as has already happened (and I thought it was good wording).  To be honest ... this is a trivial matter, and I really don't care either way.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough... thanks for having taken the time to discuss it. (→Netscott) 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro phrase 

message: There are some vertical spacing gaps which are a very undesirable feature in the case of a template like this, where every additional pixel of vertical height increases the probability that there will be negative interactions between the template and the layout of images or tables further down the page, in various articles that include the template... AnonMoos 02:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attempt to reduce height isn't working because you had to add a line "Other:", and it is leass aesthetically pleasing.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but sometimes aesthetic formatting has to give way to functionality; the vertical height of this box needs to be minimized at all costs in any way reasonable, and I'm doing the best I can without discarding any links. AnonMoos 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind dumping the TempNav stuff, but your "solution" of replacing the lines with nothing and "Other:" simply doesn't succeed at reducing the height.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure does on my brower; the horizontal rules chew up a lot of vertical space as displayed on my system... AnonMoos 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of system are you using? .. because it really doesn't help on mine. I use Firefox.  ... and frankly I just don't like the "Other" bit.  It's just not elegant.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using MSIE, and however much you may hate or despise MSIE, there are plenty of other millions of people who are out there using it too.  On my display, every horizontal line is causing a relatively wide vertical space both before and after it -- which is very inappropriate for this template, since the vertical pixel dimensions of the template box need to be reduced by any means possible. AnonMoos 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like someone elses input on the Lines v. "Other" vertical challenge controversy.  Lines are better looking and just as short on my machine.     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is smaller than the Jewish template.  BTW, it is not attempting to link to individual denominations, but rather movements and schools of thought.  Sometimes, as in the case of Roman Catholicism it means a link to a particular church, but that is unavoidable even in your 3 branches idea.  That said, I will take another look at paring it down a little.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave my attempt at shortening without reducing content .... (1) two lines instead of three in traditions section (2) reduced spacing between major titles (3) nuked new "Other" line.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I tested it.  It is shorter than the previous AnonMoos version.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at how great my "04:30, 31 October 2006" version of the template displays on a web browser that doesn't suck, like yours does.  Picture is not a problem, lines are great, spacing got better (better vertical spacing than your version).  Dude, please get Firefox ... it's really better.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, dude -- I'm not in general an enthusiastic advocate of Microsoft software and products, but it's a simple fact that there are many millions of people out there viewing Wikipedia with MSIE, and we can't format Wikipedia solely according to what looks good in your browser, without regard to what other people are using (especially since this template box urgently needs to reduce vertical pixel dimensions by any means necessary on as wide a range of software viewing configurations as possible). AnonMoos 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: MSIE 6.0 and Firefox 2.0 both look exactly the same on my computer. Rob 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: IE 6 has the wide spacing for me; Firefox 1.5 does not. I haven't installed Firefox 2.0 yet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I use the default skin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As am I. Rob 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Using the Cologne Blue skin, the top and bottom of the bar get cut off, but the picture quality is still fine.  Enough of the bottom gets cut off so that the bottom half of the words "Liturgy Calendar Symbols Art" are gone. Rob 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Get the unnecessary vertical spacing out

message: Microsoft Internet Explorer users, please take a look at this previous version of this template.  Tell us if it looks distorted, like the screenshot AnonMoos posted above; or if it looks clean, like the screenshot I posted above (or to the right).  I get the same look from MSIE and Firefox (like my screenshot).  I'm curious to know if the distorted version is unique to AnonMoos, or not.  Thanks.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MSIE 6.0 and Firefox 2.0 both look exactly the same on my computer. Rob 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: IE 6 has the wide spacing for me; Firefox 1.5 does not. I haven't installed Firefox 2.0 yet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I use the default skin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As am I. Rob 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Using the Cologne Blue skin, the top and bottom of the bar get cut off, but the picture quality is still fine.  Enough of the bottom gets cut off so that the bottom half of the words "Liturgy Calendar Symbols Art" are gone. Rob 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Appearance of Previous Version

message: I just wandered across this template, and I just have to say: it sucks. It is too wide, too crowded, unorganized, and has waaayy too many links. I don't want to work on it, nor will I watch this page or read responses. I just want to say... it sucks. Cuñado  - Talk 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice civil way to foster goodwill there Cuñado. Could anyone ever assume good faith on your part relative to such commentary? Such commentary is a good way to set Wikipedia to be a battleground though... well done in that regard. (→Netscott) 20:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it looks great (unlike your attitude).  :-)     GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuñado - if you say it sucks, say why. Jake95 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template sucks (Cunado19) 

message: I reverted the Unity Church and Charles Fillmore additions.  If we include every little movement in the traditions section, then the template will stop being useful.  If Unity stays, I can think of a hundred more similar links.  Some are already complaining it is too much.  The traditions section is for major traditions or schools of thought, not for particular and comparitively small churches.  One can get to Unitarianism via the Liberalism link.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unitarianism and Unity are closely allied, but not the same church. There's nothing about Unity at the Liberalism link.  Which denominational founders belong and which don't?  Hmmm...--Scottandrewhutchins 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of important figures is not a list of denominational founders.  It should be a list of people who have had the greatest impact on Christendom, across denominational lines.  I don't believe that Fillmore is such a person.  Do you have evidence that he is?  Also, given that this is not a list of churches or denominations, but major traditions, wouldn't it be better to put a link to Unity Church on appropriate pages that link to this template, rather than this template itself?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd never heard of Carey or Barth before I got to this site, and Graham seems a flash in the pan compared to the others.  I'm not sure that John Paul II belongs there.  Why him and no other pope?  Is he of greater historical significance than all previous popes? --Scottandrewhutchins 07:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that to keep it concise, there should be no contemporary or recent figures at all.  There are simply too many figures who could claim the title of "greatest impact on Christianity today."  For example, Barth was an influential theologian, but so were Francis Schaeffer, and John Dominic Crossan, and C.S. Lewis.  John Paul II was influential, but what about Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, who revolutionized Catholocism via Vatican II?  What about Christian figures from the developing world?  We simply do not have the perspective to go making a short list of Christians that includes anyone from the last century.  Fishal 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unity Church

message: I removed the link to "the lord" because it pointed to yahweh. That article is off topic here, and it seems like in inaccurate prefix for Jesus, no? (just click the link and read the article). Hope this wasn't controversial, but I am coming here in case there are concerns.--Andrew c 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not inaccurate (see ) but probably too POV. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the link.  Actually, YHVH is translated Kurios in Greek NT (and LXX), and both are translated "Lord" in English.  It is this assertion, that "Jesus is Lord", that has been the basic creed, the core belief, of Christianity from the beginning.  It means that Jesus is the YHVH of the Bible.  It is not POV for a descriptive encyclopedia.  It is an early and core belief of Christianity ... all Christianity.  As a hypothetical example, would it be POV for an Islam template to have a link to "prophet"?  No, it's descriptive of their belief.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the POV issues. They are twofold (at least as far as I can see). Wikipedia cannot say "Jesus is The Lord", it can only say "Christians believe Jesus is the Lord". While it may be implied in this template that it is talking about Christian belief, I do not see how adding "the lord" helps encyclopedicly. The second POV issues, is that do all Christians accept Jesus as Yahweh? The Jesus article only mentione Yahweh once, and it is in regards to a minority view, the LDS ( They believe Jesus (not the Father) is the same as Jehovah or Yahweh of the Old Testament.). Furthermore, it is extremely odd to pipe the words "The Lord" to the article Yahweh. As noted above, read the article. Someone wants to find out more about Christianity, and they see the Christianity template. They see the words "the lord" and click on it, and look what article it takes them to. Where  does it talk about "The Lord"? Where does it talk about "Jesus"? Where does it talk about "Christianity"? Despite the POV issues and the piping issues, I stand by my assertion that the article in question is NOT part of a series on Christianity, and shouldn't be next to Jesus. I strongly support removing it again.--Andrew c 13:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A side note, I think the phrasing "God the Trinity" is ackward. It isn't nearly as common as "The Holy Trinity" or simply "The Trinity".--Andrew c 13:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lord 

message: Should it be shorter with just three main branches, should it stay as is with just umbrella traditions or schools of thought (not a list of denominations), should the list be expanded to include any group with numbers regardless of level of distinction, or something else.  Let us know.  Currently it looks like this:
:::Eastern Christianity
::::Eastern Orthodoxy · Oriental Orthodoxy
::::Syriac Christianity · Eastern Catholicism
:::Western Christianity
::::Roman Catholicism · Protestantism
::::Thomism · Anabaptism · Anglicanism
::::Evangelicalism · Calvinism · Arminianism
::::Restorationism · Liberalism
::::Fundamentalism · Pentecostalism
* Keep as is with just umbrella traditions.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditions Section

message: Should the list be expanded to include many significant figures for every tradition, should it stay as it is, be eliminated altogether because it's impossible to be objective, or something else?  Currently it looks like this (without the titles):
:::Early Church: Apostle Paul · Church Fathers
:::Pre-Schism: Constantine · Athanasius · Augustine
:::Medieval: Anselm · Aquinas · Palamas · Wycliffe
:::Reformation to today: Luther · Calvin · Wesley · Carey
* Keep as is with these major figures of each major epoch of Church history.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Figures Section

message: Squeezing text in between an image on the left and an image on the right (or between an image on the left and a tall template on the right) only works reliably across a broad range of browsers / window sizes / Wikimedia "skins" etc. when the images involved are significantly smaller than the first three images on the "Shield of the Trinity" article.  Furthermore, as a general matter of overall approach, the templates are here to serve the articles, not the articles to serve the templates. AnonMoos 22:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't edit the "Shield of the Trinity" article to make a [[WP:POINT]]

message: I do not understand why the Sacred Heart would be chosen as the most representative image of "Christianity".  Is it Wikipedia's intention to depict a relatively recent Roman Catholic devotional art tradition as the most correct? the most representative? or what?  Is Christianity about pictures, and if so, why this picture? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has a cross, a fairly universal symbol for Christianity.  I would prefer a picture of Christ, but as a symbol, the cross is universally recognizable, if not universally accepted.  Where do you see the Heart? Bytebear 02:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the bottom of the template, Bytebear. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  oh, it's so tiny, I didn't even see it.  Any suggestion for an alternative? I was thinking a cropped face from a famous painting.  Bytebear 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does there need to be an alternative?  As you say, it's so tiny that it can't even be seen.  Furthermore, although it comes out of Roman Catholicism, is it somehow eminently representative of that tradition of Christian religious art?  If Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism matter in what is chosen, this picture doesn't even attempt the consensus of tradition, much less of taste.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am ok with no icon next to the Christianity Portal link. Bytebear 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to hear from Stevertigo or others who apparently favor the use of this image, to learn why it keeps showing up especially in connection with the Portal. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With no response, I guess I'll remove it and see what happens.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is my biggest complaint about Wikipedia.  Unless you are bold and reap the repercussions, the process is very slow. Bytebear 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with that process.  It's just that I've been removing this image from all but specifically Catholic pages for months, and I would like to know the thoughts behind it showing up in general Christian contexts.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart2.jpg 

message: I noticed this morning that one of the pages I was working on was picking up :Category:WikiProject Christianity from this template.  After reviewing the 3 references to categories being imported by this template above, I've gone ahead and moved that category within the <noinclude> block.  If this was done intentionally, can someone please explain why?  Most Wikiproject cats are not used on articles intentionally, and so I'd be interested to hear why that project has gone a different way. --Ahc 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dallas-Form Worth example is the banner template that goes on the talk pages; THAT is typical.  Adding to a navigation template like this one causes the category to get added to the article itself, which is NOT, in my experience, typical.  There are nice tools that the project already uses that use categories on the project banners, but I must say I find it annoying and sloppy on the navigation template.  --Ahc 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:WikiProject Christianity 

message: I suggest that we add the Christian anthropology link to the template. Anthropology is a major part of Christian anthropology theology. Perhaps it could be piped as "Doctrine of Man" or something, which may be a more common phrase if not less accurate and possibly less politically correct, i.e. for using "Man" for humans. Your comments please. Colin MacLaurin 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you meant "Anthropology is a major part of Christian theology." Indeed it is, but if it's to be piped to anything it ought to be plain "anthropology". It's as much the proper name for this branch of theology as "Christology" is for that related to Christ. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropology 

message: Hi all.  I think this template is too big, but I agree it's difficult to shorten it.  Also, I think it's too small :).
Hopefully one (or more) of the following ideas can help.
-- TimNelson 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could make the whole template collapsible, which could be less confusing. I also suggest the creation of a tmplate for Christian theology. Colin MacLaurin 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  And this would differ from the "Core topics" section of the current template how? -- TimNelson 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've done this, with the expandable sections; it can be used as part of the main template, but maybe also separately.  If this doesn't provoke any debate, I'll do more.  -- TimNelson 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible template? 

message: :You could make the whole template collapsible, which could be less confusing. I also suggest the creation of a tmplate for Christian theology. Colin MacLaurin 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  And this would differ from the "Core topics" section of the current template how? -- TimNelson 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've done this, with the expandable sections; it can be used as part of the main template, but maybe also separately.  If this doesn't provoke any debate, I'll do more.  -- TimNelson 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion