Template talk:Eastern Christianity sidebar

message: Is this template necessary? This template may be replaced with . Joelito 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or it should be moved to the talk page, as is standard with ads for WikiProjects. - SimonP 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Template:Christianity, Template:Anglicanism, Template:Methodism, and :Category:Religion navigational boxes, I feel this template should be re-written in a manner which reflects the format of these other boxes. Maybe we could start coming up with a list of links for the template?--Andrew c 21:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This template looks really ugly if it is combined with other vertical templates. It has just been added to , I've jigged it around a little but it still looks bad. In that article, the infobox is in first position. I can understand why infoboxes take up that top-right position, they present basic information on the subject. However, this is a navbox, a navigational template, and the general style guideline is to have navboxes as horizontal templates at the bottom of the article. Especially in cases where there is an infobox, this template only serves to clutter the page. Can we not just use the portal box? — Gareth Hughes 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessity

message: This template includedes a category, :Category:Religion navigational boxes, but in a manner that added the category to all the articles, etc., the template was added to. I've wrapped the category link in "noinclude" tags, which remove the category from the articles, but only after they are edited the next time. If someone wanted to go through all the pages that link here and perform a minor edit to clear the pages' cache, that would be very helpful. Gentgeen 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, sorry about that. I'm trying to go through all the articles that included the old template and repositioning it so the format looks good, and it doesn't seem like I have any help on that. But, I can go through that category and do as you said, because this mistake was my fault to begin with.--Andrew c 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like all the excess pages have been cleared up (at least on my end it looks that way). I am also to blame for the same mistake at the Anglican template. My bad. At least I can call this a learning experience, heh. Sorry for the hassle.--Andrew c 00:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: noinclude tag

message: I trimmed the template considerably, but I still think much needs to be done.  Unfortunately, what needs to be done is not so much with this template as with what it could potentially link to.
My opinion is that this template ought to be rendered inactive (removed from articles) until it can link to good overview articles.  At this point in the development of articles on Eastern Christianity, this template can't be much more than a list of related articles, but such a list, to be balanced, would have to be massive, thus rendering this template pointless.
My vote is that it be returned to being merely a link to Portal:Eastern Christianity or that it be deleted altogether.  Wikipedia just isn't ready for it yet.  Perhaps it can come back as templates limited to Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church, etc.  What do other folks think?  —Preost talk contribs 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: The link for "Eastern Rite" leads to a disambiguation page.   I suppose ideally it should lead to a general article about Eastern Christian liturgy, or to a section within Christian liturgy, if there were a good treatment of the subject there.   Since that treatment does not seem to exist yet, it may be best to drop the link for now.   Does anyone else have any thoughts on how to deal with this?  Chonak 21:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be labeled as "Eastern Catholic Churches". Majoreditor 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Eastern Rite" link

message: Is it possible for this template to display in a collapsed format. It takes up a lot of room, and, especially in briefer articles leaves little if any room for images. Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapsable?

message: Why are the names of all the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Tradition list(expt. Syrian Orthodox)
Shouldn't There just be Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Syriac Christianity?
-ܠܝܓܘ  Liju  ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradition section 

message: These two concepts are important although they are properly "Ecclesiological" rather than "Theological" issues.  --Richard (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Phyletism]] and [[Autocephaly]] be included under "Theology"?