Template talk:Christianity sidebar/Archive 1

message: * misuse of templates when categories system will suffice --Jiang 11:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD results 

message: I just uploaded my version which is far from spectacular.  It needs work but I figured having some sort of basis would allow for edits far better than one that still contained Islamic theology instead of Christian theology.  Please help to create a better template through talk and editting so that someday we can link to it on the various pages. As for the direction of this I was not sure.  I do not know so much about the Protestant views so I figured I should put what is most general to all mainstream Christians first.  I was not sure what to do wit the ecumenical councils and the debates over hypostatic union or theotokos.  gren 20:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the template 

message: This is just a call for some substantive and thoughtful changes since hopefully more people are watching this now that it's been on Christianity.  I hacked most of this together and used it because it was better than the previous version not because it was good... and, in all honesty I think it needs a fair amount more work. gren 18:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure someone will come along one day with some new ideas.  I think it is doing its job well so far. :) --Randolph 00:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes. 

message: This would be the first time I had ever heard the Roman Catholic Church described as Western Catholic. --Randolph 00:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm...I'm not really sure how to clarify the distinction without stepping on someone toes. I've only heard a few references before to the Eastern Rites Catholics. Not being a Catholic, I am not sure of the politics involved in making the distinction. Western Catholic would be a totally new phrase to my ears though. --Randolph 02:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Catholic?

message: This template seems rather random. It should include the essentials. Wetman 22:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Essentials v. Random

message: Or should Restoration Movement be added there. Paul foord 10:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that Restorationism should be replaced under Western Christianity with Anglicanism, and listed under Protestant groups, replacing the Anglicans there.  Thoughts?  KHM03 12:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsure, why Anglicanism to Western Christianity and not for example Lutheranism - both broad & varied with original national basis, have moved Restorationism Paul foord 13:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I haven't moved anything at this point...just seeking opinions.  It seems to me that Lutherans, Calvinists/Reformed folks, Methodists, et al are clearly "Protestant".  Anglicans, in my view, are not as much, attempting to hold on to Catholic way of doing things, albeit in a distinctly British way.  At any rate, it's just a proposal.  KHM03 13:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restorationism currently under Western Christianity but IMO belongs under Movements

message: Any way we can add Presbyterian to the list of denominations, pardon, Protestant Groups? Not sure that it's absolutely necessary, but thought it would be a good addition... shaile 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: would think Presbyterian covered by Calvinist but Reformed churches probably better as it is more inclusive. Paul foord 03:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Reformed churches includes denominations that differ primarily in church government (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Non-denominational, etc.). --Flex 15:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Presbyterian? 

message: Properly should be Pastor or  Minister and Reverend could replace Priest as well, as the article on  Reverend explains. Accuracy rather than formating probably more important - if necessary widen the table. Paul foord 15:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roles - Reverend not a role replace with Pastor & Minister 

message: Can we thin this up a bit? - The movements section seems to be one place to start. Maybe more lines. -SV|t 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIDE LOAD 

message: I'd like to add a link to Elder under the roles section.  We already have Bishop and Deacon; Elder is also a New Testament term in use by many, perhaps most, denominations.  Thoughts?  Objections?  KHM03 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Elder (religious)|Elder]]

message: The steeple and the pulpit are not buildings but parts thereof. The fact is that they are lesser parts of the church than the altar, which itself can be outside a building. The second part is that the word abbey must be removed and replaced with the word monastery, as an abbey is only a type of monastery. --metta, The Sunborn 18:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Altar; changed Abbey to Monastery; changed Buildings to Structures, since an altar is not a building but does merit inclusion on this template as an important structure in Christian buildings.  KHM03 12:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have rathered the removal of the structures but the result is acceptable. --metta, The Sunborn 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings 

message: I like the template except for the glaring omission of such large churches such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons. Is there a reason for their omission? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Would thees organisations consider themselves Christian? Maybe some reference could be made to divergent groups. There are other groups such as the Rastafarians. Paul foord 09:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have no problem with a divergent groups section (as long as it hit the "majors" and didn't get too lengthy).  KHM03 11:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Large Christian denominations not present

message: Some user added this category to the template and I have removed it.  My reasoning is that most pages that  is used on will already be parts of subcategories of Christianity which would make for a lot of pages having redundant categories. gren 21:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Christianity 

message: I have taken the liberty of de-bloating the Christianity template.  The proposed new revision of the template can be found here: Template:Christianity/Unbloat.  The purpose is to link to only the most relevant aspects of understanding Christianity, its history, and it current presence in the world.  Please comment, and, if you like, vote on whether to adopt it. —thames 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simpler. I like it. I would add Judaism to the related section, though. --Flex 21:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When making this revision, I only included religions derived (not the right word, but you get my point) from Christianity.  If we put precursor religions, we could include Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Gnosticism.  That might be too much content to add, keeping the object of simplicity in mind. —thames 21:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm against it because Template:Islam and Template:Judaism are both the same size is this more or less... and, I think this is a good way to cover many relevant topics. gren 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: *I don't think it's about how much space various religions are "given".  I worked on making the Islam template (slightly) smaller, mainly through table-formatting tricks.  I was successful in cutting the Communism template down significantly.  The point, in my opinion, is not to include every topic related to Christianity on the template, but to provide a quick reference to the most important topics for understanding Christianity.  The current template includes a lot of information, but it's not really necessary to go through different Christian Structures or Religious Roles to get an understanding of what Christianity is all about.  I think the slimmed-down template is better at getting the reader to the most important elements of Christianity.  I think the template suffers from trying to cram too much in (and I think the Judaism and Islam templates do too). —thames 21:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, it's not a matter of making them the same size... I think there should be a comprehensive area organizing not the completely basic concepts like yours does but not a list like the list of christian topics does.  They are trying to cram a lot but I think much of it is useful...  You have no mention of the apocrypha which is a link to alternate forms of Christianity... I do agree that Structures and Religious roles do not all need to be enumerate in the template... we could also slim down the movements by linking to what the movements are classified as...  it really does need work... I created it in a quick effort.... well, just look at my first change and compare it to what I was trying to make it from... and think that that had been put onto the Christianity page with salafism on it O_O... so, it does needs work.... but I would not cut it down to anything that small without at least having made a good quick reference page that your template links to.  I also like the format of the bigger one (the color to dilineate is nice... and I'm not sure if the ichthys is accepted by all... I think a cross is safer?  gren 00:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I have no objection to adding a link to the Apocrypha.  The proposed template links to an umbrella page for various different movements containing very short descriptions of each (which I think is better than directly linking to them from the template--on the template the user has no idea what each is, limiting the links' usefulness).  As far as color issues--I'm really not all that particular, one way or another--my main concern is having too many links and an overwhelming template that includes too many things tangential to the main points of Christianity.  On the Ichthys--I had originally wanted to use a cross, but then I remembered that there are many many different types of crosses used: an empty cross by protestants, the celtic cross with a circle, the crucifix by roman catholics, the plus-shaped cross, the crosses used by eastern churches with extra cross-bars, etc.  Deciding on one cross to represent christianity might lead to a POV argument, so I thought maybe the ichthys (being an ancient symbol the earliest Christians used to recognize one another) might be more acceptable.  I would be open to another symbol if it works out. —thames 21:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think anyone would object to a simple, plain, empty cross.  Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well as Protestants would, I imagine, claim it as an appropriate Christian symbol...not to the exclusion of other crosses, mind you, but appropriate nonetheless.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with the ichthys, except that the average "man on the street" might have no idea why that is a Christian symbol, when the cross is likely the most recognizable Christian symbol on the planet.  KHM03 22:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, :Image:Christian cross.png looks fine at 50px in place of the Ichthys.  The only reservation I have about it is that it takes up more vertical space than the Ichthys, since the Ichthys is a horizontal picture, whereas the cross is vertical.  But that's not a terribly huge issue.  I think this template is ready to go! —thames 05:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: *Just as an aside: the Christian stub template uses the Ichthys, not the cross. —thames 05:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'd like to add, that if we had good comprehensive overview articles for certain topics that are in the current template, we could simply have a link to those overviews, instead of bloating the template with a huge number of individual links.  For example, if we have an overview article on Christian religious roles, Christian architecture, or a more comprehensive Christian art (the Islamic art and architecture pages put the Christian ones to shame) we could include them in this template.  I confess that I created the Christian movements umbrella page for the sole purpose of having only one article to link to on the unbloated template, rather than seven. —thames 22:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: There certainly is, I've just made the change.  Good idea.  Too bad there isn't a unified page for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. —thames 22:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a page for Orthodox Christianity.  KHM03 22:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Anti-Bloated Template 

message: A novice trying to drill down to denominations would find the steps from the template unfriendly. The template currently references movements & Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant. To me adding something pointing to the diversity within Christian groups/denominations would be helpful--say point to the List of Christian denominations possibly call it Christian diversity. Paul foord 14:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting doing away altogether with links to Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, & Protestantism, as well as the "movements"? KHM03 14:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I would shy away from putting a List article on the template.  I wouldn't be against putting a link to Christian denominations however. —thames 17:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref to diversity of denominations 

message: #I think the Theology section will survive without a direct link to the God article, which is an overview of many faith's concepts of God, and not specific to Christianity.  Moreover, as it exists, Christian theology, The Trinity, God the Father, and The Holy Spirit all link to the God article quite prominently.  I do think the idea of moving Christian worship to the theology section is profitable, as well as the inclusion of Salvation and Divine grace.  Nicene creed is linked both in Christian worship and Ecumenical Councils.
#The Bible section ought to remain as is, except for the substitution of Sermon on the Mount for Beatitudes which is a good change.
#The Christian Church section ought to remain unchanged.
#The History of Christianity section is good as Chris proposed and ought to be included.
#Rastafarinism ought to remain because it is not quite Christian at this point, whereas Mormonism etc are still identified with Protestantism to a degree (although, when I created the Related Faiths subsection I initially did include Mormonism and the LDS, talk page consensus went against that).
Is this acceptable to editors? —thames 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  KHM03 20:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Good, improves cut down version w/o the bloat Paul foord 11:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for integration of [[User:Christopher Erickson|Chris]]'s changes 

message: Due to the rather persistent multi-ip penis vandalism, I've protected the template. Given that there hasn't been a legitimate edit in almost three weeks, I don't see this as a major hardship. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected due to vandalism 

message: Neutrality, who I presume is an admin, has changed the link to Orthodox Christianity into two links, one to Eastern Orthodoxy and the other to Oriental Orthodoxy.  Previous talk page discussion had arrived at the consensus of making the Orthodox Christianity page specifically for the purpose of not having two different links to the Orthodox churches.  Would Neutrality or another admin revert this change which was done without reference to prior talk page consensus or even an appropriate edit summary?  Thanks. —thames 02:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; please...an administrator should change it to the consensus we had.  KHM03 12:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality has acted without concensus before -several times -and had been criticized (see his talk page for my other post), however, I will focus on his positive contributions and avoid conflict (see his talk page for that too).--GordonWattsDotCom 22:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Neutrality and Orthodox Christianity 

message: The admin? "Neutrality" took GOD out of the Christianity template, and then it was locked from editing.  No more Trinity, Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit.  He ripped Christ out of Christianity.  This is an OUTRAGE!  How can we fire the one who locked this thing down?  Let's undo this injustice that forsakes the Lord? -- Chris 17:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even notice that.  Chris, there's no need to flame Neutrality, but I agree that the Trinity, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit ought to be put back in the template.  Neutrality, please unlock editing to the page, and if you're going to make significant deletions, plpease use the talk page in the future. —thames 02:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neutrality" is NOT NEUTRAL 

message: Hey. Over at Template talk:Islam there has been some debate about adding criticism of Islam to the template.  One of the arguments against it has been that criticism of Christianity is not on this template.  On Islamic articles there has been a slight problem with editors trying to do things anti-Islam so some of the editors of the template feel it is a continuation.  I typically tend to be middle of the line between the two camps and I think it should be added.  However, I don't think it will stand if there is only criticism for Islam and not for Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, and the other major belief systems.  So, I would encourage you to come to Template talk:Islam and participate in the discussion there and bring this to a more universal level.  Thanks. gren グレン 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Can we change the apocrypha section to read apocrypha/deuterocanon. To call it simply "apocrypha" doesn't ensure the views of all are represented. --Dpr 06:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On a pragmatic note, putting apocrypha/deuterocanon in would widen the template significantly.  As far as content goes, the apocrypha article has a huge amount of useful information, whereas the deuterocanon article basically just explains the semantic different between the Catholic/Orthodox churches and the Protestants.  Furthermore, that semantic difference is covered in the first few paragraphs of the Apocrypha article.  I would be inclined to let Apocrypha stay as is for now. —thames 01:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving it as it is, though, is a bit exclusionary. If we had a template on Eastern Europe that only listed "Konigsberg" but not "Kaliningrad" this would be a bit slanted...though of course the two term refer to the exact same place, while apocrypha and deuterocanon do not--however, I'd be happy with making a single link [[{apocrypha|apocrypha/deuterocanon}]] pointing to the same article, in light of what you noted. --Dpr 07:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apocrypha/deuterocanon

message: The template neglects a couple of vital areas of Christianity .. ministry & mission!!!
Mission - We probably don't need a page for every mission agency on the planet -but something to point to the tangible life and work of individuals and organsations, would not go a miss. Someoverlap wtih history and ecclesiology would probably occur.
Ministry - There are some important items to include about ministry, within the church and outside... including the theory and practice. The different areas of ministry; the different approaches to ministry (family-based, youth ministry, inter-generational); the different underpinnings of ministry... there seems to be a complete gap in most of the Wiki forums about 'minsistry'. Some overlap with theology and ecclesiology would probably occur.
I propose adding a 'Ministry and Mission' section to the template.
Georgeous 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be against adding "Ministry · Mission" to the template, just below Christian worship.  But I'd like to know if the other editors agree that these are essential topics and are not redundant with the Christian worship or other overview articles already on the template. —thames 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Such an addition strikes me as redundant and contributing to bloat. —Preost talk contribs 02:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministry & Mission 

message: Before we can even begin to think about thinking this NPOV horror to this template, the article needs massive rework.  It is filled with NPOV issues, in nearly every section, and is a long, long way from being acceptable.  KHM03 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Additionally, to address the rationale for including it ("article purports to be part of the series"), just because an article includes this template doesn't mean it gets linked from the template.  Only major articles of good quality get linked.  There are quite a lot of articles that include the template but aren't included in it.  —Preost talk contribs 20:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that a relevant article get linked on the template even if it isn't yet an article of "good quality".  In this way, wikipedians are more likely to end up visiting that article and hopefully editing it so that its quality is improved. Besides, if "good quality" were to be a criteria, who would be the arbiter of whether the quality of the article is "good" enough? --Aquarius Rising 22:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.: The inclusion of the link to the Criticism article (even as that article reads now) is important for the NPOV of the template.--Aquarius Rising 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: The inclusion of [[Criticisms of Christianity]] to this template 

message: The section under The Trinity with "Christ the Son" is somewhat awkward. There should be parentheses or something to denote clearly that there are two different articles here.-Grick(talk to me!) 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave it a shot with a reorginzation. The trinity is a theological doctrine, Jesus can be considered to have two natures. His widley accepted historical existance, and His (not capital H) Essense as the Christ. The second is doctrine. Also, I consider the Crusades to be an incredibly important part of Christian history, as it set the tone for Christian relations with Islam and Eastern/Western Christians for ages. Made the changes thus.--Tznkai 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An Important figures subsection could open a very large can of worms, with people adding doxens of their favorite theologians and popes, etc.  I'm going to roll Jesus and the Apostles both back under the history rubric, since they can logically fit there as well. —thames 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does open up a large can of worms, and I'm new to templates, so I'll follow your lead on this one. Can you address in the section below please?--Tznkai 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Christ]] [[Son|the Son]]" awkward 

message: Whether or not my change sticks. I think we need to address some of the more important figures in Christianity. The Apostles and Jesus of Nazareth are obvious, but how about Constantine? Roman Empire --> Holy Roman Empire changed Xianty forever. Perhaps John the Baptist going the other direction, or Thomas Aquanius, (St.) Augstine, and Martin Luther? While I know some of these are probably covered in the other articles, from a religious historian's perspective you cannot possibly understand Xianity without knowing atleast a little of all of the above.--Tznkai 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  History of Christianity should cover this in its article proper.  "Important figures" will be far too subjective.  Additionally, it moves the focus of the template away from the theology, which is where I think the focus should remain. —thames 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that you can't understand the theology without understanding the history that spawns it, but thats a seperate discussion. The Nicene Creed would never have happened without Constatine certainly, or is that covered in the ecumenical councils as a subtopic?--Tznkai 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantine and the Constantine shift is covered under History of Christianity—not particularly well, but it is covered.  I think it would be more profitable to collaborate on improving History of Christianity than trying to compensate with the template. —thames 23:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted. I got dragged inot the template because of a discussion going on at Jesus. At any rate, I strongly maintain that The crusades are notable enough on their own (This isn't just one or two year long wars people), and that having Jesus of Nazareth as the starting point and putting Christ the Son seperate is a Very Good Thing.--Tznkai 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i have no problem separating Jesus and Christ, which is why I did so when I initially made this version of the template.  It was just a bit awkward, but I think we've arrived at a decent solution.  Do you think the Crusades were theologiclaly significant? —thames 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something along the lines of "Those of who you go forth in war agaisnt the infidel shall pass unto paradise without judgement"--Tznkai 23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwahaha! Found it. ""All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."--Tznkai 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nearly every time Christian armies went to war there was some sort of assurance made to the fate of their souls--murder without sin or the like.  Crusades were no different.  Did the Crusades have a significant effect on Christian theology? —thames 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crusades were the biggest and best(worse, but it doesn't aliterate as well), and it spanned several Popes, Christian knightly orders, etc. Such a massive effect on history cannot but have an effect on theology. At anyrate, I think if you say "History of christianity" You hit Jesus, Early Church, Nicene Creed, Great schism, Crusades, Reformation. Removing the Crusades takes away something huge about Christianity. Its own understanding of what "Holy War", a multinational force under papal supremecy by the sheer force of sinless murder.--Tznkai 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally, Nav templates try to hit the major points. There should probably be a sub template for "history of Xianity"
I would agree that the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, & Fundamentalism aren't important enough (compared to the Trinity, Jesus, etc.) to merit a link here.  KHM03 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, the major additions in this are extremely slanted toward Western Christianity.  —Preost talk contribs 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *What would you add?
*This revision is heavily slanted towards history of christianity, and is also very Western-oriented.  I think it would be best to leave the template focused primarily on theological issues.  A History of Christianity template may be useful, if approached in an NPOV manner.  I think such a project would be extremely hard to pull off, however, since there are so many different branches with their own significant events.  Further, many of those events are less connected to Christianity per se, than they are connected to their respective national politics.  Perhaps discussion of these topics ought to be left to the History of Christianity article itself, where things can be properly discussed and fleshed out, rather than create a superfluous new template of dubious value to the reader. —thames 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important figures 

message: Other articles onChristianity	Other articles onChristianity
                             	
History of Christianity
Ecumenical councils
Great Schism
Crusades
Reformation
Inquisition·Witch-hunts
Fundamentalism	
Christian theology
The Trinity
Nontrinitarianism
Salvation	
The Bible
Old Testament
Ten Commandments
New Testament
The Gospels
Apocrypha	
Major Personages
Jesus
Paul of Tarsus
Augustine of Hippo
Thomas Aquinas
Martin Luther
John Calvin	
Christian denominations     	
*Should the title of this template be changed to Christian Theology? I see arguments here that oppose changes based on their not being about theology. Is the template to assist people in finding other topics in Christianity, or to present links to Christian theology?--JimWae 21:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, Nav templates try to hit the major points. There should probably be a sub template for "history of Xianity"
I would agree that the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, & Fundamentalism aren't important enough (compared to the Trinity, Jesus, etc.) to merit a link here.  KHM03 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, the major additions in this are extremely slanted toward Western Christianity.  —Preost talk contribs 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What would you add?
*This revision is heavily slanted towards history of christianity, and is also very Western-oriented.  I think it would be best to leave the template focused primarily on theological issues.  A History of Christianity template may be useful, if approached in an NPOV manner.  I think such a project would be extremely hard to pull off, however, since there are so many different branches with their own significant events.  Further, many of those events are less connected to Christianity per se, than they are connected to their respective national politics.  Perhaps discussion of these topics ought to be left to the History of Christianity article itself, where things can be properly discussed and fleshed out, rather than create a superfluous new template of dubious value to the reader. —thames 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template overhaul? 

message: I'm nost sure I see any POV violations in the template; it's not as if there's something linked on the template that is blatantly inappropriate.  In response to User:JimWae, I'm also not sure that the Inquisition is major enough to merit its inclusion.  What other links ought to be included?  I do understand the case for not including the members of the Trinity once we link to Trinity, but it would be difficult to imagine a legitimate Christianity template which does not include links to Jesus and the Holy Spirit...pretty important, wouldn't you say? What's more important in Christianity?  KHM03 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: This template is meant to be a very general overview of Christianity.  As such it needs to includes of all important aspects of Christianity, but not everyones pet point of Christian history, or any other category. No witch hunts, etc. If you include stuff like this, then the principle of equity would force a full page of links.  Even the Crusades are questionable. If you include them, then why not a link on the "Christianization" of Europe?   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crusades were incredibly signifcant. Years and Years and a dozen wars involving the subgation of several cultures, cities under various rulers all the qhile evolving the authority of the Church, the rightness of war and God, etc. In another sense, the Crusade's is Christianity's great Sin. You ask people on the street what they know about Christians and what they've done, Crusades will be on the list. It is in a large part thought to be a major factor in modern west-middle east diplomacy, etc. The old version worked for a while, now it doesn't. Improve and move on. Wikipedia is always under construction--Tznkai 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind inclusion of the Crusades, but, yeah, the witch hunts and Inquisition would be a bit much.  It would require us to list a lot of other things.  Hey, as far as negative stuff...what's worse than the Great Schism?  KHM03 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Islam does not feature a link on the wars of expansion fought by Islam's armies.  I see no reason to feature Crusades or Christianization of Europe on the template.  Both topics are readily accessible under the History of Christianity rubric.—thames 15:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the inquestitions and witchhunts are small fish in a very large pond. There were, as I recall around 9 major church sanctioned wars spanning two centuries. I think that merits inclusion in this template--Tznkai 16:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That makes sense to me, too.  —Preost talk contribs 15:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the denomination was moved above cath, orth, prod, not removed.--Tznkai 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert to time-tested version 

message: The current Christian Church article makes little to no sense to me, and what is there that I understand seems to be redundant with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church article. Perhaps I'm missing something? I've linked Xian church under the Theology section. to the latter concept about the Body of Christ whether in prodestantism or Catholic/Orthodoxy. Comments?--Tznkai 16:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Church and One Holy...