Template talk:Attributes of God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Real Estate problem[edit]

This template has 80% open space, 20% text. I think it needs to be condensed so it can be used without taking up too much real estate. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The width seems to come from this template calling the Template:Sidebar. I don't know how to fix that, but if someone can, then we can make the heading of this template narrower. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I can do that, but did not want to knee jerk it. So will do in a day or two. Content seems good, but seems hungry for space. Anyway, will fix. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the width. For now, added a Bible image, but that is not the best image. You guys should figure out what will be a representative image and change that. History2007 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Carl, the dove image does not work at all. It is an established representation of the 3rd person of the Trinity, so it will be appropriate for the Holy Spirit articles, where it is widely used, not the others. And this template, as well as the key article attributes of God should address the Trinitarianism issue. It was good that you avoided the triangle image that woul dhave had other problems. Maybe we should have "no image", or a text of some type.... Is this template just about God the Father? It seems so, given that it is not about Christ. But please clarify anyway. History2007 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No consensus changes[edit]

This template, as well as a few others, was changed by Chris with no consensus. I this should stop, consensus obtained before these changes. The changes to this are not proper in my view. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Above, the remarked upon the "real estate" problem with this template. Not only is the present design significantly more compact, but it also gels far better with the majority of the project's sidebars. "No consensus" by itself is not and never has been an argument of any weight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As you can see above, before making "knee jerk changes" I asked opinions first. In any case, given that there is just the two of us now, I will wait for further input from other users. But your changes are not improvement in my view. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Image of an old man[edit]

None of the Attributes of God in Christianity indicate he is a kindly old man, or any kind of man. Indeed, John 4:24 tells us that God is spirit. I will change the image to something more balanced and a bit more symbolic. tahc chat 04:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably so. Yet most people (and artists) have seen it so and used an aging man image. The dove, is however a representation of the Holy Spirit as in the Baptism scene. I am not going to argue about it, but you should probably use a better image than a descending dove - clearly a Holy Spirit case. History2007 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a passing comment Tahc. I generally do not use John 4:24 in articles because it can lead to debates given that nontrinatarians such as Bernard use that as part of their reasoning for Oneness theology. Not an issue here, just FYI. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I will point out that it is not just a descending dove. It is an eye (of God) and also a descending dove. I guess it could be cropped tighter if you think that would help. tahc chat 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, I will leave it in your hands. In 3 weeks an IP will show up, and change it. So no need to worry. History2007 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)