Template talk:Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Christianity | (Rated Template-Class) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
[edit] New Template Design
Recently I have been working on standardising all of the Religious templates. This template is the one for Christianity. If there are no objections then I will impliment the template. The Quill (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- In Firefox this formats badly I think the line spacing may be wrong? Also there are a lot of relgious templates so hiding some content by default personally I prefer. --BozMo talk 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- There is no need to "standardize" religious templates on Wikipedia. Every religion is different to begin with. The Template:Christianity has the current image of a cross only after the consensus of many debates. We do not need a circle around it.
-
- As a practical matter the collaping of the denominations is now removed-- and I think that changes the template tremendous-- since, for example, denominations are not the most important part of Christianity, but would take much of the space-- and make the template to big.--Carlaude (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.143.122 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Default collapsed
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)
- 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 "{{Christianityfooter}}" instead. --Carlaude (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Scope
The 80 articles in WikiProject Christianity's Top-importance category have been reconciled with {{Christianity}} 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)
- 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)
- I never said you did add it. --Carlaude (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
A proposal that passes with no complaint is a licence for bold action. This is article space, there are no rules. What changes have you objected to? They were very minor. I am trying to assume good faith on your part here. It seems the only thing short of formating, which I conceded, that you have objected to is Gospel which was not changed. You are attempting to make a change that is being objected to. -- Secisek (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gospel
For at least the last 250 edits, since at least 24 February 2007, Gospel has been listed under Foundations. That is 2+ years of consensus. It should stay as it has been until the merge proposal plays out. John Carter proposed the navboxs be reconciled with the top importance articles with no complaint on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum where you are a contributor. I am sorry if you feel this blind sided you, but the tweaks here are really quite minor - compare with the last version, one edit by you I'll add. Almost nothing was removed and a few things were added where space already permited. What do you think should be here that isn't? -- Secisek (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus has nothing to do with how long since its last edit-- but if it did I would just see that as the fact that it is so easy to missunderstand of what the article is, based on where it is. That is in fact why it should not be there. I object here-- but note well-- this does not stop it from being "reconciled with the top importance articles" since it would still be listed. I am not asking you to get rid of it, but there is no reason to call it Foundations. It can be moved back later if they are merged but there is no telling how long that will take. --Carlaude (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We have establsished it has been there a long time. You have made numerous edits to the template in that time and have not seen fit to move it until now. The Gospel is THE very foundation of the Church for many Christians. It can rest there until there is a determination on the merge. After all this time, what is your rush now? -- Secisek (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Carlaude, you are edit warring. You know the merge is being discussed elsewhere. You and I have both presented our case elsewhere. Let it stand as it has until consensus is reached.
-
- That is not how Wikipedia works. I do not see any merge discussion really going on, but even if I did, that is no reason to stonewall by correction.
-
- While the Gospel is the foundation of the Christianity, "Gospels," or "the Gospels" is not. Since Gospel is not about the Gospel, that is why it should not be made to look like it is about the Gospel. Leaving where it is makes it look like the article on the one when it is really about the other.
- I see the "discussion" seems to have been "going on" at least since 2006. Why are stonewalling when this has been proposed years ago-- and yet nothing has happened? --Carlaude (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would think you would know how Wikipedia works, but if you need a reminder: the process is 1. Change 2. Revert 3. Discuss. You made a change, I reverted, the discussion is on. I proposed the merge a few hours before you posted that you, "do not see any merge discussion really going on". I could have boldly meged the two myself since you said you would not oppose, but I wanted to wait and see if anybody else had an opinion, since neither you nor I "own" the article.
We are working on gathering consensus right now. As an aside, to suggest that the Gospels - the actual books of the canon which contain the good news - are not a foundation of Christianity speaks volumes. They contain the totality of everything Christians know that Jesus ever said or did. They are, according to some, the cornerstone of Christianity and such a fact is easily cited. See the Oxford Companion to the Bible, for one. -- Secisek (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism
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)
- 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)
Sorry, I thought that Anglicanism was listed as Protestant on the chart but it actually is listed as Catholic, I just wanted to keep consistency with the article and it was already achieved--Sfcongeredwards (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Puritanical cross: dull and brings down the quality of the article
Every other article on a religion has a relevent and attractive image in the lead; Islam's article is much better for it. We're stuck with this brutish and unimaginative puritanical, 2D entity. I added an image which IMO makes the Christianity article much more attractive to the reader. It is the cross in the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem on top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is located at the traditional place of Calvary were Christ was crucified. Thus it is undisputably an image which is relevent to all Christians. The Church itself is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Catholics, Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Christians. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- You mean this image? This image is the one from its Islam box. It looks 2-D to me.
- Since it is only the traditional place of Calvary it is not undisputably relevent. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre only represents liturgical Christianity, and not even all of liturgical Christianity. Most notably it is not representative of Protestant Christianity. Besides your efforts to edit war, I most of all I also see your image is cropped to show the Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock. Carlaude:Talk 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Is the condesending tone really nessesary, all the "efforts to edit war" nonsense? So far as I'm aware, even Protestants believe Christ was crucified at Calvary and that a cross is a symbol of it - so its representative. In regards to the Islam article, I was thinking more the picture of Mecca, which is at the top, rather than the caligraphy half way down the article. Most forms of Christianity; Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Copts, Anglicans, Lutherans, so on are "liturgical" Christians. Thus it is easily representative of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world. If we pandered to every obscure sect formed in the 1800s there'd be nothing organic in the article to begin with. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- As I said, while Catholics, Orthodox, and Orientals 'own' part of the church, other liturgicals do not. There is no Anglican or Lutheran representation there. Furthermore I do not think most people would count your list of six "forms" of Christianity as "most forms"-- and Copts is a repeat since they are part of the Oriental Orthodox.
- Protestants agree Christ was crucified at Calvary, but the Bible doesn't say where Calvary was, and some (even Lutherans) consider it to be elsewhere or unknown.
- You have to know how condesending your nonsense is. How is Protestantism, or even non-liturgical Protestantism an obscure sect?
- Of course it still could count as "representative of all" as a cross-- but that hardly matters since your desire is to replace (at best) one cross with another. To me, it is replacing a cross with a cross & mosque.
- You also talk like this is the template for one ("the") article. It is a template for many Christian articles. But if you just want a photo at the top of the Christianity article (like the Islam article has one of Mecca above the Islam Template ) just add a photo above the Christianity Template on that article. The template image has to be a bit more basic-- or people will get tired of seeing it on every single page. Carlaude:Talk 06:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The previous concern regarding the mosque is now taken care of. I have cropped the mosque out of the image. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Carlaude here. The photo of the cross is untidy and unrepresentative. The previous, yes, may have been boring, but it's simplicity allowed it to be accepted by all Christian denominations. The cross represents the crucifixion and death of Jesus as believed by all Christians and therefore should be all inclusive, which this is not. Adding a fancy picture adds nothing to the article and I feel it conflicts with NPOV. I would like to propose a revert. - Cheesy Yeast (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles
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). Carlaude:Talk 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Denominations, Traditions SPER request
{{editsemiprotected}} I would request that the heading in the side box that currently reads "Denominations" be changed to "Traditions", as the term "tradition" in the history of Christianity is a broader term, encompassing many denominations, while still delineating the key differences among Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Non-Trinitarianism. Further, a "denomination", particularly in the Protestant tradition, is a much more narrowly defined group than the page indicates.
Creynolds2011 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Not done Not done for now; because this template is used on a lot of pages [1], I think that we need to see some consensus here that the change is OK with the community. Therefore, please could you ask for other people to approve the change, below; you might want to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity to get more people to respond.
- If consensus can be demonstrated, then please reinstate the {{editsemiprotected}}. Hope you understand why this step is necessary in this case, thanks, Chzz ► 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism - Protestant or Catholic?
I find it somewhat strange to see Anglicanism listed under Catholicism here. In most books I've read, it is described as a Protestant church, and that was definitely what we were taught in school as well. While an argument could be made for almost whichever church belonging to whichever denomination, this would appear to be very much a minority view. I suggest we move Anglicanism to the Protestant denomination.Jeppiz (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Template's image proposals
[edit] Configurable image
Since the current image, according to some, is not representative of all Christianity, should the template provide the option to use a different image? I don't entirely support the idea, but thought I should bring it up for discussion. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Michelangelo Pieta Image Caption
The image is captioned as an "illustration by Michelangelo", could you change it to a "sculpture by Michelangelo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.168.3 (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus' face instead of a cross?
Most Christians should find Jesus representative of their denomination. What do you think about using a head detail from The Temptation of Christ or Sermon on the Mount? I would be happy to crop and upload the image if we end up using one of these. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. the "Temptation of Christ" is too small to make a detail from, and I find the "Sermon on the Mount" face a bit dull. What do you think of any of these? Carlaude:Talk 08:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I personally find the sculpted head to be just a little strange, but the other two would be great. I think I have a mild preference for an image with his head turned, but any image will do, really. The only hesitation I have about the proposed images is the extra symbols or ornateness of the halo/glow around his head. I imagine the ideal image to use would have a plain halo, or none. But that's just me being picky. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I cropped these two images and removed the halo from the one on the right, but I like the one on the left better of the two. Carlaude:Talk 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I really like the stained glass one too. I was afraid it would look odd when cropped, but now that I see it, it looks really good. You may want to crop it just a little bit wider, so that it is a square image, though I would not complain one bit if we started using it as is. Now...should we use the bold, revert, discuss technique, or just wait for more responses? >:D ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have cropped it square now, but if it looks the same to you then you have to refresh the image. Traffic on this page is so low we might as well swap out the image, per WP:BRD. I will do that soon. Carlaude:Talk 07:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't see the last part of your comment until just now, "I will do it soon." I have already done it. It looks good, in my opinion. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The Ashfield image shows Jesus with very pale skin and long hair, and since it's unlikely that he looked like that, can another image be used? Would it be possible to remove, or have an option to hide, the cross at the bottom next to the "Christianity Portal" link for Christian articles where the cross isn't proper, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses#cite ref-133? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-11t11:44z
-
- I have added a 'no-cross' parameter to the template which replaces the cross image with an ichthys, and applied it on the Jehovah's Witnesses article. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the long hair is important for people to know who is represented by the image. It is even more unlikely that Peter carried around metal keys in his hand, but he is shown that way today (in part) to indicate who is represented, since we don't really know what any 1st-century figures really looked like. I will also point out that the Jesus' face image is replacing cross images that look even less like a real cross would have.
- As for skin color, we can just darken the image we have with image effects. My main concern (other than how we can pick one skin-tone as a group) is/was that a stronger color contrast makes for a stronger more visable image.Carlaude:Talk 13:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are going to have a hard time coming up with a single depiction of Jesus that all sects will agree on (especially with iconoclasm). Not only that, we may have issue with an image that a simple majority would agree on. We tackled this in the past, and decided a simple cross was nearly universal and didn't seem to favor one sect over another (natch JW). While maybe not as pretty and graphical as could be, I still would support a simple cross for its compatibility and universality. But I'm not going to oppose an image of Jesus yet (I'll wait and see if more objectors come out of the woodwork, or if a silent consensus builds). -Andrew c [talk] 16:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure if any group holds to iconoclasm today. Can you name any such group that is larger than the JWs? In the archives I could only find one person objecting to to Jesus' image ever, and that was also you (again on behalf or unnamed others it would seem). Feel free to point out others in the archives if there are any I missed.
- Since there are lots of Christianity articles with Jesus as the lead image I don't really think we are pervented from doing the same here. Carlaude:Talk 22:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also the guy in the archives that suggested Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg :P -Andrew c [talk] 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the Ashfield image because it is different enough to be interesting, but depicts Jesus' features in a very typical way that all(?) denominations could accept. I don't see skin color isn't much of an issue, since it's clearly an artistic rendition—I doubt he really had a glowing circle behind/radiating from his head. A generic cross is bland; a less generic cross, controversial. The cross is a symbol of Jesus's death; why not skip the symbol and show it's meaning, the founder and central figure of Christianity, the Christ? If we were to ask leaders of various Christian denominations, do you think they would deem the current image inappropriate for use on the template on their denomination's article? To me, the answers to these questions are obvious. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- First and foremost, the purpose of any image on this template is to communicate visually that the template is about Christianity, hopefullt even before the words are read-- and not to correctly show what the real Jesus or even the real cross looked like. But since lots of people-- even many Christians-- do not know what the Chi Rho is, it would a bad idea to change to that. It would be better to have no image than a Chi Rho.
- Please feel free to update you proposal-- and link to a partiular image.
- If fact, if anyone really wants a cross, and you read carefully, the last change from this simple cross to this gold cross did not have WP:CON, so that would need to be revisitied.
- If anyone, like me, likes the current image but think it could use a little darker skin, then feel free to post a color photo of anybody that you think has the prefered skin tone. Carlaude:Talk 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of people, even many Christians, are woefully ignorant as to most of the things on the template. There are worse things than a teachable moment.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, the image is to serve a different purpose than the links-- it isn't even a link to a page that discusses Christian symobols or the Chi Rho. The image is a visual cue as to the subject of the whole template, so until the template becomes all about symbols created made from Greek letters, it would be unsussesful. Carlaude:Talk 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- My thoughts precisely, Carlaude. I also think images should behave as nature intended but that's another issue entirely. Back to the topic at hand, I feel that fear of not being able to find a suitable picture of Jesus is not an acceptable reason to use a less interesting or less appropriate image. No one in history has been artistically depicted more than Jesus; surely there's an image out there somewhere that will satisfy everyone, if not the current image. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- As I said above, the image is to serve a different purpose than the links-- it isn't even a link to a page that discusses Christian symobols or the Chi Rho. The image is a visual cue as to the subject of the whole template, so until the template becomes all about symbols created made from Greek letters, it would be unsussesful. Carlaude:Talk 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of people, even many Christians, are woefully ignorant as to most of the things on the template. There are worse things than a teachable moment.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Width
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. Carlaude:Talk 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The reduced width looks good. ...but what do you think? ~B Fizz (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Under Catholic
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)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}