Template talk:Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Propose inclusion of all "core topics" and only "core topics" in the template[edit]

Honestly, one of the main reasons I can think of for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group is to determine which are the "core" topics, which, pretty much, is also the purpose of this template. On that basis, I tend to think that the articles included in the "core topics' list are the ones which should be in this article, and that should anyone propose any changes to this template, that perhaps they propose the changes to the "core topics" list first. Does that make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, per archived discussions, etc. tahc chat 02:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

LDS Church[edit]

The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only part (albeit a very big part) of the Latter Day Saint movement. The LDS Church link should be changed wither to point directly to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the piped link name should be changed to better reflect aht the link is for the Latter Day Saint movement. -- (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I echo this. The link should not say one thing ("LDS Church") and then link to another ("LDS movement"). I've updated accordingly. —Eustress 21:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not the correct forum for this issue, as has been discussed here a number of times (such as at Template talk:Christianity/Archive 4#Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles).
Please bring up such issues at WP:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. In this way any WP:CON will also apply to Template:Christianity footer. You can also comment on other proposals made there. tahc chat 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tahc: I think the reason for preferring the LDS Church link over the LDS Movement link is that the LDS Movement is kind of an academic term that doesn't show up much in the sources and isn't commonly used. (The LDS Church/Mormonism makes up some 99.8% of the movement by members.) Perhaps the link should be changed to the religion (Mormonism) instead of the movement, since "Mormonism" is common, recognizable, and also a top-importance rated article if I'm not mistaken. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can set the "importance" on any article to anything. That is why WikiProject Christianity has a centralized location to identify top-importance for the whole project. Mormonism does seem like a better replacement than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to me, but this is still not the correct forum for this issue. Bring you issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, and then we can talk about it. Thank you. tahc chat 12:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list#.22LDS_Church_.28Mormon.29.22_instead_of_.22LDS_movement.22Eustress 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Add a link: Saint?[edit]

I notice that Saint doesn't appear on the Topic list, even though the article is marked as being of "top-importance" in Christianity. "Saint" is an important concept in Christianity and saints and the "communion of saints" are mentioned in the historic creeds. Is there any reason why this article isn't linked in the template? -- Hazhk Talk to me 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote below is from the documentation of Template:Christianity.
I also see that Saint is listed there as top-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, and for some other projects, but not top-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. tahc chat 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo[edit]

Can you please consider Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) on the Non-trinitarian religious group/denomination category? INC is considered as the largest independent church in Asia and one of the most if not the most influential religion in the Philippines. It is a very rich religion with congregations in at least 100 countries and territories with membership estimate of 4-10 million worldwide. Based on their directory, www.iglesianicristo.net/directory , they have 328 congregations in North America alone. Their theology is like Unitarian and restoration movement combined. They believe that God the Father alone is the only true God and denies Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove images[edit]

Please remove the picture of 'Christ'. Many Christians believe such images violate the Second Commandment, so it is not representative of all Christianity!--CovenanterSoldier (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, your understanding of many is a little off. It is closer to being fringe besides the point, Wikipedia is not censored. As with the multiple discussions about the display of Muhammed's picture, Christ's picture will stay whether some people are offended or not.Marauder40 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I Must agree with Marauder40, but for very different reasons. Your use of the term "many Christians" is hyperbole. It's a small percentage of Christians who hold that any image is idolatrous.
As for not representative of all Christianity, I would argue that before your bibliolatric (idolatry of scripture) image should be considered, an Eastern Orthodox icon should be considered. There's more of them than those in the West who believe that all imagery is idolatrous. We could go down the list, but your opinion is both wrong (in terms of hyperbole) and in the minority (in terms of sheer number of adopters).
There's also the issue that there are few versions of the scriptures in English that are without copyright around the world. Your image of scripture would have to be of one of those. I suspect, however, that you're in the King James only camp and unfortunately, that's still in copyright in England, at least until 2039, but the rules are broad enough that it might pass our copyright police.
So, unless you can propose an image that is free of copyright and meets the criteria of being clearly understood to represent Christianity, I doubt you'll get very far. The similar template for the Islamic group is File:Allah1 no honorific.png. For Judaism it is three small images: a star of David, a stylized tablets of the ten commandments, and a menorah. For Buddhism it is a Dharmacakra, or the wheel of law. Finally for Hinduism it's an Om. That makes the one for Christianity the most ornate by fare and the only reason I would consider a change would be to simply the glyph that is used. Go ahead and try to convince me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The scripture excerpt was taken from the ESV - reproducing it is allowed as long as 'ESV' is placed after the chapter and verse (granted, it probably does break Wikipedia's policy and insufficient data was included). Besides, I used that image as a protest, not as a permanent replacement. I am clearly not in the KJV Only camp and as for your 'bibliotratric' comment, that comes across more as a personal attack and is an utterly ridiculous notion (quoting God's word is idolatory now?). I have already suggested a plain empty cross to replace the image of 'Christ' which is a universally recognised symbol of Christianity. I won't bother saying or doing any more, since my point has been made.--CovenanterSoldier (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
First, it's "bibliolatric" and not "bibliotratric": bibliolatry is a word whereas bibliotratry isn't. It wasn't a personal attack, just an observation or conjecture as to why someone would replace the image with that particular image. In other words, wondering if you believed that the word of God is more important than the Word of God.
However, I addressed the underlying issue as to whether the image should be changed and so I suppose that's a question for Marauder40 and other project members. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see the numerous discussions in the archive about changing the picture before bringing this topic up again. This has been discussed numerous times before, that doesn't mean it can't be discussed again, but it usually results in "beating a dead horse" type discussions. In earlier comment, I was only addressing whether the picture of Christ should be removed because in the OP's opinion it violates the Second Commandment. That will never fly as a reason on WP for the reason I already gave.Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Marauder40 on both his points. tahc chat 02:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to a cross (or other iconic and probably non-photographic image)?[edit]

Leaving aside all issues of iconoclasm (or any other 8th-century heresy), the fact remains that the current image is not culturally-neutral, and not really appropriate to represent global Christianity. A simple plain Latin cross or Ichthys would be much better in that respect -- but some people insist that there must supposedly be a "consensus" to change the image (though there certainly wasn't any such "consensus" when the current image was added in!!) AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No. The current image was changed here and no one objected.
That is considered consensus on Wikipedia. tahc chat 15:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever -- some people have insisted that there needs to be strong manifestations of near-unanimous active support to change the current image, even though there were no such strong manifestations of near-unanimous active support when the current image was added in. Your "argument from silence" is rather weak... AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not objecting to the image for philosophical reasons, but since it stands out against other, similar projects. A simple graphic would be more appropriate. Also, there clearly is a need for a change and so we're talking about changing consensus and therefore previous discussions are informative, but not binding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In the past (some years ago now) there was a seeming consensus to use a cross image-- in theory. The hinderance was that no partiular image of a cross had consensus. In fact no partiular image of a cross was even close to consensus. Personaly, don't mind a simple graphic or a cross-- but I also see no reason that it has to be a cross or a simple graphic.
There is little use in gaining a new consensus to change "in theory" but not start by talking about a partiular image. Here is a icon gallery from archive 4. tahc chat 15:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
My strong advice is to keep it simple so that it's clear and easily recognizable at a small image size. A simple plain Latin cross (e.g. File:Christian cross.svg) would be most neutral, or something like File:Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg if you want something slightly fancier... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the gallery. None of those are icons, they're all photographic images. I prefer File:Christian cross.svg to the images including the one used presently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So first, why is a simple graphic good at all? In the normal world, and in Wikipedia, we choose images that are nice looking and clear, such as <File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd Portrait.jpg>.
Second, why would we want as the simplest possible image? Even the tiny graphic for the Christianity portal is more interesting: <File:P christianity.svg>. tahc chat 04:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
To answer: why is a simple graphic good at all? Because less is more. The more complex an image, the more it distracts from the main idea: to convey the affiliation of the project or series with the article in which it's included, without drawing undue attention to itself.
The simplest possible image should be used for that reason as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tahc -- A photograph generally has to be quite specialized in nature to fit the requirements for a template icon (i.e. to be instantly understandable at a small pixel resolution as symbolizing a particular subject matter, without bringing in distracting irrelevancies). In my opinion, the current image doesn't qualify, nor do most of the photographic images in your gallery. The Latin cross is the simplest form of a Christian cross, and is basically acceptable to almost all significant "mainstream" Christian denominations (even though infrequently used by some). If you want a little more visual pizzazz (though not really necessary in my opinion), then I offered File:Christianity symbols Cross Ichthys.svg, accompanying the basic Latin cross with an even older Christian symbol than the cross, and adding color and drop shadows... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that, at least by Görlitz's logic, the best thing would be to have no image at all. tahc chat 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The best would be to have an image which immediately indicates "Christianity!" to most of those viewing it (even at a small pixel resolution), but which does not drag in irrelevant connotations or associations which might distract from the template (since the purpose of a template image is to serve the template, not the other way around). The benefit of having an image, is that if someone is scanning down the page, not reading all text, then the template icon image at the top corner of a colored box still provides an indication that "this is the collection of Christianity-relevant links"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't put words into my mouth @Tahc:. I never implied that nor did I come anywhere near that by stating that the simplest possible image should be used. Since you clearly are incapable of making a reasonable argument or coherent argument I believe you should avoid this discussion until you either strike that nonsense or apologize. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Please be civil.
No one claimed that you said the best thing would be to have no image at all. I said that by your logic that would be best -- and for you to equate the two is not a reasonable or coherent argument. tahc chat 17:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we please focus on the main issue, which is not Walter Görlitz's logic, but the fact that the main purpose of a template image is to serve the purposes of the template (not to look beautiful in itself), and also that the claim that a greater degree of consensus would be necessary to change the current image than was necessary to add in the current image is inconsistent and not helpful... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
And I was being civile. WP:NPA states that we should focus on content not contributors. I'm still waiting for an apology not an excuse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the simple cross is currently the best option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

particular images[edit]

Thank you.
Let me say that I think you do have some WP:CON to try some sort of change to non-photographic images without my support; you don't need unanimity.
But I also think if you change the image to something too simple, then editors that see then it will come here to let us know... then you will not have consensus for that change. Of course, I may well be wrong on what will happen.
Either way, I think we should be talking about one or two or three particular images. tahc chat 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)