Template talk:Christianity

Changes to template format

After the changes to become a sidebar, now the state=collapsed no longer works on other pages that use it. And the width seems much more than before. Needs be fixed and width somehow reduced - it is just too wide everywhere else now. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The width is the standard sidebar width, which is 22em. Previously, it was 20.5em (or about three characters narrower), which meant it didn't align with infoboxes. The change is marginal. Collapsing the entire sidebar is discouraged (and {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} doesn't support it): I made sure to check the highest-profile articles that transclude the template and of those few which set it to collapsed by default none are negatively impacted layout-wide by showing it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry that is not what the collapse button is there for. This template is used in lots of pages and often in small sections that do not allow an elephant sized presence. It is "supposed to have a collapse flag". You can not at will go and decide that it is discouraged. The user should be able to use that flag.

As "a user" I would not have complained if this did not cause an inconvenience. It does. And it is not up to you to decide where it is negatively impacted or not. The system should allow users to use the template as they want to. Your change reduced functionality and decreased convenience. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to go and fix "Sidebar with collapsible lists" to allow for a state=collapsed, then see if it makes sense to use that here. But not until then. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am sorry Chris, but I noticed that instead of responding here, you went ahead and changed a few other template with no consensus whatsoever. As requested on your talk page, please "seek consensus" from those who use the template before making these changes. Time to stop and seek consensus before changes. Your change here was also sans consensus and needs to be reverted until consensus is reached for it. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection noted, but the huge increase in consistency and code maintainability this has resulted in massively outweighs what is still an anecdotal problem IMO. As I've stated elsewhere (and previously in discussions with you), "no consensus" is a result and not an argument. You cannot use it as a veto for changes you dislike. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, it does not work that way. If there is no consensus for a change, what there is remains. Look, there are others who watch this page, and we will wait. But someone wishing to making a change, has no priority based on issuing an "IMO". There are other people who watch this page, and I will hereby seek their opinion as to whether you "should make changes without consensus" here or not, regardless of arguments about the nature of changes. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I welcome third opinions and am more than happy to address them if a good argument is presented in their favour. Let's see what happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We will probably get 4th and 5th comments too. Many people watch and use this template. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As another question, why don't you just fix that sidebar template so it can allow a "state=collapsed" case? That can probably get fixed in the time it will take to talk about it here. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's non-trivial, and previous discussions on whether to attempt it have AFAIR centred around whether it was genuinely necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a case where it is "desired by a user". I have not looked at the code (and really do not want to) but where is it anyway... I should not really ask this. I do not have time to work on the code.... And the way out of coding may be to just have a template called "Christian" which is a small template, and on pages where users do not have space can use that.... Then we will be done with this. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's inherited from {{sidebar}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Anyway, I do not have time to do coding now... Should not even look at that. Let us wait and see what people say now. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am with History2007 on this, Chris. tahc ^chat 07:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In what regard? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We may even have an easier solution: Does the sidebar support "state=collapsed" if there are no nested items inside? If so, given that there are just a couple of those, we can make those not nested and then have the "state=collapsed" button still work like before. So does teh routine support that if we un-nest those here? History2007 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the sandbox and test cases for an attempt at this. How does that appeal to you? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the Sandbox, and it may actually be an improvement. But I do suggest:

• Just one show/Hide for Denominations & movements. They do not need 3 separate items. And when that shows, there will just be the three subsections that all open up at once.

• "Bible & Foundations" to be one show/hide. They are both smaller items. And Bible should really be ahead of Foundations there anyway.

• At the bottom, a link to the portal without an icon to save real estate.

That way we have a "medium sized" item that tells still has all the items, and tells story anyway with hide/show items. I think that will be an improvement over what there was 3 days ago anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I left the denominations separate is to preserve backward-compatibility with articles that use that format already, but it's easy enough to merge them if desired. Same with the two headers to be merged. For the portal, the use of {{portal-inline}} to link to portals from sidebars is standard, and the saving from removing the icon would be minimal. If it is truly intrusive then removing it entirey might be a better call, as it will often be found in the article appendixes anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is easy enough, let us just do that so we can wrap this up before Christmas gets here. The backward compatibility also applies to those who had it all minimized, so lumping those three is no big deal in that sense. There is life beyond this template. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Anyway, it took a few minutes to reshuffle it to Template:Christianity/sandbox2. There were other internal fixes that were needed, e.g. Gospel was coming after some other items - not logical.

I think we can just go with that unless someone else has a better idea. The state=collapsed seems to function on that from within the test cases anyway, so that should work. History2007 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now pushed the code from sandbox2 live. Many thanks for working to a compromise here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, the format you used ended up being an improvement over what there was 3-4 days ago. History2007 (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture

hello,

I believe the current picture is not really representative and to me he does not look like Jesus. First, Christ was a Jew, so he had an olive skin, dark hair and maybe a crooked nose (like this). Secondly, this picture depicts an overly gentle person, but the former picture is more impressive and correct. Thirdly, the current picture is not at all "iconic", but just a stained glass picture of a modern Anglican church, while the other picture is from the well-known Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo build in the 6th century! The former discussion do not mention this picture as far as I can see, so I suggest to replace it with this picture. The picture is File:Christus Ravenna.jpg. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You should read the long, long discussion in the archives about this. Many of these issues had been discussed there - some people wanted a cross, not a picture, some wanted 3 crosses, some wanted a different image, some wanted a fish symbol, etc. So anyway, please read those. But one thing that is certain is that "to me he does not look like X" has about 100,000 different values for X, depending on who states that. The conclusion of that long discussion was that until there is "clear consensus" to change, the image should remain. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you know very well that there is no "clear consensus" to keep the current image, and that many different people have objected to it on many separate occasions. By your standards of "lack of clear consensus", the current image should be nuked... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you also read the archives, I did not add the current image. The way Wikipedia works, the lack of consensus means that nothing changes. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1. about reading long discussions in the archive, why is it that one cannot comment in the archive, but must comment here?

2. the picture is just plain wrong, it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus (acc 2 NT):

120px

The image currently perused doesn't in any proper way represent the literary Jesus – quite contrary it represents an unnatural contrafactual interpretation of peacefullness and pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Mr Rursus, how did you determine that "it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus..." Did you determine that by yourself? If so, please do enlighten us... Or do you have WP:RS sources for it? And regarding the "pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education.", how did you determine that one? Did you come to these conclusions by yourself, or do you have WP:RS sources to support them? History2007 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, in view of these never ending comments, the best way may be to use a composite of multiple biblical scenes probably. Perhaps better quality art than those Rursus suggested, but there are plenty out there. However, that change can not happen without consensus. If there is consensus we can do it, else will have to stay with what there is. And I do not mind that either. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would accept an image that reflected Isaiah 53:1-12 or Daniel 7:13-14. I do not think the current image is especially deficient. I think that the image should be of sufficient resolution that the details of Christ's features (even though they have never been recorded from firsthand observation) are apparent. I think that the thumbnail should be a closeup of Christ, preferably just the face, so that it is not overly confusing "who are all these people?" Per Isaiah I would also accept an image of Christ tortured and crucified. Per Daniel, an image of Christ Pantocrator would be fitting. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• How can we know the current image "does not look like Jesus"? All we have is religious art from subsequent centuries; you can pick from Byzantine icons which make him look Byzantine, many great works of Renaissance art which make him look European, maybe for a bit of variety you can pick some Coptic art which gives him darker skin. We can choose from various artwork which showed jesus radiating Love, or Wisdom, or Power, or whatever else the artist wanted to portray in that commission. It's not as though we have any photos (although one could perhaps photograph something associated with him; reliquaries across Europe have enough splinters and nails from the True Cross to build a whole new ship). It would be silly to treat biblical texts as literal and accurate descriptions of his appearance. In that light, I'd prefer a composite image, which incorporates images from different religious contexts. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One wonders whether this discussion will ever actually end. I see no objections whatsoever to the existing image. It is a stained glass image of Jesus, and, lets be honest, many Christians to some degree equate stained glass images with Christianity. But, yes, I could see any number of other images as acceptable as well. Maybe the best alternative might be to either change to one of the images of commons:category:Icons of Crucifixion or commons:category:Paintings of crucifixion. Yes, I know, there are groups within what is broadly thought to be "Christianity" who do not believe in the crucifixion, but there are groups within Christianity who would dispute pretty much any image. Maybe some sort of composite, with stained glass and crucifixion images would work too. I really neither know nor, actually, care much. The one point I really do believe is that this semi-regular discussion is among the least productive I can imagine, and it would be great if it could be resolved, finally, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I don't really mind the current image.

However, after looking at the template again, it struck me that this is a template for christianity, not jesus. If we're going to have a composite image then perhaps some of the other pics should be of other aspects of christianity rather than just a selection of portrayals of jesus - there are plenty of good images of notable texts, relics, cathedrals, &c. (Hey, maybe a pic of the Schloßkirche in Wittenberg would kill two birds with one stone) bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I fully agree with John Carter's comments above in that we have a reasonable established consensus and are unlikely to improve substantially on it. I would add that the image serves as a logo for the portal so it should be stable over time. Given the centrality of Jesus for Christianity, I can see advantages in having related images as the logos for the two portals. Let's stop turning our individual idea of the best into the enemy of the good and adequate and get on with the voluminous task of editing which is needed to turn mediocre articles into good ones, and good ones into better ones.Jpacobb (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; sometimes "the best" is the enemy of "good enough". bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen. And may this discussion end here and now. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see how that is going to happen when the nature of the current image is such that many people who come across it will independently consider it somewhat objectionable in the context of the template (see my comment of 7:25, 22 March 2012 above). Furthermore, your rather arbitrary diktat that the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to keep the image in place is much less than the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to dislodge it might not survive contact with a noticeboard, or mediation process, etc. if someone chose to take the matter there... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "arbitrary diktat"? Sorry, I have misplaced my dictator hat today, so I was not issuing a diktat. Did you find it? Buddy, I asked for comments on the Wikiproject, to see what people think. If you think that is a diktat, then you must look up the definition of diktat. But do not consider that an order.... History2007 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The above comment seems to almost contain some form of threat. However, I would agree that, if the above editor is so concerned about the image that he thinks an RfC or other steps called for, that editor is free to do so. However, I do very much have to question how closely the above comments adhere to talk page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies that concern making a change are not about the support to "change" vs. the support to "keep." The policies understand consensus to be something you do have (at a given time), or you don't have. We could very well have a situation where no particular idea has consensus right now. If there was a consensus in the past it is still going to be okay now. That system can be frustrating sometimes, but (1) it keeps out some changes that are not seen as valuable by any majority and (2) reduces some needless comments by allowing (perhaps many) people who support the current image to do nothing most of the time. Instead of forcing them post again and again "yes, we still like the current image" every month that this comes up, we can just wait until there is some particular image that may really gain consensus... and only then do they have to comment if they still feel the same way. tahc ^chat 02:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy) does tilt the balance towards not rocking the boat. However, as John and others have commented this discussion has negligible encyclopedic value and does not add to content. And as Jpacobb commented it hinders improvements elsewhere.... I am glad I stopped worrying about these things. The encyclopedic depth is just mind boggling here... History2007 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Current pic looks fine to me.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Current pic looks foul (more precisely: obnoxious) to me. Long live the non-preservationism! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaagh enough of this Rursus. Are you trying to be funny or something? You go on a page about Christianity and use terms that are clearly offensive to some other users. Why are you doing this? Read WP:Forum, then go use a social network if you want to yap, else if you have policy on your side, quote it. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a policy. Understand? Either quote policy, or stop yapping sans policy. This is not a chit-chat forum. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this point was briefly mentioned in the archives but the point got smothered in the great profusion of heated discussion about the picture of Jesus. So I want to bring this point up again. A picture of Jesus Christ is offensive to many Reformed Christians. In other words, the picture used in the Christianity portal is very offensive to me and many other Reformed Christians (and perhaps some other non-Reformed Christians also). We think it is wrong to use images of Christ because of the 2nd commandent. We think it is wrong to create and use images of God and of Christ (who is God the Son) because that is using a man-mind image of God, who is divine. So whenever I see the portal, I am offended and feel uncomfortable as I read articles about Christianity which have the Christianity portal at top. It's not like I think it's a sin to look at a picture of Christ or anything but I just feel uncomfortable when I am forced to look at an image of Christ as it appears on Wikipedia articles because then the picture comes up in my head when I think about Christ, distorting my idea about who Christ really is, making it hard for me to think of Christ as the One the Bible testifies He is, not what a human artist thinks he is like. In my opinion, it would be much better if no picture at all or something like a plain cross or Christian fish symbol was used instead of a picture of Christ. Johosephatty (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your concern is uncited, and is quite unlike anything in the Reformed faith article.

Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. tahc ^chat 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever --it has nothing to do with "censorship"[sic], but rather with what type of image best works as a template thumbnail (since template thumbnails are subject to many additional considerations which would usually not apply to ordinary article images). AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of non-English

So I just looked at about two dozen other languages on wikipedia, most of them use a simple cross, some have various images (fish etc), and only a small handful have the European Jesus picture on them. Obviously Jesus was not a European so it's kind of silly from a historical standpoint, but you can of course argue that it's just art. However the wiki problem comes with the context - if an alien being came to Earth to look at Wikipedia they might as well assume Jesus and Mary were from Norway or Denmark, not the Levant, judging by the overwhelming appearance of European depictions of these historical figures on the wiki pages. Now I may be mistaken but it seems like at some point you run up against Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy here. Even if you want to say it doesn't really matter what ethnic group Jesus is depicted as, well, then you at least need to have a variation represented - which Wiki is kind of failing at right now. It is interesting that the various non-english Wiki's have chosen different pictures for this box so maybe we could take a cue from just wandering around and looking at them. Decora (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Christians hold Jesus to be Christ"

I'm sorry, but what on earth does that even mean? I found it distracting. I think it should be removed. --Quasipalm (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after more digging around, I get it. But I think it would be much more clear if it was "Christians hold Jesus to be the messiah" or something. --Quasipalm (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, messiah probably makes more sense to readers who don't know Greek (I seem to remember "Christ" and "Messiah" both mean something along the lines of "the anointed".) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

"Eastern Catholic" is not a denomination

While Eastern-Rite Catholics are, in some sense, Eastern Christians, they are *not* a denomination; they are Roman Catholics by denomination and their beliefs and theology and everything else that defines a separate denomination are those of the Roman Catholic denomination. Therefore, I dispute the reversion of my edit of 14:58, 13 October 2012, wherein I deleted "Eastern Catholic" as a denomination. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Catholics are not of the Latin Church, which most people would understand as "Roman Catholic" and very often confuse with the whole Catholic Church. Eastern Catholicism comprises 22 sui iuris true Churches and 5 distinct liturgical rites, with distinct theological language corresponding to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. They are of equal dignity in the Catholic Church and deserve to be mentioned alongside all other Eastern Christianity, rather than buried and ghettoized in the "Western" section under "Roman Catholicism". Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Your points are well taken and correct, and long known to me.

However, the Wikipedia article, Roman_Catholic_(term) , states,

The usage that makes the term "Roman Catholic" mean members of the Latin Rite or Western Church to the exclusion of those who belong to the Eastern Catholic Churches does not appear in any recent document of the Holy See, and popes have used the term "Roman Catholic Church" on various occasions throughout the 20th century to mean instead the whole Church without exclusion of any part.

And, the Wikipedia article, Catholic Church (Redirected from Roman Catholic Church) , contains an infobox titled "Major sui iuris Churches" to accompany the section "Autonomous particular churches"

All this, I contend, suggests that "Eastern Catholic" is a subset of "Roman Catholoic" and, given that they share the same beliefs, are the same denomination. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no reply in three days to my above comment, I'm reverting to my edit and, should that cause dysphoria, I'll seek outside conflict resolution. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not seeing this before. While I see User:Lipsio's POV, I have to agree with User:Elizium23 on including Eastern Catholic somewhere, per longterm consensus that...

“

to add a new Christianity article to this Template:Christianity, or the Template:Christianityfooter-- 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... If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first.

”

There is just no perfect word to cover all the groups currently linked under "denominations", but it is more important to include links to all the top-importance Christianity articles. tahc ^chat 21:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

But there are dozens of ore topics in that list of Top-importance Christianity articles which are not in this template. I fail to understand why this particular one has to snuck in under the classification "Denominations" where, methinks, I've well demonstrated that it does not belong.

Having stated in my previous posting that if reverting to my edit should cause dysphoria, I'd seek outside conflict resolution, thus will I do. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

While you share no examples of the claim, if you do find any core topics from the list which are not in this template let us know. Any you don't see are likely to be behind hind/show tags. tahc ^chat 06:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The list of core topics that you link to is helpful, but it is very out-of-sync with Category:Top-importance Christianity articles which contains 562 articles. Surely we can't add them all to the template, but it may warrant a discussion about the difference between these lists. Elizium23 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Catholic" is not even in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list ! As for examples of articles in that list but not in the template, I simply don't have time to prove or disprove my claim. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Christianity articles is not a list, nor based on consensus, and not under discussion.

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. You seem to be aware of it, but you have not even proposed the change at that talk page that you want. -tahc ^chat 06:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think broadly speaking the term denomination has two connotations. One is that of an official organization with definite boundaries and markers (See Southern Baptist Convention, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and others). The second connotation is that of a less definite informal grouping that is delimited by doctrinal or structural differences (See Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, etc). Eastern Catholics would fall under this second distinction.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Methinks that since Eastern Catholics have the exact same doctines as Roman Catholics and that their hierarchical structure is dictated by Rome (Some cardinals are Eastern catholics, so Eastern Catholics include the electors of the Pope of Rome), that they fail to fall into your second distinction Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Catholicism is not Western and so cannot be lumped in under the "Western" division of this template. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It *is* Western theologically, accepting the Faith as defined by Rome. Liturgically, mostly they are Eastern, but some are hybrids. The articles I cited above show that elsewhere in Wikipedia and according to the RC Church, they are Roman Catholics. The RC Church includes both Western and Eastern liturgical traditions; perhaps it needs to be in its own catagory, transcending the East/West distinction. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 Churches. The Church would not call herself a denomination, in fact, this is a concession to WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But, "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church ..." Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ecclesiology is an interesting topic. Would you like to study it or discuss the present topic? Elizium23 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are approaching this wrong. If you want to change any of the template for the above reasons, re-lable the "denomination" section. For example, "Traditions and Denominations", or just "Groups", etc, etc.

The Roman Catholic Church (and some others) do not consider themselves to be a denominations... but they are what is ment by the term. All the others in the western list... Anglican, Baptist, Evangelicalism are not denominations, but either denominational families, movements, or both. So Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod is a denomination, but "Lutheranism" is a denominational family. tahc ^chat 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Eastern Catholic Churches are still a distinct tradition from the Latin Church, so if your goal is to eliminate mention of them by rearranging the categories, I still object. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

!? I never wrote anything that suggested that I wanted mention of them eliminated! My objection is simply that they are not a denomination; by denomination, they are Roman Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsio (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

[1] and [2] suggest that. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest what? That they are not a denomination? Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to be entirely sure exactly what the point of contention here is. However, it has been more or less decided that the articles to be included in this template should be only those included in the Core topics list. "Core" is not an official designation per the banner or anything like that, but it is considered to be perhaps, if anythin, higher than "Top" importance. Also, as the guy who has been basically doing these importance assessments, most of the "Top" importance were subjects which have separate articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. It actually was, and still is, my intention to find a few good reference works on Christianity specifically to use in determining the broader field of "Top" improtance to Christianity in particular. However, as I indicated, I am not entirely sure exactly what the bone of contention here is, but I think the best option might be to maybe, perhaps next month?, start a renewed discussion about which 100 or so articles should be included in both the Core topics list and this template, and then see what the outcome of that discussion is. Would that be an acceptable option? John Carter (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With the debate in large part looking at what a denomination is and/or what Eastern Catholicism is, the difficulty seems to have been resolved with my last talk-page comment, and this edit. tahc ^chat 07:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I thank you for finding an amicable solution and for editing it in. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the title of the heading should reflect whats in the wikilink. The wikilink directs to "Christian denominations", hence "denominations" is a more apropriate description. I would also prefer the term "branches" over "groups". Another reason i oppose the usage of groups is that the term group usually has non-religious connotations; the term denomination less so. Pass a Method talk 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Then kill the wikilink; we're dealing with something different here as a result of a compromise that was argued about at length. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Heading

Which of the following descriptions do you find the most appropriate for this heading:

1. Denominations
2. Groups
3. Branches
4. Sects Pass a Method talk 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I like "Denominations" but I think "Denominations and movements" is my next favorite. tahc ^chat 02:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Denominations, because thats the wikilink we link to. Pass a Method talk 11:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sects is definitely out. Personally, I have to believe that none of the above are acceptable, and believe that there may well be a problem in that it perhaps other alternatives are not to be considered. Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions breaks religious groups into "families" of religions, and while I personally don't think that word would really be best here, I do think that some other term might be best. "Traditions", "Church families," or something similar would be my favored choice, as it would allow groups to be put together in accord with one or more of the early groups whose beliefs and practices they might largely continue, and/or indicate the specific group from which they broke off. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, however, I note that wikipedia policies and guidelines do not require that terms used in templates like this also be used in the articles themselves, particularly if the term is one which is rarely if ever used to describe a group individually. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)