Template talk:Christianity footer

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.


{{editsemiprotected}} Propose adding a new list to the list of religions, to accomodate Quakerism, which is a Non-credal Christian religion (and listed as such on that page), that does not fall into the other categories listed. This would ideally follow the "Nontrinitarian" entry, but I leave it to the editor to decide what is appropriate.

So my proposal would be to add one line to the the existing template (after Nontrinitarian):

Nontrinitarian: Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo
Non-credal: Quakerism

Thus I am asking to please change

Nontrinitarian: Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo


Nontrinitarian: Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo
Non-credal: Quakerism

Thanks for considering this. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize that I fell into the "Autoconfirmed" category. My edit has gone through to the template. "Nevermind!" Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose to solve this problem? Christadelphians are a much smaller sect than Quakers, but your problem is that to accommodate Quakers, who never regarded themselves as Protestant, and are not Catholic or Orthodox, nor are many of them Nontrinitarian, though some are (again, they are non-credal), I do not see how to solve this without adding an additional category.
Do you have a viable suggestion that does not mean adding a new category? Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Just don't add Quakers.
Quakerism is quite small and we do not list nor need to list every denomination type.
It will also not work to include all groups bigger than, say Christadelphians. I don't think we need Christadelphians... feel free to remove them. Also, as I said before, Christadelphians do not make the template any bigger.
Oh course, I don't recall the Friends reputating the name Protestantism, and they began within Protestantism, so I expect that is where most people would look for them, if anywhere. Carlaude:Talk 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quakers have been influential far beyond their numbers. For 100 years (until the French and Indian war) they were the majority religion in Pennsylvania, founded by Quakers. The Pennsylvania Charter was influential in the writing of the United States Constitution (particularly as regards freedom of religion). Quakers were very important in the anti-slavery movement both in America and in England and its colonies, and were similarly important in the women's suffrage movement. They are the reason why you can "affirm" instead of swear when you are called as a witness in court. Their system of fixed prices (rather than bargaining) has been enormously influential in commerce...you don't bargain when you go to the store to buy a bottle of milk. Because of Quakers and other pacifist religious groups, conscientious objectors were recognized after the First World War and alternative ways for such persons to serve were devised that are still in the law (even though Selective Service is currently suspended). Just going by the numbers (which are several hundred thousand worldwide) you might call them small, but that number is comparable to some other groups on your list. So in my opinion, it is not reasonable to leave them out simply because of their size.

I take your point that perhaps most would think of them as Protestants, although Quakers themselves have always distinguished themselves from Protestants, insisting that they were neither Catholic nor Protestant. (Orthodox never came into it as there were no Orthodox in England when Quakerism developed). So, I suppose that one could put them there. But they belong somewhere. Bill Jefferys (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good/fine. Carlaude:Talk 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

History and Denominations[edit]

I think that I have discovered (by looking at the history) the real problem here.

On March 30, 2009, a slew of revisions took place that changed a very simple "History and Denominations" part of the template, into a potentially explosive one, by splitting it into "History and Traditions" and "Denominations". Looking at things, and thinking about how Wikipedia is supposed to work, I think this was a huge mistake. This is because, as you point out, "Denominations" has the potential of collecting a huge number of entries. Your complaint was (after thought on your part) that Christadelphians and Quakers were "too small" to be listed. Maybe that's right under the current template, but maybe it's wrong. Where do you draw the line? At number of currently practicing adherants? At historical significance (after all, many of the historical examples in the template are long gone but important historically), or on some other grounds?

My opinion now, looking at the history, is that the "Denominations" section should be deleted in its entirety. It's too narrow. As you correctly point out, it is a magnet for every small sect that wants to be included.

Better to delete it, re-establish the "History and Denominations" section much as it was before March 30, perhaps (and I would urge this) add after "Unitarian" the section "Non-creedal" (which already has an article), and let those who wish to follow up on any of these categories click on it.

Of course, there have been some changes (though not too many) since "Secisek" made that marathon of changes on March 30. You have been following this, I have not. You would know better than I which of these subsequent edits should remain and which should not.

What do you think of this way of resolving the problem?

Thanks, Bill Bill Jefferys (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the splitting the "History and Denominations" part of the template into "History and Traditions" and "Denominations" is an improvemt and do not want to revert it-- for a number of reasons. As I recall, I was also the one to make this change.
This tempate began as-- and still is-- in my view, mostly a "footer" version of the "main" Christianity template, Template:Christianity, shown at the right. (But it needn't be an exacte clone either, IMO.) You will note that Template:Christianity also has "History and Traditions" split from "Denominations" (not my edit either).
This template-- both really-- are about Christianity in general and not about Christianity history, and as such, it should not have a long list of links under "Christianity history" nor have a long list of links under anything else either. It would if we just combined them again. Even more, to combine them again would hinder finding things in the template, since such list of "History and Denominations" would, at best, be merely chrological. If
Not well, this is also why I created a footer template that is about Christian history, Template:Christian History. Have a look. Carlaude:Talk 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The history says that the splitting into "History and Traditions" and "Denominations" was not yours. It was made according to the history by "Secisek (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 30 March 2009". The previous revision, by the same editor, has no such split. Both of these revisions were by Secisek. Prior to that edit, there was no separate "Denominations" entry.

The problem I have, now that you have alerted me to it, that since there are thousands of Christian sects, there is no limit to the number of "denominations" that might be listed under this entry. How do you decide which to include and which to exclude? By influence in modern society? By influence in ancient society and on the development of the Church? By sheer numbers (but when? Today? 100 years ago? During the Great Awakening and Great Disappointment? You tell me!)

My preference would be to put just broad categories into this particular template, and to use the links in the template to allow people to find additional information.

I will look at your other template, but I don't think this solves the problem of how you decide, arbitrarily, to include or exclude particular denominations. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that he made that change. It just sounded like a change I might have made. Maybe I thought about making that change and thought that I had. It's doesn't matter to me who made it.
As I know recall now-- the main point of Secisek's edits in this template (or edits made by someone at some point) was to have the links in this template match the list of Christianity "Top-importance" articles-- which was itself drwan up by a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group. The list did not turn out just as I would have made it (nor was I part of said discussion) but this is a suitable way to limit the number of denominations/groups in the template . Carlaude:Talk 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes-- see here: Template_talk:Christianity#Scope Carlaude:Talk 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is the reason for the list in this template, then it would seem to me that removing Christadelphians was a mistake, since it no longer agrees with the results of that discussion. Perhaps you should restore it. At the same time I can see that there is logic to your position as regards putting Quakers into this particular template. I would say that your argument that Quakers should be excluded because of their size is contradicted by the discussion you pointed to. But I won't pursue the point. Bill Jefferys (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes-- I'll do that. Carlaude:Talk 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles[edit]

As reference just above, 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)

Thanks. This isn't a high priority item for me, but I'll think about starting a discussion. I had not been aware of this working group, so I just made the edit. Since there is a structure here, I'll respect it. Bill Jefferys (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


I changed autocollapsed to autocollapse. This template was showing up as uncollased (open) in all placed it showed up! Please see Template:Navbox if you are unfamiliar. Nasa-verve (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Branches" instead of "Denominations"?[edit]

I've noticed that 6 months ago the issue about whether the "Denominations" section would explode into a huge list. One solution could be to use the terminology in the "major branches of Christianity file [1]. Would changing the template to say "Branches" or "Streams" or something like that be an improvement over "Denominations"? Fralupo (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

hi. i've had no success discussing in the islam section so maybe someone here could help me out

the "quranist" denomination is not mentioned on the main 'islam page. could someone make this edit for me please?

1st, its missing in the denominations article (here you could simply write quranists follow only the quran without hadith) 2nd, its missing in the purple 'islam topics' template box (here you could also add the Salafi denomination)

thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Catholics[edit]

Old Catholics are not Catholics they are a protestant denomination (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Catholics are indeed a protestant denomination. The same goes for Independent Catholics. There has to be some sort of distinction between true Catholics, in union with the Holy See. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics ARE in union with the Holy See. They are one, not separate, and therefore should not be listed as two separate movements. (talk) 18:48, 10 August, 2010 (UTC)

undue weight[edit]

{{editprotected}} hi, in the Abrahamic denominations could you please delete the 'rastafari', 'gnosticism', and 'samaritanism' due to their small numbers and undue weight please? The other 4 abrahamic religions bha'i, judaism, islam and christianity each have over 5 million adherents whereas the other religions each have less than 1 million. Thank you for your consideration.Jigglyfidders (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Are you sure you came to the right place? Because, I can't find anywhere what you are talking about. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
i meant in the religion template, could you remove the 'rastafari', 'gnosticism', and 'samaritanism' due to their small numbers and therefore undue weight please?

or maybe we should reach a consensus?Jigglyfidders (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

change eastern to orthodox[edit]

the 3 main branches of christianity are protestant, catholic and orthodox. as such, could u please change the eastern term to orthodox please? thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
or i'll do it myself and you can undo if you see disagree okay?Jigglyfidders (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Assyrian Church of the East is not Orthodox-- but is Eastern. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Eastern Catholic Churches are certainly Eastern, but aren't listed there. How about following the structure of List of Christian denominations? Tb (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
We can't use the system of List of all Christian denominations. The template needs a simpler and less compressive system.
There is no need or implication for "Eastern" to cover all Eastern denominations-- and I think other people will object to moving Eastern Catholic from Catholic to Eastern. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent edit that removed JWs and LDSs from the template.

I do not believe that this should be done without discussion and agreement from the editors working on this template. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

JWs and LDSs: Do not remove without discussion and agreement[edit]

I have reverted the recent edit that removed JWs and LDSs from the template.

This should not be done unless it is discussed and there is general agreement that this is appropriate action. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As reference just above, to change the articles linked to this template, it ought to changed on 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. As of 28 Aug 2011, there are 83 articles on the list, and the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles. --şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011[edit]

Will include 'Iglesia Ni Cristo' (Church of Christ) among non-trinitarian groups.

Chivasunrated (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 May 2013[edit]

make Western a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Christianity (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done thank you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again: JWs and LDS[edit]

Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saint movement are being removed from the template. These currently appear on the core topic list, so shouldn't they appear unless there is a clear consensus that they should not? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep in a separate section - I appreciate that they are historically Western in origin, but being non-trinitarian (and according to reliable sources, that is the key difference) they are actually outside the East-West divide. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)