Template talk:Christian denominations in the United States

Comments

I think it's odd that the main Template:Christianity mentions nontrinitarian Christians under denominations, but this one does not. I also find it very strange that there are external links in a template. I would propose adding a section on nontrinitarian Christians, and removing all the external links for starters.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of Christianity considers nontrinitarian Christians a bit of an oxymornon-- but I guess I will not fight you over to a nontrinitarian section.

I think the links to the official pages are very valuable as a source of further information and a key aspect of the format. I have made the links to take up as little "real estate" as possible. If you lack the external links nontrinitarian section they can be put on later.

The template name was for space considerations. This template only appears on Christianity pages so I considered "Christian" unneeded. --Carlaude 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we are in disagreement about the external links, I've asked for more options from the folks at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. I'm glad that you wouldn't oppose a non-trinitarian section. I'll see if I can't come up with something sometime soon.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "non-trinitarian" is too general. Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are the 4th largest denomination in the US and deserve their own heading. Of course, they are a world wide church now anyway, but headquarters are in the US. That is why this template is so bad. You can't cleanly classify religions by geography.Bytebear (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic, thought. the Community of Christ is listed under "Other" and they are a fraction of the size of the LDS Church but both groups are part of the Latter Day Saint Movement. Bytebear (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bodies

There are several bodies which are not denominations, but groups of denominations in the "Interchurch" category. Since the "Christian Bodies" part of the title links to Christian denomination, and the List of Christian denominations does not include these bodies, they don't seem to belong. Furthermore, several of these bodies are subsets of categories other than "interchurch," for example, NAPARC belongs in Presbyterian and Reformed and SCOBA belongs in Orthodox. JFHutson (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can move the page to Template:Christian bodies of the United States if it make your feel better. The name of the of the template is not really important IMHO because templates are not ment to be stand alone page. I just liked the shorter name because it is mainly about denominations.

I think all interchurch bodies should be kept together. Most people will not know what is a denomination and what is an interchurch body unless they are sorted this way. tahc ^chat 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the inter-church groups don't belong in this list. They are groups of denominations, but the list looks like it's designed to be made up of actual denominations. The move you describe would be more accurate I suppose, but it remains a list of denominations and then some umbrella organizations. JFHutson (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the interchurch bodies should go at the end, and we can drop "United States". I'm going to move them now - feel free to revert if it's a bad idea. St Anselm (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, this template is also part of the larger Template:Denominations of Christianity. With the change just made, this template it is not showing quite right when part of the larger template. You can see how it looks different than the other do when expanded. You seem to have introduced a smallish syntax error. tahc ^chat 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the larger template. This template was consistent with the larger one before the section was moved. If we want to move these interchurch sections or do away with them, it should be done for the whole larger template. I've decided I don't really care about that, but I've reverted to the version before the section move so that the larger template looks right and consistent. JFHutson (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]