|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The template was initiated by a subject non-specialist as a selection of the articles to be found under Category:Theology and its sub-categories. Feel free to add, amend or remove entries as seems appropriate. -Arb. (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The criteria used thus far is simply:
- All articles (that appear to be) of direct relevance to Theology
I wonder if anyone else thinks this template is larger and covers more topics/subtopics than would be most useful. Per WP:NAVBOX, "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value." Perhaps this navox could be split "into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic." Novaseminary (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've been wondering that myself. There are some other large templates out there that attempt to encapsulate a subject as this one does but that does not mean it is the best approach.
- An alternative is an "Outline of..." article coupled with a series of smaller, more specific navboxes as you suggest. As it happens, this template might provide the basis of an outline (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Theology/Outline of theology) and there already exist sidebars and navboxes for some of the subjects. I've included the likely looking ones in that (very) draft outline for convenience.
- But I digress. The question at hand is what (if anything) to do with this navbox. Do you have any more specific suggestions of what the split should be? My guess is that the left hand column gives the clue but a subject specialist might have a different view. -Arb. (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is a tough one because I really do think this template has great potential to be really useful. I do quite like the outline you've started, too. Regardless of how the template evolves, the outline could be a great addition. Anyway, would nesting the current template work? That way there would be the eight or so main categories when the template is unhidden, and each of those could then be expanded/unhiden. (I'm not sure I've ever seen a template like that, though, so I don't know whether it is possible in wiki.)
- Despite my username, I'm certainly no subject matter expert, but the left hand column subjects seem pretty straightforward and useful to me as the basis for splitting or nesting (or whatever) the template. I would consider losing or collapsing into one (maybe "Theological resources") the (current) resources, seminaries, and practitioners catergories. These seem qualitatively different from the other categories. If they did get split, I could see them added to articles that woldn't necessarily be appropriate houses for the general theology template. For example, individual seminary, library, think tank, or theologen articles could benefit from such a template. Thanks for all of your work on this! Novaseminary (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like to work on the Outline, please feel free. I doubt I'll have the time or inclination to take it any further (but might chip in if it was progressing). At a minimum it needs a few judicious words to introduce each of the primary sub-headings; it could then be moved to the main namespace, added to this template and linked from whatever articles seem most appropriate.
- "Theological resources" sounds like a good option but again its not one I'm likely to get around to in the near future so feel free... And thinking about it, there is probably scope for a "Seminaries and theological colleges" navbox, perhaps organised by denomination within religion. But that's another project entirely. -Arb. (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Too large - discussion resumed in 2016
- I agree the template is too large, and should be split up.
- Does anyone have other comments on which link need to be in the "main" Template before I begin? tahc chat 17:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
blue on brown
Wikilink blue against the template's brown background is rather ugly. Can we either 1) change the background color, or 2) change the color of the links that are placed against the background? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)