Template talk:Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Christianity | (Rated Template-Class) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] New Template Design
Recently I have been working on standardising all of the Religious templates. This template is the one for Christianity. If there are no objections then I will impliment the template. The Quill (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- In Firefox this formats badly I think the line spacing may be wrong? Also there are a lot of relgious templates so hiding some content by default personally I prefer. --BozMo talk 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- There is no need to "standardize" religious templates on Wikipedia. Every religion is different to begin with. The Template:Christianity has the current image of a cross only after the consensus of many debates. We do not need a circle around it.
-
- As a practical matter the collaping of the denominations is now removed-- and I think that changes the template tremendous-- since, for example, denominations are not the most important part of Christianity, but would take much of the space-- and make the template to big.--Carlaude (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.143.122 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Default collapsed
Could I suggest and request that the default state of this template be "collapsed"? At present the large open box takes up a lot of "real estate" on the screen of the various articles that use it. The screen should primarily fulfil the main purpose of the article, which is that subject itself. By contrast the purpose of this box/template, surely, is to allow the reader, if they so choose, to open up and explore at a tangent away from the article. Any objections to "default collapsed"? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I object. Please consider changing the particular pages that are overwhelmed by it instead-- to make it "collapsed" on those pages, or just removing it in favor of "{{Christianityfooter}}" instead. --Carlaude (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Scope
The 80 articles in WikiProject Christianity's Top-importance category have been reconciled with {{Christianity}} per discussion elsewhere. They will now form the scope of WikiProject Christianity's Core topics work group. -- Secisek (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you and other "WikiProject Christianity's Core topics" group people want (or wanted) to discuss to contents of this page you should have discussed it here-- or at least posted a notice here to that effect. --Carlaude (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I never said you did add it. --Carlaude (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- While John Carter proposed the navboxs be reconciled with the top importance articles with "no complaint" on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum, that does not make it a "rule"-- or a rule that overrides the fact that changes that are objected to need consensus on that page that is changing. --Carlaude (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposal that passes with no complaint is a licence for bold action. This is article space, there are no rules. What changes have you objected to? They were very minor. I am trying to assume good faith on your part here. It seems the only thing short of formating, which I conceded, that you have objected to is Gospel which was not changed. You are attempting to make a change that is being objected to. -- Secisek (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gospel
For at least the last 250 edits, since at least 24 February 2007, Gospel has been listed under Foundations. That is 2+ years of consensus. It should stay as it has been until the merge proposal plays out. John Carter proposed the navboxs be reconciled with the top importance articles with no complaint on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum where you are a contributor. I am sorry if you feel this blind sided you, but the tweaks here are really quite minor - compare with the last version, one edit by you I'll add. Almost nothing was removed and a few things were added where space already permited. What do you think should be here that isn't? -- Secisek (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus has nothing to do with how long since its last edit-- but if it did I would just see that as the fact that it is so easy to missunderstand of what the article is, based on where it is. That is in fact why it should not be there. I object here-- but note well-- this does not stop it from being "reconciled with the top importance articles" since it would still be listed. I am not asking you to get rid of it, but there is no reason to call it Foundations. It can be moved back later if they are merged but there is no telling how long that will take. --Carlaude (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We have establsished it has been there a long time. You have made numerous edits to the template in that time and have not seen fit to move it until now. The Gospel is THE very foundation of the Church for many Christians. It can rest there until there is a determination on the merge. After all this time, what is your rush now? -- Secisek (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Carlaude, you are edit warring. You know the merge is being discussed elsewhere. You and I have both presented our case elsewhere. Let it stand as it has until consensus is reached.
-
- That is not how Wikipedia works. I do not see any merge discussion really going on, but even if I did, that is no reason to stonewall by correction.
-
- While the Gospel is the foundation of the Christianity, "Gospels," or "the Gospels" is not. Since Gospel is not about the Gospel, that is why it should not be made to look like it is about the Gospel. Leaving where it is makes it look like the article on the one when it is really about the other.
- I see the "discussion" seems to have been "going on" at least since 2006. Why are stonewalling when this has been proposed years ago-- and yet nothing has happened? --Carlaude (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would think you would know how Wikipedia works, but if you need a reminder: the process is 1. Change 2. Revert 3. Discuss. You made a change, I reverted, the discussion is on. I proposed the merge a few hours before you posted that you, "do not see any merge discussion really going on". I could have boldly meged the two myself since you said you would not oppose, but I wanted to wait and see if anybody else had an opinion, since neither you nor I "own" the article.
We are working on gathering consensus right now. As an aside, to suggest that the Gospels - the actual books of the canon which contain the good news - are not a foundation of Christianity speaks volumes. They contain the totality of everything Christians know that Jesus ever said or did. They are, according to some, the cornerstone of Christianity and such a fact is easily cited. See the Oxford Companion to the Bible, for one. -- Secisek (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Anglicanism
Why is Anglicanishm not listed as a Denomination of Christianity, Non trinitarianism is not usally considered a branch of Christianity while Anglicanism is listed as a distinct branch in all articles regarding Christianity, I will try to change this.--Sfcongeredwards (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Anglican is listed as a Denomination in the template, just not a branch. This is because, for one thing, it does not have major subdenominations. As for Nontrinitarianism-- it is list often on Christianity pages. If you and I disagree-- then you cannot always rely on Wikipedia a indicator of how things really are. --Carlaude talk 23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that Anglicanism was listed as Protestant on the chart but it actually is listed as Catholic, I just wanted to keep consistency with the article and it was already achieved--Sfcongeredwards (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
