Template talk:Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-class on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

This page has an Archive : Archive1, Archive2, Archive3

Contents 1 Lead Image 2 New Cross Image 3 Practice template-- please help 4 Length 5 Phase out 6 Collapsible version 7 Anglican Church 8 Simple English Wikipedia 9 New white cross 10 Adding Swedenborgian/New Church to Non-trinitarian 11 God the Son 12 Question: Cath - Prot - Orth?

[edit] Lead Image

I like it, well done! -- SECisek (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the new picture as an all inclusive image of Christendom. The image is from a (presumably) Catholic Cathedral. Does the image accurately represent Protestants? What about Iconoclasts (or those Christians that feel depictions of Jesus break the 2nd commandment)? I think the basic cross is a better representation for the top tier template because it is extremely iconic, yet simple and universal. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Andrew c. I'm not a fan of the cross as a symbol itself (i.e. I possibly wouldn't fill my house with them), but as something that is recognizable as the basic symbol for Christianity it's unbeatable. I think the cross should be put back on the info box. --Woofboy (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, though technically in a Catholic church, seems to be more based on Greek orthodox iconography (it's from a part of Italy that was very heavily influenced by Byzantine culture for centuries). AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it added a good deal of color to the box, but I am not going to argue with anyone over it. That said, I do disagree with a claim of "no consensus" in the edit summary prior to any editors posting an opinon on the subject. -- SECisek (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have made a mistake. You may want to examine the timestamps again ;) With my initial concern, and woofboy's additional comment, at the very least, we could not say that there was a consensus. So I didn't think it was inappropriate to revert to the long standing version while the discussion continued here on talk. I agree that the image "looks" better, but unfortunately, there are other things to consider besides aesthetics. Maybe there is another option to consider besides the cross and the Cafalu image. Any ideas?-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel any strong emotions about it either way. The cross is fine with me. -- SECisek (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometime in the dark past of Wikipedia, I remember one of those interminable discussions where one party claimed that the 'cross' is not a universal Christian symbol. I believe the Mormons don't recognize it although they are sort of 'out in left field'. I must admit I liked the 'Cefalu Christus Pantokrator' image 'cause it looks neat and I'm quite Protestant. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the members of WikiProject Christianity to give their two cents here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The cross isn't a universal Christian symbol. However, the two groups which to my knowledge don't recognized it are the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both of whom use other templates. That would seem, at least to me, to indicate that perhaps their specific concerns regarding a template they don't use are somewhat less significant. Having said that, I could see changing to an image of Jesus per se, although the size of the image might conceivably be a question. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a fish symbol? It was a Christian symbol before the cross became used a symbol. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A fish is less universal than the cross. I would be happy with an image of Christ, but I think it should be a glorified image, rather than just a picture of Jesus. I actually liked the image that started this discussion. Oh, and Mormons do recognize the cross, but the LDS church chooses not to use it in their church adornment. Personal crosses, images of Jesus on the Cross, etc., are not discouraged by any means. Bytebear (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pondering this a bit, I believe the only universal touchstone amongst all Christian sects is the Gospels. Whether it is the Syrian church which harmonized the Gospels, or the Unitarians which are at the very edge of Christianity, all use the Gospels. I can't think of one sect that rejects them and at the same time self-identify as Christians. So here is a possible image:

The beginning to Matthew from the Lindisfarne gospel

It looks neat. It won't offend the iconoclasts. I doubt it would offend most Protestants. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems pretty neat. --Woofboy (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To the informed, it works, to the uninformed, it looks like we worship snakes. 70.181.109.146 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL.Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this has been discussed before, and digging through the archives I came across: I think that the use of either Ichthys or Chi-Rho monogram will be more appropriate and neutral symbol to use INSTEAD OF any type of cross, because the Latin cross IS NOT the universally representing symbol of the christian world (especially eastern christians, who believe that it is a mutilated form, a stripped-down version of the Resuscitating cross, also misrepresented as 'the tri-bar orthodox cross'), to not count those denominations and sects, which do not justify the use of cross/crucifix symbol at all. For short - let's remove the latin cross and replace it with some more neutral symbol that could be considered as universally representing christianity. --Zigisz 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) I know someone has mentioned the fish, and someone objected, but what about the Chi-Rho? It is similar to the manuscript image suggested in that it was a nomina sacra used in old manuscripts of the gospels.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And to throw one more idea out there, I have seen Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg used on the Christianity portal and other places. It may not be as overtly related to one Christian group as the Cefalu image.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No symbol is going to be universal. A painting or other rendition of Christ is best. Bytebear (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents As stated numerous times, no one symbol will definitively represent all Christians or Christianity. I would be in favor of the fish as virtually no one is opposed to it, likewise a chi-rho. Virtually any type of cross or icon will be construed as the chauvinism of the group that uses it or from which it originated, and a depiction of the Messiah will be offensive to members of Reformed traditions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Any abstract icon including the fish and the chi-rho is still a symbol, and still not universal. Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Right I acknowledge that. Since all symbols are: 1.) symbols and 2.) not universal, you might as well go with one that is most universal and least controversial or offensive. Do you know of any Christians that would object to an icythus or labarum? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say most of the Restorationists would. Bytebear (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

by the way jesus had nails through his ankles and not his feet, also jesus never did the sign with his hand as shown on the first picture when you type in jesus change it!!!

See the "New Cross Image" section of this page for discussion on the current gold cross image

I chose the image because I'm tired of seeing an svg symbol. I want something made by an arist. It is a painting. Of Jesus. Who all Christians believe in. Jehovah Witnesses don't use the cross and neither do Mormons. It doesn't matter what chapel it comes from or what denomination. It's one about Jesus. So I hope all of you understand now.--Angel David (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There was this foolishness that was never resolved. It is the exact same debate. The link again is: Talk:Christianity/Archive 45#lead image. -- SECisek (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg is a very authentic historical symbolic image (whatever one may think of of its suitability to this template), while the previous discussion was about replacing the cross with what some considered to be a prime example of sentimentalistic late-Victorian cheesiness... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I personaly liked Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, I'll have you know. -- SECisek (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I really like Angel David (talk · contribs)'s choice of

.

I'm also fond of

even if it does look like 'snakes on a page'. (OK, really bad pun.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the Pantocrator photo too. But... after endless debate, the consensus seems to keep going back to a simple cross. Looking at the attractive templates of the other world religions, my 2 denarii would be to keep the cross, but add (1) color and (2) more collapsible sections. Template:Buddhism is IMO a very professional-looking navbox, and it uses a simple graphic rather than a photo. Template:Hinduism small, Template:Islam, Template:Judaism, andTemplate:Jainism are all nice-- and all use simple graphics with a little bit of color. Fishal (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

When you compare this template to those other religion's templates, I start to totally agree with you. A simple cross seems like the best solution for the top tier template, and we could introduce color to "spice" things up.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about a fish symbol?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's also been discussed with no real consensus. I think a fish would be better as it's not tied to any specific denomination. Fishal (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Cross Image

This section is for discussion regarding the current image on the template box.

In the meantime, I've created a more stylized cross for use in the template box. I understand if at a later date it will be changed to another symbol, but in the meantime I think is an improvement on only in an aesthetic sense. I compared Islam's template box with Christianity's and thought we needed something more dynamic and interesting than a black cross. If this change is distasteful to anyone, feel free to revert to the previous cross (Christian Cross.svg), or a version of the gold cross without the red backdrop (Gold Christian Cross no Red.svg). murraytheb موري (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

After some thought I've half-reverted to the original . While I also like better, I think that a change so great should be preceded by discussion. murraytheb موري (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC) (Crossed out by the author -- he changed his mind on some things)

A simple cross is enough. Embellishments tend to be contrary to many Christian faiths who think less is more. Bytebear (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I like the Image:Gold Christian Cross no Red.svg better than the black Image:Christian cross.svg but I do like them both more than the Image:Gold Christian cross.svg you but up at first.

Not every thing can be aesthetic and since Christianity is very diverse in opions we may need a simple symbol to be something we can all (mostly) agree with. --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think a fish would be superior to a Latin cross. Fishal (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that extending the "less is more" philosophy to a wikipedia image may be an overextension — and even if we do I don't think a cross in gold is particularly indulgent. Looking at the sidebox for Islam and Buddhism (both religions that have similar beliefs to Christianity on visual culture) you'll notice something more than just a black and white image. I can make any edits you'd like and show them here. I would be very happy if we could come to some consensus on the appropriate way to display the cross (do you think wood is more appropriate?). murraytheb موري (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- the current image looks excellent- it helps make a very well-composed template. Have we tried a wooden cross yet? Nevard (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there has been a wood one in the past... I'll make one when I get the chance and we can discuss it. murraytheb موري (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Practice template-- please help

I code monkeyed the words from this template onto the Buddhism one; the horrific monster I created resides at User:Fishal/Jesustemplate. I don't know how to add the collapsible sections for the denominations. I do know how to change the colors, but don't know what color scheme to go with. (Buddhists have orange, Jews have blue, Muslims have green... Christians just don't have a representative color.) I welcome anyone to edit that page to make improvements, even though it is in my user space. ...And might I add, can we please trim some of the content down? The template is so big, it's barely useful for navigation. Fishal (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Easter pastels? Or bright Yellows? Bytebear (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Easter pastels would be Christian colors only if the Christian Easter was about bunny rabbits and candy. The colors of the Christian Flag is white, red, and purple. They stand for purity, sacrifice, and royalty. These are also the colors Christ is shown wearing in art (not all at once) unless the artist in going for more realism (brown).

The flag is often shown with dark blue instead of purple for seeming three reasons. (1) True purple looks bad with red. (2) The purple quickly fades when the flag is on display to a blue or the like. (3) The canton is taken as blue because of the pattern of the US flag. Purple (or red) however is a better choice as a Christian color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Flag is hardly a place to get colors for all of christianity. Its use is limited -- mainly American and Protestant. I think natural tones (yellows, nice [read: not ugly] tans/browns, or light near-cyan blues) would be most appropriate. murraytheb موري (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This needs to be trimmed down. The mass of text is so overwhelming, it's barely useful as a navigational tool. I'd say nearly all of the theology links need to go, especially links not directly related to Christianity (monotheism, history of theology). People interested in theology can click on Theology and get specific topics there. Most of the history links too, and I'd say all of the important figures links. This is supposed to be for the broadest possible topics related to Christianity; otherwise it just isn't useful. Fishal (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please edit Template:Christianityfooter to match. It's meant to be another version of the same set of links. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase out

Back on Nov. 26 you removed the "Christianity" template from List of Christian denominations, replacing it with a portal. Why? Tb (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the Christianity footer replaced it on most articles. Feel free to add it there. -- SECisek (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the template was too big and unweildy! Where can I find the footer? Tb (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right here:
{{Christianityfooter}} Enjoy! -- SECisek (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks! Tb (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question; I noticed your removal of this template on several articles with the explanation that the topic was no longer on the nav box. Does that mean that the topic was once on the box and got removed? Some of these topics are very important to Christianity. Curious. Thanks. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the right thing here is really to phase out the template entirely, and focus on the footer. A series as big as "Christianity" is just too big to be sensibly approached by the template strategy IMO. Tb (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the direction we are heading. I phased it down to about 125 pages last fall. Since that time, other editors reached consensus to bring it down to under 75 pages. I suspect it will continue to be replaced by the footer. Some pages I saw had the Arminianism, Methodism, Protestantism, and Christianity Nav box. Clearly, there has to be a limit. -- SECisek (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks for your work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer it. So that absolves me of the commitment I made to User:Fishal/Jesustemplate? Fishal (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. There was next to no negative reaction to the latest scale-back. -- SECisek (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Phasing out the template entirely is a bad idea. The footer is harder to use since, for starters, few reader will notice the footer. It is just one or two people, such as Secisek, focused on ridding Wikipedia of this useful template.--Carlaude (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, is there a way to make the template thinner? The width of the box is playing havoc with my attempts to fit a picture above it on the Christianity article while still getting the text to wrap. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Which image?. Template seems to be fine. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the template width = 18em. Does this help. --Carlaude (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Does nothing. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested we should be "focused on ridding Wikipedia" of this template and I think Carlaude's suggestion that I did borders on assuming bad faith. The template should appear on pages that it LINKS to and the footer or portal link should be on pages that are related but not featured on the box itself. There has been broad, cross-subject agreement on this. When I have a chance, I will again cull the box off of non-linked pages unless there is broad consensus not to. Happy Christmas all. -- Secisek (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible version

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20#Template:Collapsible Christ about making this template collapsible. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all-- that discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20#Template:Collapsible Christ is ongoing. Do no change this without discussion here. Hence the revert

Second-- your change failed to do what was hoped for there. You made Collapsed-- not just Collapsible. --Carlaude (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. It still shows what i have changed. --SkyWalker (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See the other discussion for an explanation (and links to my failed test version). - Fayenatic (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you. If it still shows what you changed try a refresh, but do no change this without discussion here.--Carlaude (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The new parameter added by SkyWalker seems just right to me. I've added documentation on the face of this template. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have asked for it. :). Also the template looks clean and better than the old template. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Church

Why is the Anglican Church under the Catholicism section, while I am aware the AC can be very Catholic in some branches it can be very protestant in others. Also, it views itself as a Protestant Church doesn't it? Gavin Scott (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Christian denominations#Anglicanism--Carlaude (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, the Anglican church identifies itself as "Catholic and Reformed", NOT Protestant. The Anglican church, therefore belongs in the Catholic section, not the Protestant section. Can someone please put it back where it belongs? Bill Ward (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this dialogue about another template? --BozMo talk 20:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly correct; Anglicanism is both partly Catholic and Protestant and neither wholly Protestant or Catholic. Refer to the Anglican Church referring to itself as the “Middle Way”. Considering how Wikipedia redirects “Catholic” to the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicanism should have its own category, just like “Orthodoxy” does. If I could figure out how to change this here myself, I will. If I ever can, I will. Nuada79 (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English Wikipedia

{{editprotected}}

Can this simple:Template:Christianity please be added to Template:Christianity. I don't know what the correct template for Admin help is.

This template is only semi-protected. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New white cross

[1] I like it. It makes the template prettier, but keeps the symbol that everyone's agreed to. Nice cross. Fishal (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not like it. It's not supposed to be "pretty" in a iMac sort of way. I opt for a return to the basic, solid cross this template used to have for years. "Prettification" of Wikipedia with sparkly icons with shadow effect is a curse, Wikipedia isn't the gnome desktop. Just my opinion. More opinions will be needed before we have anything like a "WP:CONSENSUS" on this. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep it.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

in fact, this is the proper diff. I repeat that the current icon looks absolutely cheesy. It is not acceptable in the long term. There may be intermediate suggestions modifying the plain black cross, I suppose, but this one is simply beyond the pale, it looks as if it was taken from some cheap and badly designed bible thumper website sporting animated gifs and blink tags. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I think that white-on-white is more subtle, not less, than black-on-white. Fishal (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is cheesy, IMO, because it has soft edges for no reason.

I do not like it. --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No new commemts in a week, and this looks like there is no consensus, which means that it reverts to the state before. I am making the change back. --Carlaude ^(talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Swedenborgian/New Church to Non-trinitarian

I think it would be appropriate to add Swedenborgians to the Non-trinitarian section. In case there is confusion, the New Church teaches that J.C. is the one and only God, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are symbolic aspects of him. Please comment. 134.84.96.56 (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add this.

While I agree it would go there, there is no end to the groups that could be added to the Template if we add small groups. For example, I am sure there are dozens (if not hunderds) of larger groups we could add from among, say, the Trinitarian groups.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that; however, most of those small groups you mention fall under the larger umbrella groups mentioned, while other small groups (such as Christadelphians) are included. 128.101.48.92 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God the Son

In the long term, the link in the template under "Trinity • (Father • Son • Spirit)" must be to the article God the Son. It is an indictment on our priorities that GoS is so poorly developed. We should be exposing it to more traffic in the hope of attracting people to co-operate in building it.

Most of the Christian views of Jesus article is completely irrelevant to the Nicean formulation this template implies.

History tells us Christian boffins took centuries debating human and divine aspects of Jesus' nature, quite distinctly different issues to the considerations of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the relationships within the Trinity implied by the term "God the Son". These are just two issues covered by Christian views of Jesus, without mentioning the many other contentious debates relevant to an article with that title like: virgin birth, miracles, resurrection from death, promised Messiah and so on.

If we are to link to an article that is more developed than God the Son, we would probably do better to link to Son of God; although this is simply erroneous in the relevant subsection. I also note we have an article on Jesus' foreskin but not one on Jesus' divinity. Some pretty commonsense priorities seem to be a little out of wack here. ;)

I'll be correcting the template unless a plausible (rather than questionably pragmatic) case can be made for some alternative. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything more than a couple links deep from the main Christianity articles are in pretty sorry shape - have been since 2k6 at least. The concepts of God the Father and God the Son are very advanced theology - which are very depreciated in Protestant circles (from what I can tell) and very VERY depreciated in people who have only a casual understanding of Christianity: most people. Not sure what to do about it, but there you have it.

But yes, lots of problems. If you haven't already you should join WikiProject:Christianity, see if you can wrangle anyone to help out.--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

When I try poking to find life at WP:Chrnty it doesn't seem to stir much up. But, then again, I probably haven't tried that hard. When I just hook in and start articles and edit them, people seem to wind up at those pages. If something's worth doing, we should probably set an example and start doing it. Hopefully people will follow. I'll see about taking your advice when I come back from a month of Wikibreak. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I might poke around some of the Christianity related articles as well - at least do an audit to see what articles Need Work.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Cath - Prot - Orth?

While I'm here I'd like to ask why we have the odd ordering: Catholic - Protestant - Orthodox.

It would seem the logical and historical thing to have: Orthodox - Catholic - Protestant.

I'm presuming we just don't have enough Orthodox readers willing to kick up a justified fuss about this.

It has not escaped the attention of scholars that Acts progresses from the establishment of Eastern churches (notably Antioch and first use of the name "Christian") through to a church in Rome; and that Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations trace their descent to these respective eastern and western communities of NT repute.

It should be remembered that adopting the tripartite categorisation is original research unless based on precisely the scholastic consensus mentioned in the last paragraph. Deviation from its logic is also original research and prone to error and bias. Alphabetical order, for example, would suggest all are undifferentiated elements of one superset; however, the reality is that they are well known to have differentiated internal relationships. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are sisters, where Protestantism is a daughter of Catholicism, a "niece" if you will to Orthodoxy, not a sibling.

I'd be curious to hear what specific objections people could throw at the traditional O-C-P ordering; or any defence (original research or not) for the current (star-wars) ordering—C-P-O(?!). Alastair Haines (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox catholic protestant makes the most sense to me as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very small thing I support - but I could care less - and you are correct, "we just don't have enough Orthodox readers willing to kick up a...fuss about this" Orthodoxy is sadly the stepchild of Christianity on Wikipedia. -- Secisek (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

lol, neglected stepchild Cinderella, a cute metaphor. :) Any volunteers to be Prince Charming and promote Othodoxy to #1 and top of the list of Christian denominations? It's rather nice to do the right thing for people, even when they're not around. :) I vote you make the change Secisek. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "Catholic - Protestant - Orthodox" would be based on the group size, but I am fine with "OCP" for history. --Carlaude ^(talk) 22:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel strongly? -- Secisek (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)