Template talk:Christian denomination tree

Comments
Moved to keep this abstract and to allow improvement and re-use. Consider using a timeline scheme like the one below: -Ste|vertigo 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SVG version: -Ste|vertigo 07:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nou problemou, but a little L8R Plezz. Rursus 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the thoma of kerala are mentioned to be brahmanicals who converted at the time of the 1st century AD - it could bear some investigation? so to investigate fake news/reality?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians
 * https://www.nasrani.net/2011/05/19/the-heathen-and-the-syrian-syrian-christian-ritual-and-tradition-pre-1599-a-d/#more-699 149.12.2.131 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Labelled map
(Copied from another post). You can put hyperlinks on an image. This would improve this image a lot, and was the original motivation for the text version, as I remember. Compare Australia Labelled Map and the tool Labelled Image Editor. (This comment also posted on Image:Christian-lineage.png). -Colin MacLaurin 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong
I linked this (new) template up wrongly. It should link to categories, but links to articles. I'll fix it. Rursus 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FIxed. Rursus 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
See Talk:Schism (religion) for discussion of this vs other versions Johnbod 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding a suggestion to also compare with the French image file which presents some compelling details considerable also for the development of this template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sub-trees
This template looks great. Hence, I propose designing additional "sub-trees" which will give more detail for a particular strand, such as Anabaptists for example. A link could be placed on each template to the other one, i.e. on the end of each node for the main template (this one), and at the beginning for a sub-tree. Colin MacLaurin 09:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Error: Falsehood
I find it untrue to allegation that the Restoration claims to be of a seperate lineage. The Restoration Movement holds origins in the Protestant Reformation, but we hold seperate goals and beliefs; we are, for lack of a less schismatic word, dogmatically different, but we don't claim to be of different history. This chart shows history of Christian beliefs and where they split; the Restoration split where the solid line shows.

We don't claim to be some seperate body of belief that subverts and over-shadows the rest. We believe the opposite: all Christians are part of Christ's Church, whether we always agree or not.

I opt that the dotted line with it's false label be removed before a reader is given the impression that Restoration Churchs believe themselves better than other Christian groups. IanSvinth (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources Do you have a source for your claim that Restorationists view themselves as Protestants? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response It does not matter when Restorationists claim their belief originated, only the historical details. Wikipedia is not the place for evaluating the hermeneutic claims of a religion. Because Restorationism originated in the 19th century, and in the context of Protestant converts, it should be left as a schism with Protestantism. The dotted line should be removed.

Lutheran via media?
Sources please Do Lutherans see themselves as Catholic and Reformed? This seems improbable to me. While some Lutherans, especially in Northern Europe have kept a high church, liturgical practice, I do not know of any defining documents that identify Lutherans as anything other than a purely Protestant church. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While what you say is true, most Lutheran groups are averse to being lumped in with reformed churches or catholic churches. I think that the denomination tree should have the "protestant" line split into "lutheran" and "reformed" at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.68.23 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastern/Western Rites
'Union' should be changed to 'Uniate'. Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox should also have a line joining The line for eastern rite Catholicism. Orthodox Christianity has a western rite (starting at least 1864, after eastern rite Catholicism). These shouldn't be on the same line (i.e., joining) -- western rite Orthodox should be on the Orthodox line, not a jut-out new line, reflecting the fact that compromises in Catholic theology were made order to accept Orthodox churches into the Catholic communion under a eastern rite. See: Western_Orthodoxy and Eastern_Catholic_Churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.111.105 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This chart is so simplistic it is misleading
I don't think this chart is very useful. The Protestant and Restorationist groups really come from two separate lineages. The vast majority of them split from the Anglican church or derived from ones that did. Perhaps a half a dozen or so split directly from the Roman Catholic Church. Lutheranism originated before Anglicanism and split directly from the Roman Catholic church. In addition, the Moravian Brethren existed well before Luther, given they originated around the time of the Jan Huss Controversy. Add the Mennonites, Swiss, and Dutch Reformed to this smaller group.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Browsers
For me, the diagram works in IE8 but not in current Firefox, Opera, Chrome. In Firefox, please test also with View Text Only set and zoomed. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, problem recognised. Adding help request on this one. Browsers in mobile platforms seem to fail this template for unknown reason. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to work fine for me in Chrome 69, please can you be more descriptive about what the problem you're seeing is? stwalkerster (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , please don't edit your own comments after someone has replied, as it makes the replies lose their context. For the record, my test was done on desktop Chrome since no platform was originally indicated in the request; indeed mobile Chrome on Android renders unexpectedly. I strongly suspect this is due to the screen width on my phone being narrower than the design width of the template and thus the layout wraps oddly. This is backed up by the display being worse on a portrait view than it is on a landscape view. stwalkerster (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: withdrawn Ground Zero | t 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Christian denomination tree → Template:Christian denomination tree (categories) – This template links to categories, and is apparently for use in categories, however it is being used in a few articles. I would like to move it to a name which makes it clear that it is for categories and create a new template that links to articles. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC) JFH (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment some of the links in the imagemap are articles, and not categories. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Split or rewrite (Copy and rewrite) make two templates, one for articles, one for categories, where the imagemap links link either to articles or categories. This can be done with two templates (simpler) or a namespace detector (more complex single template) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm torn as to whether there should be one or two templates. The template is pretty complex already, and so I don't think we can expect inexperienced users to edit it anyway, so perhaps a namespace detector is the way to go to avoid forking. --JFH (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: A namespace detector should fix this, but if the goal is to discourage use in articles or something, maybe I'm just missing something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Adding a disambiguator into the title of a template isn't a too common of a practice. However, A better option may be to change the title altogether without a disambiguator in the title, but what that title could be, I have no idea. Steel1943  (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw, I've figured out how to use a namespace detector, and I agree it is a better solution. --JFH (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arminianism
I propose that Arminianism should have its own branch here because of its strong influence. It has influenced on Methodism, Holiness movement, Pentecostalism, and to some extent on General Baptists, and Restoration Movement. 113.186.91.208 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While Arminianism is certainly an important development in Christian history, it's not usually viewed as a denomination but as a movement. Compare with (e.g.) fundamentalism. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Diagram without explanation is very NPOV
Without a caption explaining what the diagram/template depicts, it is very NPOV. The diagram depicts some, but NOT all major "branches". This is not clear from the existing title, and has been a problem with many editors misinterpreting its intention. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that it is your POV that these are branches and denominationational families, as it they are two different things. That the diagram depicts only some can be said without those terms. tahc chat 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose your phrasing. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Refs
I am not sure why you are adding ref to this chart. The sources do not have more information to give more detail than the chart has, and since the sources do not match the template, it does not show any lack of bais in the template (even if the sources had a lack of bais). Since Eastern Catholicism is not the origin on the Copts, the source CUNY can only be a way to categorize the denominations-- and not infomation on their historical relationships. In others words, its different purpose makes it a poor source for this template. tahc chat 22:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong
Restorationism is not Protestantism. This template is wrong.Ernio48 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe Restoration movement is intended? --JFH (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a part of Restorationism, which is not Protestantism. A major mistake in this chart.Ernio48 (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I mistakenly assumed the chart had Restorationism instead of Restoration movement. So the issue is actually that the Restoration movement doesn't consider itself Protestant according to the WP page. I have moved the Protestantism label so it doesn't include the Restoration movement.--JFH (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Restoration movement is totally part Protestantism in all meaningful ways. Only (some) members for the Restoration movement itself would say otherwise in that its purpose it to restore the way of things to as they were in Early Christianity (before the Protestant Reformation). Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation, however, also has largely sought to restore the way of things to as they were in Early Christianity.
 * The different parts of Restorationism has also claimed similar goals, but (in most cases) these groups are quite different from each other and from Protestantism (e.g. most being Nontrinitarian).
 * None-the-less, I like [this edit of Jfhutson's] for tightening-up the mash of words. tahc chat 03:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Branch Theory"
I removed the "Branch Theory" annotations. I think there were several problems with them.

Firstly, I think it would generally be accepted by most neutral observers that there are multiple bodies which would generally be considered Christian churches, which have divided from each other at various times; and which vary as to whether they recognise each other. That doesn't require a theory, it is simply a historical observation. Yes, there are disputes among them over which are "truly" the Church, but their existence isn't really disputed.

Secondly, this graph bears no resemblance to Branch Theory. Branch Theory is specifically the theory that a Universal Church, retaining Apostolic Succession, exists in each geographical area - the Eastern Orthodox in the East, the (Roman) Catholic in the West, the Anglican in Britain. If this were a Branch Theory diagram, it would have only those entries on it.

Thirdly, most Christians have never heard of Branch Theory, but would have no trouble recognising the contents of this diagram. This is not depicting branch theory; just history.

We might want to consider the use of the word "denomination", as I know that isn't accepted by Orthodox or Roman Catholic Churches - "divisions", maybe? - but I think saying the only way you can recognise this diagram is if you subscribe to Branch Theory is going quite a lot too far. TSP (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I advocated reverting your edit before seeing your post here. As for branch theory, the article states in the first sentence that "while others may also include the Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Old Catholic and Lutheran churches". Wouldn't it be problematic to argue that Wikipedia's article on the subject as well as its graphics should subscribe to an arguably originalistic interpretation of branch theory where initial proponents would override later elaborations? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That article does state that; although only since you edited it to do so - I'm not sure the sources say that. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, quoted in the lead, clearly defines the theory to be limited only to those churches with Apostolic Succession, and specifically to those three named.  (A few sources refer to other versions, but most describe seem to these as "a variant on branch theory" or similar.)
 * If it would be problematic for Wikipedia to endorse that (the most common) interpretation of Branch Theory, it is certainly more problematic for Wikipedia to endorse a different, more obscure, interpretation of Branch Theory; which it is currently doing through this caption.
 * Incidentally, in your edit comment you referred me to this debate to explain why I shouldn't have removed Branch Theory with no debate on the talk page. That debate was specifically about the fact that User:tahc had completely removed the caption from the diagram, which was duly resolved at that time (March 2015); it has nothing to do with your edit, almost two years later, to add branch theory - with no debate on the talk page.  TSP (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I realise that I have been slightly led down a rabbit hole with the above answer.
 * The more important response is that I am not suggesting that we should say *anything* here about Branch Theory; to remove the caption does not mean Wikipedia endorses a different view of Branch Theory, just that it stops using (inventing?) this one. TSP (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed: it's not necessary for understanding. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Nontrinitarianism as special and mildly related branch from both Eastern and Western Christianity
Since their wide known Nontrinitarian denominations throughout history like Arianism, Unitarianism, Latter Day Saint movement and few more denominations have their own versions of Nontrinitarian theological concept, bigger numbers, ritual and etc. And I think this is time to put them a spot in very above every family (with minor connections in some them like Protestantism or Eastern Orthodoxy for Spiritual Christianity like Doukhobors for example). Chad The Goatman (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2018 (EST)
 * The tree will never have all denominations and should not have all denominations. Nontrinitarian denominations quite different from each other and are unnecessary. Any effort to show Nontrinitarian denominations in this tree will be (even more) misleading (or worse). tahc chat 19:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I had the same thought before reading this. It's fine if minor denominations are omitted to avoid clutter, but completely missing major ones gives a misleading picture of Christianity. Rather than try to depict graphical relationships or list them out individually, I just added a note about what is not shown. -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Not Catholicism-based
What are you talking about!? There is nothing in the template, its documentation, or its title to suggest that this is a Catholicism-based chart! &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In case you had not noticed, this is a Catholicism-biased chart.
 * Now we have documentation that it is Catholicism POV chart, does this help? tahc chat 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is in no way a "Catholicism-based" chart. Actually, if anything, it flagrantly contradicts the Catholic Church's teaching that there is only one church (and that is the Catholic Church) and only recognizes non-Catholic Christians as Christian "communities". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Other than the pre-schism "Great Church", the chart does not label any group as a "church" in contradiction to the RCC. tahc chat 06:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. This is still not "Catholicism-based". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure what eactly means, but for one thing the user put attention to the unnecessary pipelinking of Eastern Orthodox Church, which has now be fixed to what the article name acutally says (not "Eastern Orthodoxy" but "Eastern Orthodox Church"). Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Show the Moscow-Constantinople schism
Recently, the Russian Orthodox Church severed communion with Constantinople. I believe that this should be shown on the template, as Russian Orthodoxy splits from the Eastern Orthodox branch. The new labels will say Russian Orthodoxy on one branch, and Constantinopolitan Orthodoxy in the other. 210.6.97.203 (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The 2018 Moscow-Constantinople schism is not based on long-term and fundamental differences between the two. There are other much more important and fundamental differences not shown in the chart that would be more useful to show first, such as differences between Protestants. tahc chat 14:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather, if the schism is not repaired, doesn't it seems as if Russian Orthodox would meet the same criteria as the other entries in Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Update version
Speltdecca (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please keep these falsehoods to yourself. It is even worse than the current tree. tahc chat 21:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not falsehoods ! It's the truth !! your opinion is not neutral, centered on Russia and the Orthodox. Speltdecca (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Graphic-wise, good! Insofar it looks like an improvement to me. Please do not be completely discouraged by - replies tend to vary in agreeableness. However, in actual central message, the criticism provided by  is probably valid: You will have a hard time promoting a reflection of ecclesiastical history like that on Wikipedia.
 * Yet, I do agree that the precurrent status of this template could be improved. Of the available preexisting images on Commons, File:BranchesChristians.png looks the closest to what I think could be achievable meeting WP:CONSENSUS. However, ideally, I think such a solution should add a couple of details from File:Major branches within Christianity kr.png (Early Christianity details) and File:Historical Branches and Sects of Christianity.png (possibly Mandeism and Gnosticism?). In addition to these suggestions, depending on how much space is left, perhaps also 19th century derivated flavours Independent Eastern Orthodoxy and Independent Catholicism could be added. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This is all over the place. You've removed several movements, bunched together the Church of the East with Orthodoxy, and the scale on this is unintelligible. Plus, you've included Arianism, which is not a church but a movement. Why not Evangelicalism? It's just confusing. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Justin ( koavf ) and @Chicbyaccident : Thank you for your advices, and sorry for the confusion. I admit that my template is not perfect, and your suggestions will help improve it. Cordially Speltdecca (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The diagram portrays Early Christianity and the Great Church as if its real name was the Latin Church even before Christians spoke to each other in Latin.
 * The diagram portrays all (other) forms of Christianity (if they are shown at all) as splitting off from the Latin Church, rather than (say) the other was around, or even as how the current chart shows it.
 * Each form of Eastern Christianity is called "Eastern Orthodox Church" by the chart and colored as if they were all more like each other than the Catholic Church.
 * Only three (or four) forms of Protestantism are shown, and it portrays Baptists as if they change into the all the Pentecostals.
 * There are other issues such-- as having non-consistent lengths and widths, and having misleading dates-- but there are the largest problems and adding in dead groups like Arianism does not help it. tahc chat 18:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good feedback. Thought about that as well. Agree with the remarks of . Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Except Early Christianity and Great Church, ought also the designations Nicene Christianity, Chalcedonian Christianity, and the state church of the Roman Empire be indicated? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Largest protestant denominations
Either way, for the time being, the list of Protestant denominations should change to that of the largest ones: PPEMES (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Pentecostalism
 * 2) Baptism
 * 3) Lutheranism
 * 4) Anglicanism
 * 5) Methodism
 * 6) Calvinism

Armenian church
Where does the Armenian apostolic church fit in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molitorppd22 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oriental Orthodoxy. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Display problems
This template seems to be showing up correctly on articles like State church of the Roman Empire but not on categories like Category:Oriental Orthodoxy (text labels overlap with each other and are in the wrong places). Maybe for easier maintenance there should only be one version. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There may have been a similar comment at Talk:Anabaptism and it has to do with the width of the canvas on which it is drawn. If the canvas is too narrow, the text wraps. Is there a way to convert the whole image to svg or to prevent wrapping of text? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found there were two copies of the chart in the template code, one with links to articles and one with links to categories. The category one was broken, so I dropped it, and now it seems to be displaying OK everywhere. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Protestantism
For the Protestant branches at the top, it shows that Evangelicalism evolved out of Anglicanism. This is highly incorrect as the Anglican Communion/Church sees itself as a middle ground/mid point for both Protestantism, and Catholicism. Many if not most Evangelical churches today are a mixture of Wesleyan/Arminist/Methodist, Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, and Pentecostal/Charismatic theology. Because of this, I am getting rid of Evangelicalism as it constitutes a movement, not a denomination.

Also, the chart shows Anabaptistism, but not Wesleyanism/Arminism/Methodism- a Protestant branch that is certainly more widely spread and holds greater influence globally than the Anabaptists. I will make the change from Anabaptists to Methodist myself. In addition, I have shown that Methodism derives from Anglicanism which is indisputable. --Leiwang7 (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I object to removing Anabaptism. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't remove Anabaptism. It is older and has had influence beyond its size. tahc chat 14:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are concerned with theological influence, then I can accept keeping the Anabaptists. Leiwang7 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism by youtuber Ready to Harvest
Ready to Harvest is a youtuber with a NPOV who has criticised the graph in this video. I think we have to recognize the inherent oversimplification and other problems a graphical representation create. I still think we have to keep a representation as a summary. So I would not be in favour of taking the graph out without a better replacement. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:D559:D71:6115:83A (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To summarize: his main critique of the Wikipedia timeline was on the "gray line" of early Christianity. The chart shows that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon resulted in new, separate denominations while the old Christianity continued, but the Great Schism resulted in a terminus to early Christianity and the equal split of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Why the difference? The chart does not explain why these moments are treated differently. At best it is missing info about the different natures of these events, at worst it is theologically motivated (i.e. they aren't "real" Christianity). He also had critiques of other timelines, but they are not applicable to the Wikipedia timeline. -Thunderforge (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

He misunderstands that the chart is only a schematic diagram (like the famous London subway map) and assigns value to features in the chart that exist purely for practical reasons. Just like the London subway map doesn't display geographical distances, this map doesn't show denomination sizes, priorities or theological distances exactly. Rmhermen (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the Youtuber is right on some points:
 * the separations between Ephesian Christianity and the Church of the East should be shown as a fork
 * After the council of Ephesus, the line should be named Ephesian Christianity
 * the separations between Chalcedonian Christianity and the Oriental Orthodox Churches should be shown as a fork
 * after the council of Chalcedon, the line should be named Chalcedonian Christianity
 * Doing the same thing with the Protestant lines would, I think, make the diagram too cluttered. Also, this would mean that there would be a radical change of the Catholic Church at the time which would warrant a new name to it, but there is none. Veverve (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Naming conventions and communion status
Given the descriptor "Major denominational families", I think the branch names can be shortened for clarity and accuracy.

I suggest dropping the "ism" suffix from all protestant branches. It's "the Anglican family", not "the Anglicanism family." The sideways term "Protestantism" can be shortened to "Protestant" as well, and "Protestant Reformation" to just "Reformation" for purposes of the chart. I would like to see some reference to the catholic reformation as well as the protestant, but I don't see an easy way to convey that.

"Catholic Church" should be just shortened to "Catholic." Even though "The Catholic Church" is an entity comprised of many constituent churches, there are parts of this branch not in communion with Rome, yet still validly referred to as non protestant "catholic". See Old Catholic Church and Independent Catholicism.

"Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Oriental Orthodox Church" should drop the "church" for the same reasoning.

With this change, I suggest dropping the confusing "full communion" identifier. Intercommunion has to do with the organized, ecclesiastical entity, not the tradition. There are subsets within these traditions that are not part of the communion arrangement. Furthermore, it seems arbitrary to highlight communion between the Oriental Orthodox tradition with the Catholic and not between Lutheran with Calvinist, for example. Dirkwillems (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Age of the Catholic Church
You chart shows the Catholic Church doesn’t come into existence until the 11 century. Bruh 2600:6C56:6500:985:7CF2:BDF9:3123:1859 (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This isn't Reddit. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)