Template talk:Christianity sidebar/Archive 3

Bloated template
User:Aiden/Template:Christianity Over time the template seems to have grown and grown and grown. Usually this can be prevented by keeping the links in the template directed towards main articles. This allows the reader to start with the general article and move on to the more detailed sub-article if he or she so wishes. However, as is especially the case with the links to various divisions of Christianity, it seems that the template has become more of a list of articles. After taking a look at some other templates, I found the Islam template to be a very good example of using main articles, not to mention a clean and simple layout. I took the liberty of adapting that template, along with various suggestions that have been posted here, into a new template. Please let me know what you think. — Aiden 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not bad; I'd swap Second coming and Salvation, though.
 * My original intent with the collapsable sections was to allow other sub-templates to hopefully be integrated back in to the main one (eg. Calvinism back into Christianity). This may not be possible, but with the one you have, it's certainly not possible.  I'm not particularly attached to the idea (of integrating the templates back in), but someone one time said it was a better idea than having lots of templates on the one article.  I'll leave it up to others to advocate the idea.
 * -- TimNelson 10:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (I added Salvation to the Beliefs section.) IMHO, articles specifically related to (for example) Calvinism, such as the five points, should use the Calvinism template, while general articles should use the Christianity template. I think a general template with links to general article should be our goal. For more specific articles within one field of study, there should be a more specific template directing the reader to other articles related to that field. All in all, that's pretty much how it is at the moment and I also am not too keen on the idea of trying to make one 'super template'. — Aiden 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested to know why you think that Second coming is an important belief. I would've rated it as important, but no more so than, say, Sin or Creation.  Incidentally, it might also help you to look at WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, to get an idea of what else other people thoguht was important.
 * -- TimNelson 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I simply thought organizing it between core beliefs and other concepts was important for readers unfamiliar with the subject. That said, the template I created is by no means set in stone. I simply wanted to help to simplify the template and make it easier to navigate. By all means, feel free to edit it. I simply wanted to volunteer a new layout which I think addresses some of the excesses of the current template. — Aiden 11:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross
I know it has been discussed before, but the Slav cross really should be used on this page (in the template), to give this page more accuracy. Rocky87 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where was it discussed before?
 * Why do you think the Slav cross is more approriate? Can you provide a link so that we all know what we're looking at?
 * -- TimNelson 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Its the idea of changing the image that has been discussed before. The cross most frequent in Orthodoxy is the three-barred cross (scroll to "Eastern Cross"). Rocky87 06:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow me to point out that this template represents all groups that call themselves Christian, not just the Orthodox. According to the Cross page you linked to (thanks, btw, very interesting), the Eastern cross is used only in the Eastern Orthodox church, and the three-barred cross represents the pope, whereas the one that's just described as the "Christian cross" is said to be the most common symbol of Christianity.  I argue in favour of keeping it as it is.  -- TimNelson 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You have convinced me with your first sentence. It is already displayed lower on the page, anyway. I would just like to point out that the Pope's cross is quite different from the Slavic one, though, and i think it has quite a different meaning. Rocky87 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I realise the two are different, but the Cross page says that the 3-bar is papal, and you referred to the 3-bar above. Also, you referred to this template as being "lower on the page".  I don't know which page you're talking about.  -- TimNelson 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Most Christians believe...
I don't think it's right to start off by saying "Most Christians believe". It's rather presumptuous, and I don't see how anyone could claim to be able to truthfully say that or document such things. A more neutral phrase would be preferred. 69.181.1.157 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I presume you're referring to some Wikipedia page, but we have no idea which one. Please add detail.  -- TimNelson 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Note they also say "most Christians share"

69.181.188.254 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case you should be posting your complaints to Talk:Christianity.


 * But you're incorrect; this kind of thing is readily verifiable. The two largest groups of Christians are clear on the subjects under discussion, and by themselves they comprise more than 50% of Christianity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - it assumes that only people in some organized Christian group are really Christians. Also, it assumes that the people in those organized groups definitely agree with the stated doctrine of the church. An example, the Catholic Church, while it presumes to have a defined doctrine, has many members in various countries who have radically different views on Catholic and Christian doctrine. Or, the Episcopal Church in America has an ongoing dispute on the role of gays in the church that radically differs from the Anglican church in Africa. And these are only examples.

It's clear that anyone presuming to claim that "most Christians" believe any particular doctrine is not being accurate or fair.

I don't understand why this article is not allowed to be edited and I tried to figure out how to request the change, but it is incomprehensible on this site.

69.181.188.254


 * This arguement has nothing to do with the template. 69.181.188.254, please take this to the talk page of the offending article. Nobody here can help you. Thank you. -- SECisek 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example -- what the hell is a template? This jargon stuff just makes me want to scream. If Wikipedia is to succeed you have to understand that people don't talk like this. Also, if you make it easier for people to talk back and edit easily in the right place, you won't have a problem with people doing what you don't want. I think the biggest issues could be eliminated if the user interface were improved. 69.181.188.254 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Check your talk page. I put help there. Feel free to contact me if you need more help. -- SECisek 22:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to your page. Could not figure out how to add a comment there. I posted a reply at the userpage Andrew created to reply to me, if you want to see a more extensive discussion of this.

69.181.188.254 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanding sections
I'm glad to see the disgusting trend of using collapse/expand sections hasnt totally taken over this template. But it needs to be pointed out that the current usage to hide the East/West/Reform sections doesnt appear to be useful. For one, the sections are too small to need hiding as separate elements. Second, these sections are only showing on the left side of the template, wasting all that space on the right. (Presumably the reason for using the collapse sections ITFP was to save space). -Stevertigo 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That was basically it, but also with the thought that those sections might then be expanded if that could reasonably be done.
 * I don't see any huge spaces on the right. This might be due to a difference in browsers.  I use SeaMonkey (a Firefox/Mozilla variant); if you could post a picture of the problem, that would be helpful.
 * -- TimNelson 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I never saw an issue with the length of the template, but there were (was) some vocal wikipedians who felt that even adding one more link would just ruin the whole latout. After much battle over which denominations deserved credit on the template, the collapsable sections emerged as a compromise. Personally I feel that the length of the template was used as an excuse to omit certain "questionable" groups, but that's just my opinion.  I fear if you change it, you will open a hornets nest. So pick your battles wisely.  Better yet, recruit your army first. Bytebear 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too long as it is and could stand to be trimmed rather than expanded. -- SECisek 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is funny, I just came by to applaud the use of collapsable sections in the template and suggest to use it some more, possibly to all sections of the template, who will still be of a decent size even after that.--SidiLemine 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this too; as it is, it's a behemoth that tends to plow through other sections and interact with template tags in an unpleasing manner. If you'd noticed, my test edit was to see how the whole thing might look, and to provide a sample in case the discussion turned towards this idea.--C.Logan 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Quantum Burrito created Template:Collapsible Christ which has proved useful on a couple of pages so far: Father and OT. I propose to move the contents to a separate page like this so that they can be maintained only once, and read into both the normal Template:Christianity and the collapsible version, like this test version. I'll leave the idea here for a week for responses before doing it.

I'd propose to keep the page history & this talk with the contents by moving this Template:Christianity to Template:Christianity contents, then changing Template:Christianity from a redirect to just top and tail the box around the contents. Template:Collapsible Christ would be similar. OK? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, can we make the main template collapsible, usually open by default but collapsed on pages such as Father and OT? - Fayenatic (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

link change requested
shouldn't the text Catholic Pope link to Pope rather than Bishop of Rome? the former is the article that actually covers the topic of Catholic popes. 68.54.206.193 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity
Can we add a "Criticisms" section? Every other religion has one.--ॐJesucristo301 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Look under the "Topics in Christianity" header, last link. We already link to the criticism article which is what the other religious navigational templates do. The criticisms page is pretty poor though, so efforts to source and clean up that page could be a productive endeavour.-Andrew c [talk] 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Supercessionism
Just an alert. Supercessionism doesn't sound like a foundational Christian doctrine to me. Perhaps it is American terminology for something I am more familiar with by another name, say Covenant Theology. However the alert is this. Supercessionism is also listed as an article on the anti-semitism template. The current article at supercessionism only references a Jewish writer and Catholic statements. I suspect there is some definitional lack of clarity here. If supercessionism is a foundational Catholic doctrine and anti-semitic, then everything's as it should be. But somehow I don't think this is quite right. Cheers. Alastair Haines 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A little more on this topic. I have now done some research into it. It would appear that various forms of the idea of supersessionism are common enough in the history of Christian understanding of the New Testament. However, it is also apparant that not all mainstream Christian groups would describe the New Testament this way. I have my own views regarding what the New Testament says, but they are irrelevant. What is verifiable is both that some modern Christian groups insist that, and others deny that the NT teaches supercessionism. Unless Wikipedia wants to say that Presbyterians and others are not authentic Christians, I would recommend supercessionism be moved out of the Christian "foundations" section, to something more appropriate. Yes, supercessionism is a verifiably Christian teaching, however it is not a universal teaching, hence not foundational like divinity of Jesus, Trinity, authority of scripture, etc. etc. The following source imo is excellent.
 * Supersession Info Page @ TheologicalStudies.org
 * Also, imo, it is superior to Theopedia, which states the facts concisely, but without sufficient reference and with more assumed knowledge than I personally prefer. Alastair Haines 12:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Supersessionism is the mainstream Catholic teaching, in contrast with the Protestant teachings now listed: Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology. It's a WP:NPOV problem to only leave out the Catholic theology here. BTW, these all should be listed further down under the theology heading if they are to be here at all; these are each minority Protestant beliefs. -- 146.115.58.152 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, all the positions you mention, including supersessionism within Catholicism are theological frameworks with substantial followings, but are not core to Ecumenical Christianity (which is what Christianity means in a Wiki context). Whether they are minority or not is moot, they are all notable, but none of them are universal, hence not core (however passionately some may defend their particular framework).
 * On the other hand, divinity of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, final judgement and Trinity are both universal and core. Without quibbling over details, salvation by faith is a Catholic doctrine, unless placed under the scrutiny of terminology and definitions beyond the scope of a template. Prots would say salvation by faith is a core issue, so would Catholics, it ought to be there, even if it is understood differently in those branches. All Christians believe in salvation by faith, not all Christians mean the same thing by this. Sorry if I've confused everyone. Alastair Haines 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nav Box phase out
The nav box should only appear on articles that are listed on the template. Hence the "Part of a series on..." at the top. The portal link should appear on Chritianity-related articles that are not part of the series. This is consistent with nav box usage throughout WP. Also, there is now the footer Christianityfooter which can be added and is 100% identical to the old nav box, which is overused right now. Please help with the change over. Best. -- SECisek (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Part of a series on..." at the top is linked to the very broad Category:Christianity, which weakens your argument a little. I wouldn't be surprised to find that nav box usage throughout WP is actually inconsistent. Can you give us chapter and verse from policy e.g. MOS? - Fayenatic (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it your belief that both the footer and the nav box should be on every single Christianity related article? I don't think you will find much support for that position. Can you cite me chapter and verse? I agree that usage is probably inconsistent and that is why I have dedicated several days in an attempt to exercise some common sense usage of the Wikiproject Christianity nav boxes. Pitch in, if you can.

Of 250+ removals of the nav box over the last few days, only 3 have been reverted. It seems those three were because because the removals were misunderstood, based off of the revert edit summaries. I think that indicates broad consensus for the switch over. -- SECisek (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1)Why do this at all? This makes the encyclopedia less usful by reducing the interconnectivity of articles and the ways in which people can traverse this encyclopedia.
 * 2)Why on Christianity and slavery? This is obviously part of a series of articles on christianity.
 * 3)What policy and concensus are you basing this sweeping change on? ( Hypnosadist )  18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? See above, are we going to have the footer and the Nav Box on every page? If you think Christianity and slavery is one of the 30 or 40 most important articles about Christianity in all of Wikipedia, go ahead and it add to the box. If consensus is with you, it will stand. You may want to refresh yourself on what that box is and what it isn't at Article series and Navigational templates -- SECisek (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "are we going to have the footer and the Nav Box on every page?" No but you did not add the footer to the page, i've just done that. ( Hypnosadist )  20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to content at Article series, there is nothing about this template that qualifies using "part of a series" on it. "Series" more correctly applies to a long article that has been broken up --JimWae (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it is refered to as a "Nav Box" in every case...--SECisek (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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:[[Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg|thumb|center|100px|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. -- 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 '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)

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 [[Image:Gold Christian Cross no Red.svg|25px]]. While I also like [[Image:Gold Christian cross.svg|25px]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Collapsible version
See the discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20 about making this template collapsible. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all-- that discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20 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)

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)

Simple English Wikipedia
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)

New white cross
 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 "" instead. -- Carlaude (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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 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)

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 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)

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)

Puritanical cross: dull and brings down the quality of the article
Every other article on a religion has a relevent and attractive image in the lead; Islam's article is much better for it. We're stuck with this brutish and unimaginative puritanical, 2D entity. I added an image which IMO makes the Christianity article much more attractive to the reader. It is the cross in the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem on top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is located at the traditional place of Calvary were Christ was crucified. Thus it is undisputably an image which is relevent to all Christians. The Church itself is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Catholics, Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Christians. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean this image? This image is the one from its Islam box. It looks 2-D to me.
 * Since it is only the traditional place of Calvary it is not undisputably relevent. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre only represents liturgical Christianity, and not even all of liturgical Christianity. Most notably it is not representative of Protestant Christianity. Besides your efforts to edit war, I most of all I also see your image is cropped to show the Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the condesending tone really nessesary, all the "efforts to edit war" nonsense? So far as I'm aware, even Protestants believe Christ was crucified at Calvary and that a cross is a symbol of it - so its representative. In regards to the Islam article, I was thinking more the picture of Mecca, which is at the top, rather than the caligraphy half way down the article. Most forms of Christianity; Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Copts, Anglicans, Lutherans, so on are "liturgical" Christians. Thus it is easily representative of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world. If we pandered to every obscure sect formed in the 1800s there'd be nothing organic in the article to begin with. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, while Catholics, Orthodox, and Orientals 'own' part of the church, other liturgicals do not. There is no Anglican or Lutheran representation there. Furthermore I do not think most people would count your list of six "forms" of Christianity as "most forms"-- and Copts is a repeat since they are part of the Oriental Orthodox.
 * Protestants agree Christ was crucified at Calvary, but the Bible doesn't say where Calvary was, and some (even Lutherans) consider it to be elsewhere or unknown.
 * You have to know how condesending your nonsense is. How is Protestantism, or even non-liturgical Protestantism an obscure sect?
 * Of course it still could count as "representative of all" as a cross-- but that hardly matters since your desire is to replace (at best) one cross with another. To me, it is replacing a cross with a cross & mosque.
 * You also talk like this is the template for one ("the") article. It is a template for many Christian articles. But if you just want a photo at the top of the Christianity article (like the Islam article has one of Mecca above the Islam Template ) just add a photo above the Christianity Template on that article. The template image has to be a bit more basic-- or people will get tired of seeing it on every single page. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 06:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The previous concern regarding the mosque is now taken care of. I have cropped the mosque out of the image. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Carlaude here. The photo of the cross is untidy and unrepresentative. The previous, yes, may have been boring, but it's simplicity allowed it to be accepted by all Christian denominations. The cross represents the crucifixion and death of Jesus as believed by all Christians and therefore should be all inclusive, which this is not. Adding a fancy picture adds nothing to the article and I feel it conflicts with NPOV. I would like to propose a revert. - Cheesy Yeast (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles
As referenced above, 5 months ago-- to add a new Christianity article to this template-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Denominations, Traditions SPER request
I would request that the heading in the side box that currently reads "Denominations" be changed to "Traditions", as the term "tradition" in the history of Christianity is a broader term, encompassing many denominations, while still delineating the key differences among Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Non-Trinitarianism. Further, a "denomination", particularly in the Protestant tradition, is a much more narrowly defined group than the page indicates.

Creynolds2011 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not done for now; because this template is used on a lot of pages, I think that we need to see some consensus here that the change is OK with the community. Therefore, please could you ask for other people to approve the change, below; you might want to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity to get more people to respond.


 * If consensus can be demonstrated, then please reinstate the . Hope you understand why this step is necessary in this case, thanks,  Chzz  ►  17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Width
Anyone know why it is so wide? It seems like we could make it about 80% of its current width and the whole thing would still be only one or two lines longer. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reduced width looks good. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Under Catholic
Would it be a good idea to include Eastern_Catholic_Churches in the Catholic section under Denominations?

I'd have done it myself but I need to learn more wiki first. It mentions Roman Catholic, Anglican, Independent Catholic, and Old Catholic, so I figure Eastern Catholic should be represented there. It's not the same as Eastern Denominations. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)