Template talk:Infobox Christian leader/Archive 3

Proposed parameter
I propose adding a parameter called. This would look something similar to the bishop infobox template on the Italian Wikipedia. It would render just like the  parameter, in which the text within the parameter is placed below the appointed date, with the word "by" in front of it. This parameter would be used, for instance, to put the name of appointing Popes of bishops in the Catholic tradition.  Ergo Sum  21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Chicbyaccident ( Please notify with (Talk) 17:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as a good idea for information sometimes hard-to-find in the article body. Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since these articles cover such basic facts in the article chronologically, it seems that such infomation can be made fairly easy-to-find by adding to the body at the point in which he is appointed and made bishop. If you find any articles without any chronological section, but with a Infobox Christian leader box, let me know. tahc chat 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not done for now. Several things. May you ping Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard about whether the addition has wider consensus? Does it meet WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Also, where in the order of params would you want this? — Andy W. ( talk ) 21:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've pinged the noticeboard you suggested. As for WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I believe it certainly does pass the MoS standard. The reason for its addition is the very same as the reason for the existence of the  parameter. It provides useful information that would also be contained within the article. The logic for including one is the same as for the other. Also, I propose that it go immediately after the  /  parameter and be displayed beneath the appointed date (as in the case of the "consecrated by" parameter).  Ergo Sum   20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish you pinged the noticeboard earlier and waited a week. Not willing to act yet given such short notice, hope that's understandable — Andy W. ( talk ) 22:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply by pinging you that a consensus had been reached. Just wanted to let you know that I had pinge to noticeboard and answered your two questions. I intend to wait further and see if a consensus is reached.  Ergo Sum  23:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It seems that this would always be the pope at that time-- for Catholic bishops-- and not used for any other leaders. Even so, this also does not seem to be useful data. tahc chat 20:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It depends on what you mean by useful. If you mean that the appointer can be ascertained by calculating the dates of a pope's term and comparing it to the year of appointment, then yes, this would not be wholly new information. However, since an infobox is intended to display brief information for quick reference, this seems like a useful thing to include to bypass the above mentioned steps.  Ergo Sum  21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question How would this "appointed_by" used when Father Joe is appointed bishop at one time, and then later appointed as an arch-bishop or for such role he is becomes better known for. tahc chat 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Answer The current infoobx setup only allows for one appointment to be displayed anyway. Therefore, in the case of multiple appointments, only the most recent (and presumably highest) one is displayed. The same would be true for the new parameter. The appointer associated with whichever appointment is displayed would be entered.  Ergo Sum   21:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question In the UMC you are re-appointed every year, by your current Bishop, so this parameter would not be useful to us. Bishops in the UMC are elected for life and serve an area for terms of four years, which the jurisdiction votes to approve (basically Bishops are elected at every point of the way). What denominations would this be useful for, and would it be better than changing consecrated to consecrated/appointed? Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Answer To whom are you referring as being appointed by the Bishop.? It is my understanding that this infobox would be used for the bishop, not other leaders. Also, if the leader is elected, there is no need to make use of the appointed_by parameter. Moreover, based on Category:United Methodist bishops by nationality, it appears that very few UMC bishops articles actually use this infobox at all.  Ergo Sum   22:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that the recommended period of time has passed and no further comments have been added in the past few days.  Ergo Sum  05:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnessary information for a infobox. tahc chat 22:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * , to be absolutely clear where you're intending the param to go, how it works, i.e. if there's conditional logic, and per WP:TESTCASES, may you add the param to Template:Infobox Christian leader/sandbox first? — Andy W. ( talk ) 18:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really an expert on HTML (which it seems is used in this template). It looks like the  line has to be changed to resemble , but I'm not entirely sure how it should look. Could you please assist?  Ergo Sum   21:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this in the sandbox is Ergo Sum's request for the main template. (See the effect at Template:Infobox Christian leader/testcases (sandbox only for now). If appointed_by is given, the field adds "by" and whatever the param is. appointed_by has no effect if appointed blank and elected is used instead.) Reluctant to sync this, as folks appear to believe this unnecessary. — Andy W. ( talk ) 22:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does appear to be what I intended. As for making it happen, the consensus appears to be 2-1 but, I do not understand your opposition on the grounds that it is unnecessary unless you are also arguing that the  and   fields are also unnecessary.  Ergo Sum   22:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ordination is an ancient process carried by all Christian denominations (to various degrees, under various terms), and performed someone present at the time. "Appointed-by" seems only useful to the Roman Catholic church, is done by a Pope who may have never even met the bishop so appointed, and was not always done, even in the RCC. It can still be put in the article, but the Info Box become less and less useful for quick-reference the more things that are in it. tahc chat 22:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not really accurate. The majority of evangelical denominations do not carry out any formal (or even informal) ordination. But yes, I agree that it will be primarily used for Catholic leaders, but seeing as Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity, I don't see why it doesn't make sense to have the parameter available for use when it would be useful. As for it not being important in the Catholic Church, I must disagree. It's always been done in the Latin Rite (or at least for the last 1700+ years for when records describe such processes) and it has always been a formal process. Whether the Pope has ever met the bishop is irrelevant in Catholic cannon law and doctrine. Therefore, it seems entirely useful, just as it is important to know who the consecrator was of a cardinal (which is already included) even if that person only met the pope once.  Ergo Sum  01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Evangelical denominations-- at least in the US-- do carry out formal ordination. (I am in the US, but I see no reason it would be different outside the US.) The Quakers are the only group that may not carry out ordination.
 * It doesn't make sense to such a parameter because infoboxes become less useful as more things that are in it.
 * Furthermore, having the parameter would also tempt over-zealous editors to fill in the name of the then-current pope for early bishops (even when there is no record that the pope was involved) on the assumption the pope "must have" been the one to appointed him them. It was not always the rule-- and your very comments show how easy it would be for editor to think it was. Even if the Latin Rite had long thought it desirable to wait on getting the okay from the bishop of Rome before making someone a bishop (1) for a long time not all in the Latin Rite considered the bishop of Rome the one highest authority (2) it would have been totally impractical to carry on with no local bishop until word was sent to Rome and back in the early church-- especially in the times of persecutions.
 * While the name of the appointer may be theologically "important" in the Catholic Church (as many things are) that does not mean that the information is needed for quick-reference in an infobox. tahc chat 06:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Like every parameter of infobox templates, the use of this one would be subject to the discretion of editors. It is conceivable that editors might misuse it, but I see no reason why it would be any more liable to misuse than any other parameter. And, as I think we both agree, there are cases in which it would have legitimate uses that would be benefitted by inclusion in the infobox.  Ergo Sum  21:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to re-raise this matter. So far, there are three in support (including myself) and one against the change. I have tried to answer all of the questions that have been raised and the test in the sandbox seems to work. It also appears that there are no more comments coming in after posting this to the noticeboards. do you think this is a sufficient consensus?  Ergo Sum  21:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No-- I do not agree that are any cases in which any article would benefit by inclusion of this data in the infobox. I merely agree some articles would be fine with inclusion of the data in the body of the article.
 * NOT. I think I have brought up basic reason against the parameter plus one devistating reason against the parameter. Since there are zero couter-arguments, I would assume if anyone still agreed with Ergo Sum's view, and if they had any couter-arguments they would have shared them. For example, why can't this infomation just stay in the body? Who needs to know for quick reference the the name of André Vingt-Trois's appointer-- other than Vingt-Trois himself? tahc chat 22:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not asking you to agree with me; it seems clear that that is not about to happen. You believe the information is not useful and I believe it is. I am well aware that WP is not a democracy, which is why despite your reservations, there have been no other editors to agree with your opinion. Democracy or not, WP runs on consensus, which is what I believe we have and what I hope Andy M. Wang will weigh in on.  Ergo Sum  00:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Another parameter request
I notice this template is geared for diocesan clergy. Can you add a parameter called Religious order for clergy that are associated to an order like the Jesuits? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for something simply to indicate which order they belong to or one that includes order and vow(s) date(s)? It its the first, it could be argued that this is shown already through their post-noms. You could also add the details to the if needed. There is also the religious biography infobox as an alternative. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My request was for the former. I had no idea about those alternatives. You can disregard my request. Thanks! Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

usage enquiry
How should this template be used for a person who was bishop of difference dioceses over time? Ian Shevill was Bishop of North Queensland then Bishop of Newcastle, but my guess of diocese2, predecessor2 and successor2 don't display anything. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 08:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Scott Davis, I usually put it in the because it appears in the top section of the infobox but the is also  which appears in the "personal details" section (for some reason). The most senior/recent appointment appears in the top section with all the details (diocese, dates, predecessor, successor, etc) and the more junior/previous ones are just the tile and dates, eg "other_post = Bishop of North Queensland (1953–1970)". Is this what you were looking for? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, that answer for how it can be done, so I have fixed the article in that way. I was hoping to get output similar to how members of parliament may hold several different ministries over time, and they are all displayed with equal priority. As I understand it, Bishop of X then Bishop of Y is not a promotion. Each role should be displayed with similar emphasis, terms, predecessor/successor etc. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Larger diocese are more senior than smaller ones, diocesan bishops vs assistant bishops, archbishops vs bishops; there is seniority, but as you say not "promotions". The easiest way of ordering it it most recent at the top and that gets all the details, unless they took a more junior position at the end of their career. Given that the infobox is simply a summary, you can add those other details in the main text. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 March 2017
I added the "upright" parameter in the sandbox. I tested the outcome; it works. The parameter should be added. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Scott Davis Talk 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I am sort of new to Wikipedia so I do not know if this proposed change would be very difficult to implement, but I think it would be very beneficial.

One thing I have noticed as a major flaw of this infobox is that is that it only allows for detailed information to be presented related to the subject's most recent office. Unfortunately, a the infobox for a prelate who has been the ordinary of many dioceses/other equivalents only shows his appointment date, term end, successor, predecessor, etc for that office. Usually, his previous posts are just placed obscurely in the "Previous posts" parameter.

I propose changing this infobox to make it more similar to Template:infobox officeholder. This would allow for each office to be presented equally in the infobox with each position's relevant information like appointment dates and term end etc. The separate sections for "Orders" and "Personal information" could be kept as is. In addition to allowing all a prelate's offices to be presented, it would also make it possible for a Christian leader's secular positions (such as political offices) to be placed in the same infobox as his religious offices. This would allow for a more holistic view of a religious leader in an infobox. For example, the Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo currently has his former bishopric present in his infobox (template:infobox officeholder). Again, I don't know how difficult this would be to implement but I think it would be a very positive improvement to this infobox. Jgefd (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That all sounds like quite a lot of work, and I'm not sure who could/would do it. If you want to start playing in Template:Infobox Christian leader/sandbox if you are able. Once you have a working template you can propose the change formally on this talk page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2017
I added the "retired" parameter for bishops who have retired because they have reached the retirement age but it's still not showing up on retired bishops(Bishops Emeritus) pages when I add it on. Is there something else that has to happen? Roberto221 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * only added it to the documentation; it has not been implemented in the template. Please establish a consensus for the parameter to be added to the template. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, what is the protocol for doing so? Roberto221 (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You start a discussion here to arrive at WP:Consensus - Done.
 * You invite contributions from the projects listed at the top of this page by placing a note on the projects' talk pages. But, be careful to keep it as a neutral request for input, avoiding any WP:Canvassing. Cabayi (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge
I propose to merge this infobox into Template:Infobox religious biography as christian leader is a religious person. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Against - There are a lot of differences between the two, most notably the parameters. The Christian leader infobox is specifically set up for bishops or senior priests. The religious biography infobox is to be used when someone is notable for their religous life, but hey are not necessary leaders. Its also used by other religions than just Christians. At the moment 8,512 pages use Christian leader vs 1,106 using religious biography. If anything, religious biography should be merged into this one, except that they have different coverage. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Abbot parameter required
Propose that additional parameter "blessed" below "consecrated" be created as abbots are blessed, bishops are consecrated. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Against, that section is specifically about ordination. Abbots are senior priests, not another order. You could use elected to show when he was elected and then use term_start to show when they officially took up the post (if it coincides, add (blessed) at the end of the start date). Or you just have when they were "blessed" in the main section of the article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Abbots are prelates, usually mitered and are leaders of Christian communities. Historically, they very often represented kings in ambassadorial roles and appointed directly by Popes.  I would dispute that they were merely senior priests. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For individual mitred abbots who were ordained and consecrated to the order of bishop, then, sure, they're not "merely senior priests". DBD 20:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a difference without distinction. I support use of "elected" to indicate a term as abbot. I don't this is a case for a coding change. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the term blessed is very generic, and also because such blessing is not a key notable step in their live to merit a separated notation in the infobox. However such blessing, at least according with Catholic and Orthodox theology, is not a sacrament, but such section includes also created cardinal that also is not a sacrament A ntv (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So just to be clear, then. This infobox isn't designed to cater for the entire prelature within the Catholic Church and the simple addition of 'Abbatial blessing' and 'Blessed by' is unacceptable. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Change
I would like to add the parameter "retired" to the Template "Infobox Christian Leader". When active Catholic bishops reach the age of 75, with few exceptions, they are required to submit their resignation to the Vatican, whereby they become a Bishop Emeritus. The parameters "term_start/term_end" address the start/end of a tenure at a diocese, but not whether he has retired or not (e.g. he could be moved into some administrative position). Roberto221 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Its not just Roman Catholic bishops this would be used with. There are others who might have stepped down from their senior posting but who retire later. If someone was Bishop of X from 2001 to 2009 and then returned to parish ministry for a couple of years before retiring, without this new parameter it might appear that they retired in 2009. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Roberto221, added. Frietjes (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New template
I have created a new template, Template:Episcopal lineage, that is intended to complement this template. It is used to display the lineage leading up to a bishop (including archbishops, cardinals, popes, patriarchs, etc.). It is configured to be used for Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other Christian denominations that maintain a historical episcopate. An example of its use can be found on the template page or in the Pope Francis article.  Ergo Sum  04:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Image alt text
I suggest  is changed to   so that  is not used as the signature image alt text when signature_alt is left unspecified. Similarly for coat_of_arms_alt. This would be consistent with Template:Infobox officeholder. AJP (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done this and implemented Module:InfoboxImage for signature and coat of arms. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Formatting change
Would it be possible to change honorific-prefix and honorific-suffix so that they are formatted the same as those parameters are at Template:Infobox officeholder? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconding this request, though I would also be okay if it were formatted in line with infobox person – we really just need a consistent format across the board, whatever it is. Additionally, by making the pre-nominal style and post-nominal letters less prominent in this template, it would alleviate the perceived need for pre-nominal styles. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. All three templates now have the same code for this. If there are more templates that need this, we might split this code off to a transcluded meta-template that they all use. Also cleaned it up up to accept the same exact parameter names, and for the documentation of all three templates to "advertise" a consistent version (that with the underscore). Also cleaned up redundant coding for the name parameter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much SMcCandlish, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a style mismatch, though. Some of the templates were boldfacing the pre- and post-nominals, others were not. Got a complaint, opened thread here in case people want to argue pro and con: Template talk:Infobox person — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Make template embeddable
I propose making this template embeddable. That is, it should 1) accept other templates embedded within it and 2) accept being embedded in other templates. This is common among templates that use Infobox person, such as this template, and would allow for greater infobox efficiency in articles. Embedding would be useful for instances where an individual who would normally have this template would also use Infobox officeholder or Infobox royalty.  Ergo Sum  17:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 August 2018
Label 20 parameter, "Created Cardinal" – please change to "Created cardinal" with a lowercase "cardinal" (it's a common noun).  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 09:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done $\color{blue}\chi$chi (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Christian leader and Template:Infobox church
Infobox church requires the field "Denomination" to be filled in as say "Catholic", "Anglican", etc. This fixes the colour of the title bar. In Infobox Christian leader, the field "Church" requires to be filled out with same information as the "Denomination" field in Christian leader but the colour is fixed in a purple colour. This purple colour is reserved for Anglicans in Infobox church and Catholics get a beige sort of colour. So, my question is: why does the Infobox church have multi-coloured title bars depending on which branch of Christianity is being written about and the Infobox Christian leader is stuck with the Anglican colour no matter which branch of Christianity is the subject matter. Consistency? --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support consistency with the proposed colour flexibility of Template:Infobox Christian leader as seen in Template:Infobox church. Commendable observation. While at it, as seen throughout Category:Catholic templates, for Catholic things the colour "gold" is to be advised. Perhaps even Template:Infobox Christian denomination could be altered as well? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bill Reid, the colour of Infobox Christian leader does not relate to the denomination of a person, but their religious rank: eg bishop = purple, priest = grey, etc. This is changed via type and not church. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa, thanks for explaining that. Bill Reid | (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although for a braoder scope, changing the variable to "denomination" would be even more useful. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , the parameter is church because it the highest "division" of where the individual "works", followed by archdiocese/province then diocese etc. religion in the Personal details section shows up as "Denomination". For example, for a Church of England bishop "church = Church of England" and "religion (denomination) = Anglican", and for an Eastern Catholic bishop "church = [insert particular church]" and "religion (denomination) = Catholic". For standard Roman Catholic bishops/leaders, the two parameters would be almost the same: "church = (Roman) Catholic Church" and "religion (denomination) = (Roman) Catholic". Simply, church relates to their title/position and religion relates to the person themselves. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then here is my solution: I would suggest renaming "church" to "denomination", while if needed adding a variable "orientation" (or "classification"/"tradition"), as seen in Template:Infobox Christian denomination. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose new parameter
I propose adding a new parameter that would allow editors to include the religious institute or religious order of an individual to the infobox, since many bishops are, in fact, members of one or the other. I have made the suggested edit in this template's sandbox (here) and the main part of the code to be added is:

In addition, I have re-numbered the succeeding elements and added the new parameters to the unknown parameter check list. Thoughts?  Ergo Sum  00:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please proceed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Requested. To be clear, the request pertains to the linked edit in the sandbox. The code above is only part of the requested edit.  Ergo Sum  19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Also, I would have to maintain that the religious order/religious institute variable option is necessary. Orders no longer exist in Catholicism, the religion with the most number of religious (i.e. non-secular) bishops, as they were replaced by religious institutes. However, only orders exist in e.g. Anglicanism and others, not religious institutes. The way it is proposed above would allow an editor to choose the applicable one. It is not just a cosmetic difference, such as spelling variations by country. Also, I would think that both have to be linked because they're both rather technical terms that a reader might no be familiar with.  Ergo Sum  23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Utility matters: I have no opinion on the usefulness of adding this parameter; I'm just responding as the WP:TemplateEditor likely to implement it if people want it. More discussion is probably needed, since it's unclear if this parameter is really needed. I've noticed in the course of editing templates in this family that little specifics like this are generally done inline in the value submitted to another, broader parameter.  An argument can be made that First Church of Foobar (Society of Bazquux) is preferable to First Church of FoobarSociety of Bazquux. I've disabled the  for now, pending further discussion. Technical matters: Under no circumstances should we keep adding more "spelling variant" parameter aliases for all-new parameters. The existing ones are only in there at all to prevent old template calls from breaking, and the variants can be removed after a bot hunts down the variants and replaces them with the "canonical" parameter names in the documentation.  So, just use a consistent "foo_bar" style for multi-word parameters.  Adding "foo bar", "foobar", "foo-bar", etc. variations, and wording variations for synonyms and subcategories, greatly increases the complexity and difficulty of maintenance, documentation, and use of the template. Adding parameter aliases for pointless capitalizations is an even worse practice.  A single religious_institution parameter will suffice. This parameter, if implemented, would likely be used for much more than just bishopric institutes and orders (which only apply to certain forms of Christianity). "Institution" is a good generic term to use, and avoids the MOS:ENGVAR problem of "organization" vs. "organisation".
 * Thanks for your comment. As for the parameter at hand, I cannot see the information that would be included in this parameter being placed in others. There is just no other parameter where it would make sense putting a bishop's order. For example, on Seán Patrick O'Malley, I see no parameter where I could indicate he belongs to the Capuchins.
 * I already mentioned how this be done; to use O'Malley as the example:   or more likely something like  .  But I'm not trying  that result or against the parameter; I'm just observing that this sort of addition to existing parameters is common, in lieu of adding parameters.  Speaking now as an editor in general rather than a template-editor, I actually lean toward thinking such a parameter, if generic, will be useful in this template. I will advocate (back in template-editor role) against doing anything so specific as Religious order and Religious institute links. It will cause problems and objections, because: A) There are hundreds of Christian denominations, many of which have internal bodies that, should this parameter exist, people are going to want to use it for.  B) It's a WP:POV/WP:BIAS problem to permit this annotation only for RC and Anglicanism, as if they're magically special. C) Neither term is constrained to either RC or Anglicanism, so the links would end up being misleading; Religious order isn't even confined to Christianity at all, and while the article Religious institute happens to focus on the Catholic meaning, its hatnote makes it clear that the term is also used much more broadly (we just happen to have the broader article at a WP:DESCRIPTDIS title, Religion-supporting organization). D) The article on the specific order/institute/whatever that you put into the parameter will already make it clear what kind of organization it is and link to the article on the organization type; there is no reason for the infobox to do that. Trying to link every word in the infobox's headings and labels actually  the utility of the template by making it a "sea of blue".  Infoboxes' headings/labels should largely be self-explanatory or they kind of defeat the purpose, and most infobox headings/labels are not linked unless there's a real need to link them (e.g. because a term is potentially confusing – which is really an argument to pick a better term).
 * I've asked WT:CHRISTIAN and WT:BIO for some input on this; I may be completely wrong here, and maybe the bulk of the Christian bio editors badly want RC institutes and Anglican orders to have special parameters, and don't want a generic one, or maybe don't want any such parameter, or whatever. Better to ask than assume. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so then is the current proposal:
 *  Ergo Sum  14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it not make more sense for this new parameter to appear under under church so that it could replace/be in addition to diocese? This would make it easier to use this infobox for a Superior/Abbott etc and include that information for bishops. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this thread. I agree that it would make sense to put it under church. Do you still think its inclusion would be a good idea?  Ergo Sum  03:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: Not moved. Discussions on whether the template should be merged or not can continue at WP:TFD. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Christian leader → Template:Infobox Christian official – (or some other title) Template parameters suggest that this is intended for people like Catholic bishops, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Anglican deacons, and other ranked officials in highly-organized Christian denominations, and less like Southern Baptist, Churches of Christ, or Pentecostal preachers. A move to a title like "official" helps clarifies that this is the case. If you oppose this by saying you should use this for all Christian leaders, wouldn't that suggest then that all uses of or  in articles about Christians are improper? &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 23:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Merge to Infobox religious biography per WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 23:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Infobox religious biography - unless a valid reason can be found why this specific one is so unique it needs its own infobox... --Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle, merge to Infobox religious biography, but then, so should many of the others listed in Religious infoboxes - Infobox character, Infobox clergy, Infobox Jewish leader, Infobox Latter Day Saint biography, and Infobox rebbe. At that point the doc would need to be expanded to show how each of these cases should use the template, and no doubt someone would want to WP:BOLDly split them back out into separate templates for ease of use...
 * Rewrite as a wrapper of Infobox religious biography in the same way as Infobox Hindu leader. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a much larger proposal than simply merging this into Religious biography. Any such merge should be done simultaneously with the merger of the other religious infoboxes listed above. Also, there are a number of useful parameter in this template that are not in Infobox religious biography that would have to be transferred there.  Ergo Sum  17:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - official vs leader does not give a clearer differentiation between an apostolic bishop and a evangelical lead pastor. As for merging, this info box is ultimately used for biographies of Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican senior clergy. The layout of the infobox reflects this: the colour reflects their rank; then details of their title, predecessors/successors and territory; into details about their ordination and therefore apostolic succession; and finally person details. Of the other infoboxes, for example, Infobox religious biography concerns all religious people (from Buddhist to pagan cultists). The use of this infobox is different and therefore should remain separate. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not sure I understand the distinction being drawn here between officials and leaders.  Ergo Sum  02:35, 30 September 2018 (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.

Clerics who were also secular rulers
Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy was also Antipope Felix V, though he abdicated when he was elected. Unfortunately the only infobox on his page is, so if you're navigating through the counts/dukes of Savoy, the sequence breaks here. How should we deal with this? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"See" variable movement up to right under "church"?
So between "Church" and "Archdiocese". Would that be logical? PPEMES (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. In this case, the "see" that is being referred is either synonymous with diocese or referring to the "dead" see used to give a title to bishops who aren't leading their own (arch)diocese. The order of parameters from church down to see is from largest to smallest: see belongs at the bottom. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Purple colour - offensive
The purple colour of the heading is too bright and distracting. Why can it not just be white? It's ugly and distracting. How does one change it? Thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the colour is set by the  at the top of Template:Infobox Christian leader, with priest=, pope=, cardinal=, and default=. changing it would require discussion here. I could see having the default the same as priest, which is . Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what's offensive about it. Purple is a pretty universally recognized color of a bishop (or monsignor, for historical reasons). I could see one saying that it should be a softer hue, though that's debatable, but the color itself seems rather appropriate. I'd like to hear your rationale.  Ergo Sum  23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't object to purple per se, but it seems better to make them all one color. It is already plenty clear already if the leader is a this or that type, and the color would not make it any more clear. tahc chat 02:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At that point, I don't see much of a reason for not folding this template into Infobox clergy or Infobox religious biography. It seems that one of the major reasons for this separate template is to allow the color-based differentiation of the different orders unique to Christianity.  Ergo Sum  05:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As for Catholic Church stuff, what about consequently applying the same colour "gold" as seen in Template:Infobox Pope styles, etc.? PPEMES (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my support for the current Black-Priest, Purple-Bishop, Red-Cardinal, Yellow-Pope scheme. The rationale behind the existence of this infobox is to convey in unique fashion the clerical status of the individual, not their denominational affiliation. If it were not for this overriding characteristic, there would really be no need for this infobox at all, since there are others that could replicate its function.  Ergo Sum  00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I too support for the current Black-Priest, Purple-Bishop, Red-Cardinal, Yellow-Pope scheme, because it derives from the colors used in most denominations.A ntv (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Documentation for venerated parameter inconsistent with most common usage
The  param is described in the docs as "Date this leader is venerated.". But of 138 pages that use this parameter, only 2 use it this way (Concobhar Ó Duibheannaigh and Terence O'Brien (bishop)). The others most commonly use "Roman Catholic Church" as the value, or similar ("Catholic Mariavite Church", "Church of England"). Presumably the fix would be to update the docs to reflect how it's actually used (and update the two outlier articles)? But maybe someone feels strongly that it should keep its documented meaning, and the 136 articles should be changed? You can find the usages by searching  Colin M (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As the parameter now shows as "Venerated in" (ie which churches), rather than "Date Venerated", the description should be updated. The date goes in Feast day. I agree with Colin M that it should be changed to reflect current use. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with both of the above.  Ergo Sum  15:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the template documentation. Didn't update the two articles still using dates for that field (Concobhar Ó Duibheannaigh and Terence O'Brien (bishop)) as I'm not sure what the proper value should be in those cases. Colin M (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to add fields for dismissal/dispensation from clerical state
For Catholic clergy who have been dismissed or dispensed from the clerical state, it might be good to add corresponding fields under the "Orders" header. See the article of Theodore Edgar McCarrick for example. reads:

This involves an awkward use of &lt;br&gt; and &lt;small&gt; tags in the source.

I suggest it should look something like this:

Following the naming convention of the other variables (e.g. /  ), the requested variables to add would be:



For those who aren't aware, the difference between a dismissal and a dispensation is that a dismissal is forced, as in McCarrick's case, whereas a dispensation is requested, as in Jonathan Morris's case. (More info.) The term "defrocked" means a prohibition on wearing clerical attire, which is different. The term "laicized," while also common, is not the preferred terminology, as many Catholics consider it offensive to the laity.

The use of the and  variables would produce an example as given above. The use of the and  variables would produce an example like:

As shown in the examples, linking the field headers to Loss of clerical state (Catholic Church) would be helpful. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I support the need for such a parameter, but it should be wider reaching. A simple laicization/laicisation with a link to the Defrocking article, would allow the parameter to be used by those from churches other than the RRC who use this practice. I don't see a need for laicized_by, as it would crowd the infobox and doesn't have the same meaning as the ordained_by parameters (ie linking with apostolic succession). The neutral wording of laicization/laicisation would allow the one parameter to be used for all occurrences from criminal to choice: it isn't an offensive term, especially given that there's nothing offensive about being being a layperson (RS sources: Catholic News Agency, The Tablet, BBC]). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about other churches, but for the Catholic Church, the technical terms are the ones I gave (see canon law). The word "laicization" is commonly used, especially in the media, but it's not the "official" Catholic terminology (nor is "defrocking," which technically only refers to the attire, not the state). Elaborating on what I said before: some Catholics consider the word "laicization" offensive in the context of forced dismissals from the clerical state because it insinuates that the lay status is a punishment. There's obviously nothing wrong with being a layperson, but that's exactly why they find it offensive to associate the lay state with a punishment for clergy. I don't find it offensive, but I can understand why some do. Perhaps we could have a laicization parameter (for the date), together with an optional laicization_type parameter with two possible values: "dismissal" or "dispensation". If the type parameter is provided, it would render "Dismissed/Dispensed from clerical state" respectively, whereas if the type parameter is omitted, the default rendering would be "Laicized". I think this would cover all our use cases. I would still be in favor of a laicized_by field, since, in the Catholic Church, laicization is always an act done by a pope. It's never an anonymous process. It's analogous to the existing parameter created_cardinal_by. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The infobox should give just a a quick info (in this case that the person is no more a cleric): the details shall go into the text. I prefer something more general (such as ceased to be a cleric: (date)) because easier to use (and to be understood) also for other confessions different from Catholic. While the ordained_by parameters have a real meaning for the three orders and also for the cardinalate it has some meaning (important only for the cardinal of the past centuries), the laicized_by (or similar) parameter takes so little information (to know the pope it is enough the date) that it should be avoided. A ntv (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to find terminology that works for everybody. The problem with "Ceased to be a cleric" is that, in Catholic theology, a "laicized" priest can never be "un-ordained" or cease to be a priest; he only loses the status associated with it. What about "Removed from ministry"? (removed_from_ministry) I think this is general enough while also being accurate for Catholics and for others. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For Catholic theology the term cleric denotes a jurisdictional status, not the having received the Holy orders (i.e. not a sacramental status). After the Vatican Council II the clerical status has lost most of its meaning. Before VCII the clerical status started with the Tonsure and was reversible in rare cases (having just a jurisdictional meaning) for clerics who did not had received the Holy Orders (for example: former Cardinal Francesco Maria de' Medici and many others). The usual meaning of the word clergy still retains the jurisdictional meaning simply not part of the laity and therefore ceased to be cleric is appropriate for formed Cardinal McCarrick who lost the jurisdictional status of being a cleric without loosing his Holy Orders. Laicized has the same exact meaning, but perhaps not so easy to understand. I can agree also with Removed from ministry, just it should be applied to whichever suspension from the active ministry (and it is a different issue, reversible, and perhaps not worthy enough to be noted in the infobox). A ntv (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Removed from ministry" sounds like someone has been forced out/punished. "ceased to be a cleric" is too long and would cover multiple (3?) lines in the infobox. Remember this is "Infobox Christian leader" not "Catholic leader". In order to have a limited number of relevant parameters in the infobox, we should really be settling on just one. For those who don't understand what laicization is, we can have it linked. Looking at the defrocking article (and "defrocking" is a negative term): Orthodox churches do practice "de-ordaining" someone; various protestant churches practice defrocking; and in North American Anglican churches they prefer the official wording "deposition". Also, the word choice shouldn't be denomination specific, because that would give too many options, and laicization/laicisation is in common use and understanding (I gave some links above). laicization would be filled with a date, or just simpley "yes" when a date is missing, and any further details would be included in the main body of the text. As A ntv states, the infobox is only supposed to be a summary. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  22:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's have a laicized parameter, which renders as a "Laicized" field and takes either "Yes" or a date. Jdcompguy (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I too agree to the above proposal of laicized. A ntv (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jdcompguy and A ntv. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please added: | label22 = Laicized | data22 =
 * Yes check.svg Done Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

New relatives parameter
I propose creating a new parameter called relatives. This would be a catchall for relatives that are not currently covered by the existing parents, spouse, and children parameters. Namely, it is necessary for representing siblings, but also cousins, uncles, grandparents, etc. This would also be consistent with Infobox person, which has a catchall relatives parameter. This proposed parameter would occur immediately after children. I've added the proposal to the sandbox, here.  Ergo Sum  03:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Infobox are only for a few main information, and this infobox has already a lot of information, by far more than Infobox person. In case the relatives are an important information, it shall be indicated in the text. A ntv (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What’s your take on combining all the relationship parameters into one relative parameter. If parameter overload is your concern, I see no reason why we need separate ones for each type of relationship. Relationships can be indicated parenthetically in one parameter field. Also, I think you would agree that sibling relationships are just as historically important as e.g. parent relationships.  Ergo Sum  11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: Can you give an example of an article using this infobox for which this parameter would be useful? Jdcompguy (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What initially prompted my proposal was Thomas Mulledy, which will soon be accompanied by the article of his brother Samuel Mulledy. However, another example is Patrick Francis Healy, which should (and will soon) be using Infobox Christian leader.  Ergo Sum  11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As another example, Anglican Bishops Kate Prowd and Lindsay Urwin are brother and sister but there's no place to put that in the infobox. Bookscale (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add baptism field variation
Can someone please add the  field as an alternative for  ? The baptism date is often all that is available for pre-19th century people. This field is used on infobox person and does not appear if  is filled, and it is clearly relevant for this type of infobox. Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a good idea. Can you give a few examples of articles in which the baptism date is known but the birth date is not?  Ergo Sum  16:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, Folliott Cornewall is why I came here. It's very common to see the text "ABC person was born in XYZ place, and was baptised there on [date]..." in a large number of articles (see John Overall (bishop), Anthony Scattergood, Joannes Chrysostomus Teniers, Thomas Newlin and Thomas Hutchinson (scholar)). I regularly do maintenance on finding missing birth/death dates and am currently going through various Anglican leaders, starting with some smaller roles. Most don't have infoboxes, but this one did, and I was surprised this field was not available. I do my best to find the actual date of birth but a lot of times it's hopeless and was never recorded. Thank you for the quick response. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've implemented the request in the template sandbox. Can you verify that this is the change you are requesting?  Ergo Sum  19:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks right to me. Thanks! —Мандичка<b style="color: #6600cc;">YO</b> 😜 22:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, as I don't expect there to be any opposition to the proposal.  Ergo Sum  22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Deacon or Priest Ordination
Any interest in dividing the ordination field into deacon_ordination and priest_ordination? Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's what we have Ordination. I've done a lot of work on Ordination, but perhaps it's time to fold it into Infobox Christian leader. That would be a major project.  Ergo Sum  18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, . Maybe I'll just incorporate that? The article in question is a confrere of mine, Fr. Timothy Gallagher. That could suffice. Paul M. Nguyen (chat&#124;blame) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. That template can also be embedded into Infobox Christian leader. If you would like a hand with this, feel free to ping me.  Ergo Sum  22:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting plum colour tweak in infobox for accessibility
I originally came across this issue at the article James Yorke (bishop), but it seems to be widespread because this template has quite high usage (including high profile clergy such as Justin Welby).

It’s an issue regarding accessibility, specifically the need to have sufficient contrast between text colour and background colour. (See MOS:CONTRAST and MOS:LINKCOLOR). In summary, there isn’t enough contrast between unclicked ‘blue’ links (#0645AD) in the header (typically used for honorific prefixes such as The Most Reverend and Right Honourable) and the plum coloured background (#DFB0DF) it is set against.

You can see the issue highlighted using the ‘’wave accessibility evaluation tool’’ here; it should identify the current infobox header as having very low contrast.

Additionally, the issue can be seen using the snook.ca Colour Contrast Check here, which shows the contrast as not being WCAG 2 AA Compliant. This is the target standard for compliance in MOS:CONTRAST.

I’m not particularly adept at template markup, but I think this issue has a relatively simple solution of replacing the default ‘plum’ colour with a lighter specified hex code.

Where ‘plum’ is specified in the lines

| abovestyle = background-color:;

and

| subheaderstyle =

This should be replaced with a lower saturation hex. The closest hex colour to plum, which is WCAG 2 AA compliant should be approximately #DFB0DF, for example see here using the contrast checker tool.

Thanks, Editing with Eric (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I'm not terribly familiar with contrast ratio requirements. It looks like the two for comparison are 4.634 versus 4.12. What is the required contrast ratio?  Ergo Sum  13:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. To be WCAG 2 AA compliant contrast should be at least 4.5:1, the current contrast with #DDA0DD is 4.12:1, and the proposed with DFB0DF is 4.634:1. Potentially, you could fine tweak to find a hex as close to 4.5:1 as possible, but that might be considered splitting hairs. Editing with Eric (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅  Ergo Sum  14:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox merge proposal
There is a suggestion to merge the templates for the "clergy" and "Christian leader" infoboxes. To know more or take part, go to Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate parm error in the template
There's a duplicate "type=sidebar" in the 1st line of code in Template:Infobox Christian leader, added by this edit. It put ~14K articles on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template_calls.

I'd fix it myself, but I'm not an administrator. Davemck (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2020
Please remove the duplicate "type=sidebar" from the first line of code. Thanks. Davemck (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Convert to wrapper
This should be converted to wrapper of Infobox religious biography Capankajsmilyo(Talk 04:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, there is far too little overlap. In the future, I might support a move to make one a wrapper of the other.  Ergo Sum  15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sibling/Relative Entry
I would like to request a "Sibling" or "Other relative" entry. For example, The late Georg Ratzinger, brother of emeritusPope Benedict XVI, has no appropriate entry for his association with his brother.

Potentially an entry like "other_relative; other_relative_type", "other_relative1; other_relative_type1", etc, to allow multiple miscellaneous relationships. –Zfish118⋉talk 15:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2020
Need to discuss the colour change. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The default colour of the infobox should change to #AB274F instead of the current one #DFB0DF.

Reasons for this are mentioned in Purple. Namely, the colour currently used by bishops is amaranth as decreed by Pope Paul II in 1464, well before the Protestant reformation. So this colour is common for both Catholics and Protestants. Since this was the main reason to use pink colour in the infobox, I think it should be improved to reflect this historical fact correctly. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with using the deeper purple color is readability. While I think there probably should be a discussion about standardizing colors across Christianity-related templates, using #AB274F would not comply with MOS:CONTRAST, so for now, I'll have to decline the edit request.  Ergo Sum  04:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a lighter shade of that colour? #D54974? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * #AB274F (Makes letters automatically white, so obviously there's a contrast problem; blue letters are impossible to read)
 * #D54974
 * I agree AB274F has issues with contrast, but what do you think about D54974? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eastern or Oriental Orthodox clergy do not use any colour for their bishops. Catholics, Anglicans, and some Protestant denominations use purple. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Can anyone respond to this suggestion? --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I used the infobox' sandbox, and found that is too dark. works fine. , what do you think? --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think #E387A3 works. I'll go ahead and make the change.  Ergo Sum  19:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When I check the contrast ratio between #E387A3 and #000000, I get a ratio of 8.26:1, which passes the minimum contrast ratio requirement. Can you confirm this? Also, what do you think of (5% lighter than #E387A3)? It appears somewhat closer to pink than plum but also comes with a higher contrast ratio (9.5:1) and seems easier to read (to my eye at least).  Ergo Sum   19:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get the same results. I would agree with your assesement. E798AE is a better choice. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And now undone, since a lack of consensus emerged after the above discussion was completed. I recommend doing your own testing in the sandbox and using the testcases page, then reinstating an edit request when things are settled. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 I think you should also change the colour in Template:Infobox bishop styles. Greetings, Kub347 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is awful! Please restore to the previous colours. Grey for priest, purple for bishops, red for cardinals. They were readable and accurate, and were clearly different. To me, comparing Archbishop Justin Welby and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, bishop and cardinal are now much too similar. ( you might be interested). We shouldn't be choosing colours based on a decree from 1464... Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oho! We're back on this, are we? Here's some background reading from the archives, please everyone read up: 2016 2018 2020 (Always worthing checking the archives!)
 * I think the most relevant guideline here is MOS:COLOUR: if we use colours, we must have regard for accessibility. Beyond that, there's a long-established consensus (pastels corresponding to deacon/priest black, bishop violet, cardinal scarlet, pope gold); but consensus can, of course, change.
 * I agree that currently the violet and the scarlet are nigh-indistinguishable. Using this tool would suggest:, , and . (But then I wonder whether these actually become too pale to be worth bothering with at all!)
 * DBD 15:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Illustrated example of the above colours:


 * I have to agree with the need to clearly distinguish bishops and cardinals. The status quo ante did that well, and if there's no viable alternative, it should remain. The pale colors above are truly awful; I wouldn't endorse those.  Ergo Sum  18:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can go back to the status quo ante &mdash; it clearly violates Wiki guidelines. Honestly, I like our colour scheme, but I don't think it's more important than visual accessibility. Also, at an admittedly quick look, there are no other implementations of Infobox person which vary their own header colour. If we want splashes of colour, even varying colours, perhaps a dark-backed line above? (see right)


 * Or top and bottom "bars"? (right) I suppose, if they don't bear text, these could be any shade we wished... DBD 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can someone add colors to Patriarch and Metropolitans of Orthodox Church. <b style="color:#980C31; font-family:Caveat">J.Stalin S</b> Talk 05:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes you say they violate guidelines? I don't see a violation. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the current template colors (prior to any change resulting from this discussion).  Ergo Sum  17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:COLOUR: "Articles (and other pages) that use color should keep accessibility in mind, as follows: ... Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible..."
 * Using Snook's tool (text is black, unvisited links are #0645AD and visited links are #0B0080):
 * Priest #BDBDBD text AAA unvis AA vis AAA
 * Bishop #DFB0DF text AAA unvis AA vis AAA
 * Cardinal #FFA4A4 text AAA unvis AA vis AAA
 * Pope #F7D79C text AAA unvis AA vis AAA
 * Actually... that's gone pretty well! Playing with that tool, apart from grey, it's not possible to make these shades pale enough to AAA contrast with blue links. Maybe we can decide that we've fulfilled the MOS advice because the contrast is "AA level, and AAA level when feasible..."? DBD 13:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm seeing a contrast ratio of between 11 and 15, well above the required 4.5.  Ergo Sum  19:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

, I really like this solution.

The colours are correct and it's readable. But I'd like to check the exact RGB used for the episcopal purple and cardinal red... --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, should there be a different colour for Eastern and Oriental bishops? What's the tradition there? --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ; ; ;, how about we change the header style all together, as well as colour (example to the right)? --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Here it says that the episcopal color is amaranth. Alteia is a reliable source, so I think we can rely on it. This is the color –. According to the same source, we can use #FF2400 (scarlet) for cardinals. Example --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

--Governor Sheng (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with the 'bars' version (being my own design!); but in my most recent comment, I think I came 'round to the status quo being quite acceptable. If we do reach a consensus for the bars design, I wouldn't like to use the exact shades of amaranth and scarlet Sheng suggests because to my eye they aren't quite distinct enough. Also, I would prefer not to rely too heavily on one denomination's particular practices; and I'm sure no clerical outfitters anywhere are ensuring their episcopal vestments match a precise pantone ;) DBD 11:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)