Template talk:Infobox church/Archive 5

Grid refs
I did not like having to display grid refs without spaces. At long last I have got round to asking someone and doing this very simple edit. The php that &#123;{OS coord}} calls was already prepared to receive spaces. That means you could do this edit to other articles that call oscoor (which is now a redirect). Certainly, gbmappingsmall should be used from now on. But before doing that, let us see if the following more radical suggestion is accepted &hellip;

I have changed the template and added a new parameter osgraw, so that you now do this. In case anybody is moved to revert or change this introduction of osgraw, I have only used it for that one edit. &mdash; RHaworth 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with gbmappingsmall and whether it is generally supposed to be used in preference to OS coord (is OS coord now deprecated?). This may be an issue that may need to be resolved at some stage, but right now since you have provided gbmappingsmall as an alternative to OS coord I see no problem. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 09:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OS_coord is the most primitive template. It is preferable to use it via an higher template rather than directly. Gbmappingsmall is clearly preferable because you only have to type the grid ref once! &mdash; RHaworth 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Code errors
I have the mediawiki software running on my pc where I do my article editing and formatting before copying it to wikipedia. This infobox would not render properly and the problem seems to be that there are are incorrect markup in lines 74, 120 and 160 for the headings "History", "Architecture" and "Specification". Instead of  there is   that seems to be the cause. Correcting this sorts out the problem on my wiki. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed these three here as well. Let us know if you see any other errors.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  17:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bug on St Nicholas, Blakeney
I added coordinates_display to St Nicholas, Blakeney, but the coordinates are still not showing on the title line. Any ideas why? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had problems with this. Two suggestions: check that there are no extraneous characters in amongst the co-ordinates (see my talk page for an example) or use:
 * coordinates format    = dms
 * coordinates display   = title
 * Since St Nick's is the FA I've not changed it, but copied the infobox to User:Martin of Sheffield/my sandbox2. I've made the change there, feel free to have a look. HTH Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really a bug. You just have to use coord, as mentioned in the documentation. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why do we have a coordinates display in the infobox code? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * title shouldn't be used; the coordinates should be displayed in the infobox, using inline,title, not least so that they are included in the emitted metadata. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the relevant part of the template (which I didn't add), the template checks to see if the user has assigned a value to coordinates. If so, the template displays the contents of that parameter. If not, but the user has assigned values to both latd on the and longd, the template plugs the value of the following parameters into geobox coor and displays that instead: latd, latm, lats, latNS, longd, longm, longs, longEW, iso region, country, coordinates display and coordinates format. I suppose this was done to ensure that the co-ordinates are automatically displayed using geobox coor, which is overridden by coordinates if a value for that parameter is specified. For more details, perhaps you can trace the template history, see which editor added it, and ask him or her. It may be desirable to do away with coordinates and require users to enter the co-ordinate information using the geobox coor parameters, but the change should be discussed first as it will cause some temporary disruption until a human or bot can replace all uses of coordinates. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Church organs
The Bells parameters look great. Would it also be useful to describe the pipe organ, or main organ where there is more than one? Something like number of organs (leave blank if one or none), and then some details of the main or only organ, I suggest: Number of manuals, number of ranks, number of pipes, year of installation, year of last significant modification if any, original builder's name. I would not put style or even number of stops at this level, some would, but I think most agree that the presence of couplers although generally listed in the specification is no more significant than say the number of thumb pistons, and the presence of extension ranks and/or mixtures is quite adequately covered by the numbers of ranks and pipes, to give a general impression of the organ. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection in principle, but do bear in mind that the template is getting pret-ty huge. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there now seem to be second thoughts about putting the bell data into it, see above. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bells
Is it possible to add parameters for the number of bells, how they are hung and the weight? In England, in particular, the sound of church bells is often the first impression one gets of a church. something along the lines of:


 * Number of bells: 10
 * How hung:       full circle
 * Weight (tenor): 30 cwt

I would suggest at the end of the specifications section. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Please test. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is traditional to specify the weight of bells cast or used in the UK in cwt, quarters and pounds (unless the recorded weight has been estimated). I would suggest use of the CwtQtrLb to kg template if specific tenor weight is known. Weights are widely documented in Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers and its preceding paper editions. Oosoom Talk 13:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd posted the following on my talk page in response to Andy's good work. I've brought it here to keep the discussion together.
 * Thanks. So far I've just tested All Saints Church, Frindsbury.  The number and hanging work fine, but the weight is a problem.  Initially I tried { {convert|15|cwt|kg|0} }, but it didn't work.  Convert does not appear to recognise hundredweight so pro tem I've left it as 15-2-4 (15cwt 2qtr 4lb) which is the usual method of weighing bells in England.  Unfortunately that doesn't display either. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a documentation error. The template gives bell-weight, should be bell_weight. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Second test: St. Margaret's Church, Rochester. Seems to be identical.  The method had disappeared, just in case you are currently working on it I'll do no more for an hour. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer to the cwt->kg template, I'll investigate it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: the cwt template works fine in the infobox, see the two test churches. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be something wrong with the "bells hung" parameter as used in these two test cases. No values displayed for this keyword. Oosoom Talk 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . There was a missing pipe character (|). — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oosoom Talk 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a list of sensible or traditional values for how hung (eg full circle is given above)? See for my first attempt, but I suspect there are better ways. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The usage of the Bells fields in the Infobox church template is problematic. For churches with “rings of bells” hung for full-circle English-style ringing (most of these are in the UK, with a few in the US and Commonwealth countries) the number of interest to bellringers is very specific. The mountings of these bells are designed in a very specific way to enable change ringing in the English style. These bells are tuned into a diatonic scale and form a very definable set of bells. Typical numbers would be 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 (up to 16). The tenor weight is that of the heaviest bell in such a diatonic set.
 * These churches may have other bells which do not participate in change ringing. These could include a smaller bell rung to announce the start of a service and perhaps a very large “bourdon” bell, possibly struck by a clock, and in no way musically related to the change ringing bells.
 * Lincoln Cathedral has a ring of 13 bells hung for change ringing, of which one is a semitone bell used to allow a diatonic subset to be rung on the lighter bells so there are never more than twelve rung at a time. It has a further 5 bells which are not of concern to bellringers (although, of course, interest to lovers of bells)(Dove Online). The mentioning of 20 bells for Lincoln Cathedral is rather a useless quantity – as useful as, say, the number of windows. From one point of view a car has five wheels, only four of which need be documented in a (hypothetical) Vehicle Infobox (ie. one used for steering).
 * In that rather bizarre sense I suppose my car has six wheels, including the spare. But why exclude the gear wheels? No, my car has four wheels, and so does yours I suspect, although three wheeled cars and six wheeled cars certainly exist, and we all know exactly what that means, no problem. On the other hand, if you say to a man in the street near Lincoln Cathedral that it has thirteen bells, and as you are speaking Great Tom of Lincoln sounds, and he says rhetorically "Is that one of them?" and you say "No" he'll rightly decide that you're not a useful source of information. Andrewa (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the more information you add to an Infobox the less useful it becomes. In any case everything in an Infobox should be detailed and referenced in the article body. Oosoom Talk 10:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. My 2.5d worth would be number of bells = 12 + 1, how hung = full circle, tenor = 23-3-13.  The bourdon is not the tenor.  The clock bells are part of the clock, and I'd quietly ignore the service bells.  What is needed in the main article however is sections 9.3 and 9.4 changing to 9.2.1 and 9.2.2, then a new section 9.3 to cover the history and current state of the bells.  See Rochester Cathedral section 5 for example.  To answer Andrew's original question, the most common ways of hanging bells are full circle, swing chime and dead.  Full circle, as the name suggests, allows the bell to swing 370 degrees with an internal clapper to make the noise.  Swing chime is just swung to-and-fro with an internal clapper and dead means the bell does not move and is instead struck.  You could have subdivisions, but I would suggest only these three for an infobox. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem I see is that this risks having an infobox which will mislead most readers. To quietly ignore some of the bells is a problem, and my initial reaction is that it's unacceptable to simply put this smaller number into the infobox as it is.


 * Can we perhaps urgently rephrase this part of the infobox? Urgently I say, before it gets too populated? It's fine to restrict the number of bells to a ring of bells where there is one, but it needs to be clear what this number represents. And it seems that this infobox is intended for a large range of articles, from small parish churches to major cathedrals. It may not be as simple as the original requestor thought.


 * Alternatively, if the population has already gone too far, there are ways of still updating the infobox, but it will be a lot more work. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the description of the methods of hanging, interesting. But I now see the same problem with the how hung parameter. Where there's more than one bell tower, there may well be more than one method of hanging. We need to be careful that the infobox does not oversimplify to the point of conveying falsehoods. Andrewa (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are intended to be a quick summary of the article. If a particular set of facts is complex, it is better not to mention it in the infobox but in the body of the article. For example, if the congregation of a church has moved buildings three times, it is probably not a good idea to try and mention all the different locations that the church has been at in the infobox. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 12:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * Perhaps the documentation ought to stress main ring of bells. I suggested the "how hung" parameter so that campanologists would immediately understand what type of ring they were.  I have just tried adding a second set of values to one of the test churches (Frindsbury) where there is a 5-2-0 service bell hung dead.  Unfortunately it just overrides.  The phrase "main ring of bells" would also cover small churches such as number=3, hung=swing, weight=2-1-4 and even large churches such as Cologne Cathedral which has number=8 hung=swing weight=24tonnes.  The other three not being part of the main cage shouldn't appear in the infobox.  The infobox is after all a summary, one would hope that a reader interested in the details would scroll down.  Lincoln would then appear as 12 + 1 (which works - I've just checked).


 * I've emailed the webmaster for the diocesan website, there is a link to a history of the bells which doesn't work. Until then perhaps the following would do as main text:


 * The earliest bells still extant are the two service bells of 1593 (16-1-7) and 1606 (14-0-21). In 1835 the 108 cwt (5.4 tons) bourdon bell was cast.  The clock chimes were cast in 1880, four bells with tenor 27-2-7.  The main ring is of three dates.  The back eight were cast in 1913 and augmented in 1927 to the current twelve.  In 1948 a flat sixth was cast, this gives a light eight (10-1-7) on numbers two to nine.


 * I'm sorry, but I can't do better without additional sources. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a growing feeling, perhaps not yet quite a consensus, that this information shouldn't be in the infobox after all.


 * http://dove.cccbr.org.uk/detail.php?searchString=lincoln&Submit=+Go+&DoveID=LINCOLN gives the number of bells as twelve, then lists twenty bells, thirteen of them in the circle of bells. So it's not as simple as it might seem.


 * Manual of Style/Infoboxes reads in part Readers greatly outnumber editors The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks, or "Unknown"s present an unprofessional appearance, diminishing Wikipedia's reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia.


 * I can't see any mention at Help:Infobox or Manual of Style/Infoboxes of infoboxes used in a section of an article rather than in an article (perhaps I'm missing it), but I think I have seen this done in several places, perhaps in Tree of life articles and also in articles on motor cars, where sometimes one article covers two very different models by the same name. But I don't think I've seen a template specifically designed to be an infobox for a section.


 * But perhaps a circle of bells or bell tower infobox template, to use in a section on the bells in an article on a church that does have a bell tower, would be useful here. And if there's more than one significant set of bells, it could be used twice or more. Just a thought. Andrewa (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * An interesting idea, though perhaps if the readers were already at the section they might just read that? As an alternative perhaps Lincoln should be:
 * Main bells: 12 + 1 (full circle) (7 other bells)
 * At the risk of being parochical, I do think that for Engllish churches in particular this is useful information. Where it is not useful then it simply should be omitted; the best of both worlds. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That proposal for Lincoln would at least suggest to the reader that there is esoteric assumed knowledge. But it doesn't help them to correctly interpret full circle in this context, or even to suspect that this describes the way the bell swings rather than the configuration in which the bells are arranged in the tower. More important, to the layperson, the number of bells in the main circle is thirteen. The fact that they're never all used together, that for change-ringing purposes it's seen instead as two overlapping sets of twelve (have I got that right, even?), is detail.
 * Agree it's useful information, but the best way of presenting it is still not clear to me. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the answer is to change the label on the infobox field from "Bells" to something like, say, "Rung bells", or whatever technical term is applicable. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly. But this is a template to use on articles about churches rather than bells or just about cathedrals. I suspect that I may have, quite by accident, chosen a particularly difficult example in Lincoln, with its combination of a chiming clock, an unusual ring of bells, and other bells as well.


 * But dealing first with Lincoln, the questions are: What information do we want in the infobox, and how do we wish to describe it? If we are to present a number of bells, should it be 12, 13, or 20? They seem to be the candidates. Or should more than one of the numbers be presented, or none?


 * Twelve is an esoteric answer. Only someone interested in the details of change-ringing would say twelve rather than thirteen. To a member of the public, it is a misleading answer and they could rightly complain that it doesn't belong in the infobox. However it may be possible to give this figure a technical name which, together with a wikilink, would inform rather than mislead the general reader. Work is needed on the template if this is to be the choice.


 * Thirteen is an unacceptable answer to bell-ringing enthusiasts, with some justification. Changes are only ever rung on twelve bells. If only one figure is given, it should be either twelve, the number in the ring of bells, or twenty, the total number of bells.


 * Twenty seems the natural answer, but again is misleading to the public, who might then see this as a ring of twenty bells, and unpalatable to bell enthusiasts, who regard this as a trivial figure compared to the number of bells in the ring, again with some justification. It's not obvious to me how to overcome this, but it may be possible, and again work is needed on the template for this choice.


 * The remaining options are to give more than one of these figures, or none. In the first case, again work is needed on the template, obviously; In the second, work is also needed on the template documentation at least, to explain why in some cases this information is best not included in the infobox, and provide some criteria to help editors in making this decision. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If Lincoln is a very unusual example, the answer may be to just omit the fields, or use one to say "See [section on bells]". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * True. The option of saying, well the template fits most cases, we'll just use an ugly solution in the others to keep the template simple, is always there. Not a very satisfying solution IMO, and we still need to document it. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Template fault?
I've noted a problem with the CwtQtrLb to kg template on its talk page, but it might be an isse with the infobox. It may even be an issue with the PDF creator, perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the internals might care to investigate? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have posted a problem on the convert talk page. Oosoom Talk 11:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

other_name
why is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_church&diff=548552177&oldid=547428637 other_name placed above] the image and caption? looks very odd having a label there. note that infobox settlement and other templates do not add a label to this field if it is above the top image. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki; feel free to remove the label. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have, and I removed the underscore, since no other parameters in this template are underscored. Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Styling
Do we need:


 * width:24em; font-size:90%; text-align:left
 * font-weight:bold
 * border-bottom:1px #aaa solid ?

Can't we simply rely on the infobox defaults? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say we could cut the first one, but the third is useful since there is no header for the first section. as far as the bolding of the names go, they are bold in other templates, like infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I've removed the first. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

conversion to infobox
I have converted the template to use infobox, and a couple parameter typos in the process. let me know if there are any issues. it should have very little impact on the visual presentation. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work; thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Clergy" header is appearing, even when no parameters are completed. See, for example Lichtental Church. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * try reloading the page, or making a null edit. that was fixed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_church&diff=550552120&oldid=550536233 here]. Frietjes (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So it is; thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at All Saints, Frindsbury and St Margaret's Rochester and they look fine. I've also added the bell details to Rochester Cathedral (which I had inadvertently overlooked) and again there appear to be no problems.  Well done. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Music and art
I would like to mention organ builder and year, painters and other artists, choirs, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the size of the template, is this information that really needs to be in the infobox? Can't it simply be stated in the text of the article? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is in the articles. A church altarpiece was painted by a famous painter, a church is known for its music, - why not have that in the infobox as an option. Not all parameters will be filled anyway, both boxes are rather sort at present, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should also take into account the earlier discussions on "Bells" and "Church organs". — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Churchmanship" vs "Tradition"
According to Churchmanship, the more common term for that concept is now "Tradition". Should this template be updated to use that terminology, too? —me_and 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection, although note that the template originally used tradition but this was changed to churchmanship pursuant to a prior request, which should be in the archives if you want to look it up. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just looked for that discussion, but can't find it in any of the archives… —me_and 11:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strange. I remember the discussion but can't find it either. Anyway, as I said, I'm happy if the change is made. Let's see what others think. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the 2009 archive (section 6: Merge proposal) there was a discussion/mix-up between the "Tradition" and "Denomination" fields, perhaps this is what you are remembering. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, not sure. "Churchmanship" was not mentioned during that discussion. Anyway, we can always have a proper discussion about the issue now, if necessary. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, a straight rename to "Tradition" isn't going to work, as there's already a "Tradition" parameter. Would "Anglican tradition" be better, or is the current layout going to be the best we can come up with? —me_and 11:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Err, it acutally asserts: "In official contexts the term gender-neutral term tradition is preferred." but a) this is challenged ("By whom?" tag) and b) is only for PC compliance, not accuracy. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour changes

 * 9 April 2008: Changed colour for Church of England as shown below following a change at Infobox religious building. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 9 April 2008: Lightened colours for "Charismatic movement" and "Methodism": see discussion at "Template talk:Infobox church". &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 10 April 2008: Changed colour for Church of England back to original, lighter colour: see the discussion at "Template talk:Infobox church". &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can Church of Ireland be added as a valid Anglican category? Andrewrabbott (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, why hasn't the Church of Ireland been added to the Anglican category? Pjposullivan (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ordained ministers of music
Placement of the organistdom or director parameters in the Laity section is inappropriate if there is an ordained "Minister of Music" as may be the case in certain denominations (e.g., Presbyterian USA) or where the "Director of Music" may be ordained and have the title "Rev." (e.g., United Methodist). This can be solved by adding the appropriate optional parameter to the Clergy section.

Alternatively, as a workaround the appropriate titles can be forced into the "minister" field, where the template lacks the appropriate parameter, as I've done at Towson United Methodist Church or Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church, for example.  JGHowes   talk 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Designation
Can someone fix this info to support | designation1 = that is very useful to have on this nice template. Same should be done on monastery infobox, so we should not use emmbeded, which i also cannot use here... Can someone help, please? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How would this be used? Can you give an example, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as per all four of Medieval Monuments in Kosovo. And much, much more... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you mean. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the way how subtemplate "Designation" was used in those four articles. Someone should add an option what we can just use "| designation1 =", "| designation2 =" in the template Infobox church. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 12:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Infobox contents
Given that Wikipedia is not a directory why is there an inordinate amount of effort and complexity put in to the listing of every member of the church staff. No-one who is not notable should be named, and no one is notable should appear unless notable for the role in that church. I imagine all bishops should appear for their cathedrals, but naming vicars, let alone flower arrangers is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, given that reference links within Infoboxes are ugly and not encouraged, and that unreferenced information is also not in the spirit of Wikipedia should we be including bells, organs etc in the box? Have we gone way too far off target? I think we should be told ;) Oosoom Talk 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While you have a good point generally, you're off-beam on a couple of things. The infobox should summarise what is in the article; and the article on a church should detail, with references, its bells and organ. And the requirements for notability apply to articles; the bar is lower for people mentioned in articles, but who are not article-subjects in their own right, Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the comment about vicars and flower arrangers quite interesting. And yes, all vicars are meant to move on after a few, even after two, years. But can any clergy be ignored, if considered to be "high maintenance"? And can construction costs be ignored too, if considered to be "messy", even if clearly given in the text? e.g. St Paul's Church, Peel? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oosoom makes a good point; we are not compiling a directory. If completed assiduously, a church infobox can become ridiculously long, often greatly exceeding the length of the text.  I would support removing all clergy below dean; ALL laity (notable people connected with the church are included in the "Significant associated people" field); all reference to bells; and don't add organs.  If we keep adding, we'll have to have memorials, stained glass ...it'll never end!  Let's have a sense of proportion. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree. The infobox template provides a toolset, the editor who employs it can use or ignore most of the fields at will.  If the bells are significant to a church, add them; if not, ignore them.  Likewise the tower, spire or architectural description.  What is relevant to a grade I listed medieval church is different to a '60s concrete block.  I think there may be a dichotomey here between regarding the church as a spiritual resource to the community and regarding it as a historic edifice.  An encyclopaedia must cover and allow for both attitudes.  Dealing directly with Peter's points: if the infobox exceeds the length of the article it is ridiculous, but the issue then is the editors' discretion not the template's facilities.  I'm afraid I disagree about the Vicar, but only if it is kept up to date.  A set of bells which are rung are a significant, often historic, feature, a couple of ting-tangs used only for service are not.  I agree about the need for a sense of proportion though, but the sense must lie in the head of the editor not in a constriction of the template. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that Peter may be singularly well-placed to offer advice here, but I think Martin of Sheffield's view is also quite fair. Perhaps some difficulty arises over the use of a single info box template for all churches, no matter what their size or importance. As regards clergy, I think it's more important to ensure that the article contains a functioningl external link to a church website where all church officers, but especially the vicar, are listed. Regarding construction costs, perhaps it is sensible to use only the bare cost in the info box and leave any conversion to present day value to the article text alone? One last query - should the template be used in compressed format or opened out into one parameter per line? I favour an open format as it's easier to navigate when updating. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points Martin. A link to an external website is only as good as the website however.  I'm sure we can all think of churches where one or two families keep the whole place running, and if there is not a web enthusiast then the parish site goes for years between updates (literally years, but "no names - no pack drill"). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the open format. See All_Saints_Church,_Frindsbury for an example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bells, for example, are certainly a significant and documented part of many churches; at the other extreme, it's hard to se the importance of a church's flower arranger or student vicar. It may be wrth adding a tracking category, to see how often some of these "staff" fields are used, and where, if at all. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think editors should use discretion and common sense, and as Peter remarks a sense of proportion, especially on short articles, filling in infobox parameters is not compulsory and a messy cluttered infobox detracts from any article especially if referenced text is readily available.J3Mrs (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So, shall we remove the trivial parameters; not least almost all of the laity (except musical director/ organist)? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, remove all these trivial parameters. For the very few churches where any of these are notable or important enough to be included here, they can be added to the text of the article, or the "people" parameter can be changed to accommodate all people that should be in the infobox but don't have a separate parameter. Things like the youth ministry coordinator are really not wanted. Fram (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Embedding
Is there perhaps a way that an editor could add an embedding feature to this template, so that this infobox could be merged into another within an article? Thanks.--69.119.255.1 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * added. Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thanks so much. I think there may be a slight problem with it, as shown on my talk page: User talk:69.119.255.1. The 'Church information' bar doesn't seem to go across. Do you know how to fix that?--69.119.255.1 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a mismatch between how embedding works with different templates. With the person infoboxes, there is a module parameter that is used to pass the embedded infobox.  For NRHP, you generally just wedge it in anywhere.  I will move the title part, which will fix the problem, but will create some additional spacing in the case that it is passed through a   parameter.  Are there any building infoboxes which use the   approach used by Infobox person?  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  02:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much!--69.119.255.1 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, you are correct. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Vicar(s)
Should the infobox include the plural for vicar in parenthesis in the way it does (vicar(s))? A church can have any number of priests but only one vicar. Psalm 122 6 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (If that's a fact, should it not be included at Vicar (Anglicanism) (and possibly elsewhere)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

clergy
Is it possible for someone to add vice-rector and sacristan to the clergy list? My Church has a vice-rector and the sacristan is in a religious order and functioning in a semi-clerical role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neal L Meyer (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Organ
We have parameters for organist and organ scholar, but not the make or size of the organ. Should we? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Potentially yes, but only if the organ is significant. The problem is that many organs which are significant, and therefore worthy of inclusion, have evolved over the years.  You may get some resistance though, see Peter Vardy's comments from January last year.  I'm probably thinking from a UK perspective here, but generally the big organs have grown over the last century or two with different builders, restorers and extenders. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I still think the infobox is potentially too big as it is. The original editor may be selective, but sooner or later some editor will fill the gaps, and already in many articles the infobox is much longer than the text.  Maybe we should lose a few fields(!).  And as Martin says, do we include all organs or select them; and how - by size, by notability of builder (and who says who is notable or not?).  And as I said above, if organs, why not memorials, stained glass.....?  --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. I love organs and organ music! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've taken my own advice: WP:BOLD. There is now a guidance paragraph in the lead to the template.  Please feel free to hack it about if you think it needs it.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of geobox for churches
It is proposed to deprecate the use of Geobox for buildings (currently there are 260 such instances), possibly in favour of this template in some cases. Please comment at Template talk:Geobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

~260 instances of geobox are used for for buildings; a small minority of which are for churches, and need to be replaced by infobox church. Would anyone like to assist? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You may already have dealt with this manually, but if not could AWB help? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 09:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Still to be done (now 274 instances; see link, above); but yes, quite possibly. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Catholic denomination
In the Denomination parameter, can the " " be changed to " " to reflect the current article name? Anime (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't set by the template: the template just takes what's passed to it in the denomination field and displays that. You should be able to change it in any article that contains it, as I see you've done at Makati Church.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For the automatic colouring scheme of the template to work properly, "Infobox church/denomination" (and, if applicable, "Infobox church/font color") needs to be updated with any new denomination (or variations thereof). I have added " Catholic " to the list. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 09:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jack Lee  –talk– but the description should be changed to guide editors. Anime (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the documentation for "Infobox church/denomination" needs to be updated. Helpers welcome. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Patron saint parameter
It would be appropriate that this template would also include a parameter for its patron saint. The closest parameter i found is the cult parameter which is defined as "the name of the saint that the church is a cult centre of. Nowadays, the word cult is known to have a different meaning. Can it be also changed so that it would be the same for Template:Infobox diocese which has patron saint as one of its parameters. Anime (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Cult centre implies rather more than a simple dedication; a place of pilgrimage perhaps. In the UK (because that is what I'm familiar with) churches with a dedication have it as part of the name: "St. Paul's, London", "All Saints', Frindsbury" or "Holy Trinity, Millhouses, Sheffield" for example.  Would a considered use of the "name", "fullname" and "other name" parameters not suffice?  As a couple of international examples: "name = Washington National Cathedral | fullname = The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington" or "name = St. Peter's, Rome | fullname = Papal Basilica of St. Peter | local name = Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano" (NB: the actual page uses a different template).  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Such a full name would not be the place to link to the saint(s), right? So far I (ab)used the consecration parameter, see St. Martin, Idstein and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already a parameter for this exact purpose: dedication. See the template documentation. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone which the requisite knowledge could add something to the documentation, on how to find out which specific "Saint James" or "Saint Paul", or whomever, a given church is dedicated to? Or at least advising caution, when editors are unsure? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I must have been up and down that list half a dozen times before replying and still didn't see it!    You could embed the link, but now that JackLee has shown us the way there's no point. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I admire your dedication. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wahaha! — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Moar admiration ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Now its getting more confusing. The absence of patron would lead to editors to find a parameter similar to this. It is confusing that documentation for dedication and cult have the same description starting " " which would be closer to the patron saint. The term dedication is understood by many as an event rather than to a saint where it is dedicated. This should be updated as well to avoid confusion. My question is, why is Template:Infobox diocese has patron and this template has not even though both churches and dioceses can have patron saints? Anime (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't dedication date handle the event though? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Qualify?
Hello,

Does an "Abbey" qualify for use with this template? I am guessing it might also be Template:Infobox monasteryTwillisjr (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates display
I recently added inline,title on Ermita Church, but the title display isn't working, and I cant figure out why. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * there should be no _ in coordinates display. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * this still appears in the list of parameters though. Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Fri 12:34, wikitime=  04:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * feel free to fix it. Frietjes (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates region: and type:
I am working Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format and have run into this template for the first time. This task involves removing the parameter specifying and replacing it with other parameters. Other infobox templates have provided a way to code the region: and type: coordinates parameters; e.g., allows US-MN_type:landmark. I don't see anything like that in this template; am I missing something, or are those values considered not important enough to support? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Mandruss, you should not use US-MN_type:landmark, but US-MN or region:US-MN_type:landmark work with . for this template you would use US-MN. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * The doc for this template does not say anything about iso region.
 * It appears that the template always passes type:landmark to GeoHack, so it's not necessary to code that. The doc does not explain that.
 * The doc does not explain the template's use of Wikidata. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the stock answer, which blithely disregards the fact that the average editor like me lacks the knowledge to competently make such changes. A substantial amount of learning would be required, both as to the topic area and as to how to maintain doc pages in general. I have other things on my plate.
 * The responsibility for a doc change lies with the person who makes the related code change; the two go hand in hand. If that person has neglected their responsibility and is no longer around, then it makes sense for the doc change to be made by someone who already has the requisite knowledge. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm always wary of giving that "stock" answer, where it seems that the individual I'm addressing may "lack the knowledge to competently make such changes"; however, the content of your post indicated to me that that is not the case. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well thanks, at least, for engaging me rather than ignoring me, which I've found is the far more common response from editors at your level.


 * I have 30 years in various computer-related fields, half of it in development of software and associated documentation. So I do feel qualified to say something about that here, as I think it applies to all software environments. However, my area of expertise is IBM mainframe system software, and none of that technical experience is transferable to this environment beyond things like a general understanding of how software works and a capacity for cryptic detail. It doesn't allow me to just jump in and figure out how this stuff works without hours of study, which, as I said, I don't have time for at the moment. I've had just a little exposure to doc page "internals", enough to know that they require a significant amount of knowledge that isn't required in other areas of Wikipedia.


 * When it comes to the topic knowledge, as I said, I'm currently at the level of documentation user rather than documentation contributor. Being able to recognize that the doc needs to describe the template's use of Wikidata is a far cry from knowing enough about that to document it well. That will change with time, but I was hoping for a doc improvement now. If I took a shot at it, it would likely be less than entirely correct, and would have to be corrected (or reverted) by someone else. Or, it would remain uncorrected, which would be worse.


 * If Wikipedia has a need for mainframe assembler-level code, I'm your guy and would be happy to help out. We both know that's unlikely. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Denomination colour
Why has the colour for the Anglican denomination been changed? I cannot find any discussion in this template or elsewhere that this should happen. On the Template page it says that colours should not be changed with discussion and, I presume, consensus. The feeble pink colour does not reflect the denomination, imo, for which the previous maroon was much nearer to an ecclesiastical colour. In the reasons for the change it is stated that it is to correspond to the colour of the denomination in Template:Infobox religious building. It certainly makes sense for the colour to be the same in both templates, but can it please be the majestic maroon rather than the feeble pink in both templates? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I posted for discussion in Template:Infobox church/denomination rather than here and got no response. As stated I changed the color to conform to Template:Infobox religious building as the documentation mentions it should be.  I'm happy to change that box to the maroon instead.  I'll proceed with that color, changing the one for infobox religious building, if there's no objection. Djkeddie (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess it is just personal preference but, in any case, the maroon is sufficiently different from the other colours in both infoboxes to make it distinctive.  And I do feel that it gives more style to the Anglican infoboxes, unless anyone else has an objection.  Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding denominations and changing colors
[Moved here from "Template talk:Infobox church/denomination".] The color coding works well for Catholic and Anglican churches at the moment, though the color for Anglican needs to be adjusted to match that for Template:Infobox religious building. The lack of specific identification of denominations makes the colors for Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Pentecostal fairly useless as it is important to distinguish among the many different such denominations. I would like to add major denominations to each of these categories.

Also, the color choice for Presbyterian is poor. The bright green is unattractive for one and the use of the green is wrong for Presbyterianism. Presbyterian churches would more appropriately be identified with an orange, perhaps the color used for the Brethren now, as that is the traditional color of Reformed churches. I would also like to add continental Reformed denominations to the Presbyterian category making it a catch-all for denominations in the Calvinist tradition. Djkeddie (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Djkeddie, you should propose a specific value for the colors associated with each denomination if you are serious about having any of them changed. For example, see the thread above. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Colour change for Pentecostal churches
Just a thought – the current colour for Pentecostal churches is very close to the colour for Eastern Orthodox churches. Perhaps the former should be changed to some shade of red? (I'm not sure if Pentecostal churches have got a particular colour associated with them.)

— Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Pentecostal category should be merged with that for Charismatic. Red is a good choice for both, evoking tongues of fire descending on Pentecost.  Do we need to distinguish between the two?  Djkeddie (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Do Charismatic and Pentecostal churches belong to the same "family"? Perhaps other editors can weigh in on this. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 22:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This article outlines their close relationship. There are some churches and denominations that would be properly classified as Charismatic rather than Pentecostal, because they arose at a later date our of the charismatic movement, such as Catch the Fire Toronto, International House of Prayer, and the Association of Vineyard Churches.  However I think the movements are close enough to constitute one tradition, at least for the purposes of identifying them with the same color.  Djkeddie (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is still incomplete. There are more churches than the few listed and "Eastern Catholic Church" is not a church in itself. It's more of a collective term than an actual church. The various Eastern Catholic churches are listed on the Eastern Catholic Churches page. Is it possible that these additions can be made? Farragutful (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox should include publictransit field
Many of the infoboxes for geographic and urban locations include a publictransit field (e.g. park infobox). Since churches aren't just historical curiosities, but places that people might like to go, especially visitors and tourists, information in the infobox on how to get there would be of great interest to people coming to Wikipedia. I added a publictransit field to the infobox for a church that I am writing about in my sandbox and it is ignored in the reading render. I'm not sure what the proper channel to request the extension for a template is so I am adding it here. Taylordw (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Color change for Presbyterian Category
At Template talk:Infobox church/denomination I've made a proposal to change the color for the Presbyterian category:

I think green is exactly wrong as a color for Presbyterian churches, most notably because it is identified with Irish Catholicism over against Presbyterianism, which in that context has been represented by orange. I'm proposing changing the color to the blue of the Church of Scotland, the historic origin denomination of most Presbyterian groups, and which I think will work more generally for other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations which often also use blue in their logos. This would also require changing the font color to white, as is the the case for other categories which use darker colors. Djkeddie (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * [Moved here from "Template talk:Infobox church/denomination". I've redirected that talk page here so that discussions reach a wider audience.] If that is a more appropriate colour for historic reasons, I've no objections. Thanks for pointing that out. You may want to post a message at "Template talk:Infobox church" pointing to this discussion so that more editors are aware of it. In fact, perhaps this page should be redirected to that page. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with this change for the reasons laid out above. Hunter (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi does this only change the bgcolor? Can I add new titles to infobox church template for a presbyterian church like assocpastor and asstpastor? I'm new to wiki please advise. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpc.sg (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion is just about the background colour. In response to your second question: there are entries for minister, assistant, seniorpastor, pastor and chaplain; the middle three ought to cover most cases.  Periodically a discussion arises here about how many parameters should be available and of those how many should be used (see here for example).  To summarise: used entries must be reasonably stable/maintainable, and must meet Wiki's notability guidelines.  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks! So how do I change the color here to blue?


 * I've had a quick look at Life Bible-Presbyterian Church and the denomination is given as Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore). If you look at Template:Infobox church/denomination you will see that there is not an entry for this precise denomination, so the default #CCCC99 applies.  To change the automatic colouration to blue you will need use denomination = Presbyterian and find some other way (possibly churchmanship=Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore) ) to express to precise sect.


 * Please also have a look at your talk page. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. There are some problems with that though, namely "Presbyterians" and "Bible-Presbyterians" are considered 2 distinct and separate denominations. To avoid misrepresentation, I think it best to separate the 2. So, is it possible to either add Bible-Presbyterian Church (Singapore) (and also Bible Presbyterian Church) to the lists under "Presbyterian, Reformed" category OR come up with a new colour scheme altogether??


 * Still trying to figure out how to use wikipedia, the talk page, and all. Pardon the noobness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpc.sg (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the "noobness", we've all been there once. I've looked at the template and documentation and can't see a problem.  There is a requirement to discuss all changes first, so I'm starting a new section to see consensus.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)