Template talk:Christian denomination tree (categories)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I removed this template in the one place i ran across it found it (but since rv-ed), with the summary

- unnecessary, & confusing & mostly irrelevant, diagram

but i see it considerably differently now that i realize it is specifically designed to organize categories, rather than articles.

I'm still not sure that is a good idea, but if it is a good idea, it needs IMO to be more apparent to readers which function it is serving: I.e., title should use the same link, but mention Cats w/o reader having to hover the link.
--Jerzy(t) 06:36, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

The diagram is quite helpful for a basic undersanding of church history. It is a 'family tree' - the diagram is not about articles but can be placed within any article about a Christian denomination or sect in order to understand how the denomination is historically related to other groups. It might be improved by your suggestions, but I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. Paradiso 08:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where are the anabaptists? The Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, Church of the Brethren deserve a special branch. Also, what about the Shakers? Joshuaschroeder 16:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Anabaptists are listed. As far as the Shakers, my opinion, respectfully, is that such as small (albeit fascinating) sect doesn't need to be on the tree; just the "major families". KHM03 4 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

[edit] Fix

The current diagram seems to suggest that Protestants are a group that seperated from Anglicanism. This is not true. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 21:41 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

• That's what I thought the diagramme suggested as well, but then I had a closer look, and realized that it actually shows Anglicanism and Protestants branching off from Western Rites Catholicism at the time of the Reformation, which is more or less correct. The diagramme isn't perfect, nor perfectly clear, however. Paradiso 5 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to original .png diagram?

I think it is best to use the original diagram at Image:Christian-lineage.png until Wikipeadia has a decent image creation programme that can include wiki links. Not much functionality will be lost in the interim. The template is a little "chunky" but a good idea when at teh head of the appropriate categories. Alan Liefting 04:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the imagemap, this ASCII Art has a difference with better-looking PNG: It presents Pentecostalism. You call whether or not this is a good idea.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like people have figured out a way to put hyperlinks on an image. This would improve this image a lot, and was the original motivation for this text version, as I remember. Compare {{Australia Labelled Map}} and the tool Labelled Image Editor. (This comment also posted on Image:Christian-lineage.png). -Colin MacLaurin 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For the technically minded ones: an absolutely (CSS: position:absolute) positioned image division (HTML tag: div) is overlayed by similarly absolutely positioned text divisions. It's too simple to be thought-up by top hackers, some newbie must have gotten the genial idea. Rursus 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I would propose the Image:Christian-lineage.png to be replaced by an SVG version afterwards, since SVG is much easier to maintain. Rursus 06:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1: Image:ChrBr2.svg, 2: Image:ChrBr-strip.svg. Rursus 07:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Skip those! Testing:

{{User:Rursus/☧istory}} - untranscluded for ease of reading.

Rursus 08:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone further improved the template (colors, linking to right places etc.)! Thanks for beneficial collaboration! Rursus 18:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)