Template talk:Anglicanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Anglicanism
Anglicanism Portal
Template:Anglicanism is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Contents

[edit] New Template

Ok, just FYI this is the new template for Anglicanism. I'd like to have something nice to link all the major articles together. Is everyone OK with me using the Anglican Communion symbol for the template image? --circuitloss 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Long overdue! KHM03 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...I wandered into Methodism and got inspired by that one. --circuitloss 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert

Is George Herbert necessary on the template? KHM03 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't really know. I was trying to think of "people" to include and he came to mind. What criteria do you think should be used for template links? Also, I like your edits. It's looking better than my first version. --circuitloss 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hooker, Henry & Cranmer are hugely important figures that helped to make Anglicanism what it is. I think these are the types of folks to list. Maybe Elizabeth I? KHM03 12:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canterbury and York

I wonder how appropriate it is to link to the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the "symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion", but the Archbishop of York doesn't really have any relevance outside England, does he?

Also, maybe there could be an "Issues" heading, with entries for things like Anglican views of homosexuality? --Angr (t·c) 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues are transitory; here today, gone tomorrow. I'm not sure that's a grand idea. Canterbury & York are the two archbishoprics, York being the #2 guy in the communion behind Canterbury (I think...I'm not Anglican). We can certianly take York off the template if necessary. KHM03 12:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents. About the first issue, I agree with Angr, the Archbishop of York is significant only to the CoE. If York is on the list the ECUSA Presiding Bishop should be also...etc. Also, I think that issues could be interesting if it was related to Anglican distinctivness. The ordination of women could be worked in here somehow...let me think about it. --circuitloss 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright

I'm currently investigating whether the compass rose is public domain or copyright/fair use. I'll keep you all updated. --circuitloss 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It was nice. KHM03 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
But Canterbury Cathedral's nice, too. You might also use the cover of the BCP. Just a thought. KHM03 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Canterbury is nice, but very CoE. This is Anglicanism, so I think we would all prefer something more universal. BCP is a good idea... --circuitloss 02:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I just received an email from Jim Rosenthal, director of communications for the Anglican Communion. He told me that thej compass rose symbol is licensed "to all who write about, illustrate, or promote churches and institutions of the official Anglican Communion. Misuse would be challenged." It is stil unclear to me whether this allows use in a "neutral point of view" encyclopedic setting, especially one of the bredth of Wikipedia. It might be best to leave things as they are for the moment. --circuitloss 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth a fight. Canterbury or the BCP will do. Here's an image to consider....
Image:Bcprayer.jpg
Whatever you decide. KHM03 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Or this...
Image:Bcp79.jpg
KHM03 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I tested the template with both images, and while I would prefer to use a BCP image, the first is not centered, and the 2nd is too dark. In my opinion anyway. If someone wants to change the template and get a reaction, please do, but I'm leaving it as is for the moment. Thanks KHM03 --circuitloss 02:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bcprayer.jpg has been deleted, and Image:Bcp79.jpg is a "fair use" image so it can't be used on a template (and it's just as specific to a particular church of the AC as Canterbury is, if not more so). "Misuse would be challenged" sounds like the compass rose image is not considered free content. —Angr 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The template and schismatic churches

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9#Template:Anglicanism2. I think it raises an interesting point, namely, whether the photo of Canterbury Cathedral on Template:Anglicanism needs to be changed, or whether the template needs to be removed from articles on churches outside the Communion, as defined by its principal instrument of unity, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Part of me wants to say that you cannot claim to be Anglican while being outside the ambit of Canterbury - which I think has a lot of theological justification. On the other hand, I am congnizant of the right of subjects to self-identify. I cannot claim to be able to put the Anglicanism tag on articles relating to Catholicism over the objections of Roman Catholics if I cannot also allow self-professed Anglicans to use the same tag on articles relating to their churches. But a straw vote on what the community feels would, perhaps, be instructive.

Photo to stay the same, apply to all relevant articles

  • Support: Even the schismatic churches once recognized the authority of Canterbury, so it's appropriate to them as well even once they no longer do. I notice the same image is being used on {{History of British Christianity}} and therefore appears without apparent controversy on several non-Anglican-related pages. —Angr 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo to be changed, apply to all relevant articles

  • Support: We cannot pick and choose who gets to call themselves Anglican, but it is inappropriate to imply that Canterbury has anything to do with groups that have broken away from the Communion. Articles on breakaway churches need to note that they are outside the Communion, and templates such as Template:Anglican Churches should not be appended to these articles. Fishhead64 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not completely comfortable with this choice. I'd rather be more partisan. But ... there is also the question of historical articles related to Anglicanism which depart from contemporary Anglican doctrine. For example, articles on the Book of Common Prayer before 1662 could be excluded from the Anglicanism project because they do not represent prayer books officially used by any church in the Anglican Communion. My argument may sound silly but I'd rather see a more inclusive Anglicanism project. Changing the picture to something generically Anglican that does not give comfort to the schismatics but brands Anglicanism would be best. How about a cartoon or simple logo depicting the Book of Common Prayer, itself? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: If the project and infobox were about the Anglican Communion - there would not be a problem with having Canterbury as an image - however, this a template on Anglicanism, therefore the schismatic Churches possibly (probably?) have a right to refer to themselves as Anglican. I understand the problem with the schismatic Churches, as in what defines Anglicanism but arguing about revoking the right of the Churches to call themselves Anglican opens a similar problem to the great Catholic Church naming debate - in the sense of what defines the term Anglican... Although I feel Canterbury is a fairly harmless image, it would probably be (ugh...) politically correct to change it... What to I would have to think about! — PMJ 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo to stay the same, remove from articles about churches outside the Anglican Communion

[edit] comments

  • Comment. If I read the TfD debate correctly, the photo is the only thing people want changed. Just make the image used an optional argument. With no arguments, you get Canterbury; schismatics can use an argument to show whatever image they like. Problem solved, everyone's happy. SnowFire 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't it possible that at present the template is massively overused? What if we only put it on the pages to which it links? (Making it a navigation box for within the set of key Anglicanism articles, just like the churches of the communion template is a navigation box for within the set of those churches.) This isn't my formal opinion, just a rumination. Doops | talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This, on the other hand, is my formal opinion: the BCP as an image is a non-starter. It simply isn't visually catchy— and, moreover, nothing marks any old book as the BCP besides the words on the cover; relying on words is not what an illustration is about. What *image* says 'Anglican' ? Doops | talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    How about St. Alban? Or a celtic cross? I agree with you on the prayer book, too. The question would be, "whose prayer book?" Fishhead64 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Hm. I don't think either one says "Anglican" from across the room. How about a choir vested in cassock and surplice? That is unmistakable, I think. Doops | talk 08:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with Doops that BCP, St. Alban, and the Celtic cross are not going to cut it (the Celtic cross is to me the symbol of Celtic Christianity and/or Irish Catholics). A choir vested in cassock and surplice could be RC as well, though, and possibly off-putting to low churchers. —Angr 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    There's nothing distinctly Anglican about a surpliced choir, either, though. How about Thomas Cranmer? You can't get much more distinctly Anglican than him - and every stripe of Anglican and "Anglican" can agree on him, surely. Fishhead64 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, isn't that too personal? As far as cassock and surplice, I thought it was a nice example of something which is middle-ground: simultaneously liturgical and ceremonious without being high church (like albs and chasubles and suchlike are — after all, the low churchers were wearing cassock and surplice as they fought to prevent these innovations). Doops | talk 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Henry VIII 'cause he started it :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the Hooker statue (shown below) is best— 1) influential figure; 2) wearing distinctly Anglican garb; 3) cathedral in background Doops | talk 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree, the Hooker statue is probably the most appropriate image - although I personally would prefer it if the photo were cropped a little, it looks a little odd to me at an angle (nitpicking there...) — PMJ 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What about St Augustine? — PMJ 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The content may be anglican; but the visual screams eastern orthodox. And images are about aesthetics. Doops | talk 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hooker is photographed in front of a cathedral of the Anglican Communion! Okay, maybe I'm being too sensitive. I'd still rather go with Cranmer or a celtic cross. Fishhead64 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've included the suggested images below. I couldn't find a surpliced choir - sorry. Fishhead64 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Hooker (Exeter Cathedral)
SaintAugustineOfCanterbury.jpg

St Augustine of Canterbury (image now deleted; was an Eastern-style icon)

Thomas Cranmer

celtic cross

Shrine of St. Alban (St. Alban's Cathedral)

Prayer book (I think its a psalter, but no one will really see)

Bishop's Mitre. The symbol is used quite often to represent Anglicanism, and can be found here, here, here, here and here

Of the choices above I like Cranmer the best. —Angr 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Cranmer is probably the safe choice, although I'm now thinking it doesn't really matter and Canterbury is perfectly acceptable... Hmmmm — PMJ 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the Cranmer image. I just went to the Richard Hooker article and thought "why am I looking at an image of Cranmer?". So may I suggest the Bishop's mitre I've included in the gallery? --One Salient Oversight 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced Cranmer with the Mitre. I'm happy to let others remove it if you don't like it. --One Salient Oversight 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking this template

This template was becoming a little bit like my mother's ghoulash - every thing in fridge was getting into it, much of it hard to consume as prima facie vital to Anglicanism. I propose hashing out the discussion a little more fully at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. Fishhead64 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A few tweaks, hope you all like. -- SECisek 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I agree with doops. Keep it simple. -- SECisek 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Doops | talk 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "Isn't it possible that at present the template is massively overused? What if we only put it on the pages to which it links? (Making it a navigation box for within the set of key Anglicanism articles, just like the churches of the communion template is a navigation box for within the set of those churches.) This isn't my formal opinion, just a rumination. Doops | talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"

It is totaly over used. "Whose instrument of unity?" wouldn't be a question if the template was used to only link to the articles mentioned. What we need is an Anglican Portal. Anybody care to join in the construction of one? -- SECisek 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to. Will try and do some work this evening. Portal:Anglicanism? Tompw (talk) (review) 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, portal is done. I had free time on Sunday. I am replacing this template with the portal tag on all articles. This template will serve as a nav box just for the articles mentioned on it. -- SECisek 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Communion

Is it useful? --59.149.32.77 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)