Template talk:Christianity/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bloated template

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

  • Not bad; I'd swap Second coming and Salvation, though.
  • My original intent with the collapsable sections was to allow other sub-templates to hopefully be integrated back in to the main one (eg. Calvinism back into Christianity). This may not be possible, but with the one you have, it's certainly not possible. I'm not particularly attached to the idea (of integrating the templates back in), but someone one time said it was a better idea than having lots of templates on the one article. I'll leave it up to others to advocate the idea.
-- TimNelson 10:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(I added Salvation to the Beliefs section.) IMHO, articles specifically related to (for example) Calvinism, such as the five points, should use the Calvinism template, while general articles should use the Christianity template. I think a general template with links to general article should be our goal. For more specific articles within one field of study, there should be a more specific template directing the reader to other articles related to that field. All in all, that's pretty much how it is at the moment and I also am not too keen on the idea of trying to make one 'super template'. —Aiden 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested to know why you think that Second coming is an important belief. I would've rated it as important, but no more so than, say, Sin or Creation. Incidentally, it might also help you to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list, to get an idea of what else other people thoguht was important.
-- TimNelson 06:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I simply thought organizing it between core beliefs and other concepts was important for readers unfamiliar with the subject. That said, the template I created is by no means set in stone. I simply wanted to help to simplify the template and make it easier to navigate. By all means, feel free to edit it. I simply wanted to volunteer a new layout which I think addresses some of the excesses of the current template. —Aiden 11:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that the use of either Ichthys or Chi-Rho monogram will be more appropriate and neutral symbol to use INSTEAD OF any type of cross, because the Latin cross IS NOT the universally representing symbol of the christian world (especially eastern christians, who believe that it is a mutilated form, a stripped-down version of the Resuscitating cross, also misrepresented as 'the tri-bar orthodox cross'), to not count those denominations and sects, which do not justify the use of cross/crucifix symbol at all. For short - let's remove the latin cross and replace it with some more neutral symbol that could be considered as universally representing christianity. --Zigisz 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Christians believe...

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

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


Here is an example:

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

Note they also say "most Christians share"

69.181.188.254 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

69.181.188.254

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

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


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


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

69.181.188.254 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanding sections

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

That was basically it, but also with the thought that those sections might then be expanded if that could reasonably be done.
I don't see any huge spaces on the right. This might be due to a difference in browsers. I use SeaMonkey (a Firefox/Mozilla variant); if you could post a picture of the problem, that would be helpful.
-- TimNelson 12:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I never saw an issue with the length of the template, but there were (was) some vocal wikipedians who felt that even adding one more link would just ruin the whole latout. After much battle over which denominations deserved credit on the template, the collapsable sections emerged as a compromise. Personally I feel that the length of the template was used as an excuse to omit certain "questionable" groups, but that's just my opinion. I fear if you change it, you will open a hornets nest. So pick your battles wisely. Better yet, recruit your army first. Bytebear 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too long as it is and could stand to be trimmed rather than expanded. -- SECisek 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

link change requested

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


Criticism of Christianity

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

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

Supercessionism

Just an alert. Supercessionism doesn't sound like a foundational Christian doctrine to me. Perhaps it is American terminology for something I am more familiar with by another name, say Covenant Theology. However the alert is this. Supercessionism is also listed as an article on the anti-semitism template. The current article at supercessionism only references a Jewish writer and Catholic statements. I suspect there is some definitional lack of clarity here. If supercessionism is a foundational Catholic doctrine and anti-semitic, then everything's as it should be. But somehow I don't think this is quite right. Cheers. Alastair Haines 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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


Nav Box phase out

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

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

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

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

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

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

"are we going to have the footer and the Nav Box on every page?" No but you did not add the footer to the page, i've just done that. (Hypnosadist) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to content at Wikipedia:Article series, there is nothing about this template that qualifies using "part of a series" on it. "Series" more correctly applies to a long article that has been broken up --JimWae (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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