Template talk:Infobox Calvinist Denomination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Changes

I have removed the line "This church is a Calvinist denomination" the article itself and categorisations should make this clear enough. I have added lines for date of establishment, attendence numbers, membership numbers. I also tried out a few new other options like split from, merged with, and splits to, but they would need to be more options to show whether the whole denomination merged, some remained, whether those that remained merged with another body, and what year this all happened. I don't know whether this information should or can easily be included in an infobox. I have provided space for more associations and not limited them to denominational, but I they don't look too tidy. I'm not sure whether we should persist with these options. Ideas?

I suggest that we make sure the name appears at the top and that the logo appears without the box. Also, if terms like Polity, Evangelical and Liberal need to be explained, do they need to be in the infobox?

Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Attendance numbers? I didn't know you could do that for whole denominations :).

As for Polity, Evangelical/Liberal, and the like, I'm kinda keen to see them stay to give the proper overview, but I moved them down to the bottom so that they're not the first thing that people see.

I liked the expanded associations idea, but I didn't like your implementation, so I changed it.

I'd be in favour of leaving out all the merge/split stuff (but maybe putting in an option to say what date the denomination ended). I think it's too complex to get into an infobox. In fact, I think it's better as a diagram.

Thanks for your work on this.

--TimNelson 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have though attenance numbers would be available, probably easier to find for US denominations, but I'm not too fussed about that one.

Is there a better term for "Polity" that people might understand easier? Would "Governance" do the job beter? If all else fails, we can just stick with the link.

Good work on the associations one, I was trying to use an idea I had seen in another template, but it didn't really work. Thanks for clearing it up.

I agree that the merge/split thing is a bit tricky. As with everything in an infobox, it should all be included in the prose anyway, which provides a better opportunity to explain the complexities.

Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Americans are more control freakish/organised than Australians :). I'm happy to leave it there, anyway.

Hmm, polity. Well, polity is the most technically accurate. How about we change it to Government (which is the correct part of speech rather than "governance", I think), but also leave it as a link to polity, so that people can find out what's going on. I guess I'm in favour of the link, whatever we call it, because the *concept* is jargony, but to my mind, it's also one of the first thing anyone who is a churchgoer would want to know.

Another thing to think about (if I haven't already said this) is how much of this stuff is Calvinist-specific, and how much is general Christian denominational stuff. If it's mostly general, we should consider talking to WikiProject Christianity about it.

-- TimNelson 04:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it with "Polity" and a link.

I agree that it isn't specifically Calvinistic. Let's hand it over to WikiProject Christianity. No point duplicating stuff like this, and they will have more ideas there. Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Evangelical/Liberal line in the infobox. I believe the link should go to the Evangelicalism page as Evangelical is a disambiguation page, and so have been bold and updated it. However, if those of you who are working on this infobox and the associated pages think that another page (Lutheranism?) is more appropriate, then you may want to overwrite my change. You'll also need to do the same on any pages using the infobox that have Evangelical as the value, because I'll have updated those pages too. This is part of the work on repairing links to disambiguation pages - You can help!. -- Paddles ^T_C 12:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Liberal should be a link to Liberal Christianity? I won't change this, that's up to you. Paddles ^T_C 12:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across Template:Infobox Christian denomination on the Presbyterian Church of Australia article. It was created by Mr.Z-man after a request from Lufiend at Wikipedia:Requested templates. I am going to change over all the transclusions of this template and propose it's deletion. Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could refrain from deleting it for a while, I'll try to get time to merge in all the relevant stuff from this template.

-- TimNelson 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done -- nominate for deletion when you like.

Incidentally, if you have time, it'd be nice if you could put the polity, area, and associations fields back into denominations that lost those fields when you converted the infoboxes (those are the only fields that were needed). The "Evangelical vs. Liberal" question is covered by the Orientation field

-- TimNelson 10:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added reinstated the info lost from the changeover, althought a few copies of the templates still need the extra parameters added, but they were blank originally anyway. Blarneytherinosaur talk 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Many thanks. -- TimNelson 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)