Template talk:Christianity footer

Quakerism

{{editsemiprotected}} Propose adding a new list to the list of religions, to accomodate Quakerism, which is a Non-credal Christian religion (and listed as such on that page), that does not fall into the other categories listed. This would ideally follow the "Nontrinitarian" entry, but I leave it to the editor to decide what is appropriate.

So my proposal would be to add one line to the the existing template (after Nontrinitarian):

Nontrinitarian: Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo
Non-credal: Quakerism

Thus I am asking to please change

Nontrinitarian: Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo

to

Nontrinitarian: Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal · Iglesia ni Cristo
Non-credal: Quakerism

Thanks for considering this. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize that I fell into the "Autoconfirmed" category. My edit has gone through to the template. "Nevermind!" Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose to solve this problem? Christadelphians are a much smaller sect than Quakers, but your problem is that to accommodate Quakers, who never regarded themselves as Protestant, and are not Catholic or Orthodox, nor are many of them Nontrinitarian, though some are (again, they are non-credal), I do not see how to solve this without adding an additional category.

Do you have a viable suggestion that does not mean adding a new category? Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just don't add Quakers.

Quakerism is quite small and we do not list nor need to list every denomination type.

It will also not work to include all groups bigger than, say Christadelphians. I don't think we need Christadelphians... feel free to remove them. Also, as I said before, Christadelphians do not make the template any bigger.

Oh course, I don't recall the Friends reputating the name Protestantism, and they began within Protestantism, so I expect that is where most people would look for them, if anywhere. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quakers have been influential far beyond their numbers. For 100 years (until the French and Indian war) they were the majority religion in Pennsylvania, founded by Quakers. The Pennsylvania Charter was influential in the writing of the United States Constitution (particularly as regards freedom of religion). Quakers were very important in the anti-slavery movement both in America and in England and its colonies, and were similarly important in the women's suffrage movement. They are the reason why you can "affirm" instead of swear when you are called as a witness in court. Their system of fixed prices (rather than bargaining) has been enormously influential in commerce...you don't bargain when you go to the store to buy a bottle of milk. Because of Quakers and other pacifist religious groups, conscientious objectors were recognized after the First World War and alternative ways for such persons to serve were devised that are still in the law (even though Selective Service is currently suspended). Just going by the numbers (which are several hundred thousand worldwide) you might call them small, but that number is comparable to some other groups on your list. So in my opinion, it is not reasonable to leave them out simply because of their size.

I take your point that perhaps most would think of them as Protestants, although Quakers themselves have always distinguished themselves from Protestants, insisting that they were neither Catholic nor Protestant. (Orthodox never came into it as there were no Orthodox in England when Quakerism developed). So, I suppose that one could put them there. But they belong somewhere. Bill Jefferys (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good/fine. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

History and Denominations

I think that I have discovered (by looking at the history) the real problem here.

On March 30, 2009, a slew of revisions took place that changed a very simple "History and Denominations" part of the template, into a potentially explosive one, by splitting it into "History and Traditions" and "Denominations". Looking at things, and thinking about how Wikipedia is supposed to work, I think this was a huge mistake. This is because, as you point out, "Denominations" has the potential of collecting a huge number of entries. Your complaint was (after thought on your part) that Christadelphians and Quakers were "too small" to be listed. Maybe that's right under the current template, but maybe it's wrong. Where do you draw the line? At number of currently practicing adherants? At historical significance (after all, many of the historical examples in the template are long gone but important historically), or on some other grounds?

My opinion now, looking at the history, is that the "Denominations" section should be deleted in its entirety. It's too narrow. As you correctly point out, it is a magnet for every small sect that wants to be included.

Better to delete it, re-establish the "History and Denominations" section much as it was before March 30, perhaps (and I would urge this) add after "Unitarian" the section "Non-creedal" (which already has an article), and let those who wish to follow up on any of these categories click on it.

Of course, there have been some changes (though not too many) since "Secisek" made that marathon of changes on March 30. You have been following this, I have not. You would know better than I which of these subsequent edits should remain and which should not.

What do you think of this way of resolving the problem?

Thanks, Bill Bill Jefferys (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the splitting the "History and Denominations" part of the template into "History and Traditions" and "Denominations" is an improvemt and do not want to revert it-- for a number of reasons. As I recall, I was also the one to make this change.

This tempate began as-- and still is-- in my view, mostly a "footer" version of the "main" Christianity template, Template:Christianity, shown at the right. (But it needn't be an exacte clone either, IMO.) You will note that Template:Christianity also has "History and Traditions" split from "Denominations" (not my edit either).

This template-- both really-- are about Christianity in general and not about Christianity history, and as such, it should not have a long list of links under "Christianity history" nor have a long list of links under anything else either. It would if we just combined them again. Even more, to combine them again would hinder finding things in the template, since such list of "History and Denominations" would, at best, be merely chrological. If

Not well, this is also why I created a footer template that is about Christian history, Template:Christian History. Have a look. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The history says that the splitting into "History and Traditions" and "Denominations" was not yours. It was made according to the history by "Secisek (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 30 March 2009". The previous revision, by the same editor, has no such split. Both of these revisions were by Secisek. Prior to that edit, there was no separate "Denominations" entry.

The problem I have, now that you have alerted me to it, that since there are thousands of Christian sects, there is no limit to the number of "denominations" that might be listed under this entry. How do you decide which to include and which to exclude? By influence in modern society? By influence in ancient society and on the development of the Church? By sheer numbers (but when? Today? 100 years ago? During the Great Awakening and Great Disappointment? You tell me!)

My preference would be to put just broad categories into this particular template, and to use the links in the template to allow people to find additional information.

I will look at your other template, but I don't think this solves the problem of how you decide, arbitrarily, to include or exclude particular denominations. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that he made that change. It just sounded like a change I might have made. Maybe I thought about making that change and thought that I had. It's doesn't matter to me who made it.

As I know recall now-- the main point of Secisek's edits in this template (or edits made by someone at some point) was to have the links in this template match the list of Christianity "Top-importance" articles-- which was itself drwan up by a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group. The list did not turn out just as I would have made it (nor was I part of said discussion) but this is a suitable way to limit the number of denominations/groups in the template . ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes-- see here: Template_talk:Christianity#Scope ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is the reason for the list in this template, then it would seem to me that removing Christadelphians was a mistake, since it no longer agrees with the results of that discussion. Perhaps you should restore it. At the same time I can see that there is logic to your position as regards putting Quakers into this particular template. I would say that your argument that Quakers should be excluded because of their size is contradicted by the discussion you pointed to. But I won't pursue the point. Bill Jefferys (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes-- I'll do that. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding new article links, only Top-importance Christianity articles

As reference just above, to add a new Christianity article to this template-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This isn't a high priority item for me, but I'll think about starting a discussion. I had not been aware of this working group, so I just made the edit. Since there is a structure here, I'll respect it. Bill Jefferys (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. PPEMES (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

autocollapse(d)

I changed autocollapsed to autocollapse. This template was showing up as uncollased (open) in all placed it showed up! Please see Template:Navbox if you are unfamiliar. Nasa-verve (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Branches" instead of "Denominations"?

I've noticed that 6 months ago the issue about whether the "Denominations" section would explode into a huge list. One solution could be to use the terminology in the "major branches of Christianity file [1]. Would changing the template to say "Branches" or "Streams" or something like that be an improvement over "Denominations"? Fralupo (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

hi. i've had no success discussing in the islam section so maybe someone here could help me out

the "quranist" denomination is not mentioned on the main 'islam page. could someone make this edit for me please?

1st, its missing in the denominations article (here you could simply write quranists follow only the quran without hadith) 2nd, its missing in the purple 'islam topics' template box (here you could also add the Salafi denomination)

thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.139.26 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Catholics

Old Catholics are not Catholics they are a protestant denomination 188.123.237.30 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Catholics are indeed a protestant denomination. The same goes for Independent Catholics. There has to be some sort of distinction between true Catholics, in union with the Holy See. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics ARE in union with the Holy See. They are one, not separate, and therefore should not be listed as two separate movements. 174.48.73.196 (talk) 18:48, 10 August, 2010 (UTC)

undue weight

{{editprotected}} hi, in the Abrahamic denominations could you please delete the 'rastafari', 'gnosticism', and 'samaritanism' due to their small numbers and undue weight please? The other 4 abrahamic religions bha'i, judaism, islam and christianity each have over 5 million adherents whereas the other religions each have less than 1 million. Thank you for your consideration.Jigglyfidders (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Are you sure you came to the right place? Because, I can't find anywhere what you are talking about. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

i meant in the religion template, could you remove the 'rastafari', 'gnosticism', and 'samaritanism' due to their small numbers and therefore undue weight please?

or maybe we should reach a consensus?Jigglyfidders (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

change eastern to orthodox

the 3 main branches of christianity are protestant, catholic and orthodox. as such, could u please change the eastern term to orthodox please? thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
or i'll do it myself and you can undo if you see disagree okay?Jigglyfidders (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Assyrian Church of the East is not Orthodox-- but is Eastern. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Eastern Catholic Churches are certainly Eastern, but aren't listed there. How about following the structure of List of Christian denominations? Tb (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the system of List of all Christian denominations. The template needs a simpler and less compressive system.

There is no need or implication for "Eastern" to cover all Eastern denominations-- and I think other people will object to moving Eastern Catholic from Catholic to Eastern. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent edit that removed JWs and LDSs from the template.

I do not believe that this should be done without discussion and agreement from the editors working on this template. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

JWs and LDSs: Do not remove without discussion and agreement

I have reverted the recent edit that removed JWs and LDSs from the template.

This should not be done unless it is discussed and there is general agreement that this is appropriate action. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As reference just above, to change the articles linked to this template, it ought to changed on the list of top-importance Christianity articles. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first. As of 28 Aug 2011, there are 83 articles on the list, and the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles. --^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

Will include 'Iglesia Ni Cristo' (Church of Christ) among non-trinitarian groups.

Chivasunrated (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 May 2013

make Western a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Christianity 87.238.84.64 (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again: JWs and LDS

Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saint movement are being removed from the template. These currently appear on the core topic list, so shouldn't they appear unless there is a clear consensus that they should not? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep in a separate section - I appreciate that they are historically Western in origin, but being non-trinitarian (and according to reliable sources, that is the key difference) they are actually outside the East-West divide. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the Template

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more template page links. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Take topic to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. tahc ^chat 05:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

---

I would suggest, to add this article here the Template which is: Role of the Christian Church in civilization, Christianity has played a prominent role in the shaping of Western civilization and Civilization in genereal. And i think this topic is important to be added here since it's important in the Christian and world history and since Until the Age of Enlightenment, Christian culture guided the course of philosophy, literature, art, music and science in the western world. --Jobas (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has determined that to add a article to this template-- it ought to be a top-importance Christianity article-- and be correspond to those on the core topic list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. Read (for example) the discussion at Template talk:Christianity footer#Adding_new_article_links,_only_Top-importance_Christianity_articles. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on that talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles).

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list). No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Proposed insertion of small portal links in the templates

I inserted small portal links on this templates. Do you think this was a good idea? Do you support its inclusion in the templates? Please answer.--Broter (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the small portal links on these two templates.

It is not done other such templates, and it is not needed.

Most of these portals are of low quality with few updates. If if a few of them are found to be of reasonable quality, there would be edit wars or which would be good-enough to include, since there is no simple, fair, and consistent way to judge and enforce "reasonable quality".

Again we really don't need it; people can find these portals from the pages themselves. tahc ^chat 17:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Index

Would it be possible to add a link with a logo to the Index article for Christianity (Index) on the bottom bar? Orthorhombic, 03:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Joseph

Hi Tahc. The consensus at the 'core 100' list seems to be to add Saint Joseph's page to the list. The page has been on this template for quite awhile, without revert, and with the discussion (although limited to three editors) stalled it would seem to confirm the page for the list. I'm surprised at the lack of editors who comment on these, but that is a side issue. Instead of removing the page from this template, please add the page to the core list. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

As you can see there is no consensus on core list page, and as you already know, that page determines the links here.

As you can read at Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not a vote. Your "arguments" at Formal nomination: Joseph were generally pitiful and if allowed to be the basis for core topics would result in an endless supply of "core topics". tahc ^chat 23:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My arguments seem fine, at least for a weak start. If you notice I was more or less making light of having to do a formal nomination at the beginning. The page had been on the core templates for most of the year, without objection. To me it seems obvious that Joseph should be on the core template list, so in doing a formal nomination, after the page had long existed on the two templates, I really expected no objection. It surprised me when you did. So I put up some arguments for his page's inclusion, and then I couldn't think of any counter arguments. You didn't put up any in the discussion linked above, besides your opinion that others should be on the template before his page (we never got around to which pages, but I'd think both John the Baptist and Christmas should be core topics, although I think Joseph should be on the template ahead of even those) and that he only got half the views as Mary. Well, maybe Mary was his better half, which rounds out that equation. But in the biblical telling Joseph has core topic status, status which is reflected in core Christian teachings and the accelerating honoring and recognition that Joseph receives. His page has been on the templates for awhile, so I assumed you knew it was there because you keep good and well-tendered watch to protect those templates. So I thought you would be in favor, and couldn't think of any reason why not. And as I read the discussion linked above from my made-up mind - so my viewpoint is limited by that - I don't think consensus was gained to take his name off of the templates and the discussion to formally add his page to the core list seems to me to include solid reasons why and not many, if any, against. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not notice that you had snuck it on to the template, until today. If I had noticed it before today I would have removed it before today.

To me, you seemed to be arguing very hard for Joseph, like a person that had written the article himself. You also seem to be joking in saying that I didn't put up any counter arguments.

There was never any need to gain "consensus... to take his name off of the templates" -- nor did you even ask for "consensus... to take his name off of the templates". You did not even admit you had snuck it on to the templates. Because you wanted to add it-- you went to the Core topics list to request it be added-- then could give no reason to do so. tahc ^chat 02:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't sneak Joseph's name on the Christianity template. I put it there in full sight, where the listing belongs. As it stands now the limited but ongoing discussion at the core topic talk page contains many more reasons to add Joseph's page to the core list than to not add it (his page gets half the hits of Mary's seems to be one of your main arguments) and I will continue that discussion soon. Thank you for commenting that I am arguing "very hard" for the page's inclusion, happy to do so. I see that you mention Joseph on your user page in sharing John 1, repeating one of the eight common names for Jesus among the early apostles, "Jesus, son of Joseph" (an appropriate descriptor, as Joseph named and raised the boy). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"Core list?"

The whole affair with the locking of Wikipedia content to that "core list", has been questioned. It is not unlikely that some even find this assertion obstructing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chicbyaccident. The principal of the core list seems fine to me, but at least a couple of missing obvious entries (Joseph and John the Baptist) shows that it has flaws. The decision to create a core list and to keep it to a list of 100 seems to have been made by two editors, so I would think if this round-number limit were raised for the inclusion of other appropriate links it wouldn't harm the quality of the templates. Although not many editors work or comment on it, and the 'formal' nomination of Joseph, which includes you and me in favor and tahc opposed, seems to be in favor of the page's inclusion, the process is still workable in theory if not in present-time reliability. Since I'm mentioning this, I'll nominate John the Baptist and see if that one is also acceptable. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC

Of course WP:Consistency appealing is valid in edits, refering to related templates/articles. But this idea with the core list - a sudden local rule here - I'm afraid makes users uncertain if they qualify to petition, to whom, and in what way. No, the content disposition of this "core list" spirit and thus its assumed spirit might as well be implementated into Christianity article itself, and Template:Christianity footer. Then this disposition could be referred to in other pages and content. As if now, it borders WP:Own, and gives an indirectly obstructive effect in its inflexible bureaucratic-like application. In short: if this core list is really that helpful, then now once for all implement its implications into the above-mentioned article realm content and then let's get on wikipeding decentralised as per default. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Core_topics_work_group/Topic_list#RfC_on_of_this_"core_list". Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Compare Template:History of Christianity, and you realise that are substantiave improvements needed for Template:Christianity footer. For starters: it is appropriate to present the denominations only in 25 % of the template? That of these, Nontrinitarianism occupies about 15 % of the template? (Same user as above, new username). PPEMES (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

New draft

I realised that in order to have a discussion of improvement, some concrete draft needs to be presented. Voilà. Feel free to improve. I tried to make the template less Euro-centric, less Protestantism-centric (yet with unproportionately more details on Protestantism still), and more emphasising the overview by means of accessing the larger branches/organisations/groups rather than arbitrarely shuffling in free-floating tenets in various subsections. The intention is to bring about a better, more collected overview. The history section has also been sized up in resolution a bit. PPEMES (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: While there are reasons to introduce the "general" sections Theology, Philosophy and Culture right under the history section but above the denominations section, don't you think it would be more WP:NPOV to illustrate the diversity of groupings before going on to try to illustrate the at best arbitrary selection of general topics? PPEMES (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

They should go right after history, at least 'Theology'. These sections are not general, but in many ways the core of the topic. The large denominations listing then follows per topic growth, and its new size alone hides the sections underneath it. Did you add or remove many items (I haven't really compared the two, although see that it seems much larger), and maybe it's time to bring John the Baptist into the Christianity template fold. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at how the template looked in October, 2017. A cleaner template but in need of expansion for sure, but it seems some of these topics have been removed. Where is Luther and other church figures? Point is, 'Theology' is above even History. There have been a large amount of changes, and I'm surprised no one else is commenting. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to cautiously retain what could be retained arguably per WP:NPOV from the previous version. But, yeah, as you can see, for instance Nontrinitarianism doesn't cover 33 % of the section on denominations... As for Theology, Philosophy and Culture, wouldn't you agree that all of these flows from/can be traced to denominations and/or movements? As such, at least I have a hard time seeing how its selection and presentation can be WP:NPOV consolidated into this template as something above and beyond the denominations? It's hard enough to more or less arbitrary even fit something into the section alone below the denominations lists, let alone distinguish them as beyond the confinements of denominations, isn't it? PPEMES (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but of the two I like the previous version] better, but with your additions at 'Above'. The core topics were given right up front, easier to find, and the present version loses my attention pretty quickly (trying to use myself as an average reader looking at the map). I can see your expansion concept and the need for more entries. We have different perceptions, which is why a major change such as this needs other opinions and I'll wait until more editors chime in. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and place those general sections below History section if you prefer. I have stated my concerns, but if you insist on this, at least we could then have a new default to develop from. What do you think about that solution forward? PPEMES (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that nobody else is commenting. Are you and I the only editors left on this island? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed a bit odd. PPEMES (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Divisions of denominations into Western and Eastern?

The idea that this template should convey that Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity is the most important dividing dimension is absurd. So is the selection of denominations within these categories. PPEMES (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You prefer liturgical/non-liturgical? Evangelical/Mainline? No dividing dimension at all?

There is no claim that Western and Eastern are the "most important dividing dimension"-- just that these groups can be divided in this way.

Also, this is not a selection of denominations. Except for the Roman Catholic Church, they are all denominational families, and I fail to see why any of them would be absurd. tahc ^chat 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As seen in List of Christian denominations by number of members, while also echoed in List of Christian denominations, the largest branches are: Catholic Church, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy. You may want to add Nestorianism for historical reasons. In the previous version, I tried to convey that, while also balancing details on these branches in accordance with sizes. What would be the arguments to present a long list of in the large picture minor denominations in a Western Christianity as opposed to that? PPEMES (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You said "What would be the arguments to present a long list of in the large picture minor denominations in a Western Christianity as opposed to that?"

I suppose you think that I wish to have a "long list of in the large picture minor denominations in a Western Christianity," but I still do not understand what you wrote. For example, I wonder what denominations are the "large picture minor denominations".

Please state clearly either (1) how you find the current set of groups a to be problem, or state clearly (2) what modification you wish to see, or (3) both. tahc ^chat 05:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please excuse the sloppy reply. My concern is that I'm not sure the Western/Eastern divide is the most relevant to the majority of readers. Why do you have to push the taxonomy of Western/Eastern? Why can't simply the existing branches be listed in one way or another? Isn't that more relevant to the readers? Cf. for instance "traditions" in the stable Template:Christian theology. PPEMES (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My view is that we are not "pushing" the Western/Eastern divide. We are just using the Western/Eastern for a couple of reason-- reasons that amount to it being better than not having any division.

I would consider another system, but you are not saying what you want to have instead. Since you are not proposing any alternative system, I cannot yet form a view on if another system is any better or any worse. tahc ^chat 19:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It now looks like you want to favor a system that (1) drops the links to Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity (2) Forces us to group all Protestant together as if they are all about the same (3) Forces us to agree which are really Protestant and which are "a whole different thing" (many so-called Protestants groups consider themselves to be "a whole different thing"-- just as you might think the Catholic Church is "a whole different thing"). (4) Creates more wasted template space, yet also creates a reduction in clarity.

A big advantage to the Western/Eastern divide is that editors can agree on which groups are Western and which are Eastern. This is not so with Protestantism. There are also groups-- like the Church of the East-- that are none of the four categories you seem to favor. tahc ^chat 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's possble they can agree on what's Western and Eastern. However, even more undisputable according statistical estimations are the main branches in terms of members: Catholic Church, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church. To these, and their denominations, you could add Nestorianism for proportionate, historical weight reasons (Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, both claiming legacy together with non-Nestorian Chaldean Catholic Church of the former Church of the East). Add to this possibly the few millions of Non-trinitarianism, although some consider them part of Protestantism as of its heterodoxy by definition and by ultimate idea historical origin and organisational evolution. That's what I suggested, as illustrated in my update (which by the way also includes the Western Eastern cultural divide as you can se).

I fail see why one shouldn't advocate this line of thinking except of simply disclosing the main denominations. Except, that is, from a Protestant view. Av view where the denominational lines of the Christian Church in Protestant ecclesiology are downplayed as merely cosmetical, i.e. along Western/Eastern divide. That is however a 40 % minority view that doesn't really take it to the bank per WP:NPOV, though, does it? PPEMES (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read your comments and do not follow what point you think you are making. Are you proposing that we only list Protestantism as a whole as one of a few "main denominations". tahc ^chat 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The basic point I am trying to make is to not make this a template from a Protestant view. For that view, please see Template:Protestantism. This is the template for Christianity, and shoud this not give priorioty nor weight to views and denominations within Protestantism. The version you are enforcing as such is not convincing to WP:NPOV. PPEMES (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tahc: I take it you're just going to override everthing to have it your way, without bothering to explain? PPEMES (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Tahc. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Is there any relevance in sizes of denominations in evulating what to include and in what detail? Or should we just include things randomly? PPEMES (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You're making a case that the status quo ante isn't neutral. I don't find your argument persuasive. If the template doesn't look slanted to me, then it doesn't need to be changed. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not seek to make this Protestant template and it is not one, but to remove all the links to Protestant denominational families would make biased against Protestantism. tahc ^chat 21:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tahc:,@Chris troutman:,@PPEMES: Hi Everyone, My suggestion is that we move new draft to Template talk:Christianity sidebar as Footer is Very Large. I belive exclusion of groups make biased views. If PPEMES would wish to keep his new additions(In Future Discuss and get WP:CON), I suggest you add them to sidebar which is a more convenient way. Regards... Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 01:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

denominations v. denominational families

A you can see in the draft, the Western/Eastern divide is reflected, but denominations are grouped into "Major branches" - namely Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Nestorianism - in the same fashion as the "By tradition" section in Template:Christian theology. That satisfies both WP:NPOV and WP:GLOBAL more than Western/Eastern as sole sorting. A sorting that is irrelevant and even arguably WP:FRINGE to most users. I therefore intend to add that again (while keeping the Western/Eastern divide as seen in the draft), if you don't offer more convincing arguments for why the "Major branches" must not be reflected in the template. It is not proportionate that minor Protestant denomations should take up all the space in the list of denominations like in the concurrent state. PPEMES (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid we need an RfC for this discussion. The "Western/Eastern" divide and its WP:NPOV repurcussions as enforced here by the King of the Hill could use more evaluation. PPEMES (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Up until now the Christianity templates have always limited to the larger denominational families (like Baptists)-- mostly denominational families that have denominations with in them. Now you want to make the groups into the largest section of the template-- so that you can fit in all the denominations (like American Baptist Churches USA) you can find (which are mostly single-county denominations). There is no reason to do this types of thing.

Readers do not use the Christianity templates to find a particular denomination, in hopes of finding the reader's favorite denomination; yet-- if you think this can be done at all without WP:GLOBAL-related complaints, just begin your own separate template for your denominations and the hundreds of denominations other people will want to add. tahc ^chat 14:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think that readers are, before everything else, looking for the Western, Eastern and Nontrinitarian divide of denominational families, though? Where Nontrinitarian is included despite doubtly comprising more than 1 % of Christians, are now filling out more than 33 % of the sections on denominations... Is that representative and proportionate to you? PPEMES (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't-- that is not the issue. tahc ^chat 17:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tahc: So why do you keep policing this template thusly and enforcing it? PPEMES (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I would rather have a discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia, or at least about your proposed changes. It sounds like you want to talk about my choice of hobbies. tahc ^chat 14:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

New template focusing on Christian denominations created at Template:Christian denominations. PPEMES (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Documentation

Please add Documentation after making Changes to Template. Template:Christianity footer/doc Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 07:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Great Commandment

Had added Great Commandment as the second stand-alone entry in the "Theology" section, but was reverted per controversial. The two commandments, usually looked upon as a single topic, seem to be at the core of the early creation and theological point-of-view of Christianity (see Golden Rule). Viewing the other topics in the "Theology" section of the template, a link to Great Commandment doesn't seem out of place. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Many many things could be "not out of place" here but the template becomes less and less useful as gets bigger and bigger. To me, Great Commandment seems like one small (but important) part of Christian ethics, which is already in the nav box. tahc ^chat 19:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your good faith opinions and preferences noted, yet there are other points of view (i.e., the size of the template isn't as important as its cohesiveness and topic coverage). A better place for Great Commandment would be in the early history section as another subsection of 'Jesus', which already includes Sermon on the Mount, and I would urge its placement there. If you want to confine things to the Christian ethics entry (which is shown under one word, 'Ethics') then how about adding three subsections to it: Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, and Great Commandment. These major subsections should cover the important topic fine, and give a much fuller cohesive explanation of its meaning. Would point out again that although some of the topics listed under 'Theology' are debatable as "template worthy", these three are fully, historically, and directly associated with a core understanding of Christianity. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Which link(s) would you consider worthy to remove? tahc ^chat 20:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

None, they are all important topics. I'm saying that the topic Great Commandment is either as important or more important in deciding the direction of Christianity. Looking at the entries again, if there is a consensus to add the Great Commandment link to the template I'd suggest it come, as mentioned above, in the Early History section as a subsection of 'Jesus' (placed just after 'Sermon on the Mount'). Please check out the template to see if that's feasible, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hussite Wars

Should the Hussite Wars be added to the Middle Ages subsection of the History section? They were an important forerunner to the Protestant Reformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.21.81 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Lots of thing can be said to be a "forerunner to the Protestant Reformation", but this is not a Christian history template. tahc ^chat 23:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The nav template has recently seen some large additions, and some whip-sawing back and forth. Maybe there should be a discussion about inclusion criteria. That is, since there are over 70,000 articles in Wikipedia on Christianity to choose from, it would make sense to have some overarching principles or guidelines on how to decide generally what to include, rather than debate articles one by one, or just randomly add them. Otherwise, I'm afraid the template could suffer from idiosyncratic nav link creep, and end up bloated beyond recognition or usefulness. Please see the discussion on a similar topic at Template talk:Christianity sidebar#Inclusion criteria. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Crusading movement

The Crusades article in on this template is pretty much MILHIST, through WP:COMMONNAME this has settled on a scope of military campaigns to Jerusalem from 1099 to 1276. Crusading movement covers the instituitions from the 11th century, until the 19th.

Proposal would be to swap the articles on the template. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

While we are at it, whatever does Islamic conquests have to do with Christianity? Objectively speaking that is. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)