Template talk:Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal  This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

This page has an Archive : Archive1, Archive2, Archive3

Contents 1 New picture 2 Why I chose the image 3 Check it out 4 Practice template-- please help 5 Length 6 Phase out

[edit] New picture

I like it, well done! -- SECisek (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the new picture as an all inclusive image of Christendom. The image is from a (presumably) Catholic Cathedral. Does the image accurately represent Protestants? What about Iconoclasts (or those Christians that feel depictions of Jesus break the 2nd commandment)? I think the basic cross is a better representation for the top tier template because it is extremely iconic, yet simple and universal. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Andrew c. I'm not a fan of the cross as a symbol itself (i.e. I possibly wouldn't fill my house with them), but as something that is recognizable as the basic symbol for Christianity it's unbeatable. I think the cross should be put back on the info box. --Woofboy (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, though technically in a Catholic church, seems to be more based on Greek orthodox iconography (it's from a part of Italy that was very heavily influenced by Byzantine culture for centuries). AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it added a good deal of color to the box, but I am not going to argue with anyone over it. That said, I do disagree with a claim of "no consensus" in the edit summary prior to any editors posting an opinon on the subject. -- SECisek (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have made a mistake. You may want to examine the timestamps again ;) With my initial concern, and woofboy's additional comment, at the very least, we could not say that there was a consensus. So I didn't think it was inappropriate to revert to the long standing version while the discussion continued here on talk. I agree that the image "looks" better, but unfortunately, there are other things to consider besides aesthetics. Maybe there is another option to consider besides the cross and the Cafalu image. Any ideas?-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel any strong emotions about it either way. The cross is fine with me. -- SECisek (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometime in the dark past of Wikipedia, I remember one of those interminable discussions where one party claimed that the 'cross' is not a universal Christian symbol. I believe the Mormons don't recognize it although they are sort of 'out in left field'. I must admit I liked the 'Cefalu Christus Pantokrator' image 'cause it looks neat and I'm quite Protestant. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the members of WikiProject Christianity to give their two cents here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The cross isn't a universal Christian symbol. However, the two groups which to my knowledge don't recognized it are the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both of whom use other templates. That would seem, at least to me, to indicate that perhaps their specific concerns regarding a template they don't use are somewhat less significant. Having said that, I could see changing to an image of Jesus per se, although the size of the image might conceivably be a question. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a fish symbol? It was a Christian symbol before the cross became used a symbol. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A fish is less universal than the cross. I would be happy with an image of Christ, but I think it should be a glorified image, rather than just a picture of Jesus. I actually liked the image that started this discussion. Oh, and Mormons do recognize the cross, but the LDS church chooses not to use it in their church adornment. Personal crosses, images of Jesus on the Cross, etc., are not discouraged by any means. Bytebear (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pondering this a bit, I believe the only universal touchstone amongst all Christian sects is the Gospels. Whether it is the Syrian church which harmonized the Gospels, or the Unitarians which are at the very edge of Christianity, all use the Gospels. I can't think of one sect that rejects them and at the same time self-identify as Christians. So here is a possible image:

The beginning to Matthew from the Lindisfarne gospel

It looks neat. It won't offend the iconoclasts. I doubt it would offend most Protestants. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems pretty neat. --Woofboy (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To the informed, it works, to the uninformed, it looks like we worship snakes. 70.181.109.146 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL.Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this has been discussed before, and digging through the archives I came across: 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) I know someone has mentioned the fish, and someone objected, but what about the Chi-Rho? It is similar to the manuscript image suggested in that it was a nomina sacra used in old manuscripts of the gospels.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And to throw one more idea out there, I have seen Image:Bloch-SermonOnTheMount.jpg used on the Christianity portal and other places. It may not be as overtly related to one Christian group as the Cefalu image.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No symbol is going to be universal. A painting or other rendition of Christ is best. Bytebear (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents As stated numerous times, no one symbol will definitively represent all Christians or Christianity. I would be in favor of the fish as virtually no one is opposed to it, likewise a chi-rho. Virtually any type of cross or icon will be construed as the chauvinism of the group that uses it or from which it originated, and a depiction of the Messiah will be offensive to members of Reformed traditions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Any abstract icon including the fish and the chi-rho is still a symbol, and still not universal. Bytebear (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Right I acknowledge that. Since all symbols are: 1.) symbols and 2.) not universal, you might as well go with one that is most universal and least controversial or offensive. Do you know of any Christians that would object to an icythus or labarum? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say most of the Restorationists would. Bytebear (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I chose the image

I chose the image because I'm tired of seeing an svg symbol. I want something made by an arist. It is a painting. Of Jesus. Who all Christians believe in. Jehovah Witnesses don't use the cross and neither do Mormons. It doesn't matter what chapel it comes from or what denomination. It's one about Jesus. So I hope all of you understand now.--Angel David (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check it out

There was this foolishness that was never resolved. It is the exact same debate. The link again is: Talk:Christianity/Archive 45#lead image. -- SECisek (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg is a very authentic historical symbolic image (whatever one may think of of its suitability to this template), while the previous discussion was about replacing the cross with what some considered to be a prime example of sentimentalistic late-Victorian cheesiness... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I personaly liked Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, I'll have you know. -- SECisek (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I really like Angel David (talk · contribs)'s choice of

.

I'm also fond of

even if it does look like 'snakes on a page'. (OK, really bad pun.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the Pantocrator photo too. But... after endless debate, the consensus seems to keep going back to a simple cross. Looking at the attractive templates of the other world religions, my 2 denarii would be to keep the cross, but add (1) color and (2) more collapsible sections. Template:Buddhism is IMO a very professional-looking navbox, and it uses a simple graphic rather than a photo. Template:Hinduism small, Template:Islam, Template:Judaism, andTemplate:Jainism are all nice-- and all use simple graphics with a little bit of color. Fishal (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

When you compare this template to those other religion's templates, I start to totally agree with you. A simple cross seems like the best solution for the top tier template, and we could introduce color to "spice" things up.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about a fish symbol?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's also been discussed with no real consensus. I think a fish would be better as it's not tied to any specific denomination. Fishal (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Practice template-- please help

I code monkeyed the words from this template onto the Buddhism one; the horrific monster I created resides at User:Fishal/Jesustemplate. I don't know how to add the collapsible sections for the denominations. I do know how to change the colors, but don't know what color scheme to go with. (Buddhists have orange, Jews have blue, Muslims have green... Christians just don't have a representative color.) I welcome anyone to edit that page to make improvements, even though it is in my user space. ...And might I add, can we please trim some of the content down? The template is so big, it's barely useful for navigation. Fishal (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Easter pastels? Or bright Yellows? Bytebear (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Easter pastels would be Christian colors only if the Christian Easter was about bunny rabbits and candy. The colors of the Christian Flag is white, red, and purple. They stand for purity, sacrifice, and royalty. These are also the colors Christ is shown wearing in art (not all at once) unless the artist in going for more realism (brown).

The flag is often shown with dark blue instead of purple for seeming three reasons. (1) True purple looks bad with red. (2) The purple quickly fades when the flag is on display to a blue or the like. (3) The canton is taken as blue because of the pattern of the US flag. Purple (or red) however is a better choice as a Christian color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This needs to be trimmed down. The mass of text is so overwhelming, it's barely useful as a navigational tool. I'd say nearly all of the theology links need to go, especially links not directly related to Christianity (monotheism, history of theology). People interested in theology can click on Theology and get specific topics there. Most of the history links too, and I'd say all of the important figures links. This is supposed to be for the broadest possible topics related to Christianity; otherwise it just isn't useful. Fishal (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please edit Template:Christianityfooter to match. It's meant to be another version of the same set of links. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase out

Back on Nov. 26 you removed the "Christianity" template from List of Christian denominations, replacing it with a portal. Why? Tb (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the Christianity footer replaced it on most articles. Feel free to add it there. -- SECisek (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the template was too big and unweildy! Where can I find the footer? Tb (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Right here:
{{Christianityfooter}} Enjoy! -- SECisek (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks! Tb (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question; I noticed your removal of this template on several articles with the explanation that the topic was no longer on the nav box. Does that mean that the topic was once on the box and got removed? Some of these topics are very important to Christianity. Curious. Thanks. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the right thing here is really to phase out the template entirely, and focus on the footer. A series as big as "Christianity" is just too big to be sensibly approached by the template strategy IMO. Tb (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the direction we are heading. I phased it down to about 125 pages last fall. Since that time, other editors reached consensus to bring it down to under 75 pages. I suspect it will continue to be replaced by the footer. Some pages I saw had the Arminianism, Methodism, Protestantism, and Christianity Nav box. Clearly, there has to be a limit. -- SECisek (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks for your work. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer it. So that absolves me of the commitment I made to User:Fishal/Jesustemplate? Fishal (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. There was next to no negative reaction to the latest scale-back. -- SECisek (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)