Template talk:Christianity

Image at top of box

Oh dear! I'm sorry, but I have done the wrong thing again! I didn't realise that there had been a lengthy discussion over the image of Jesus.

I find that image of Jesus frankly mawkish. It is over-sentimental. Given that dear old Alfred Handel was one of Australia's greatest stained glass designers, and the father of a personal friend, I am loathe to say this, but NO, that is not a good image with which to represent Christianity or the person of Christ in the World's biggest encyclopedia.

I've got to ask: is that really the image that you want to present to the world (says I, presuming, perhaps rashly, that people who contribute to articles on Christianity are mostly Christian)

Anyway, being unaware of the discussion until after I had already saved, and hailing from the evangelical diocese of Sydney, I got out a Bible, set the focus on John 3:16 and took 145 photos. I chose the one in which the verse which summarises Christian belief is in the sharpest focus. If you want one that has the other part of the text in better focus, I have several.

I put this before you for consideration. If people don't like it, it can be reverted! Amandajm (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to revert, although a good picture. But this topic has had more discussion than one may imagine, so consensus should be achieved before change. Sorry, I must revert. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK!

I want to register here the fact that I very strongly Object to the present image. And I can't imagine why people who have put up all sorts of different ideas have allowed that mawkishly sentimental image of Jesus with his head down and his eyes turned up like Princess Di at the infamous interview should have been allowed to remain as the default image.

If we must have somebody's imaginary image of what Jesus might have looked like, then there are hundreds of thousands to chose from, with Alfred Handel being way down the list.

Why must we reduce a man of courage and power (aside from any Godly nature with which Christianity might perceive him) to an image of saccharine sweetness? It has to go!

I propose the Bible, because Christians all use it, and I don't think that the image can actually turn anyone's stomach.

Amandajm (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was funny. but if you want to achieve consensus for a change let that process begin. I would prefer a picture to a book, but I am not attached to this picture. Just a book picture says very little and books are used in templates for other religions too - so not a Christian calling card by any measure. And I think Jesus (the Good Shepherd) did have somewhat of a sweet character after all, rather than an angry figure. In fact he only got angry in the Temple cleansing, etc. Did not even get angry with Herod or Pilate. But let us wait to see what everyone says. There will probably be different opinions and depending on who clicks here this week and who is on vacation, a semi-random outcome will be arrived at. So what is your favorite image of Jesus? History2007 (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus with a less saccharine face?

If you want power, Handel(?) has a depiction of that as well. Or maybe it's by someone else. But I take it from your comments below that it's not about what face he's got on, it's more the problem of whether Jesus is even the most encycopedic representation of Christianity? --99of9 (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll engage with this discussion properly later, but for now, I'll just point out that if we go for readable text, the translation has to be out of copyright. Unfortunately Amanda's image (while technically and aesthetically very good) is likely to be deleted from Commons before long. --99of9 (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer an image of Jesus, and agree that an image of a book is not necessarily unique to Christianity (though the suggested image is certainly a beautiful photograph). I wouldn't mind a "courage and power" image of Jesus, though I see nothing wrong with the current sentimental depiction. I find it ironic that Amandajm opposes the depicted sentimentality, and yet selected to photograph one of the most sentimental verse of scripture in the Bible ("God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son"). After the last discussion (or was it the one before that), I thought that consensus was leaning towards an image of a cross (despite my preference), but it never went through. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your "nothing wrong with this depiction" statement is valid and again made me think of all these long discussions that consume energy while articles like Fruit of the Holy Spirit do not even have a single inline secondary reference. So there is so much to clean up elsewhere and I wish this type of effort could be directed towards that. What image is used here will not make a huge difference to what Jesus taught, yet what he taught is not well represented in WikiProject Christianity - for so many articles are in need of so much help. Now, on that note, I should type less here. History2007 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "File:Bible Johns Gospel 3 16.JPG" would be more the image for Template:Bible related.
2. "File:Bible Johns Gospel 3 16.JPG" is not even very good for the Template:Bible related. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)}

Reply

• The comment about that particular Bible being not out of copyright may well be true. Thanks for pointing this out.
• Just a book picture says very little and books are used in templates for other religions too - so not a Christian calling card by any measure.

Other religions may use a book, but you are wrong in suggesting that the Book is "not the Christian calling card". There is only one other faith in which "the Book" is so revered and read. That is, of course, Judaism. And then, when depicted, it is shown as a scroll.

If you know your Christian history, History2007, then you know just how crucial the written Word has always been to Christianity, and how many people have suffered persecution in order to have the right to read it. Ownership of a Bible marks a Christian to the extent that Christians are still being persecuted for owning one.

• I don't really want any imagined portrait of Jesus as the lead to the articles on Christianity. The "Word Incarnate" is no longer with us. The "Word Scriptural" is.

There are two issues here: The encyclopedic issue and the Issue of how committed Christian people might wish their faith and the historical person of Jesus represented.

• The description that accompanies the image states that "Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity". From a Christian point of view, this is conceptually and theologically naive.
• The word "Christ" is used as if it was Jesus' surname. It wasn't! For encyclopedic purposes Jesus is either "Jesus" or "Jesus of Nazareth". The word "Christ" when used in conjunction with Jesus (in an encyclopedia) needs to be used in an appropriate context. The context might be a cited quotation, or a sentence such as "Jesus was recognised by his disciples as the Christ". You have to realise that Jews have an equal claim on the term "Christ" and do not recognise Jesus as such.

Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• History2007, I've have just checked out your statement that "books are used in templates for other religions too". This isn't the case. certainly not on their main templates. (I haven't checked to see if there are pics of books as templates referring specifically to the Scriptures of other faiths.)
• Regardless of that, it is the "Book" which defines Christianity, more than any other religion.
• As a Christian art historian, I have entered into great many debates and disputes over the way in which Jesus is depicted in art. It seems to me that this discussion here concerns only a very few people. (I was unaware of it until yesterday.)
• I want to make this clear: It is not simply a case of not liking the image. I do not dislike it in the context of the Anglican Church at St John's Ashfield. I greatly enjoy Alfred Handel's stained glass, in the context of church architecture. (I'm the main author of the Stained glass article and have included Handel's finest window in Rose Window of which I am also the author.)
• What I want you to take on is that from a mature (read elderly), evangelical (read Sydney), messianic (read Jewish father), scholarly (read my articles), Christian point of view, I object to the present image.

It is not simply a case of my not liking the image. This is a case of very strong objection to the use of the image in this particular context.

• If you feel that you can truly justify the use of an imaginary image of Jesus of Nazareth (A.K.A the Christ Incarnate) in the light of my strenuous objections, then please reply.

Otherwise, change it to something that does not attempt to physically represent something we cannot know.

Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, wp:TLDR. History2007 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, History2007, I must say I find a comment like that with a signature like yours, rather amusing. It's a good excuse.

just read this bit:

• History2007, I've have just checked out your statement that "books are used in templates for other religions too". This isn't the case. certainly not on their main templates. (I haven't checked to see if there are pics of books as templates referring specifically to the Scriptures of other faiths.)

Amandajm (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember books used somewhere, could not be bothered to search. Have more useful things to do. TLDW. History2007 (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

History2007, I believe reddit eyes are in order. ಠ_ಠ. In response to Amandajm, I do feel an "imaginary image" of Jesus is justified. Firstly, it's not like any "real" images of Jesus exist; I am unaware of any portraits painted during Jesus's life that have survived to this day. Secondly, this is an encyclopedia, and the image is used on a template which represents a(very long) "series of articles" related to Christianity. Several of these are biographical articles on Mary, Jesus, and his apostles. Others are about doctrinal topics and events, such as his resurrection. Generally, it's safe to say that most of the links on this template are directly related to the life and teachings of Jesus (with exceptions: articles on the various denominations are less closely related to this). So when selecting an image for this template, it seems completely natural, for me, to select an image of Jesus, the person that this is all about. Using a photograph of the Bible seems indirect: it is a depiction of a written description of Christianity. Using the face of Jesus seems more direct: it is a depiction of the star of Christianity. For a similar reason (indirectness) I prefer Jesus's face over a cross on this template: a picture of a cross is a depiction of a symbol of Jesus. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as Carl also said above, a Bible would be more the image for Template:Bible related. So the long and short of it seems to be that there is no consensus for using the image of a Bible. Now... on to fixing actual articles.... History2007 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

People, you are not getting it. That book, (the Bible) in whatever form it takes and whatever language it is in, is our one finite connection to Jesus. The book is not "a written description of Christianity". This is a complete misrepresentation and miscomprehension of what the Bible is. It is the evidence, the good news, the testament of those who walked with Jesus and the teachings of the incarnate Christ. It also contains the earliest Christian theology and the earliest formal structuring of "Christianity" at the hands of St Paul and the other apostles. To any person who has not experienced some "mystical revelation" (and that means most people) then the Bible is all that there is, as evidence that Jesus lived, that he was who he was said to be, and that he taught those things which he is said to have taught.

There are no Christians in the World who do not accept a written form of the Bible as the evidence of Jesus, and as containing the subject of his teaching, and the record of his death and resurrection. On the other hand, there are a great many Christians throughout the world, particularly Protestants, who regard "graven images" (representations of Jesus etc) with a deal of suspicion. (For example, there are a great many Protestant churches which have maintained a ruling not to show images of Jesus, and have stained glass that is floral, geometric and textural.)

From my point of view, a portrayal of Jesus used to illustrate a Biblical event, a particular theology, a mystical event or a legend is fine. See the article that I wrote: Poor Man's Bible.

On the other hand, Faith (in this case Christian faith) is a deeply personal thing. It differs from person to person, church to church and denomination to denomination. Whatever is used to symbolise Christianity must be acceptable to all.

I do not want my faith (Christianity) represented by one late 19th century man's personal vision of Jesus. To Christians, the man Jesus who described himself as the "Good Shepherd" depicted by Alfred Handel, is also, and most significantly, part of the Divine Godhead, the Holy Trinity.

You keep wanting to represent Jesus as "THE central person of Christianity". This is an extraordinarily naive view of what Christianity is about, and what the "central person" of Christianity is about! It is a child's view of Christianity. The portrayal that has been selected equates with the little prayer "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, look upon this little child. Keep me happy all the day, in my work and in my play....."

I am certainly not insistent that the photo of the Bible that I have provided should be the picture used.

But I am insistent that a more universal symbol of Christianity be found than an imaginary portrayal of one person's concept of one of the person of the Holy Trinity.

Amandajm (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be brief; insistence is one thing, consensus is another. History2007 (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Christ the King from Ashfield looks to me like a Lyon and Cottier window. It's almost certainly not Handel.

There is no consensus here. The number here is far too small to have any sort of reasonable consensus.

This may mean, History2007, re-reading what is here, and the putting aside of self-importance. I am frankly surprised at your frequent attempts to simply fob-off reason in an off hand manner. You are dealing with someone with a serious objection.

It is also plain, from my writings, that you are dealing with someone of a broad view. What is being written here requires you to expand your view and seriously consider the points that are being made. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, what there is, remains. And there is no consensus. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Amandajm and most others who have commented on the Jesus face picture, I agree that an image of Jesus is not the best picture to represent Christianity. That's the majority view. However, no one other picture has gained much support, and most of us have grown weary of arguing about it with History2007 and a couple others, and so the Jesus face remains the "consensus". Just goes to show that a few dedicated people can thwart the majority if they spend enough of their time on it. History2007, if you really have something better to do, no one is forcing you to police this page. I admire your relentless dedication to preserving the face of Jesus on this template (though I disagree with your conviction), but if you're going to spend your time dominating the conversation on the Jesus face, then please stop whining about how much time you spend here - it just serves to belittle the contributions of others, like Amandajm. And that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, History2007 is right, Amandajm: you don't have consensus to change the pic. Get some votes, then we can talk about changing the pic. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Such matters are not really supposed to be settled by a straight-up vote count. If extended discussions have failed to resolve the issue, the next Wikipedia step is "third opinion" or "mediation" or "request for comment"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, AnonMoos. How might one go about those options? --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm still strongly of the view (explained in detail in previous sections above [now moved to archives]) that the main purpose of a template image is NOT to call attention to its own beauty, but rather to be instantly recognizable at a low pixel size -- so that if dullness equals instant recognizability while artistic beauty brings in various distracting associations and/or only expresses one semi-small part of the subject matter, then dullness is greatly to be preferred... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Though the issue is less important than it used to be, since more articles seem to use {{portal|Christianity}} than this template nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikibojopayne, read WP:Third opinion and/or WP:Request for comment.

If someone wants to give a third opinion, let me sum up my view of the reams of text written about this over the years.

1. Nearly everyone seem to think the way to go is either (1) an image of Jesus or (2) an image of a cross. A few have proposed various other Christian symbols.
2. The number of people who want one of these two main options seem comprable– but there may be more that want (2) over (1).
3. Most that want (1) are happy with or prefer the current stain-glass Jesus image. Even many editors that prefer an image of a cross are happy with this current Jesus image.
4. Most that want (2) seem to prefer a particular cross image that no one else likes. No particular cross image seems to gain the following of more that just couple editors. Many feel strongly against the crosses prefered by others. If I recall, there has never even been an agreement in principle of what to look for in a cross.
5. I have long since concluded that it is be a hopeless cause to develop any consensus on a particular image of a cross . ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)}

Actually a WP:3O requires that there are just two editors, and a 3rd person comes in. Given that there have been so many people talking here for ever and a day, no 3rd can apply. And again, there are so many, many articles in need of content help in this project that I am not sure why all this time is spent on the image issue. History2007 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in a discussion of this on another page and was told to discuss it on a more appropriate site, so I came here and found that there had already been an intensive debate. Can I throw in my opinion that the image of Jesus is effete? It doesn't correspond with the individual who, whatever one may think of his status or teachings, threw the money-changers out of the temple and heroically met a painful end. The history of Western art is full of better images of Jesus: from the grotesque of Gruenewald, through Leonardo and Carravaggio, to the kitsch-sublime of Holman Hunt, and more recently even Dali. There is no shortage of images to choose from!89.100.37.108 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any image of Jesus would be at best controversial. He almost certainly didn't look like any of the major historical artistic images, so they could all be objected to one that basis. Certainly any image using a cross would be considered objectionable by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say it was a torture stake, and by others who believe he wasn't himself crucified, but someone else was, or that he survived through some preordained plot, or whatever. Maybe and I mean just maybe an image of the early Christian "lamb" might be the least objectionable, but would also raise, not unreasonably, some WTF? questions among readers and similar discussion. I am no particular fan of the current image myself, but I can't imagine any image which would not stir some discontent, and that image, to some degree or other, does seem to represent to some degree the most common, if not most accurate, view of the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If WMF could get a penny every time this issue is discussed they could buy a whole new set of servers.... History2007 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

JohnCarter -- As has been discussed in the archives, if the cross is lowest common denominator of traditional Christian symbolism during the period ca. 400 A.D. to 2012 A.D., and is accepted by groups representing the vast majority of Christian believers, then the possibility of objections by JW's and by Docetists(?!) should really not override the usefulness of the cross to represent Christianity in templates such as this one... History2007 -- The issue keeps getting raised, because multiple people independently find the symbolism of the stained glass to have certain discordant and annoying aspects. AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, do the Christians ever agree on anything? As John pointed out there is a 5 hour epic Wiki horror movie playing on the cross issue, etc. I do not even look at that page any more. And any image on this type of template would get an objection from someone. I am certain of that. The Template gets viewed several million times a year. So someone will a keyboard will type something. And in reality, given the millions of page views there has been relative calm recently. And no image would even generate more time wasting discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian mythology

Christian beliefs redirects to Christian mythology, which is not associated with this template and is linked to by hardly any Christianity articles. I have added a hatnote to reduce confusion, but shouldn't this page be in the Christianity series? ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012

These sentences were found under the heading of history of Catholic.'. Please remove: . It has been scientifically proven that Catholic women strongly enjoy the taste of penis in the mouth. Also, they love nothing more than to have violent intercourse with at least five people at one time. In addition they strongly support abortion and all forms of birth control.

174.96.214.194 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ω Awaiting clarification: Hi and welcome, IP. You have made this request on a template, a bit of Wikipedia code which is included on many Christianity-related articles. I assume you're referring to vandalism on one of those articles, but I can't find it in a search. Can you tell me the name of the article with the vandalism on - the title of the page? The objectionable content might have already been removed though. ~ Kimelea (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Titles

I think it should be more clear that "Jesus" and "Christ" are two separate links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, welcome. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ thanks :)

It currently appears as Jesus · Christ in the template. The separator between them indicates that they are different links. Do you have a suggestion for how we could better represent the name while linking to both articles? ~ Kimelea (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not even clear that those are links because they are not blue, but bold. I suggest moving Christ down, after Virgin birth, and just have Jesus at the top in bold. Rationalei sthat he was born, considered Christ then crucified. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, it is a little misleading. Some of the headings link to articles ("Bible" is clickable and the words in "History and traditions" have two links) but some are not ("Foundations", "General topics"). And the only way to find out is to hover over them to see if they are clickable. I don't want to break up the name "Jesus Christ", but maybe if we stop forcing the headings to be black, it would be more clear what is an article and what isn't. Thoughts? ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can stop it being black, then much better, and we can move on. There are errors, errors and errors all over content, so time needs to go there.... History2007 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Now anything that's a link is blue, or whatever colour the user's browser likes links to be, and anything that's not a link is black (including the separator between "Jesus" and "Christ". Does this make things clearer for the IP who started this thread? ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Changes to template format

After the changes to become a sidebar, now the state=collapsed no longer works on other pages that use it. And the width seems much more than before. Needs be fixed and width somehow reduced - it is just too wide everywhere else now. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The width is the standard sidebar width, which is 22em. Previously, it was 20.5em (or about three characters narrower), which meant it didn't align with infoboxes. The change is marginal. Collapsing the entire sidebar is discouraged (and {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} doesn't support it): I made sure to check the highest-profile articles that transclude the template and of those few which set it to collapsed by default none are negatively impacted layout-wide by showing it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry that is not what the collapse button is there for. This template is used in lots of pages and often in small sections that do not allow an elephant sized presence. It is "supposed to have a collapse flag". You can not at will go and decide that it is discouraged. The user should be able to use that flag.

As "a user" I would not have complained if this did not cause an inconvenience. It does. And it is not up to you to decide where it is negatively impacted or not. The system should allow users to use the template as they want to. Your change reduced functionality and decreased convenience. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to go and fix "Sidebar with collapsible lists" to allow for a state=collapsed, then see if it makes sense to use that here. But not until then. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am sorry Chris, but I noticed that instead of responding here, you went ahead and changed a few other template with no consensus whatsoever. As requested on your talk page, please "seek consensus" from those who use the template before making these changes. Time to stop and seek consensus before changes. Your change here was also sans consensus and needs to be reverted until consensus is reached for it. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Objection noted, but the huge increase in consistency and code maintainability this has resulted in massively outweighs what is still an anecdotal problem IMO. As I've stated elsewhere (and previously in discussions with you), "no consensus" is a result and not an argument. You cannot use it as a veto for changes you dislike. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, it does not work that way. If there is no consensus for a change, what there is remains. Look, there are others who watch this page, and we will wait. But someone wishing to making a change, has no priority based on issuing an "IMO". There are other people who watch this page, and I will hereby seek their opinion as to whether you "should make changes without consensus" here or not, regardless of arguments about the nature of changes. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I welcome third opinions and am more than happy to address them if a good argument is presented in their favour. Let's see what happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We will probably get 4th and 5th comments too. Many people watch and use this template. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As another question, why don't you just fix that sidebar template so it can allow a "state=collapsed" case? That can probably get fixed in the time it will take to talk about it here. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's non-trivial, and previous discussions on whether to attempt it have AFAIR centred around whether it was genuinely necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a case where it is "desired by a user". I have not looked at the code (and really do not want to) but where is it anyway... I should not really ask this. I do not have time to work on the code.... And the way out of coding may be to just have a template called "Christian" which is a small template, and on pages where users do not have space can use that.... Then we will be done with this. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's inherited from {{sidebar}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Anyway, I do not have time to do coding now... Should not even look at that. Let us wait and see what people say now. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am with History2007 on this, Chris. tahc ^chat 07:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In what regard? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We may even have an easier solution: Does the sidebar support "state=collapsed" if there are no nested items inside? If so, given that there are just a couple of those, we can make those not nested and then have the "state=collapsed" button still work like before. So does teh routine support that if we un-nest those here? History2007 (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the sandbox and test cases for an attempt at this. How does that appeal to you? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the Sandbox, and it may actually be an improvement. But I do suggest:

• Just one show/Hide for Denominations & movements. They do not need 3 separate items. And when that shows, there will just be the three subsections that all open up at once.

• "Bible & Foundations" to be one show/hide. They are both smaller items. And Bible should really be ahead of Foundations there anyway.

• At the bottom, a link to the portal without an icon to save real estate.

That way we have a "medium sized" item that tells still has all the items, and tells story anyway with hide/show items. I think that will be an improvement over what there was 3 days ago anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I left the denominations separate is to preserve backward-compatibility with articles that use that format already, but it's easy enough to merge them if desired. Same with the two headers to be merged. For the portal, the use of {{portal-inline}} to link to portals from sidebars is standard, and the saving from removing the icon would be minimal. If it is truly intrusive then removing it entirey might be a better call, as it will often be found in the article appendixes anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is easy enough, let us just do that so we can wrap this up before Christmas gets here. The backward compatibility also applies to those who had it all minimized, so lumping those three is no big deal in that sense. There is life beyond this template. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Anyway, it took a few minutes to reshuffle it to Template:Christianity/sandbox2. There were other internal fixes that were needed, e.g. Gospel was coming after some other items - not logical.

I think we can just go with that unless someone else has a better idea. The state=collapsed seems to function on that from within the test cases anyway, so that should work. History2007 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now pushed the code from sandbox2 live. Many thanks for working to a compromise here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, the format you used ended up being an improvement over what there was 3-4 days ago. History2007 (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture

hello,

I believe the current picture is not really representative and to me he does not look like Jesus. First, Christ was a Jew, so he had an olive skin, dark hair and maybe a crooked nose (like this). Secondly, this picture depicts an overly gentle person, but the former picture is more impressive and correct. Thirdly, the current picture is not at all "iconic", but just a stained glass picture of a modern Anglican church, while the other picture is from the well-known Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo build in the 6th century! The former discussion do not mention this picture as far as I can see, so I suggest to replace it with this picture. The picture is File:Christus Ravenna.jpg. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You should read the long, long discussion in the archives about this. Many of these issues had been discussed there - some people wanted a cross, not a picture, some wanted 3 crosses, some wanted a different image, some wanted a fish symbol, etc. So anyway, please read those. But one thing that is certain is that "to me he does not look like X" has about 100,000 different values for X, depending on who states that. The conclusion of that long discussion was that until there is "clear consensus" to change, the image should remain. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you know very well that there is no "clear consensus" to keep the current image, and that many different people have objected to it on many separate occasions. By your standards of "lack of clear consensus", the current image should be nuked... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you also read the archives, I did not add the current image. The way Wikipedia works, the lack of consensus means that nothing changes. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

1. about reading long discussions in the archive, why is it that one cannot comment in the archive, but must comment here?

2. the picture is just plain wrong, it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus (acc 2 NT):

The image currently perused doesn't in any proper way represent the literary Jesus – quite contrary it represents an unnatural contrafactual interpretation of peacefullness and pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Mr Rursus, how did you determine that "it isn't Jesus. This is Jesus..." Did you determine that by yourself? If so, please do enlighten us... Or do you have WP:RS sources for it? And regarding the "pleasantness which is invented for small children in order to make the Jesus-story less provocative and disturbing in the Christian education.", how did you determine that one? Did you come to these conclusions by yourself, or do you have WP:RS sources to support them? History2007 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, in view of these never ending comments, the best way may be to use a composite of multiple biblical scenes probably. Perhaps better quality art than those Rursus suggested, but there are plenty out there. However, that change can not happen without consensus. If there is consensus we can do it, else will have to stay with what there is. And I do not mind that either. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would accept an image that reflected Isaiah 53:1-12 or Daniel 7:13-14. I do not think the current image is especially deficient. I think that the image should be of sufficient resolution that the details of Christ's features (even though they have never been recorded from firsthand observation) are apparent. I think that the thumbnail should be a closeup of Christ, preferably just the face, so that it is not overly confusing "who are all these people?" Per Isaiah I would also accept an image of Christ tortured and crucified. Per Daniel, an image of Christ Pantocrator would be fitting. Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• How can we know the current image "does not look like Jesus"? All we have is religious art from subsequent centuries; you can pick from Byzantine icons which make him look Byzantine, many great works of Renaissance art which make him look European, maybe for a bit of variety you can pick some Coptic art which gives him darker skin. We can choose from various artwork which showed jesus radiating Love, or Wisdom, or Power, or whatever else the artist wanted to portray in that commission. It's not as though we have any photos (although one could perhaps photograph something associated with him; reliquaries across Europe have enough splinters and nails from the True Cross to build a whole new ship). It would be silly to treat biblical texts as literal and accurate descriptions of his appearance. In that light, I'd prefer a composite image, which incorporates images from different religious contexts. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One wonders whether this discussion will ever actually end. I see no objections whatsoever to the existing image. It is a stained glass image of Jesus, and, lets be honest, many Christians to some degree equate stained glass images with Christianity. But, yes, I could see any number of other images as acceptable as well. Maybe the best alternative might be to either change to one of the images of commons:category:Icons of Crucifixion or commons:category:Paintings of crucifixion. Yes, I know, there are groups within what is broadly thought to be "Christianity" who do not believe in the crucifixion, but there are groups within Christianity who would dispute pretty much any image. Maybe some sort of composite, with stained glass and crucifixion images would work too. I really neither know nor, actually, care much. The one point I really do believe is that this semi-regular discussion is among the least productive I can imagine, and it would be great if it could be resolved, finally, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I don't really mind the current image.

However, after looking at the template again, it struck me that this is a template for christianity, not jesus. If we're going to have a composite image then perhaps some of the other pics should be of other aspects of christianity rather than just a selection of portrayals of jesus - there are plenty of good images of notable texts, relics, cathedrals, &c. (Hey, maybe a pic of the Schloßkirche in Wittenberg would kill two birds with one stone) bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I fully agree with John Carter's comments above in that we have a reasonable established consensus and are unlikely to improve substantially on it. I would add that the image serves as a logo for the portal so it should be stable over time. Given the centrality of Jesus for Christianity, I can see advantages in having related images as the logos for the two portals. Let's stop turning our individual idea of the best into the enemy of the good and adequate and get on with the voluminous task of editing which is needed to turn mediocre articles into good ones, and good ones into better ones.Jpacobb (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; sometimes "the best" is the enemy of "good enough". bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen. And may this discussion end here and now. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see how that is going to happen when the nature of the current image is such that many people who come across it will independently consider it somewhat objectionable in the context of the template (see my comment of 7:25, 22 March 2012 above). Furthermore, your rather arbitrary diktat that the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to keep the image in place is much less than the amount of so-called "consensus"[sic] necessary to dislodge it might not survive contact with a noticeboard, or mediation process, etc. if someone chose to take the matter there... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "arbitrary diktat"? Sorry, I have misplaced my dictator hat today, so I was not issuing a diktat. Did you find it? Buddy, I asked for comments on the Wikiproject, to see what people think. If you think that is a diktat, then you must look up the definition of diktat. But do not consider that an order.... History2007 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The above comment seems to almost contain some form of threat. However, I would agree that, if the above editor is so concerned about the image that he thinks an RfC or other steps called for, that editor is free to do so. However, I do very much have to question how closely the above comments adhere to talk page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies that concern making a change are not about the support to "change" vs. the support to "keep." The policies understand consensus to be something you do have (at a given time), or you don't have. We could very well have a situation where no particular idea has consensus right now. If there was a consensus in the past it is still going to be okay now. That system can be frustrating sometimes, but (1) it keeps out some changes that are not seen as valuable by any majority and (2) reduces some needless comments by allowing (perhaps many) people who support the current image to do nothing most of the time. Instead of forcing them post again and again "yes, we still like the current image" every month that this comes up, we can just wait until there is some particular image that may really gain consensus... and only then do they have to comment if they still feel the same way. tahc ^chat 02:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy) does tilt the balance towards not rocking the boat. However, as John and others have commented this discussion has negligible encyclopedic value and does not add to content. And as Jpacobb commented it hinders improvements elsewhere.... I am glad I stopped worrying about these things. The encyclopedic depth is just mind boggling here... History2007 (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Current pic looks fine to me.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)