This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Am I the only one that thinks there's a whole lot of nonsense being added or moved around here lately? I see very little in the last five dozen edits that's an improvement, and none of it was discussed here on the Talk page, or justified in the
edit summaries, of which there are none. I'm proposing a rollback to rev.
1042414672 (
diff) of 21:53, 4 September by
Norfolkbigfish. The current version doesn't have
consensus, so one could just as well revert without discussion based on
WP:BRD, but I thought I'd poll the regulars to get some feedback first.
Mathglot (
talk) 08:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree—probably this is the last good state for the sidebar, but I have only quickly flicked through the changes. If after the rollback
Softwarestatistik wants to discuss here on the Talk Page the purpose of the recent edits would be better understood. I suspect there are very few regulars though.
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree as well, way too much too quick. Maybe Softwarestatistik can pick three or four of the edits that they think essential and present those as suggestions here.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree strongly Although I am not a "regular", I have noticed these and, personally, I have wanted to make some changes, but have not yet because I have failed to formulate justifications to post here, noting the "Warning: Before changing, adding or removing any links..."; thus, seeing these changes without discussion has bothered me. Now that I look at them, I entirely agree that "very little in the last five dozen edits that's an improvement".
Vincent J. Lipsio (
talk) 16:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment – I've left a talkback-style message at their Talk page; also, if they have
notifications turned on in preferences, the two reverts at the template should have alerted them, so let's give them a bit of time to respond. I don't doubt their
good faith in making these additions, and their edits raise an important question: going forward, we might want to have a discussion concerning approximately how many links would be appropriate in the sidebar, and how to select them. I've started a discussion about this, at the
#Inclusion criteria section below.
Mathglot (
talk) 17:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) udpated; by
Mathglot (
talk) 17:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Rolled back to revision 1042414672 as proposed after no further response.
User:Softwarestatistik, please hold off making changes until there's a discussion about what kinds of things we wish to include in the template. That could take place in the following section regarding Inclusion criteria, or you could start a new section.
Mathglot (
talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Rolled back again.
Softwarestatistik—I am sure there are a number of editors willing to discuss this here, but you need to engage. I make no comment on the edits, this is a matter of manners and process
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 19:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
And yet again. (I didn't notice your raising the ANI thread, and just missed an {{
ec}} here.)
Mathglot (
talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Update: Softwarestatistik has been blocked for 24 hours by an admin. Hopefully, this will get their attention, and they'll respond here in the future.
Mathglot (
talk) 08:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Eucharist
Softwarestatistik, I see you're back, with the addition of
Eucharist. It's a
sacrament; if it meets with
consensus to add it to the sidebar, then for starters, why this one, and not the other six, or just a link to the generic article? As far as whether to add it at all, I'm not sure. Sidebars are by nature usually much briefer than footer nav bars, and cover just the top-level, most important concepts. Eucharist would probably be necessary for a Catholicism sidebar (there doesn't seem to be one). The {{
Catholic Church footer}} includes "Eucharist" (along with the others) in subgroup "Sacraments", but there are dozens of other links under "Theology" there, and clearly we don't want to import all of that here to the sidebar. Conversely, the Eucharist is not celebrated in every denomination. Let's see what others say (and this time, please respond; you were already blocked once for not doing so). The section above could benefit from your thoughts as well. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 18:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)reply
This is a navigation so that those who see this article can find the article more easily — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Softwarestatistik (
talk •
contribs) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Note: technical
TPO: adjusted indent of comment above, and joined it to the comment in the section above this one to which it is
clearly a reply.
Mathglot (
talk) 18:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Softwarestatistik, first of all, congratulations on your
first reply to a Talk discussion. You didn't really address the topic of discussion, though. The reason you gave, "so that those who see this article can find the article more easily" applies to every link on every nav template and sidebar everywhere; it doesn't say why *this* link should be included in *this* one. As mentioned before, there are 70,000 articles about Christianity, and the sidebar can only hold a tiny, tiny fraction of those. So the question for you is, why
Eucharist, and not one of the other 70k articles? What makes this link important enough to be linked from here?
Secondarily, if there is consensus to include it, this seems like the wrong section of the sidebar.
Finally, I can't help noticing that English may not be your native language. If so, no matter; everyone is welcome to contribute here. If you feel like you'd like to leave a longer and more complete reply here on the Talk page but you are uncertain how to say it in English, either use an automatic translator like
DeepL or
Google translate, or just leave your response here in your language, and someone will convert it for you. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 20:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello. The division of Christian denominations between East and West is not international, does not include all continents (
Wikipedia: Systemic bias) and gives the impression that denominations from such and such a region (East and West) are present only in such region (East and West). Which is wrong. The most common, inclusive international academic approach of all continents is:
Catholicism,
Orthodox Christianity and
Protestantism. What do you think? --
Nathan B2 (
talk) 22:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Not really my focus @
Nathan B2 but you seem to have a point. Seems the history has become confused with the geography, the
East West Schism was in the 11th century, before
Protestantism and
colonialism. I think it is fair to say things have changed since then.
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Crusading movement
After much debate
Crusades has evolved into a MILHIST article that covers the passagium generale whose objective was the recovery and defence of Jerusalem in the
Middle Ages, their legacy and aftermath.
Crusading movement describes the development of instituitions of Crusading, described as a movement on the Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusade as well as elsewhere. The wider definition of the latter makes it a better fit for this template, either in addition to the link to the former or as a replacement. This was done under
WP:BRD, reverted and now this opens the discussion.
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 09:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)reply
It's one or the other, not both.
Crusades is the primary article, whether mainly "MILHIST" or not.
Srnec (
talk) 00:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Not really sure this is a rationale.
Crusades has largely settled its scope on the passagium generale to the
Holy Land. Not really sure that the concept of a primary article exists in WP for such a diverse subject—but it is unlikely to fit an article that is a sub-set of an enormous subject—but would stand to be corrected by someone who understood the principles better than me. The two articles are different, and I would argue that an article on the instituition of crusading was a more appropriate fit for this sidebar, although I can see an argument for including both. Maybe it is time for a wider discussion, rather than two editors disagreeing. What do you think?
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 09:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Norfolkbigfish: You have been reverted in this exact same edit by
Borsoka (October 2020),
Randy Kryn (twice in September 2021) and by
AirshipJungleman29,
Mathglot and
Walter Görlitz earlier this year. And once by me in 2021. There are two earlier talk page sections that dealt with this. It is wider than two people.
Srnec (
talk) 17:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, @
Srnec, although it doesn't seem quite as black and white as you suggest.
Randy Kryn suggested the format of the edit that you have reverted himself.
Mathglot has repeatedly reverted to the format of this edit which suggests he didn't object to it but his later edit suggests he has changed his mind. Not one to get overly vexed with now. Good to talk.
Norfolkbigfish (
talk) 07:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I propose adding
Calvinism under Denominations > Western > Protestant.
GuardianH (
talk) 08:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
It could be considered more of a theological tendency than a distinct group...
AnonMoos (
talk) 09:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)reply
A theological tendency may mean that Calvinism could transcend certain religious boundaries, but I think that Calvinism is generally distinct from other Protestant branches (such as
Lutheranism), and as such would probably best be placed as a separate branch.
GuardianH (
talk) 09:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, terrorism is not a major topic associated with Christianity. I see no reason for its conclusion and will remove it as well.
Durziil89 (
talk) 15:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with User:Durziil89 that the template should be basic in the sense that it should include major topics related to Christianity, (such as the
Trinity,
Prayer and
Creeds). It should not focus on one topic alone, in keeping with the templates of other religious traditions, much like that of
Judaism or
Islam. That being said, I have restored the de facto denominational list that is a result of teamwork with User:Helper201 and me (with the addition of the
Old Catholic Church). I hope this helps. With regards,
AnupamTalk 15:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, we just need one link to Christian politics and readers can click on that link to find out more. The template doesn't need to list every single Christian political ideology that exists.
Durziil89 (
talk) 15:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply