Template talk:Christianity sidebar

Rollback proposed

[edit]

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]
Thanks! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:36, 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]
Now raised this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Christianity_Side-boxes. Will hold off rolling back again until that case has been action. SoftwarestatistikLipsioMathglot Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:24, 25 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

[edit]

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]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwarestatistik (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Adding Calvinism under Western Denominations

[edit]

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]
[edit]

Most of the new links added by helper are those concerning homosexuality. For example Christianity and homosexuality and the history of Christianity and homosexuality or LGBT clergy and gay bishop and Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church and List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality and The Bible and homosexuality and Queer theology and Christianity and transgender people. This is an overview template and so we don't need two related links for each topic. Otherwise the template will be bloated for no reason. I have tried to trim these links but was reverted. I have given my reason for reverting back here.

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Christianity_sidebar&oldid=1249976585"