Template talk:Infobox religion

This page was created following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested templates#Template:Christian Denominations on 2 May 2007

Motivated?

Not sure if this one is motivated? Likely it could be disbanded and its usage transferred to {{Infobox religion}}, {{Infobox church}} or {{Infobox organization}}. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Possessions field

What is the intended purpose of the "Possessions" field in this infobox? For some of the pages which use it, it appears to include a list of countries; but it is not immediately intuitive to the reader how these relate to the church body. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional Parameters

Could we have a few variations of separated_from and separations? I have just placed this template on the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia article. It became independent of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, but I wouldn't call that a schism. Could we either have a different parameter for the independence of a daughter denomination, or pipe the seperation link to a more appropriate article?

This template has also been placed on the Presbyterian Church of Australia article. This denomination was formed by the federation of Presbyterian churches in each of Australia's states. Could we have a box for constituent churches when there has been a merger or federation? Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that it's not a schism; see Reformed Presbyterian Church (denominational group)

-- TimNelson 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a parameter, parent, for those that simply branched off of another (It displays as Branched from). I used schism in the link as the article about that reads: "a division or a split, usually in an organization or a movement." I can't find any other article to link to, any suggestions? Religion is not my strong point here. I've also added "merger" which dispays as Merge of. I hope this is what you are asking for. I've updated the example on the documentation to reflect this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there's no obvious article for "Branched from". The reason Schism is so well documented is that it generally indicates a disagreement, and is therefore talked about fairly often, whereas the other forms of branching tend to just be for administrative convenience, so are not the subject of a great deal of discussion, and what discussion there is is usually not thought to be worth preserving, unlike in the case of schism. IOW, you did the right thing :).

-- TimNelson 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is now an article on Church union. Just started it, and there's a lot more work to be done, but I don't have the time right at the moment. But it can be the link for Merger of. StAnselm 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.Z-man. The new parameters are just what I wanted. Perhaps the new Church union article should be mentioned at WikiProject Christianity? Blarneytherinosaur talk 04:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added two new subsections, "Humanitarianism" and "School system" with appropriate entries underneath, as well as a ministers tag. I am not an expert template coder - please feel free to improve on these changes or reword anything. Colin MacLaurin 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Could add an "orphanages" parameter. Possibly also "publishing houses" and "budget". Unfortunately, the infobox is getting quite long. Colin MacLaurin 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and merging

Hi. I developed Template:Infobox Calvinist Denomination Which is fairly similar to this one. It seems to me that that's now redundant. I'd like to merge that template into this one.

Creation of a template along the lines of this one is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Infoboxes and Templates. I'm going to recommend that all discussion of this particular template be brought here, but I think those here will be interested in the other templates that are currently under discussion at the above link.

Another relevant template is Template:Infobox church created by Nate Bailey. It's also under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Infobox for churches.

-- TimNelson 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I'm really not all that familiar with the specifics of different denominations of Christians, I'm really not the best person to continue updating this. If anyone wishes to try to update it, the code is borrowed from Template:Infobox Company (it's a little old but it works). The general way to add a new parameter is as follows:

-->{{#if:{{{param|}}} | <tr><th style="text-align:right; padding-right:0.75em;">Text to be displayed</th><td>{{{param}}}</td></tr>}}<!--

If adding a param under the Statistics part (beginning now with "Congregations"), please add the param to the line that activates the Statistics heading:

-->{{#if:{{{congregations|}}}{{{members|}}}{{{newparam|}}}|<tr><th style="text-align:center; padding-right:2em; font-size:120%;">Statistics</th></tr>}}<!--

-- Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take responsibility for the actual editing from here on (unless someone else wants to make changes; they can go ahead). Thanks!

-- TimNelson 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Historic Denominations

It seems that at present, the template doesn't have a good place for describing the termination of a denomination.

I'm thinking specifically of 2 denominations that I'd like to add the box to:

(1) The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which was founded in 1958 when the United Presbyterian Church of North America merged with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The UPCUSA ceased to exist in 1983, when it merged with the current Presbyterian Church in the United States to form the present-day PCUSA.

(2) To add another wrinkle: the Cumberland Presbyterian Church divided from the PCUSA in 1810, but in 1906, the majority (though not all) of the Cumberland congregations rejoined the PCUSA. So, Cumberland continues as a denomination, but it would be misleading for the infobox to not include some indication of the 1906 departure of the majority of Cumberland's congregations.

Adam_sk 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Added imagewidth parameter

Some logos are less than 200px and look bad. I added a new imagewidth parameter with a default value of 200px. While you can use values > 200px, you shouldn't. I updated the documentation to reflect this.

If there is a standard way of getting an image to show at its native size or 200px, whichever is lower, please incorporate that into this template and deprecate the imagewidth parameter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

250 or 300 seemed necessary for church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. I like the changeability aspect thanks for doing that. Rogerdpack (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Distinct fellowships?

What are others' opinions regarding the proposed addition of a 'Distinct Fellowships' field? This would allow groupings within a church to be listed – not quite the same thing as 'Separations'. See Churches of Christ for an example. —Adavidb 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With no comment after a week, I went ahead and added the additional field, and will update the above example to make use of it. The documentation page is updated as well. —Adavidb 05:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Merged In"?

I propose adding a "Merged In" field for denominations that have "absorbed" other denominations while maintaining their identity. One example is the Presbyterian Church in America, formed in 1973. In 1982, the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod merged into the PCA, but this merger did not produce a new denomination. The PCA simply grew from the receiving of RPCES congregations. raekwon 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what's the best term for this? Is there a preferred one? "Absorbed" would be a possibility, but probably "merged in" would be better. Colin MacLaurin 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Leader field

I've begun adding this to some of the larger denominations, many of which are episcopal in polity and thus have a single, identifiable leader (e.g. the Pope for the Roman Catholic Church). Can we add a "leader" field with a variable title (like head_label and head in Template:Infobox University) so that this might be reflected in the box? Lockesdonkey (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like a leader field. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Website

I would like an "Official website" parameter added to the bottom of the infobox, please let me know what you think -- $user log ^(Talk) @ 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. School templates have websites. Anyone else? Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Jeffro77! Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 00:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Default name at top

Any objections to my making the topmost purple line not appear if there is no name given? [then you can have the logo serve as the name, etc--useful for church of jesus christ of latter-day saints]? Rogerdpack (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of standard(ish) for infoboxes in general to have a heading like that, so I'd prefer not to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to optionally remove it, or change the coloration on it? The purple background doesn't seem all that aesthetically pleasing [ex: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints] Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. —Angr 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about this, though for another reason. I been trying to edit a couple of articles, one regarding a denomination which has no identifiable name (except the nickname in the title that their members might find objectionable), and one which has several varied official names (probably over a dozen). There has been some past arguing about which name to use in the titles, so not repeating those names in an Infobox would be desirable. Some way to remove the name would be a quick solution to the infoboxes. Alternatively, is there some suggestion of what I could put in those Infobox titles other than an inaccurate denominational name? Would something like “Overview” or “Quick Facts” be acceptible?Astynax (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Caption

Why is the image caption bold? I looked at the code and can't figure out what's making it bold, but it shouldn't be. —Angr 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Any text in the first column is bold because it inherits the setting from the infobox class. The caption of the image is in the first column (though it spans both columns), and is in the same row as the image. I have added a style property for that row to override the bold formatting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It was particularly irritating where the caption was relatively long, as in United Church of Canada. —Angr 01:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Tax Classification status

Though a majority of Denominations would classify under 501c3 i added in this in case it is not, it can be a very notable detail Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't displaying, but now works. Is there a better explanatory link than 501c3 – one which would include tax status for other English-speaking nations? The current wikilink is too U.S.-centric, yet a link with an explanation is definitely needed for this field. • Astynax ^talk 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Category names being changed

Why are the categories Orientation and Polity being changed to Theology and Governance? Ltwin (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

purple shade of title

I have added an option to solve the problem with the purple shade where in some articles it is aesthetic and others not.default state is disabled.

|caption background= Yes/No is the option--regards..Flowerman75 (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In what articles is it not "aesthetic"? That sounds like a fairly subjective conclusion. It would probably be better to keep the background colour by default rather than causing an unexpected change across many articles. If there is no objection, I will modify the behaviour of the optional parameter so that the default is to include the background colour as was the case previously.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support your opinion.Actually I planned to do so, but above in the above talks I saw it is discussed and been removed.See here. Hence I thought a sudden change would make complaints...Flowerman75 (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a couple of years ago, another editor did subjectively decide they didn't like the appearance of the coloured title. In addition to myself, another editor indicated their subjectivity, and the coloured bar by default was retained.

I have modified your parameter so that it is on by default but can be turned off.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as the colored background is optional, I have no objection. However, I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion as to whether we might have an "above" parameter to optionally place the title within the box, rather than above it? I personally think having the title within the box looks cleaner both with and without a color background for the title. See the Template:Infobox#Title meta-template and/or Template:Infobox holiday (which allows choosing a title background color) for examples of titles inside the box. • Astynax ^talk 17:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection to having the title inside the infobox - actually, I think I prefer it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone evidently objected to the color of the box and has removed it, I have moved the title to inside the infobox's outline. I also made the title font a bit larger (it gets lost for articles with shorter titles), and increased the width slightly to compensate. I hope that is OK with everyone. • Astynax ^talk 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've gone through and restored/added fields shown in the documentation that were missing in the template (and vice versa). Hopefully, they are now in sync and some fields which weren't displaying should now do so. • Astynax ^talk 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Add "Religion = Christian"?

Although this is the "Christian denomination" infobox, the word "Christian" is not mentioned anywhere on it. Would it be appropriate to add "Religion = ***", between "caption = ***" and "main classification = ***". Obviously, it would always read "Religion = Christian". However, most people look at the infobox first if they want all the main facts laid out, and this change would make it much clearer to anyone briefly looking at an article that the religion is a Christian denomination. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If it would always read Christian, there is no sense in specifying it as a parameter. A possible alternative would be to alter the presentation of the template to make its intent more obvious. However, I am not convinced that this is necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The general public, though, do not know that it is a "Christian" infobox. If this new parameter was added, everyone would know that the infobox describes a Christian religion. Personally, I don't see adding a new parameter as much of a big deal anyway. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I trust any article where this infobox is used will say pretty clearly in the opening sentence that the denomination in question is Christian. That should be sufficient. —Angr (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Geographical areas versus Official Website

It does not make sense that in this infobox areas is written with a lower case a, while Website is written with an upper case W.

I think that both should be lower case. However, I cannot find out how to make the necessary change. Please advise me on how to do this. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be consistent. I went ahead and change it to lower case. • Astynax ^talk 02:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. However, my main question was how to change this. I would have been bold and went ahead but I can't figure it out. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

General name, very specific implementation

Is it just me, or does this template's name sound inappropiately generic (i.e. an infobox for any organized religion/religious movement) compared to how it's specifically implemented for Christian-only denominations? MarqFJA87 (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It really does Aryamanarora^{talk, contribs} 19:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Denominations= parameter has a bug

The denominations= parameter has a bug. See Presbyterian Church in the United States of America infobox. The wrong parameter label is displayed. Here is what it displays if data is entered in the parameter:

{{congregations_type}}} 8,351 in 1957

Ping me back. If the data is removed from the template parameter the bug goes away, and no label or data is displayed just like any old blank parameter usually behaves. I tried removing a stray space after the parameter but it did not help. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed--JFH (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox Christian branch → Template:Infobox Christian denomination – Less problematic wording with bit more neutral and well-established neutrality in analogy with prevalance as seen in Christian denomination, List of Christian denomination, Category:Christian denominations, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Error in nomination coding corrected.
@Chicbyaccident: Are you really asking for a cross-namespace move? Pppery 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Indeed not. Thanks for highlighting. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. "Christian denomination" is normal English, "Christian branch" is idiosyncratic made-up weird phrasing, and incorrectly implies a tree hierarchy between Christian denominations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Denomination" is the correct word here. Omnedon (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Icon --> emblem?

What about changing the variable "icon" to "emblem" for wider use? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Liturgy

A liturgy variable would be at hand, perhaps located after the theology variable. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I have managed to implement the variable now. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the words “sacred text” are more meaningful to people than “scripture”

... so I think the template needs to be changed for the benefit of those people who haven't heard of scripture. Adrian816 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Alevi Muslim sect

But Template:Infobox religion was also used for Alevi Muslim sect which is NOT a Christian denomination.. Hence,Template:Infobox religion should not merge with Template:Infobox Christian denomination 108.31.250.33 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 108.31.250.33 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Width problem?

@SMcCandlish: inter alia: Is there a problem with the width parameter specific to Template:Infobox Christian denomination? Please see background discussion and arguments by Frietjes at Template_talk:Infobox#Width?. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Harmonising with Template:Infobox diocese?

Please see: Template_talk:Infobox_diocese#Part_harmonising_with_Template:Infobox_Christian_denomination. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

native_name cleanup

In quite a few cases the |native_name= contains a template like {{lang-la}} that has a language name prefix (for instance, Latin:). This doesn't display correctly. When |native_name_lang= is given, the prefix is language-tagged (as in this revision of Maronite Church); when it isn't, the entire text is italicized (as in Moravian Church).

I've removed italicization when |native_name_lang= is omitted because in that case a template like {{lang-la}} is fairly often used in |native_name= (search query: hastemplate:"Infobox Christian denomination‎" insource:"native_name" -insource:/native_name_lang *= *[a-zA-Z]/). — Eru·tuon 05:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox religion

A couple of years ago, this infobox was moved from "Infobox religion" to "Infobox Christian denominations" diff. Recently, a blocked user has added the former infobox to a number of articles, including Hinduism and Islam diff. Why? Is this in accord with Wiki-policy? User:Drmies, do you know how this stuff works? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Full communion section

I am using this template on another wiki and I don՚t know how to use the parameter ′′full communion′′š Help is greatly appreciatedš Kolikojerokoko (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kolikojerokoko. It looks like you can put whatever you'd like in it. Not sure what its intended use is. Killiondude (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's |full_communion =. Spaces and underscores are not interchangeable in parameter names. A search [1] indicates the only current use is full_communion = [[United Church of Christ]] (1989), [[United Church of Canada]] (2019) in Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). If your issue is about the religious meaning then see Full communion. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox Christian denomination → Template:Infobox religion – This is used on numerous religion articles that aren't Christian. There's nothing in the template that is specific to Christianity anyway. The templates "Infobox religion" and "Infobox Christian denomination" were merged after a discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 15#Template:Infobox religion, but for some reason they were merged to the narrower title. Kk.urban (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. They were actually merged to Template:Infobox religion, but it was subsequently moved to Template:Infobox Christian branch because of the concerns above at #General name, very specific implementation, followed by an RM to correct that to Template:Infobox Christian denomination. SilverLocust 💬 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hopelessly ambiguous classification parameters

I find the following parameters ambiguous and have suggestions to change them:

• main_classification = (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.)

this should be "Religion." Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. are religions, not "classifications."

• orientation = (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc.)

These are branches of Christianity. No one calls them "orientations." I recommend renaming the parameter "branch"

• theology = (main theology, e.g. Calvinism, Arminianism, Baptist)

These are denominational families within Protestantism. I recommend renaming the paramter "denominational family," which is how many of our articles are worded and has a defined meaning.

• polity = the appropriate ecclesiastical polity
• governance = type of governance and/or governing body of the denomination
• structure = organizational structure for groups that do not employ a standard ecclesiastical polity

What is the difference between polity, governance, and structure? What are you supposed to put in "structure?" I recommend deprecating governance and structure.

-- JFHutson (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Support—JFHutson's suggestions make sense to me. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. These are vaguer terms because there a lot of different kinds of religion, not just Christianity. These changes would make them unsuitable for non-Christian religions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if they are supposed to be more general terms meant to work in cases beyond the examples, they need to work for the examples. All that is given for "orientation" is a list of branches of Christianity. But no one uses the term "orientation" for this. Does "orientation" have some specialized meaning in the study of religion? I do not believe so. Same goes for theology. Theology is the study of God, not a denominational family or movement like Calvinism or Arminianism. If you would prefer, we could just deprecate orientation and theology. I would submit that would improve the encyclopedia in all cases where these are used. Polity, governance, and structure should be merged. I am ambivalent between policy, governance, and structure. --JFHutson (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Add "coordinates" parameter

Greetings and felicitations. Please add a "coordinates" parameter below the "headquarters" parameter, as is found in Template:Infobox_organization. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)