Template talk:WikiProject Anglicanism

Missing colon?

As examples, both on this page and over on Template_talk:Archbishops_of_Canterbury, the colon is not appearing between the Template and Pagename as the first words of the infobox. I was not going to mess with the template as it is very intricate, but I thought I would mention it. — MrDolomite • Talk 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit link broken

The edit link has the following literal URL http://wiki.riteme.site{{localurl/Comments|action=edit%7D%7D . Therefore it does not link to the correct page to edit the comments. Someone knowledgeable in the template please edit to fix. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disable "orphan=" ?

What is the 'orphan' parameter for? If it is 'yes', the text: "... is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup" spits out, which is wrong, as adding the banner assigns the article to WikiProject Anglicanism.

It seems that no articles use it, since Category:Anglicanism articles without a WikiProject is empty. I suggest that 'orphan' be disabled.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review record

Please post a link to the discussion where Peer Review was deprecated.
Please update the documentation to delete peer review.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Happy-Melon meant that peer review was depreciated, merely that the way this template's handling of the peer review parameters has changed. If your project needs it, then it can be done, but it is no longer handled by default, because few projects were using it. However it seems you weren't using it anyway, as the relevant categories don't seem to exist. If you would like to re-implement it I would be happy to advise.
Okay, will do! Martin 22:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an article history template (don't recall its name) that links peer reviews. So I don't think it will be necessary to restore the functionality to this template. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Template:ArticleHistory. Best wishes, Martin 11:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we don't use it. --Secisek (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template?

Both {{Template:WikiProject Anglicanism}} and {{WikiProject Christianity|anglicanism=yes}} can be added to talk pages, and the Christianity one also adds the Christanity project. Is this template redundant, or are there circumstances where an article is in the Anglican project but not in the Christianity one? Peter E. James (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Anglicanism Template need more work doing on it?

I have just posted the following on the Anglicanism Portal Talk-Page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anglicanism#Does_the_Anglicanism_Template_need_more_work_on_it.3F and would appreciate any comments being posted there rather than here. Thanks

I much appreciate the time and effort put into the scripting of the Anglicanism template and I know that there has been an earlier discussion of the point I am now going to raise. But as a newcomer, I feel that the end result as displayed is too heavy for the page. If it appears opposite a short lead with a long TOC under it, the end result is a visual horror (see Book of Common Prayer). Would it be possible for the detailed menus under each main section to become "drop-down" ones when the cursor is moved over the main section name? Alternatively, could a small "logo" be devised with a link to the overall menu? Perhaps this should be on the talk:template-page but I suspect few people look there and I will post a link there

--Jpacobb (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you replace the File:COTWnew.png to File:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive.svg. Higher resolution image. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Is there any reason for this cosmetic change, what "improvement" are we gaining from this change? --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, Hey, thanks for reviewing the edit request. Portable Network Graphics (PNG) is a raster file format, which means file quality isn't great. Converting PNG to SVG makes the file's resolution higher. See an example in this image File:Bitmap VS SVG.svg. Thanks. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done with respect to QEDK's objection, as this is mostly "cosmetic" I don't see it as contentious or in need of a lengthy discussion - so processing this as WP:BRD - if someone has a specific issue with it, it should be reverted and further discussion can be opened. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]