Template talk:Infobox church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Template This article has been rated as Template-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Diocese

Is there perhaps a better heading than "diocese"? Not every denomination uses that terminology. MisfitToys 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "parish" is another possibility. But I suppose the field can simply be left blank for for those denominations that don't have dioceses. Cheers, Jacklee 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, the terms "diocese" and "parish" are not interchangeable. A diocese usually consists of different parishes. I would suggest leaving the field "diocese" in place, and perhaps adding some other term if used by other denominations ("district"?). Have you got one in mind? Cheers, Jacklee 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of variations; Missouri Synod Lutherans have districts, while the Southern Baptists have state conventions (e.g. Tennessee Baptist Convention) and the Methodists have conferences (e.g. North Carolina Annual Conference). See Category:Christian group structuring for more examples. Perhaps 'region' or 'subdivision' would be the best thing to use in the template. MisfitToys 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Diocese" and "parish" are common terms so I've left the fields in, but I've added "division" and "subdivision" which can be used for other geographical divisions. Cheers, Jacklee 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

Hi, I wonder if you're able to help to fix (or provide some advice on fixing) this template. I don't really know how to use the complex markup needed to create infoboxes, and so have just been making simple edits to the template. However, I don't know how to fix the following problems:

  • It's not possible to leave out empty fields. At present, the template requires all fields to be listed, even if they are blank, otherwise the name of the field appears in the infobox in curly brackets.
  • The "(s)" in "Senior Pastor(s)" wraps around to the next line.

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Jacklee 19:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem relating to the inability to leave out empty fields (or parameters) has been fixed. However, I still haven't been able to solve the problem of the "(s)" in "Senior Pastor(s)" wrapping around to the next line. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further development of this template

I have two suggestions for further development of this template, and would be pleased to hear views on them.

  1. Should a colour-coding system be developed so that the template automatically displays different colours depending on what denomination is specified? (The colour scheme relating to Christian denominations used at "Template:Infobox religious building/doc#Automatic coloring" could be adopted.)
  2. Should the template be developed for use by religions other than Christianity? If so, what should the template be renamed? There is already a template called "{{Infobox religious building}}" that deals with the architectural aspects of religious buildings.

By the way, I have nominated "{{Infobox church}}" for deletion on the ground that it is redundant. If the nomination succeeds, I propose renaming the present template "{{Infobox church}}" (subject, of course, to suggestion 2 above). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colour change

Hi, Mind meal, you recently edited "{{Infobox church2}}" to change the background colour of its headings from the original dark red colour to yellow. I find that the shade of yellow that you picked is a bit too bright. I've amended the template to allow editors to change the background colour by specifying a value for a new "color" parameter. However, I'd like to change the default colour back to dark red, or to something more neutral such as a light brown as shown in the table below.

Colour Comment
Yellow
(#FFFF66)		 This is the colour you changed the template to. I feel it's a bit too bright.
Dark red
(#CC6666)		 This was the original colour of the template. I'd like to change the default colour back to this one.
Light brown
(#CCCC99)		 Alternatively, we could compromise on this colour as the default colour.

What do you (and other editors) think? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the red. (Mind meal (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

OK, cool. Will make the change. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. I find black on red hard to read. I would prefer black on yellow or black on white. Black on a dark colour is, well, undesirable, and not user friendly IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Dark red is no good as a background color when used with black font - it's too hard to read on many displays. On any church articles I write, I routinely override it with:
Light blue
(#BFE4FF)
For an example, see Brown Memorial Presbyterian Church. JGHowes talk - 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, JG. Following discussions with other editors, I've worked out a colour-coding system that will cause the template to automatically display certain background colours depending on which denomination a church belongs to: see "#Actual and proposed updates" below (and let's continue this conversation there). Your input on the colours I've chosen so far are most welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is that certain combinations do not provide adequate contrast for readers of Wikipedia. Dark purple or dark red backgrounds should be avoided with black fonts, in view of WP:COLOUR#Using colours in articles. JGHowes talk - 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I can change the colours for "Charismatic movement" (bright red) and "Methodism" (maroon), but I'm wondering whether I should change the shade of purple used for "Church of England" back to the lighter shade it used to be. I was trying to maintain consistency between this template and {{Infobox religious building}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO, yes, the lighter shades are more readable. And I would add that the same concern would apply to the colours used for {{Infobox religious building}}, so I would urge that any change in this regard be made to both templates. JGHowes talk - 00:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, I'm not involved in the maintenance of {{Infobox religious building}}. A separate discussion on that template's talk page will have to be initiated to get those colours changed. Would you like to do so? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh OK, I can do that. Do you wish to finalize the changes here first, then I'll propose that {{Infobox religious building}} be changed accordingly to match? Regards, JGHowes talk - 03:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I'll change the colour for "Church of England" back to the lighter shade of purple. Are there any other colours that you think should be adjusted? You may want to inform the editors over at {{Infobox religious building}} about what we're doing over here, and suggest that as far as possible the colours used for the two templates be synchronized. At the moment, I believe the Christian denominations that appear in both templates are Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, so these are the only ones that need to be kept the same. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded template: {{Infobox church/sandbox}}

Following a discussion at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals" where it was proposed that the templates {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} be merged, I've created a prototype merged template for discussion at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. The documentation for the template is at Template:Infobox church/doc. I'd appreciate help with the following:

  • I don't know why a large gap appears above the template when it is transcluded on to another page (see the documentation page). Have fixed this. — 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, there seems to be something wrong with the code as the "Administration" section header appears even though the "admin" parameter has not been set to "yes", which causes problems with the "Clergy" header. Again, see the documentation page. Oddly enough, when I transclude the template into another sandbox, this problem disappears. Figured it out. The "architecture", "admin", "clergy" and "laity" parameters must not be omitted from the template (they must either take a "yes" or "no" value). If "yes" is specified then at least one of the parameters in the section must be used, otherwise the template will appear distorted. Have updated the documentation to mention this. — JackLee 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How do I get the template to accept alternative parameter names? Normally what I would do is this: "{{#if:{{{name|{{{church_name|}}}}}}..." but this causes this template to break. Hmmm, seems to be working fine now. — 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried to hide the code using <includeonly> and </includeonly> tags, but that didn't work. Any idea why? Fixed this by removing the unnecessary <includeonly> tags in the template. — JackLee 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to stop the "(s)" in "Senior Pastor(s)" from wrapping around to the next line?

Also, should a colour-coding system be developed so that the template automatically displays different colours depending on what Christian denomination is specified? (The colour scheme relating to Christian denominations used at "Template:Infobox religious building/doc#Automatic coloring" could be adopted.)

If everyone is happy with {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, then {{Infobox church}} can be replaced with that template and the templates {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} nominated for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (updated 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Concerning color coding, YES! That would absolutely be a good idea, genius even. (Mind meal (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
There's also {{Infobox religious building}} to consider. I think it would be ideal if this was also merged somehow, even though (in theory) one template focuses on the building and the other focuses on the religious body/congregation which occupies it. It seems to me that keeping them separate leads editors to choose between the two, which isn't really helpful. MisfitToys (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would mean expanding {{Infobox church}} to apply to all places of worship regardless of the faith involved. If everyone thinks this is a good way to go, perhaps we can start by identifying templates equivalent to {{Infobox church}} for other religions and see what fields they use. We will probably also need help from editors knowledgable about different religions. One problem is that given the possible differences in terminology (for instance, Buddhism certainly doesn't have "bishops" and "rectors") the template might become massively large. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at "Category:Religion and belief infobox templates". The following templates look relevant:

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actual and proposed updates

Do express your views on the following:

  • I've removed the "color" parameter, and replaced it with an automatic selection of the background colour of headings when certain denominations are specified. See {{Infobox church/denomination}} for the list of colours. Are there any other denominations that should be added?
  • If additional parameters are merged into the template from {{Infobox religious building}}, the template will have a lot of parameters. To reduce the overall number, we could remove multiple parameters like "canon", "canon1", "canon2", "canon3" and "canon4", and instead advise users to put all canons under "canon" separated by commas or line breaks. What do you think?

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to expand {{Infobox church/sandbox}} to cover all places of worship

I've put a notice on the talk pages of WikiProjects relating to several religions, inviting people to participate in a discussion here about the following matters. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of the template

Would you support the expansion of the {{Infobox church/sandbox}} template, which is currently designed for Christian churches, so that it can be used by any place of worship regardlss of the faith involved? Do indicate "Support" or "Don't support" below, giving your reasons.


[edit] Parameters

Assuming you support the proposed expansion of the template, please indicate in the table below what new parameters need to be inserted into the template. If possible, please wikilink these parameters to articles that explain what they mean (e.g., "Rinpoche").

Religion Parameters relating to...
Architecture Administration Clergy Laypersons Other matters
Buddhism
Hinduism
Islam
Sikhism

[edit] General discussion

Withholding my actual vote for now, I would support a template for all Christian denominations. The term church simply does not apply to many Buddhist centers. You are doing good work, keep it up. In my opinion, if we included too many religious traditions the template would become too large, making editing of the infobox and article itself awkward. (Mind meal (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
Speaking quite generally, I think I agree with Mind meal. Though, looking at the infoboxes as we have them now for Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines, I guess there really aren't any parameters on those two that are not covered by this "church" template. If we were to include architectural elements, however, the problem arises that most Buddhist, Shinto, Confucianist places of worship consist of not individual buildings, but compounds, and would suggest a need to include such parameters as pertains to each and every individual building (the main hall, the ordination hall, the gates, the study hall, the treasure hall, etc).
  • One thing we could add, though, would be famous/notable past heads (abbot, etc), in addition to the founder. That could be useful.
  • Why do we have a parameter for the phone number? Why is that considered important?
  • Finally, I do think that a system of color codes for different religions, and perhaps for denominations within religions, needs to be established.
  • Oh, and if we do incorporate other religions, there needs to be a parameter for which religion the structure belongs to, and type of building, in addition to the denomination. For example: Type: Buddhist temple; Denomination: Pure Land Sect. Or Type: Protestant Cathedral; Denomination: Lutheran.
Thanks for your consideration and such. LordAmeth (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For Mandirs Hindu temples see {{Infobox Mandir}}--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is likely to be enough differences in the type of information that would typically be useful that one size is not likely to fit all. Rather than trying to cover everything at once in advance (typically not a recipe for success), why not first see if it's possible to have several different templates with smaller scope. Once these have gotten going and modified through use for a year or so, then see if it makes sense to try and merge them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly {{Infobox Christian church}} could be split off, with {{Infobox religious building}} continuing in use for those places of worship not yet covered by a more specific infobox, such as synagogues, mosques, etc. MisfitToys (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We'd have to have a discussion with the good people over at {{Infobox religious building}} before such a policy can be implemented. I don't know the history of that template. It could be that there was consensus that a single template should be used for all religious buildings, in which case reversing the process by suggesting that the template not be used for Christian places of worship would not be a good idea.
At the moment, it seems that most people feel that turning {{Infobox church}} into a "one size fits all" template for all religions is not a good idea. Therefore, are we all agreed that for the time being we should stick to improving {{Infobox church/sandbox}} and replacing {{Infobox church}} with it, and eventually deleting {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}}? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't support. Political correctness is silly. "Church," in English generally means, "Christian churches." Jewish churches are called "Synagogues" or "Temples." Muslim churches are called "Mosques." Buildings for Eastern religious gatherings are called "Temples" or "Monasteries." There is absolutely no need to radically modify a template for the sake of including various non-Christian religious groups under the "church" template. Also, because the characteristics of each building differ from religion to religion and culture to culture, a "one-size-fits-all" template would be very tedious to make and would require some kind of scripting, of optional parameters. With that in mind, it's just as easy to make new templates when they need to be made. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I tend to agree, although the trend of the discussion got me off track. My main point is that a lot of articles use {{Infobox religious building}} when we might prefer they use this one, and some of that infobox's contents should be merged here to encourage the transition for those articles. MisfitToys (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Zenwhat, I don't think it's a matter of political correctness. Perhaps I misunderstood what MisfitToys had in mind, but there is nothing wrong in avoiding a multiplicity of infoboxes (see, for example, the highly-impressive {{Infobox Officeholder}}). If such an infobox were created, obviously the name {{Infobox church}} would have to be changed. Nonetheless, it seems that that is a task for another day. MisfitToys, perhaps you could identify which parameters in {{Infobox religious building}} you think ought to be added to {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are slight variations betwen the two to work out (such as consecration year vs. dedication date), but there are also architectural parameters regarding domes, etc. If they're being used in the other template, they should be options here if we want this template to be used instead. MisfitToys (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)