Template talk:Infobox church/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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:

• {{Infobox Buddhist temple}}.
• {{Infobox monastery}}.
• {{Infobox Orthodox monastery}}.
• {{Infobox Shinto shrine}}.

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

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

Maps

Can we have geo-information too? The coordinates, map and altitude are more useful than email and fax. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If it is not on a road, or is in an area without addressesd, there should still be a way to pinpoint it.— Supuhstar * § 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates are already a property of this infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Contact info?

Why is there such extensive contact info? WP:NOT clearly states that Wikipedia is not a phone book or a directory, although I realize there's room for disagreement in the application of that policy to this situation. My view is that an encyclopedia article about a subject should not have contact information; that is too much the function of a telephone directory. I think that an external link to a website is sufficient. I would also add that we would never even consider doing this for living people, and I think not just for privacy concerns. Savidan 01:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent. I think that address information is acceptable as it pinpoints the location of the church, and stating a website is fine too. But e-mail and telephone information (even though it was I who initially added the contact number field) is, on reflection, excessive. Wait a few days to see if there are any opposing views and further discussions on the matter. If there aren't, go ahead and remove those fields and rename the section "Location" or something along those lines. You might want to also update the template under construction at "{{Infobox church/sandbox}}". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The contact information should be removed per WP:NOT. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We are not a directory. The contact info needs to go, including the address. pschemp | talk 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've restored the "location", "country" and "website" parameters. There shouldn't be any objection over identifying which city (and province or state, if applicable) and country the church is in, nor setting out the church's official website address. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the phone # field -- clearly inappropriate per WP:NOT. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Address" parameter

On 14 October 2008, ForeverYounger reinserted the "Address" parameter. While I think it is generally accepted that telephone numbers should not be included (and the "phone" field is currently not in the template), I think we need to have a full discussion on whether the "address" parameter should be in the infobox. The relevant guideline is "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory":

For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

Please express your views below. (This is not simply a vote, so please explain your reasons for supporting or opposing the inclusion of an "address" parameter.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral, tending towards inclusion: Personally, I do not have strong feelings whether the "address" field should be in the infobox or not. I see no harm in leaving it in, as it helps to pinpoint the location of the church. WP:NOT does not specifically state that all addresses should be omitted (though it does mention phone numbers). Is anyone aware of discussions in which consensus was reached that addresses should generally not be stated in infoboxes? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree that having the address seems to go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and shouldn't be included. Neither {{Infobox company}} nor {{Infobox organization}} have address fields, only general location fields for noting the city. At best, it would seem the church infobox should be the same, just a general city/state location field, not a full address. The only time I can see address being relevant is if the church is a historical landmark, at which point it should probably be using the relevant infobox for that instead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests

Is it possible to incooperate:

1. Two pictures, one for a logo on top, and one for the building. Like an old version of Saddleback Church. I still want the title in non-logo above the logo.
2. There is alot of different titles in the emerging Category:Megachurches, like: executive pator(s), lead pastor, preaching pastor, campus pastor(s), pastor of church planting, worship pastor and so on.

I think it would be really sad if this nice template just stranded and never was finished, but i don't have the skills to finish it!--MortenKristensen (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have separate fields for each of these different types of pastor? I would suggest simply using the "pastor" parameter and indicating the names like this: "Rev ABC (executive pastor), Rev DEF (lead pastor) ..." Different churches probably use different nomenclatures, and trying to include all the variations in the template will bloat it terribly. Let me look into adding a field for the logo. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Thank you. When will it be possible to use the new version?--MortenKristensen (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time this evening; give me a couple of days. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. OK, I have added the parameters "logo" and "logosize" to the template. Let me know if it works all right. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Membership and weekly attendance

There are no items to note:

• seating capcity
• membership
• weekly attendance

and these seem more important that other items that are included. --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Capacity" is already a parameter in the template; "membership" and "weekly attendance" are useful suggestions. Which of the existing parameters do you think are less important and should be omitted? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I should imagine it will be difficult to find independent, reliable sources for such statistics, and harder still to keep them up-to-date. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that such information will have to come from publications of the church itself. The documentation currently directs editors to add the date of the information in parentheses, e.g., "4,257 (as at 20 December 2008)". It will be up to editors maintaining the article to update the figure if they wish to. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A Church's own publication would not be a reliable source for such figures, in the Wikipedia sense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there may exist reports issued by an external governing body of several churches that might contain such information, but I don't know whether you would consider this independent. Otherwise, I cannot imagine where else one would obtain the information. It also seems to me that "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources" was not really directed at self-published statistical data. Even if such information appeared in a third-party publication, the data would most likely have been obtained from the organization itself. Are you proposing that fields such as "membership" and "attendance" be omitted? They seem to provide useful snapshots about how large the congregation of a church is. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Location: Multiple campuses for single church

What about city/state if the "location" should be used for campuses? Isn't it better to call it "members", insted of membership.--MortenKristensen (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a church that has different campuses? I'm having a bit of difficulty picturing the information you want to capture. What about "Number of members"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on Mars Hill Church with 7 campuses in one city, but it is still funcioning as one church with one preaching pastor in all the campuses with satelite video.--MortenKristensen (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Then just use the city's name as the location, and explain in more detail in the text. (See {{Infobox company}} for alternative "postal address" vs. "general location" coding). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Location - needs to be more prominent?

Could we have Location (city and country) nearer the top of the template, as I suggested earlier? It seems a key element. PamD (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. See how the template looks now. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Revised template ready; comments, please

Hi, I've finished revising the proposed improved version of the template at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. Your comments and feedback on the template are welcome. If there are no major objections to the improved template, it will be used to replace the existing template {{Infobox church}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine! Is it possible to have "Number of campuses" and "Music group(s)" with an "(s)", i think thats what I could find.--MortenKristensen (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've added "(s)" to "Music group". However, is "Number of campuses" really needed? If a church has several locations, this can be indicated in the "Location" field. Alternatively, if a particular "campus" is important enough, perhaps there should be a separate Wikipedia article for it. What do you think? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think location is fine, and then you can also put the names in. Let's try it! --MortenKristensen (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added some additional hCard microformat properties (not hCalendar, as I mistakenly said in my edit summary!). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. (I have no idea how hCard microformat properties work...) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You could do with an on-line encyclopedia to help you find out ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So, this is remaining a template just for churches? It was decided that trying to combine religious institutions under one template was too complicated? If so, that's fine with me. I never write Christianity-related articles at all, so you all do whatever works best for you. Looks just fine to me. :) Now if only we had some better templates for Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, Confucian temples, Buddhist/Shinto temple-shrines, Confucian/Taoist shrine-temples, and all the other things that might come up.... LordAmeth (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, judging from the previous discussion it seems that trying to come up with a single template for all religious buildings was not the way to go. Perhaps at this point it would be more fruitful for you to work on a parallel template for the types of articles that you do work on, and then at a later time thought can be given to whether it is worth trying to merge them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[Copied over from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity] It seems very thorough, if a bit over-powering in the full version, & some of the "architectural" headers seem a bit odd. The main thing is that we are absolutely clear that it is up to local editors whether to use it or not. In my experience most editors of articles that are mainly about the architecture prefer not use them. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Only a few parameters are mandatory; the remainder are optional and will not appear if omitted. (See the comments at "Merger proposal below for why the full template looks so humongous.) The architecture-related parameters were added from {{Infobox religious building}} at the suggestion of an editor, in a bid to encourage greater use of this template for churches. Which of these parameters look odd? As for whether this template should be used for all churches, I guess it is up to WikiProject Christianity to initiate a discussion on the matter and determine whether there is sufficient consensus to adopt this infobox for the articles under its purview. Hopefully, editors will naturally gravitate towards a comprehensive, well-designed template. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)