Template talk:Infobox church/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Add Bible Presbyterian Church under Presbyterian in /denomination

Following on from the discussion above, Bible Presbyterian Church appears to be a distinct denomination, but needs to pick up the Presbyterian blue. It needs adding therefore in /denomination and /denomination/doc. Any discussion? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Martin of Sheffield! For the record, the extended family is as follows: Orthodox Presbyterian Church -> [[Bible Presbyterian Church -> Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore). They all trace back historically to Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. For this reason, it will be great if these 3 could be included under Presbyterian in /denomination. Appreciate all your help. Bpc.sg (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin of Sheffield there's no response. Should we proceed? Bpc.sg (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done I notice that you've already changed the documentation (yesterday), so although I think it's a bit too quick I have updated the template. I've also updated Life Bible-Presbyterian Church to use the denomination without any alternative name, otherwise it will not work. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks. is there a way to change the black text on blue to white?Bpc.sg (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes - but don't try. Changing the template for one instance would change ALL Presbyterian churches and would be a major change requiring genuine consensus BEFORE the change. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't understand. so why if i put Presbyterian, the text is white? Can you make the text for Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) white too? Bpc.sg (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. I was concerned that you were proposing modifying all Presbyterian churches. I had incorrectly assumes that the automatic font change was truly automatic whereas it is actually handled by yet another template. I've now updated that template and its documentation (both must be kept in step) and Life Bible-Presbyterian Church is now white on blue. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ah ok thanks so much! Bpc.sg (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Presbyterian fields

Under clergy, the current order is

Minister(s) {{{minister}}}
Assistant {{{assistant}}}
Senior pastor(s) {{{seniorpastor}}}
Pastor(s) {{{pastor}}}
Chaplain(s) {{{chaplain}}}
Archdeacon {{{archdeacon}}}
Deacon(s) {{{deacon}}}
Deaconess(es) {{{deaconess}}}

The problem is, it is not an accurate reflection of Presbyterian clergy.

For example, a pastor is a minister but a minister may not be a pastor (e.g. retired, seminary professor, missionary etc). Therefore, the minister field should be after pastor.

Further, there is no place for Associate Pastor (assocpastor) or Assistant Pastor (asstpastor). It is very weird if I put the Assistant's name on top of the Pastor. "Assistant" should be removed altogether. Free labels should also be allowed.

Also, there is the office of an "Elder" after pastors and before deacons. I suggest to include it before "Archdeacon".

I propose:

Senior pastor(s) {{{seniorpastor}}}
Pastor(s) {{{pastor}}}
Associate Pastor(s) {{{assocpastor}}}
Assistant Pastor(s) {{{asstpastor}}}
Minister(s) {{{minister}}}
Elders(s) {{{elder}}}
Archdeacon {{{archdeacon}}} [for Anglicans]
Deacon(s) {{{deacon}}}
Deaconess(es) {{{deaconess}}}
Chaplain(s) {{{chaplain}}}

Please do seriously consider. Thank you!

Looks like no one is responding on this. Is there anyway I can make the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpc.sg (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

May I know is there a way to add free labels as well?Bpc.sg (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of change which might affect quite a lot of articles, so it would be best to get more inputs from editors who write articles about churches of different denominations. I suggest you leave a message at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity" inviting editors to take part in this dicussion. The difficulty, as I see it, is that different denominations may use the clergy titles differently, so arranging them to suit one particular denomination may cause the hiererchy to be incorrect for another denomination. However, I can't claim to be knowledgeable about this at all, which is why input from other editors is important. Also, is it really necessary to introduce a raft of "associate" and "assistant" parameters? Can't you just use {{{pastor}}}, indicating the individuals status in parentheses (e.g., "Joe Bloggs (assistant pastor)")? As for the query about free labels, it is technically possible, but the problem is that the free label would have to be in a fixed place that cannot be changed, so I'm not sure how useful this would be. What sort of information do you want to put in such a "free label"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jacklee. If that's the case, for a start, can I propose focusing on the additions of "associate" and "assistant" parameters first? Due to the small size of the infobox, it would be ugly, repetitive, and redundant to put the individuals status in parentheses, especially if there are multiple pastors and/or dates of term of service are included as well. Besides, the Presbyterian church has long had a distinction of senior, lead, associate, and assistant pastors. Bpc.sg (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jacklee: @Djkeddie: @Hunter:, I would like to add Associate Pastor and Assistant Pastor after Pastor for clarity. Together with Senior Pastor, these 4 offices are commonplace in a Presbyterian church. As for the rest of the offices (e.g. Elder, see above), I appreciate your input and consideration for inclusion. Thanks! Bpc.sg (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been hanging on for a while. Can we have all comments by 17/10/15 please. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Has a notice been placed at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity" to alert editors active with that project to the discussion here? I don't have any knowledge about the hierarchy of clergy in different denominations, and the while the change proposed may suit the Presbyterian hierarchy, it may create howls of protest from editors working with other denominations. More knowledgeable editors need to comment on whether the proposed change is acceptable, and if not, whether some compromise can be reached. In addition, I'm concerned about the comment about "multiple pastors and/or dates of term of service". In my view, if there is a lot of this sort of information, it is better placed in the main body of the article and not squashed into the infobox. The infobox is for current information about the church and certainly ought not to contain, for example, a historical list of all the previous clergy of a church. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Bpc.sg, can you provide a reliable third-party source showing what the Presbyterian hierarchy is? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done notice added. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jacklee, Bpc.sg, Jarsonic, and Djkeddie: Just a thought: would it make for a cleaner layout if all clergy were removed from the generic church infobox and placed in separate denomination-specific infoboxes?

worth exploring as an A/B test. clergy is tied to denomination afterall Bpc.sg (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates display?

How is the |coordinates display= parameter supposed to work? It's not documeted here but I was expecting the same behaviour as with {{Coord}}. However, regardless of whether I set |coordinates display=inline, |coordinates display=title, or |coordinates display=inline,title, I'm getting the same result, i.e. coordinates at both the top of the article and in the infobox. Can anyone see what the problem is? PC78 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

PC78, the default is no display at the top of the article. any non-blank value will cause the coordinates to appear at the top of the article. non-intuitive? yes! Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

just changed it so |coordinates display=inline will work. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So I assume the intention is to have the infobox dispay inline coordinates regardless, and the parameter is used only for optional title coordinates? PC78 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

yes, suppressing the inline display entirely will anger the microformats advocates. see {{infobox settlement}} for example. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:COLOR

Hey all, I'm opening a discussion re: this general discussion at Grapesoda22's talk page. Short story: Some of the color schemes used at Template:Infobox church/denomination may not be compatible with WP:COLOR, and I think it's uncontroversial to change the schemes to conform with the guideline. To better ensure that our visually impaired readers can access our content, we need to make sure that any text we use on a color background has a high-enough contrast ratio at various type sizes. The tool we use is this one, and the goal is to get all "YES"es in the appropriate boxes. So in the default link, we see that we're good with this ratio. Here, we've got a NO and a "sort of", so those values could be tweaked. Grape made some changes here, but they were reverted by Martin of Sheffield, presumably because Grape didn't explain the changes. Assuming that the values that Grape added are consistent with WCAG 2.0 AAA (the fancy name for our goal), I'd like to endorse the changes. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There were two reasons for the revert: the lack of discussion here (as requested on the documentation page) and the fact that documentation was not kept in step with the template. It was impossible to check what had been done since the colours and hex codes displayed to an editor were different from what a user would see in an article. Referring to "AAA" without explanation didn't help either. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Specifications

Would it be worth having width height and length specifications grouped together here? Seems to have been done for domes but nothing else follows that format. Currently length and width specs are broken up in alternation with specs for the nave.

• BalchMike    ⋠talk⋡ 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Add maps function

I propose adding the ability to select from multiple maps of various zoom levels in the infobox with the location pin in each. This is executed nicely in Template:Infobox NRHP and Template:Location map. For an example of this, see St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) (although in this instance, the NRHP template is embedded in Infobox church. One change I would make is the ability to add a map caption for each selected map, rather than one static one that appears for each. Somewhat relatedly, adding a parameter of "facade direction" for entering the direction the church faces would be useful, similar to Template:Infobox religious building. Ergo Sum 01:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Change parameter function

I propose changing the way the native name parameter functions. I suggest that this parameter combined with the native name language parameter act as a sub-template of Template:Native name (e.g. the way St. Peter's Basilica is set up now. In this way, entering the appropriate content in the native name field and the language of that name in the native name language field produces a result like the native name template: italicized text, smaller text, and the language linked and in parentheses at the end. I also propose adding the ability to add multiple of the native name and native name language parameters, naming them 1, 2, etc. to accommodate situations such as that in the infobox on St. Peter's Basilica, using both Italian and Latin native names. The infobox should expand laterally in accordance with the length of the native names on one line. Lastly, the other name parameter description should be changed to exclude placing native names there.
On a related note, I propose that the full name parameter place the content below the "name" content in the infobox but within the colored box instead of below the box. This full name content should be of a smaller size (likely the same size as the text produced by the native name template aforementioned. Ergo Sum 04:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Since you've been so helpful in the past with modifying this template, I wonder if this and the comment below this one might be something you'd be interested in helping out on.Ergo Sum 14:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm away on holiday at the moment with limited computer access and display space. I'll deal with this at the weekend when I've got back to my real systems. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Might you have a moment with more properly equipped systems now? Ergo Sum 15:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Add parameter

I propose adding a parameter called religious_institute. It would be used to indicate the rite of the church for which the template is used. The current parameter of tradition is useful, but it suited primarily to whether the church is associated with a particular Christian tradition, which is what it links to. This is especially problematic when a church has a both particular rite/tradition (which most in the Catholic Church do) and is associated with an order or institute (of which there are many). The code would come immediately after data8 = and would be as follows:
| label8 = Religious institute | class8 = category | data8 =
Ergo Sum 20:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - that is not a semi-protected edit request - you need to obtain consensus on this page, before making any such a request. - Arjayay (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful (at least to me) if you could provide a few examples of precisely what you mean.--Dcheney (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dcheney: An example of this is Holy Trinity Church, which is a Roman Rite church and a Jesuit church. The tradition parameter (though not used here) would indicate the rite and the proposed parameter would indicate the Jesuit affiliation. Ergo Sum 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I object to the name "Order" as it is not the proper umbrella term for Catholic religious institutes. The field needs to be called "Institute". Elizium23 (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elizium23: That's a good point - an oversight of mine. I changed the proposal accordingly. Ergo Sum 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support proposal as revised. Elizium23 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You may want to revise the 2nd sentence of the proposal - as that is the most confusing to me. Using "Rite" in this context suggests something that is not what you seem to mean. Thank you for the example, that is helpful. My impression is there are two styles (for lack of a better word) that you will likely find: 1) parish owned and operated by a religious institute (often related to a nearby school, monastery, etc.) and 2) parish owned by the diocese that is currently entrusted to a pastor belonging to a religious institute (sometimes to a long succession of pastors from the same religious institute). Although I'm not sure there is a need to distinguish between those in an infobox.--Dcheney (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Designating a "Rite" for any given church may be useful, but here are the caveats: (1) can you get everyone to agree on using the "Tradition" field for the rite in all Catholic Church-related articles? (2) determining the rite of a building will often slip into WP:OR and just slapping "Roman" on everything in sight, because you would be hard-pressed indeed to find an article or book that asserts "this church was designed after the guidelines given by the Roman Rite" (may be a small possibility of finding that it is designed according to the Byzantine Rite, but not much). Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason I object to using the word "rite" is it does not seem to be what he wants the field to convey - namely the religious order/institute affiliation.--Dcheney (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he wants "Tradition" to convey the rite, and "Institute" to convey the order/institute affiliation. Am I wrong? Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Very possible, I could be mis-reading it (part of why I asked for an example earlier ;-) Perhaps the 2 changes should be discussed separately. --Dcheney (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify, I am proposing keeping the tradition field as is and allow it to be used to indicate the rite, which is the case on many articles. The new parameter would indicate the institute. To address an earlier comment, there are many instances (particularly in the United States) in which churches are owned by and fall under the jurisdiction of a diocese but are run by an institute. This, I think, is where this new parameter would be useful. It might be helpful to change the current tradition parameter to rite to clarify. I'm not sure what else is currently being put in the tradition field. Ergo Sum 13:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that the primary objective of this proposal is to make it possible to make it easier to indicate if a specific church building is associated with one of the particular churches within the Catholic Church? If that is the objective, might their now be a more direct way of perhaps addressing that? I myself think that in such cases we might just use Syro-Malabar Catholic Church for instance in the denomination section. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it is neither the building nor the particular church to which this proposal is directed. The particular church can already be indicated in the infobox in the tradition field. This is to make available a parameter for the religious institute or religious order. The two are quite different. Ergo Sum 18:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically, regarding the religious orders. An interesting proposal, and one which I myself would not necessarily object to, but I do have a question. If, somehow, a given member of an order, lets say the Jesuits, is asked to become the pastor of a church in a diocese which is independent of his order, what would be done then? Also, I suppose, I might request absolute clarification as to whether this proposal might also be used to indicate that a given church or parish were related to a group of nuns. I know of a few parishes in town where nuns have their buildings on the extended church grounds, and, I suppose, in such possibly rare cases, that question might come up in those instances. Alternately, what if a church is or was on the grounds of a convent? Also, in what I admit is probably a wildly theoretical possibility, what would be said about a church of a particular denomination which might be under the administration of a trans-denominational religious order, like at least theoretically the Taizé Community? John Carter (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As for your first part, I think that would be up to the editor to exercise discretion. It would depend primarily on whether reliable, neutral sources describe the church as belonging to or administered by a particular religious institute. I wouldn't think that a church simply being headed by a member of an order would qualify as describing the whole church as belonging to it, but that would vary widely and would be up to a reliable source to determine. As for your second part, while I am not very familiar with such trans-denominational orders, I should think that this new parameter would be very helpful, since besides the two denominations to which the church belongs, one could now indicate that it is part of that order in the infobox within this proposed field. Ergo Sum 17:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussion, it appears a consensus has been reached. Unless there are any objections, I am going to go ahead and make the change. Ergo Sum 03:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I just executed the change. Ergo Sum 04:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Collapsible?

I don't see anything that indicates whether the template is collapsible. I think this feature would be VERY useful, especially in the context of multi-site churches.

For example, the church I go to, Southeast Christian in Louisville, has just opened its fifth campus, with one currently under construction. Using the page for Southeast as an example of how this would work:

• The main infobox would be used for Southeast as a whole. The three principal pastors (Dave Stone, Kyle Idleman, and Tim Hester, respectively titled Senior Pastor, Teaching Pastor, and Executive Pastor) would go here, as would information on the church as a whole.
• There would be six collapsible infoboxes, one for each campus. Using the church's own terms for the campuses, these would be (in order of opening): Blankenbaker (main campus), Indiana, Crestwood, Southwest, La Grange, and Elizabethtown (under construction). Each campus except Blankenbaker has its own Campus Pastor; Blankenbaker instead has a "Blankenbaker Ministries Coordinator".

Think this would be a useful feature to add for the template as a whole? — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

From MOS:COLLAPSE: If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sacristan

The Sacristan parameter is floating at the bottom of the table. Could this be fixed so that it appears like the ones above it? I've tried to fix it myself but templates aren't my strong point! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Typos fixed. Any upper-case instances of |Sacristan= will need to be converted to |sacristan= (lower-case). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Simultankirche

Denomination must ne stated. What do I do for a church that is used by more than one denomination, as Altenberger Dom is since the 19th century? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

metropolitan

The doc shows "metropolitan" as a parameter under administration, but it is not used/supported in anyway by the template. Which is the preferred status? Ahwiv (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Organ

How do I code that a church has a notable organ? Built when by whom, restored when by whom? Registered historic instrument? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no such provision for an organ in the template. That seems like information that would be better suited to be included in the body of the article, rather than in the template. Ergo Sum 18:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I could see that there is no provision, that's why I asked. Make one? I know several churches who are known mainly for their organ, - I met one today, Church of Reinhardtsgrimma. In that case, I'd like to show the organ in the infobox, which would make more sense with data, not just caption. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Using Template:Infobox church/denomination in another template

I would like to use the variable color function of Template:Infobox church/denomination in Template:Episcopal lineage, which I am almost done building. My goal is to have the header change color according to the denomination entered, as well as the font color change when necessary according to the background color, just as Template:Infobox church does. Does anyone know how I can go about achieving this? Ergo Sum 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I came up with a solution. You can see it on the template. Ergo Sum 19:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions

May I make a couple of suggestions for possible amendments to this template in relation to the status section, as follows:

• heritage designation - I think it would help if the box allowed for more than one designation, as infobox historic site does. I think a great number of churches must encompass more than one designation. An example; St Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth is Grade II* listed, but so are its gates. However, I think it unlikely the gates will ever have their own article so I would like to record their separate designation in the infobox for the church. An example of what I mean can be seen at Trewyn House. Here, the infobox allows me to record the designations of the house, the walls, and the dovecote.

• designation number - For the UK, and perhaps elsewhere, every listing has a unique designation number. Infobox historic site allows me to record this, as at Trewyn House. Unfortunately infobox church does not, although it does allow me to record the designation date. I think the inclusion of the unique designation number would help, particularly as identifying churches, which often have identical dedications, can be confusing.

I would be grateful if these suggestions could be considered. I have also posted this at the WikiProject Infoboxes Talkpage. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Make parameter variable

I propose modifying the religious institute parameter so as to be able to accept the parameter input of religious order as well. This means that if "religious order" is entered, that will be the label, or if "religious institute" is entered, that will be the label. Both will wikilink to their respective articles. I have tested the code in this template's sandbox and it seems to work. The benefit of this change is that it allows an editor to be more specific in describing what affiliation the church has with the order or institute. Ergo Sum 18:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Parish Priest

Please add the "Parish Priest" parameter. --Kapuso (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Kapuso, there is currently the |Priest(s)= parameter. This could be used for the parish priest and other priests of the parish would fall under |Assistant priest(s)= and/or |Honorary priest(s)=. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox colour - problem with adding new denomination

Hi, I tried adding the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland (Poland's only Lutheran church) to the list of denominations, but it doesn't seem to be working. Guess I did something wrong. Or is it something about the use of the infobox at St. Matthew's Church, Łódź that prevents the infobox from going green? Could anyone help me out? Many thanks in advance. Pearlmaster1212 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pearlmaster1212, I looked at St. Matthew's Church, Łódź and it's green. what is the problem? Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I kept checking it throughout the day and only now has it turned green. No idea what the problem was (does the template take time to be implemented or what?), but it's working now. Thanks anyway. Pearlmaster1212 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pearlmaster1212, after you make a change to the template, you need to (1) open the article in edit mode, (2) make no changes, and (3) save the page. this forces the server to regenerate the page. or, you can wait for it to happen automatically (but this can take some time). Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of Denomination template headings

Hi,Please insert or create the following churches to the Saint Thomas Christians template that includes Jacobite Syrian Christian Church,Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church,Mar Thoma Syrian Church. Need to add Background color for Infobox church. Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 10:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2018

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: no consensus to move the template at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox church → Template:Infobox church building – Per consistency with Church (building) and Category:Church buildings. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems trivial, so both are ok. But a better option would be to merge this template to {{Infobox religious building}}. User:Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 15:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• comment seems to contradict the lead paragraph in the documentation which states This infobox is for providing general information about a Christian church, including its history, architecture and staff. To provide information solely about the architectural details of a church building, use "{{Infobox religious building}}". hence, this template is used for describing the greater organisation and not just the building. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Frietjes' point: it's about a building, its history, its people, its organization, ... - not only about a building. For the same reason, a merge with another "building" infobox makes little sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely agree with Gerda. A church is much more than a building; it's part of a community, physically and spiritually, not just something to look at. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2018 (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.

Template-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

Please add the category of 'Benefice' to the church administration; to fall after 'Parish' and before 'Deanery'

The category of Benefice is important to connect to discrete parishes that are joined administratively MadaMada19 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@MadaMada19: Can you explain a bit what the role of a benefice is? Ergo Sum 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Current usage A benefice or living in the Church of England describes any ecclesiastical parish or group of ecclesiastical parishes under a single stipendiary minister, as well as its related historical meaning.

The term dates from the grant of benefices by bishops to clerks in holy orders as a reward for extraordinary services.[10] The holder of a benefice owns the "freehold" of the post (the church and the parsonage house) for life.

Such a life freehold is now subject to certain constraints. To comply with European Regulations on atypical workers, the parson's freehold is being phased out in favour of new conditions of service called "common tenure".[n 5][14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefice#Church_of_England — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadaMada19 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A single parish benefice might consist of one parish church being looked after by one stipendiary minister; two separate parishes might be looked after by the same minister and they would be in a benefice. For example St Agatha's parish church looked after by Rev Smith is in the Benefice of St Agatha's, churchtown. St Agatha's parish and St Audrey's parish are two separate parishes but both looked after and are therefore in the benefice of St Agatha's and St Audrey's, churchtown — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadaMada19 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

See the lead to St Giles Church, Wormshill where five pre-conquest parishes come together to form the United Benefice of Bredgar with Tunstall. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done it in the sandbox. Because I wrote a script to renumber the parameters (rather than trudge through them manually) I'd appreciate another pair of eyes over the result, and a testcase to show it does what's required. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done @MadaMada19: I've gone ahead and implemented the change. @Cabayi: Your edit seems to be fine in the sandbox and testcases. That's a very useful script you wrote. Ergo Sum 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's hope I remember where it is next time this type of edit comes up :-) Cabayi (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

benefice is being thrown up as an error - needs including at bottom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because the parameter hasn't been added yet, the request is still open. Cabayi (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Twiceuponatime, it's been implemented now. Try again. Cabayi (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Working correctly now. Many Thanks. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed parameter and parameter relocation

I propose the following two changes:

• Moving status from its current position beneath the "Architecture" subheader" to beneath bull date (which has the label "Authorizing papal bull"), within the "History" subheader. Since status is used to describe the ecclesiastical status of the church, it does not make sense to include it with the architectural details of the building.
• Create a parameter called protector with the label "Cardinal protector". This would be used for titular churches whose leadership includes a cardinal who is assigned the church. Ergo Sum 01:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Ergo Sum 20:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Address

Could a parameter |address= be added to the infobox, please? I was converting a {{Infobox building}} to Infobox church and noticed that the latter has no equivalent for street address. —capmo (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Capmo: I think this might be a good idea. I have tried it out in the sandbox. What do you think of how it looks in testcases? Ergo Sum 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ergo Sum, thanks for your help! It looks fine, I just added another #if for the label so that it changes to Address when one is provided. Would it be any better to get rid of both #if's and create a new label for the address instead? —capmo (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Capmo: I think having a separate label for address is a bit overkill. I'd prefer if the label remained as Location, even if the address parameter is used. Ergo Sum 20:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem by me. —capmo (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Capmo: Okay, so if the current version in the sandbox is good by you, I'll go ahead an implement it. Ergo Sum 00:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: On a second thought, I don't see much advantage in changing the code but not the label... it would be the same as using the template as it is now, just adding a line break between street address and location: |location=street addr <br/> city, state. In that case, maybe we should just leave things as they are currently. —capmo (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Capmo: That's probably true. I wouldn't mind too much if the label changed. I'll go ahead and execute it. Ergo Sum 15:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: I'm definitely in favour of keeping |location= over |address=. "Location" allows for just a town as well as for greater details, whereas "Address" would look odd. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa, the label would change to Address only if a street address is informed, otherwise |location= will continue to behave exactly the same. —capmo (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation capmo, that would be fine! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Propose new parameters and re-order others

There are several Catholic basilicas that are administered by a Pontifical Delegate or a Pontifical Legate and are part of a pontifical delegation, such as the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, which is part of the Pontifical Delegation for the Basilicas of Saint Francis and Saint Mary of the Angels in Assisi. Therefore, I propose creating:

• pontifical delegate and pontifical legate parameters, which would be mutually exclusive. They would appear after cardinal protector, and their labels would be "Pontifical Delegate" or "Pontifical Legate".
• A pontifical delegation parameter, which would appear after diocese. Its label would be "Delegation".

Then, I noticed that the Administration section is all disordered. It should be roughly hierarchical, like the Clergy section, in descending order. So, the parameters would be reordered as:

• Metropolis, Province, Episcopal area, Archdiocese, Diocese, Pontifical delegation, Synod, Presbytery, Archdeaconry, Deanery, Benefice, Parish, Circuit, District, Division, Subdivision.

I have put all these changes in the sandbox here. Ergo Sum 00:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• How many are "several"? How many articles do we have for those? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Finnusertop: By my count, there are six articles that would be suited to utilize these new parameters. That being said, the subjects of all six of the articles are significant basilicas or shrines that have this unusual status/relationship with the Holy See, which can quite clearly be conveyed in an infobox. Ergo Sum 02:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I don't see Delegation in the sandbox you've linked to. Second, if this would only be used with Roman Catholic church buildings, would it make sense to keep them restricted to when |denomination= [[Catholic Church|Catholic]]? With work I've done on other infoboxes, there is always a risk of abuse of parameters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: It's in there, right after diocese. The parameter is pontifical delegation and its label is "Delegation". As for restriction based on denomination, I agree with you that it's a good idea. Overuse of parameters has been a problem with this template, as with others. However, since that's an issue that pertains to many other parameters and is something that really hasn't been utilized so far in this template (only for one parameter), I would say that should be a separate discussion in regard to a fairly sizable overhaul of the template. Ergo Sum 00:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. It's in the code, not the documentation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: After taking a look at the sandbox code, do you have an opinion on it? Ergo Sum 16:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't use the infobox, so I can't tell you if it's better or worse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

!votes

• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Mostly support - yes to the new parameters; they aren't one off use. I personally like having the administration from smallest to largest, but it does need a bit of a re-order (eg |diocese= should be between |episcopalarea= and |archdiocese=). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Can you lay out how you would like to see the parameters ordered? Ergo Sum 16:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thanks for raising the issue; it'll have to be addressed sooner or later. I, personally, prefer the current map feature, as it allows for greater detail to be displayed on the map vectors and having customizable, preset zoom levels. One of the most map-intensive infoboxes, {{Infobox NRHP}} has not switched over to Mapframe maps. So, unless a major transition to Mapframe happens, I would prefer that the current map feature remains in place. Ergo Sum 02:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 August 2018

Add "Anglican Church of Canada" to list with other Anglican. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely that is unnecessary? If that were done, it would need all sorts of variants such as 'Anglican Church of Australia', ad nauseam, which is more work than any of us has time for. The documentation implies that the field expects a generic denomination name. AndrewNJ (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Secondarywaltz, please update the documentation. AndrewNJ, it already includes Anglican Church of Australia, have a look at the source for Template:Infobox church/denomination. Cabayi (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

After the addition of "Anglican Church of Canada" to this list, the background colour of the relevant Canadian church articles' infobox headings is now the proper Anglican purple, but the infobox heading titles have remained in black rather than in white: see Cathedral Church of St. James (Toronto) and other Canadian churches. Can this please be corrected by an experienced editor? -- Blairall (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of "coord" template (inconsistent output)

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Coord#"display=inline". Can this be regarded as an error in "Infobox church", considering the different result obtained using "venue" and "building"? Jmar67 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Could an "Associate priest(s)" parameter please be added between |asstpriest= and |honpriest=? Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: Could you elucidate the difference between an associate priest and an assistant priest and perhaps provide a few articles where an associate priest parameter would be necessary? Ergo Sum 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is:

• an assistant priest is (usually) full-time and junior to the parish priest; for Catholic priests this is a training post but for Anglicans it is experienced [1]
• an associate priest is part-time, may or may not have paid work outside of their ministry, but is of working age [2]
• and an honorary priest is part-time and retired or someone of working age who is maintaining a link with that parish.

I noticed it was missing when editing University Church of St Mary the Virgin. From a quick search, there is also St Peter & St Paul, Teddington, St Martin's Church, Plaistow, St Mary with St John, Upper Edmonton, St Cristiolus's Church, Llangristiolus, St Edwen's Church, Llanedwen, Saint George's Church, Singapore, and more. Some individuals churches use these titles slightly differently but for the most part that is what they mean. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 10:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we actually need this level of detail in the infobox for a church? If too much fine detail is included are we sure that someone will update it? Infoboxes are meant to be a quick at-a-glance summary of the salient points of an article, not an exhaustive cataloguing of data. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Without it, you end up with what's happened at University Church of St Mary the Virgin and St Peter & St Paul, Teddington: the detail being added to the infobox, but in not quite the right parameter and clarify brackets after the names. I'v found that IPs/people do update their own churches, but even if it is a bit out of date so is a lot on Wikipedia. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 13:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Martin of Sheffield on this one; it seems to be excessively granular. I'm not even convinced there should be an assistant priest parameter. The infobox is not meant to convey everything that is found in the body of the article, only that which is most important and sought after upon a quick glance. Ergo Sum 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

St Mary looks reasonable to me, but my caveats still apply. SS Peter & PAul looks to be a right mess though. Why is a bishop mentioned - it's not a cathedral? Is the vicar really the Associate Priest with a Priest-in-charge as his assistant? I suspect that someone has tried to fill in all the fields they could (hence the bishop) and that is a danger with complex infoboxes. Given that the whole article is just two sentences long the infobox is disproportionate - too much detail IMHO. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

On 8 August 2018, "Anglican Church of Canada" was added to Template:Infobox church/denomination, as per the request here. However, the editor did not add "Anglican Church of Canada" to Template:Infobox church/font color. Therefore, that should be done now to maintain consistency. As a result, perhaps an experienced editor could add Anglican Church of Canada to Template:Infobox church/font color under the CHURCH OF ENGLAND (ANGLICANISM) heading, right under "Anglican Church of Australia". Thanks! -- Blairall (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"The editor" wasn't asked to do that. As the request template says:

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.

 Done Please update the documentation. Cabayi (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Deconsecration

Theres a consecration parameter, but no deconsecration parameter! CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Is there such a thing as a specific date on which a church is deconsecrated? My understanding was that its a rather informal process. Ergo Sum 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not knowledgable in these matters so I'll leave your question for experts. I just note that the infobox does not provide a way to tell the status "it still stands, it's not closed or demolished, but it's also not a church anymore". Can't you give just the year as a date? CapnZapp (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

There actually is a parameter for that (|functional status=). I'm not opposed to the idea, but I'd want to hear a bit more from someone who knows about these things. Ergo Sum 20:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm more thinking of Closed date, except I don't think "closed" equals "deconsecrated". A deconsecrated church can still be an open building. My question is "If we have |consecrated date= why not |deconsecrated date=?" and, of course, I believe the answer is simply "noone has thought of that". CapnZapp (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with CapnZapp. Although I've heard only once that some church was offically deconsecrated and that there is actual date of the event (ceremony?). Maybe they are usually just left to profane usage. --Janezdrilc (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Denomination colors

About denomination colors. Since catholic churches are associated with pope, I propose gold color for them (in accordance to {{Popes}} or {{Basilicas in India}} etc.). Now ortodox churches use gold color which is a little bit confusing at the first site. What about switching catholic and ortodox colors? If you look Basilica of the Divine Motherhood of Our Lady for example, you can see peach colored infobox and gold colored navbox. --Janezdrilc (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional lay title

Hi, could someone please add the title "Restoration" to the Laity options in this infobox? It's going to be a paid position at St Paul's Church, Auckland for the next couple of decades, with a lot of interaction outside of our congregation. I looked at doing it, but backed off as I don't want to mess things up. Also, the Parameters show scope for adding Service Times, but this doesn't seem to be in the template itself. Can anyone confirm if this is available or not? Thanks. E James Bowman (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Quire

The usual term for where the choir sing in an English church is "quire". Is it possible to add "quire length" and "quire height" to the parameters please, otherwise we have articles referring to the quire and an infobox calling it a choir. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Children's Minister

There's a Youth Minister parameter, but not a Children's Minister parameter. At my church, and many others I've had links with, these are very much separate roles... typically divided between those responsible for children at Secondary/High School, and those under that age. Any objections to adding this as a new parameter? robwingfield ^«T•C» 14:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Better be a more generic parameter, e.g. |function2_label=Youth Minister, |function2=A. Becee (|function3=, ... etc.). -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Religious affiliation and its color

Can somebody move Syriac Orthodox Church to #FFCF00 as it is more related to church rather than #CCB2FF . Even Aramean-Syriac flag does not have variations of this color #CCB2FF. Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 03:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition

please add Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil, Church of North India and Church of South India in the part of Anglicanism. --Samuelmartins406 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is a general template you've found. It does not specify any particular churches in the way that you mention. You would need to add an article for this or an infobox to an existing article. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

the data for people isn't showing should the header30 be header31 so it doesn't conflict with data30 ? Dave Rave (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dave Rave, possibly.  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Cabayi (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dave Rave, good catch. I have moved header30 to header31 after verifying on the testcases page that the bug was valid and the proposed fix would work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)