Template talk:Anglicanism/Archive 1

Archive 1

New Template

Ok, just FYI this is the new template for Anglicanism. I'd like to have something nice to link all the major articles together. Is everyone OK with me using the Anglican Communion symbol for the template image? --circuitloss 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Long overdue! KHM03 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...I wandered into Methodism and got inspired by that one. --circuitloss 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Herbert

Is George Herbert necessary on the template? KHM03 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't really know. I was trying to think of "people" to include and he came to mind. What criteria do you think should be used for template links? Also, I like your edits. It's looking better than my first version. --circuitloss 01:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hooker, Henry & Cranmer are hugely important figures that helped to make Anglicanism what it is. I think these are the types of folks to list. Maybe Elizabeth I? KHM03 12:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Canterbury and York

I wonder how appropriate it is to link to the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the "symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion", but the Archbishop of York doesn't really have any relevance outside England, does he?

Also, maybe there could be an "Issues" heading, with entries for things like Anglican views of homosexuality? --Angr (t·c) 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues are transitory; here today, gone tomorrow. I'm not sure that's a grand idea. Canterbury & York are the two archbishoprics, York being the #2 guy in the communion behind Canterbury (I think...I'm not Anglican). We can certianly take York off the template if necessary. KHM03 12:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents. About the first issue, I agree with Angr, the Archbishop of York is significant only to the CoE. If York is on the list the ECUSA Presiding Bishop should be also...etc. Also, I think that issues could be interesting if it was related to Anglican distinctivness. The ordination of women could be worked in here somehow...let me think about it. --circuitloss 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

I'm currently investigating whether the compass rose is public domain or copyright/fair use. I'll keep you all updated. --circuitloss 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It was nice. KHM03 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But Canterbury Cathedral's nice, too. You might also use the cover of the BCP. Just a thought. KHM03 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Canterbury is nice, but very CoE. This is Anglicanism, so I think we would all prefer something more universal. BCP is a good idea... --circuitloss 02:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I just received an email from Jim Rosenthal, director of communications for the Anglican Communion. He told me that thej compass rose symbol is licensed "to all who write about, illustrate, or promote churches and institutions of the official Anglican Communion. Misuse would be challenged." It is stil unclear to me whether this allows use in a "neutral point of view" encyclopedic setting, especially one of the bredth of Wikipedia. It might be best to leave things as they are for the moment. --circuitloss 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth a fight. Canterbury or the BCP will do. Here's an image to consider....

File:Bcprayer.jpg

Whatever you decide. KHM03 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Or this...

Image:Bcp79.jpg

KHM03 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I tested the template with both images, and while I would prefer to use a BCP image, the first is not centered, and the 2nd is too dark. In my opinion anyway. If someone wants to change the template and get a reaction, please do, but I'm leaving it as is for the moment. Thanks KHM03 --circuitloss 02:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bcprayer.jpg has been deleted, and Image:Bcp79.jpg is a "fair use" image so it can't be used on a template (and it's just as specific to a particular church of the AC as Canterbury is, if not more so). "Misuse would be challenged" sounds like the compass rose image is not considered free content. —Angr 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The template and schismatic churches

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9#Template:Anglicanism2. I think it raises an interesting point, namely, whether the photo of Canterbury Cathedral on Template:Anglicanism needs to be changed, or whether the template needs to be removed from articles on churches outside the Communion, as defined by its principal instrument of unity, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Part of me wants to say that you cannot claim to be Anglican while being outside the ambit of Canterbury - which I think has a lot of theological justification. On the other hand, I am congnizant of the right of subjects to self-identify. I cannot claim to be able to put the Anglicanism tag on articles relating to Catholicism over the objections of Roman Catholics if I cannot also allow self-professed Anglicans to use the same tag on articles relating to their churches. But a straw vote on what the community feels would, perhaps, be instructive.

Photo to stay the same, apply to all relevant articles

• Support: Even the schismatic churches once recognized the authority of Canterbury, so it's appropriate to them as well even once they no longer do. I notice the same image is being used on {{History of British Christianity}} and therefore appears without apparent controversy on several non-Anglican-related pages. —Angr 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo to be changed, apply to all relevant articles

• Support: We cannot pick and choose who gets to call themselves Anglican, but it is inappropriate to imply that Canterbury has anything to do with groups that have broken away from the Communion. Articles on breakaway churches need to note that they are outside the Communion, and templates such as Template:Anglican Churches should not be appended to these articles. Fishhead64 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I'm not completely comfortable with this choice. I'd rather be more partisan. But ... there is also the question of historical articles related to Anglicanism which depart from contemporary Anglican doctrine. For example, articles on the Book of Common Prayer before 1662 could be excluded from the Anglicanism project because they do not represent prayer books officially used by any church in the Anglican Communion. My argument may sound silly but I'd rather see a more inclusive Anglicanism project. Changing the picture to something generically Anglican that does not give comfort to the schismatics but brands Anglicanism would be best. How about a cartoon or simple logo depicting the Book of Common Prayer, itself? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support: If the project and infobox were about the Anglican Communion - there would not be a problem with having Canterbury as an image - however, this a template on Anglicanism, therefore the schismatic Churches possibly (probably?) have a right to refer to themselves as Anglican. I understand the problem with the schismatic Churches, as in what defines Anglicanism but arguing about revoking the right of the Churches to call themselves Anglican opens a similar problem to the great Catholic Church naming debate - in the sense of what defines the term Anglican... Although I feel Canterbury is a fairly harmless image, it would probably be (ugh...) politically correct to change it... What to I would have to think about! — PMJ 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo to stay the same, remove from articles about churches outside the Anglican Communion

comments

• Comment. If I read the TfD debate correctly, the photo is the only thing people want changed. Just make the image used an optional argument. With no arguments, you get Canterbury; schismatics can use an argument to show whatever image they like. Problem solved, everyone's happy. SnowFire 04:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't it possible that at present the template is massively overused? What if we only put it on the pages to which it links? (Making it a navigation box for within the set of key Anglicanism articles, just like the churches of the communion template is a navigation box for within the set of those churches.) This isn't my formal opinion, just a rumination. Doops | talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• This, on the other hand, is my formal opinion: the BCP as an image is a non-starter. It simply isn't visually catchy— and, moreover, nothing marks any old book as the BCP besides the words on the cover; relying on words is not what an illustration is about. What *image* says 'Anglican' ? Doops | talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  How about St. Alban? Or a celtic cross? I agree with you on the prayer book, too. The question would be, "whose prayer book?" Fishhead64 06:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  Hm. I don't think either one says "Anglican" from across the room. How about a choir vested in cassock and surplice? That is unmistakable, I think. Doops | talk 08:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with Doops that BCP, St. Alban, and the Celtic cross are not going to cut it (the Celtic cross is to me the symbol of Celtic Christianity and/or Irish Catholics). A choir vested in cassock and surplice could be RC as well, though, and possibly off-putting to low churchers. —Angr 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  There's nothing distinctly Anglican about a surpliced choir, either, though. How about Thomas Cranmer? You can't get much more distinctly Anglican than him - and every stripe of Anglican and "Anglican" can agree on him, surely. Fishhead64 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, isn't that too personal? As far as cassock and surplice, I thought it was a nice example of something which is middle-ground: simultaneously liturgical and ceremonious without being high church (like albs and chasubles and suchlike are — after all, the low churchers were wearing cassock and surplice as they fought to prevent these innovations). Doops | talk 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Henry VIII 'cause he started it :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Hooker statue (shown below) is best— 1) influential figure; 2) wearing distinctly Anglican garb; 3) cathedral in background Doops | talk 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the Hooker statue is probably the most appropriate image - although I personally would prefer it if the photo were cropped a little, it looks a little odd to me at an angle (nitpicking there...) — PMJ 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What about St Augustine? — PMJ 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The content may be anglican; but the visual screams eastern orthodox. And images are about aesthetics. Doops | talk 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hooker is photographed in front of a cathedral of the Anglican Communion! Okay, maybe I'm being too sensitive. I'd still rather go with Cranmer or a celtic cross. Fishhead64 02:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've included the suggested images below. I couldn't find a surpliced choir - sorry. Fishhead64 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Richard Hooker (Exeter Cathedral)
• St Augustine of Canterbury (image now deleted; was an Eastern-style icon)
  St Augustine of Canterbury (image now deleted; was an Eastern-style icon)
• 
  Thomas Cranmer
• 
  celtic cross
• 
  Shrine of St. Alban (St. Alban's Cathedral)
• 
  Prayer book (I think its a psalter, but no one will really see)
• 
  Bishop's Mitre. The symbol is used quite often to represent Anglicanism, and can be found here, here, here, here and here

Of the choices above I like Cranmer the best. —Angr 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Cranmer is probably the safe choice, although I'm now thinking it doesn't really matter and Canterbury is perfectly acceptable... Hmmmm — PMJ 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the Cranmer image. I just went to the Richard Hooker article and thought "why am I looking at an image of Cranmer?". So may I suggest the Bishop's mitre I've included in the gallery? --One Salient Oversight 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced Cranmer with the Mitre. I'm happy to let others remove it if you don't like it. --One Salient Oversight 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reworking this template

This template was becoming a little bit like my mother's ghoulash - every thing in fridge was getting into it, much of it hard to consume as prima facie vital to Anglicanism. I propose hashing out the discussion a little more fully at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. Fishhead64 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A few tweaks, hope you all like. -- SECisek 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I agree with doops. Keep it simple. -- SECisek 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Doops | talk 23:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You said "Isn't it possible that at present the template is massively overused? What if we only put it on the pages to which it links? (Making it a navigation box for within the set of key Anglicanism articles, just like the churches of the communion template is a navigation box for within the set of those churches.) This isn't my formal opinion, just a rumination. Doops | talk 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)"

It is totaly over used. "Whose instrument of unity?" wouldn't be a question if the template was used to only link to the articles mentioned. What we need is an Anglican Portal. Anybody care to join in the construction of one? -- SECisek 17:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to. Will try and do some work this evening. Portal:Anglicanism? Tompw (talk) (review) 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, portal is done. I had free time on Sunday. I am replacing this template with the portal tag on all articles. This template will serve as a nav box just for the articles mentioned on it. -- SECisek 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Communion

Is it useful? --59.149.32.77 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nav Box

This Nav Box for the Anglican Communion should be comprehensive. Please review "Category:Top-importance Anglicanism articles" for inclusion. All comments are welcome. Do so here or on the project page. -- Secisek (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice link to the Anglican Portal. However, one should have consulted the past Discussions before making such drastic changes. In that edit, much information was deleted, many non-Anglican topics were added, and it ignored all the past contributions of several editors. As it stands, the bulk of the template is not Anglican at all, but generic Christianity, and already included there. I am going to try incorporate what improvement you made with the body of past collaboration. Thanks. Wyeson 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read through the archives, you will see that I have long been involved in the development of this template. These changes have been done in an attempt to update the nav-box along the lines template:Catholic Church. What do you feel should be included or removed and why? -- Secisek (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism is not Roman Catholicism and there is already a template for Christianity. This one takes up half the screen of every article, is badly formatted. The links added, which are excessive, are not Anglican, but general Christian; some are subtopics in articles already linked. All the links removed are necessary, none of the ones not in the collaborative version are pertinent. Even placing organization at the top wrongly suggests that the Anglican churches are centrally managed as in the RCC, but in fact the Communion is constantly wrangling over issues that the RCC has settled.

It is always inadvisable to make revolutionary changes unilaterally, especially when a very different consensus is already well established though collaboration. Castanea dentata (talk)

I agree that Anglicanism is not Roman Catholicism, which is why it is important that the Anglican Communion have its own template. Have you looked at where the links pipe? There are 71 links on the template at present - each one linking to an article that is of top priority to the Anglican wikiproject - all but about a dozen point to an Anglican specific, rather than a general Christian article.

Which lost links do you belive to be "necessary", almost none were dropped. Which added ones do you believe are not pertinent? A week ago, I asked for suggestions for this template on this talk page, at the wikiproject, and I invited editors who I collaborated with in the past on this template on their talk pages. No one has made any comments about the content until today.

BTW, I simply returned organization to the top, where it had been from the time template was designed until very recently, when it was moved by an Anon IP without an edit summary - hardly consensus. The suggestions that I made "revolutionary changes unilaterally", violated some long standing consensus, or that I have not been involved in the development of this template don't hold water - look at the archived discussion and the edit history of the template. Now, let's discuss which links belong here and which ones don't rather than edit-warring on the template itself. -- Secisek (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I was editing an article, I saw the template change back-and-forth. In my opinion the template is too wide. It really intrudes into the article, in fact dominates it. I also agree that there are some general Christianity links that are not necessary. These point to general articles, not to Anglican-specific articles: Christianity, Christian Church, Jesus Christ, St Paul, Catholicity and Catholicism, Apostolic Succession, Ecumenical councils, Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), Theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to include some general Christianity links along with the more specific Anglican ones, we don't want to end up with the situation where we get articles with both the Anglicanism and Christianity templates on really. David Underdown (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to get the template back to its original width? At this point it is wider than many other templates. These boxes are not supposed to dominate the article, but are simply a placeholder of a list of links to aid the reader. Please reduce its size. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion elsewhere about converting it to a footer and stripping this box to some bare bones about the communion itself. Thoughts? I am really much more intrested in DISCUSSING the content - a discussion which the reverts have provoked very little of. I agree with both of the above comments, however the articles that RelHistBuff points out are largely critical to understanding the Anglican Communion. Perhaps Christian Church, Theology, and Christ could go. -- Secisek (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the size. Here are my thoughts, but I leave it up to you all. The "series" templates are good for linking what appears to be seemingly unrelated articles together into one box. I use a pyramid model. Christianity would be at the top. Going down to lower level of articles, one has various "slices" or collection of articles of interest for Anglicanism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc.. There is no need to have links to the upper levels for every template that covers a branch of Christianity, because these are already understood. The reader should simply go to the general articles themselves and then work their way down. But the templates are good for jumping from one Anglican topic to another without having to work one's way up and then down again. Just my opinion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a footer box with the same content at {{Anglican Communion}}. I propose articles in the series that have info boxes should get the footer, those without can get the verticle navbox, and articles realted, but not in the series as such - get the portal link. I will begin to carry this out, unless some someone raises a complaint. -- Secisek (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Size

The smaller size is an improvement and I resized the RCC template to a more reasonable size as well. I should have been bold and slimmed it when I added the new links. I just saw the template I modeled this upgrade on was designed by someone with very little experience with navboxes. I am sorry for any difficulties the fat box caused. -- Secisek (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinner still. Thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone else..

... love the picture of Cantebury cathedral? IMHO it has too much detail to work well as a thumbnail on this template?--BozMo talk 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is always much debate about the picture. Look through the archives and history to see how it was arrived at. Do you have another suggestion? -- Secisek (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1