Template talk:John

Reversions

Hi @StAnselm: I collapsed the sections because this template is used in a lot of places that are already dense with sidebars, and it is helpful for the box to be small. Also, Book of Signs is not linked—I think you confused it with Signs Gospel, which is different. What's the rationale on excluding the "extra stuff" from the Gospel? The prologue, Book of Signs, and epilogue all have articles, and I'm working on a draft for the Book of Glory. Shouldn't those be included to increase traffic to them? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right - I did confuse, but I don't think it changes my argument. The thing is, there are loads of articles about the Book of Revelation; I don't see why we would single out just this one. It is, of course, already in Template:Book of Revelation. It's the same with the Gospel of John: we already have Template:Gospel of John, Template:Content of John, and Template:Chapters in the Gospel of John. As far as collapsing goes, that's obviously more stylistic - perhaps we'd need to find a few more opinions on that. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @StAnselm: I agree there are a lot of John-related templates. I personally don't think that "Content" and "Chapters" are necessary, especially having "Gospel". They seem redundant, both with each other and with the "Gospel" navbox. I'll initiate AfDs on those soon, to see if anyone else agrees strongly enough to merit deletion.

But I don't think a selection of the more important Revelation links (like the main article and overview of "Events of Revelation", precisely because it's an overview) would be too much. I also wouldn't advocate inclusion of every single chapter of the gospel, but I don't think putting the prologue, Signs, Glory, and epilogue links (with a temporary unlinked placeholder for Glory, perhaps) would be excessive, either. They're major structural units of the gospel. It's analogus to including both the Johannine epistles and the First, Second, and Third Epistle links. By analogy, the latter three aren't really any more redundant than p/S/G/e. If you think the prologue and epilogue aren't important enough, I could see just doing Signs and Glory. Are you still strongly opposed to inclusion?

As for hiding the sections, I think given some of the transclusion contexts, it really ought to be done. In a few of the shorter articles, and some articles where both {{John}} and {{Paul}} are transcluded, it's borderline unmanageable. These are meant to be helpful, not a nuisance. Would you be okay with me restoring the relevant formatting from my previous edits? Best, —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I still object to the collapsing - I see Template:Paul has it, but that's a lot longer. Template:Saint Peter does not, since it's a lot shorter. But I think this template should be more like Peter and less like Paul. I personally think we should trim it down even further - get rid of the "communities" section, and move Johannine Christianity to the bottom. The template has no business linking to Apostle (Christian) - that article doesn't contain much specifically on John at all. (Paul, at least, gets his own section on that page.) StAnselm (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I can get behind moving JC to the bottom and removing the Communities section, and just made those edits. (FWIW, it was there before I got here.) What are your latest thoughts on Events and Signs/Glory? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My latest thought is write the Book of Glory article first. I would probably have Prologue/Book of Signs/Book of Glory (I note that there is "widespread agreement" that this is the structure of the gospel), omitting the epilogue as not significant enough for a template. The thing is, we still don't have an article specifically on the Prologue (I think that term would be a lot more common than "Hymn to the Word") - only a more general article on John 1. So I think we should write the article before we add them in to this template. StAnselm (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Having it written first is reasonable. (FYI, there's a draft of Glory in my userspace at User:Jujutsuan/Book of Glory; it's mostly just copied from Book of Signs with a few preliminary changes made. It's far from complete.)

Actually, there is something on the prologue, John 1:1. It's not a great article, and I wish it dealt with all of 1:1–18; it would be a bit of a project to neaten and expand it. But, until that happens, Prologue to John and Prologue to the Gospel of John redirect there, so that's the best we have right now. Do you think that would merit inclusion, in its current state? If we're going the minimalist route, I'm torn. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not the Prologue at all, and I don't think it deserves to be on this template. But it is an important verse does does deserve its own article, and it is rightly included on the Gospel of John template. StAnselm (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)