Template talk:Christian denominations in the English-speaking world

This template was considered for deletion on 2020 April 16. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Another POV Template?

Sorry, mate, but there are all sorts of problem here, as well. Dozens of denominations have been left out, of course. The order in which they are listed is puzzling at best. And why is there a category for "Presbyterian and Reformed" in the UK and US, but not in Australia. A lot of arbitrary decisions go into these sorts of templates. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple-- there are many, many "Presbyterian and Reformed" denominations in the UK and in the US, but not in the Australia. There are few denominations of most everything in Australia and they need to be grouped somehow. Reformed denominations in Australia are under "Historical Protestantism."

And that's blatantly false. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for denominations being left out, why don't you bring that up within each Template-- or just add them in. No one ever claimed the templates are done as they sit now. --Carlaude (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this template needs to be deleted. There are thousands of denominations all over the world - having them in one template is rather silly. We already have category lists for that. Besides, we have the very arbitrary choice of countries here. I guess the template could be salvaged somewhat by making it a list of families - e.g. Presbyterianism. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having all denominations from all over the world would in a navigation box would be silly -- but that is not what this is about.

If you read the edit screen you will see it is only for deominations of 50,000 members/adherents or more (of English speaking nations).

All navigation templates are arbitrary at some level. That does not make them POV. --Carlaude (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we need a third opinion here, but in its current form this template is unacceptable. Just singling out the countries you did propogates a systemic bias in Wikipedia. Again, I'd be happy with a listing of families, but if it's not improved it in the near future, it will need to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just rediculous. Only 4 countries have Christians? and if you are a world wide organization you have to pick which country you belong to, or you have to add to every sub-template? And where are the non-trintiarians, the restorationists, and why are there denominations listed that have no article on Wikiepdia? Can this tempalte be salvaged? maybe, but probably not. We have articles to cover listing denominations, just go to those to find the information, at least there it will be listed according to percentage or size, or some kind of reliable statistic. Not to mention, that this kind of navigation is provided by categories, and we dont need a template when Wikipedia has a way to categorize things already. I am tempted to nomininate this for deletion. This is just too much. Bytebear (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV

I have no objection to a 3rd opinion but-- I have to say you have totally failed to show this as any sort of POV issue.

Quote from "Wikipedia:Describing points of view"

"At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent ..."

Quote from "Perspective (cognitive)"

"Perspective... [is] ...from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience, cohesively forming a coherent belief"

What is the coherent belief, etc. of the template? -- there isn't one.

Quote from "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

At most, this would just an issue of systematic bias as you can see in this next page I quote.

Quote from "Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias"

"The Anglo-American focus is in part a reflection of there being so many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them have access to the Internet. It is also because this is the English-language Wikipedia and therefore the published sources we rely on tend to be in English and reflect the concerns of the English-speaking world. Similarly, the French Language Wikipedia may reflect a Francophone bias, and the Japanese Wikipedia a Japanese bias. Some editors see this as a problem, and some do not. A special WikiProject has been set up to discuss the issue.

Systematic bias is not in itself an NPOV issue"

Note well-- even if we agree this is a systematic bias-- to Wikipedia it is an open question if this is even a problem. I think this is a clear case of sensible limiting of a template.

The Francophones can put French denominations on the French Language Wikipedia, and I personally think it would be silly (and difficult) to create it here also. --Carlaude (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias. I'd read it before, and couldn't remember where it was. But I think the key difference her is that you're introducing a deliberate systemic bias, as opposed to editors just writing about what they know. StAnselm (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why are the denomonation associations not on par with the regional associations

Regonals associations have

small budgents than denomonation associations

have smaller staff

do less

do not even represent all the denomonations they could

If you really want to have regional associations to be on par with the denomonation ones, then please remove boxes-- not add them.

(1) Remove the box of around the different regions listed, or make it always open.

(2) Or remove the boxes of around each of the 6-8 different regionals listed, but keep the box that contains all regional associations as a whole.

Do not remove the WEA.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It don't see why we can't have a box containing all the regionals on par with a box containing all denominationals. It is unreasonable to demand a removal of the "region boxes". However, what would be reasonable is to include the "regional associations" on par with "world associations". But if we call the latter "International asscoations", which is a more fitting title in any case, regionals are a subgroup too.

I am not completely sure what you mean by WEA - certainly not the record company, but if you mean the World Evangelical Alliance - I DID NOT REMOVE IT at all. Please look closely before issuing spurious complaints.

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand?

New Zealand should appear on this template.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create it anytime at Template:Denominations of New Zealand. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

distinguishing from Template:Christian denominations

Can one or the other be named to distinguish them? Facts707 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean renamed? Of the two, Template:Christian denominations would be easier to rename. Try proposing a rename there. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]