Template talk:Christianity in India sidebar

	Christianity portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
	This template is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India.

India

This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

Suggestions

Its very good to have an infobox about the Indian Christianity.Can this be made a horizontal one which can be included in the footer. Since this takes lot of page size and as it expands would be having many entires, isnt it worthwhile to consider making this as a horizontal footer.

Tarijanel (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more limited nav box like this one is what I envisioned, but if there is demand to expand it and to make it a footer we could. -- SECisek (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. We will work on this also. Right now , this templete is only on the few most important pages. A complete footer box could go for all indian christianity articles. - Tinucherian (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to convert this box to a footer ( horizontal) or the same one with collapsable option.If it can be made collapsable with the heading and the picture it looks good in presentation. My reasoning is same as above suggested.Tarijanel (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content and use

{{Indian christianity}} This should only be used on articles mentioned on the box itself. The portal link, however, can go on all the articles in the project. Should any articles be added or dropped? -- SECisek (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template looks nice and I'm sure will be useful on many articles. However, I'm not sure that Prester John is a good inclusion. Yes, he's a Christian figure, and there's some link with Indian Christianity, but it's not a primary linkage. I am sure that there are scores (if not hundreds) of links: Category:Indian Christianity work group articles. It doesn't mean we need to include all of them. I'd stick with the major topics. --El on ka 01:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi Secisek , that was a nice templete. But understanding Indian Christianity history , Kindly allow me to modify this , including removal of Prester John. - Tinucherian (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you like, I was hoping that would be the conclusion as some people were spoiling for a fight against Prestor John before we even got second opinion on it here. Make any all changes you see fit. -- SECisek (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks : Sorry for the misunderstanding. Itz not a fight. All I wanted is a cleanup in consideration to the history of christianity in india. But dont worry. I am all inclusive. In the sense , I will have a neutral view including all ,even if I have a theological difference with some of denominations in India. - Tinucherian (talk)

No - no fight with you - it was elsewhere. I WANTED at least your opinion before I did anything. Now who/what else should we add or remove? -- SECisek (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also work on it tonight. Now gota run for office ;). - Tinucherian (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it was mistaken as a fight, but I have no real opinion about this template, while I do have an opinion on the Prester John article. I agree that Prester John should not be included on the template, nor should the template be included on the Prester John article. At least not without discussion at Talk:Prester John first.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like everybody's happy. -- SECisek (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future links

Bishops of India Missionaries of India --SECisek (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project

It is not custom to push the project in Main Space so I removed the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity--SECisek (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross and flag

The cross and flag picture that is at the head of this template is a bit misleading as a juxtaposition to say the least. See WP:FLAGS. I think that this is just not appropriate. Can there be something else?Brian0324 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that a bit? Which part of WP:FLAGS are you referring to? --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" is what this is. There is no such flag with a cross and an Indian flag combined: kind of a "visual neologism" (WP:NEO). It implies government involvement or nationalistic pride. For example, just take out the Indian flag and put in an American one to represent "American Christianity" and see how well that flies.Brian0324 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it - this could really be offensive to Indians and anyone who happens to like the Ashoka Chakra that usually appears in the center of the Indian flag. Those are some pretty big issues.Brian0324 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be juxtposed over a map of India and convey the same idea. Nobody, Indian or otherwise has complained. If anyone did, their feelings should be respected, but for us to speculate that someone may someday take offense is probably not the right way to about it. -- Secisek (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I like the map idea. It doesn't evoke the same kind of nationalist thing. But seriously, if I took a cross and superimposed it on the Red flag of China for Christianity in China it would be wrong for a host of reasons. I would really look for another icon or a map graphic as you mention.Brian0324 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended as filler, a stop gap, but it was well recieved and it has stuck thus far. Be bold if you have a better idea. -- Secisek (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?Brian0324 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could change it to a blue that matches the blue of the main Christianity Wikiproject, I don't see why not. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but there are some people who are more active in the project than I am who should probably have their say before we do anything too radical. --Secisek (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this?Brian0324 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose The above ones are distorted and incomplete map of India. It should be something similar to this -

- Tinucherian (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the image out of hand. I reverted it. If this is going to be an ongoing issue, I guess it needs to be discussed more.Student7 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New one

How is this on the right? -

File:India-states-numberedmod.jpg

--Secisek (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, I recommend a speedy replacement. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No issues from my side - Tinucherian (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great!Brian0324 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does looks good. It could have been better if the Mar Thoma Cross was used considering the importance and the indiginous orgin of the cross.For instance its a common practise to use the indiginous crosses while talking about Christianity of a region. I think the best pictorical representation should include the same. May i suggest considering using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nasrani_menorah.JPG to replace the tru cross in this beautiful represenation. Thanks to Secisek for this Tarijanel (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing churches

There are currently 14 churches listed in the template. I would like to see these broken up into "old" churches who trace their founder to Thomas the Apostle and "new" churches who are recent. Catholics could go either way here BTW. At any rate, I was trying to avoid picking a heading that would offend the churches who do not claim descent from Thomas. Would "modern" churches be offensive? The older churches would be called "ancient." Is there some other dichotomy that no one would take offense to but would break up this long list? Student7 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to edit the link: * IPC in the Denominations sub section. Currently this link is not working and I wish to restore it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Pentecostal_Church_of_God. Tmwikieditor (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Although this page is semi-protected, your user rights currently allow you to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could we open up this templates again, please? PPEMES (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue, handled at WP:RFUP. Majavah ^(t/c) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Christianity → Template:Christianity in India sidebar – WP:PRECISION, per WP:CONSISTENCY with equivalent sidebar templates. PPEMES (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. b uidhe 20:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.