Template talk:Infobox church/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sandboxed template to go live?

If there are no further comments on the current template at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, I will make it go live on Sunday, 4 January. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since there are no further comments, I've made {{Infobox church/sandbox}} go live. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional clergy parameters

I've noticed that another editor added the following fields to the old version of {{Infobox church}} (i.e., the version before the sandbox version went live): "elder", "executive" (executive pastor), "leadpastor", "preachingpastor", "trustee". Should these parameters be added to the new template? Personally I've no problem with "elder" and "trustee", but think that we should not include the others. This is because different churches use different terminology for their pastors, and it is fruitless to attempt to cover all the possibilities. I would suggest that the existing "pastor" parameter be used like this: "Pastor(s): Rev. Jim White (executive pastor), Rev. Nancy Green (lead pastor), Rev. Dr. Jack Black (preaching pastor)". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a generic_pastor with paired generic_pastor_title? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Generic pastor title"? What information is envisaged for that parameter? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It could contain values like "Preaching pastor", "Executive pastor" or "Elder". Though I do wonder about the notability & verifiability of these; and the rigorousness with which they will be kept up-to-date. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. How many of these "generic pastor title" parameters do we put into the template? Say about three? I would prefer not to bloat the template any more than is absolutely necessary and still think that the existing "pastor" parameter is sufficient, but guess I can live with this as a compromise. At least this would hopefully obviate the need for even more parameters to be added as new pastor titles are invented. As for how up to date the information is, perhaps I should add a "last updated" parameter to the template so at least readers will know when the last revision of the infobox.

Another question: how likely is it that people will use the fields "abbot" and "chaplain"? Should they be removed? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep the number of "generic" lines low; 1 or 2 (please wrap with class="agent", like other parameters, if you do add them). Wikipedia doesn't use "last updated" dates; the information is in the history page if people want it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? {{Infobox Athlete}} has one, and I think it's not a bad idea as readers can see at a glance when the infobox was updated. This may be harder to tell from the history page, since edits to the infobox are not distinguished from other edits. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

that was news to me. I think it's a daft idea; since there is no guarantee that the date is accurate; or that when one fact was changed, others were re-verified. I'll raise my concerns on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Have responded to your posting over there. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Parish church

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus.

Template:Parish church has been nominated for deletion, as its functions have been incorporated into {{Infobox church}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Merge proposal: {{Infobox UK cathedral}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus on merging with {{Infobox church}}.

I have discovered another related infobox, {{Infobox UK cathedral}}. It may be worth starting discussion on whether it is feasible to also incorporate that template into this one. Views? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I DISAGREE!!!!!! Leave the infoboxes as they are, its just making everything confusing!!!

-Willwal Talk to me 10 35am (Saturday 10 January) UTC —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

In what way would using one template ({{Infobox church}}) instead of two (the former one, and {{Infobox UK cathedral}}) be confusing? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Against merger - Churches and Cathedrals have different levels of staffing, for example I have never seen a church with a dean and a precentor, you would be muddling things up. Leave the two of them as they are, lest you make things worse. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The point is just to have one template that can be used for either a church, cathedral or other Christian place of worship, hence the existence of parameters such as "dean" and "precentor" in {{Infobox church}} even though one might not find such posts in a parish church. (It is interesting to note that these parameters were actually imported from {{Parish church}}!) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the merger is successful, how much work would be involved in updating cathedral articles to all use the same infobox? Could a bot take care of it? Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as possible, existing parameter names in {{Infobox UK cathedral}} not already in {{Infobox church}} would be transferred over to the latter template (it may be necessary to discuss whether certain parameters are still needed or not). Then a bot would be requested to carry out a cleanup, if required. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - standardisation of infoboxes, through such mergers, is a good thing, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - I support having fewer templates on Wikipedia. This support is presumed upon having a bot to update {{Infobox UK cathedral}} into {{Infobox church}} and update any changed parameters. Azoreg (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Support per Andy Mabbett. Works as well if not better for Salford Cathedral too. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Thor. Churches and Cathedrals are very much different; it would not do for people who are perhaps not familiar with the whole concept of the Cathedral to confuse them with churches. Hugh Evans (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Very doubtful per others. I am happy with the status quo. Strawless (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Churches and catherdrals are not the same. I do support less templates, but I don't think it would work for the templates to be merged. They are two different things. --Neutralle (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Support - As one of the major editors of material on English (and a number of other) cathedrals, I absolutely abhor the present Cathedral Infobox! The sections "Basic Information", Ecclesiastical Information" and "Building Information" do not state what I want them to state, and I can't find a way to get rid of the wretched things. The headings that appear on the church info box of 1. no headding at all (instead of a stupid heading that say "Basic Information", whatever that means), 2. History, 3. Architecture 4. Administration are much more useful and meaningful headings. No cathedral website has heading like the ones in the cathedral info box!
  • I find large vertical boxes an absolute blinking nuisance. People cram into them all sorts of stuff such as the entire list of Cathedral staff.... why on earth I cannot work out, since even the Ctahedral websites don't give a list of their canons at the top of the page. The entire architectural specs is another thing that is not of such vital importance that it needs to push aside eveything else.
  • I have requested that horizontal boxes are developed that can go further down the page and include every last measurement of the cathedral if available, and every single person from the bishop to the sidesmen if they truly want their names to appear. Horizontal boxes, or lists divided into colum,ns such as the listt of specifications at St Peter's Basilica (near the bottom of the article) is the way to go.
  • The problem with big boxes is that they contain written text in a very spaced out form, and occupy space that would otherwise be taken up by pictures. In most cathedral articles, after the intro, which may be quite short, the next section is "History". A big box means no picture in the history section, or a picture shoved to the left so it sandwiches the text. The result of sandwiching the text is that someone who knows the wikipedia style manual off by heart, says "You cannot sandwich text!" and moves the picture right again. The result of this is even worse. The picture is in a fixed position in the text, the info box cannot fit beside it, so the picture is pushed down the page. The picture takes the text with it, and orphans the text from its heading. The gap between the heading and the text can be up to 6 inches long on a wide shallow screen. This is one reason why I hate infoboxes. It seems that the people who create and add them do so without ever using the "Show preview" option, and never recognise that by shoving the box in they have wrecked the formatting of the first one or two (or more) paragraphs.
  • I ask, I beg, I implore! Please, some clever person, create two horizontal boxes, one for personel, and another for specifications and get rid of all the superfluous options that are currently in the cathedral infobox. Then I will be really happy! Amandajm (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am against the merger. --Pgecaj (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - this has been here for months now, it really ought to be decided one way or the other. Rob (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: It doesn't look like there's consensus on a merger of the two templates. Let's wait a week more, and if there are no other comments I think we can close the discussion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge all – medieval cathedral, UK cathedral, cathedral, church and parish church – into Template:Infobox religious building. The staggering number of optional parameters in Infobox:Church do not all need to be moved IMO. Ham 10:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: The idea of creating {{Infobox church}} was to enable editors to have an infobox that allowed them to state information about the administration of a church as well as the architectural features of its building. Merging the template into {{Infobox religious building}} and omitting the parameters dealing with the clergy and laity (if those are the optional parameters you are referring to) would thus defeat the purpose of the template. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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.

Aaaargh!

The Cathedral template and this template {{Infobox church}} are total and absolute overkill! Why don't you template lovers just put evry bit of imformation into templates and forget that wikipedia is a place for articles.

A template is just a glorified list, shoved down the side of text. If you ever bother to look at cathedral or parish church articles you will see that long lists of clergy, and the buildings specifications are not give high priority.

If you must cram lists into article, at the expense of pictures (because that is what you sacrifice every time you create a long box) then why not simple create lists. Make a separate list for every single church and make it as long as you like but leave the written article alone.

Why doesn't somebody respond by creating or at least commenting on the suggestion to have horizontal boxes for clergy and specifications?

Amandajm (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to try and limit the number of templates rather than create new ones, but have no objection if someone would like to try to create a "horizontal" infobox as you suggest. I can't help with that right now, I'm afraid. I've never seen any horizontal infobox being used in any article, and don't know how to create one from scratch. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It seems to me that it is worth merging {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} into {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, the latest version of which is currently under discussion above. Do express your views on this proposal. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do it. Standardisation is good. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well if you can include all of the information carried in the Medieval cathedral then fine but at present it uses very little of that required for a history template. Also if you go to Elgin Cathedral you will see that it does not dominate the page and carries only the information required of a history article. I assume therefore that unused sections will be hidden. Also I assume that the colour schemes can be altered as this template and the medieval bishop infobox are themed – (see Bricius de Douglas). Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 09:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My responses:

  • The template looks humongous because it is an amalgamation of {{Infobox church}}, {{Parish church}} and certain relevant fields from {{Infobox religious building}}. But, yes, apart from a small number of mandatory parameters, all others are optional and will not appear if omitted.
  • Could you identify those parameters in {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} which you feel are not adequately replaceable by existing parameters in {{Infobox church/sandbox}}?
  • At the moment the template does not allow editors to self-define the heading background colour. Instead, for standardization purposes, the colour is fixed depending on the denomination of the church: see {{Infobox church/denomination}}. Would it be possible to align your colour scheme with that one?

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The fields missing from the infobox are:-
  • Authorising papal bull - this field is a date
  • Significant event - for example, an attack, accidentical or deliberate burning, a major extension to the building, etc.
  • Significant bishops - the bishop(s) who has had a definite impact on the building, e.g. one who resposible for obtaining the founding bull, for increasing the wealth of the cathedral, or even for alienating the church property pre-reformation.
  • Important associated figures - non-religious people who played an important part in the history of the building e.g. a person responsible for the buildings destruction, restoration, etc.
The one area where we definitely have a problem is the Tradition parameter. I note that this is mandatory and determines the colour scheme in use but in a medieval cathedral there is no tradition. There was no concept of Roman Catholic Church – it was simply the Church so to state that these places were referred to as Roman Catholic would be incorrect. Would it be possible to give the Tradition parameter an additional qualifying desription as say, pre-reformation church and link that name to the themed colour that is in use in the medieval cathedral infobox? Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done

  • I've added the "bull", "events" and "people" parameters. Can the existing "bishop" parameter be used for significant bishops?
  • The mandatory parameter is "denomination", not "tradition". I've added "Pre-Reformation church" (or "[[Protestant Reformation|Pre-Reformation Church]]" as an option, but we have a problem with the existing background colour. The colour used in {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} is #BC50A5, but this is already used for the Anglican church and I am trying to maintain consistency between {{Infobox church/sandbox}} and {{Infobox religious building}}. Would it be all right if we used #CA95E4, a slightly lighter shade of purple, for pre-Reformation churches? See {{Infobox church/denomination}} to see the shades.

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for delay in replying. Saw the message template but then forgot all about it. I don't think the existing Bishop field would work as it is for the current bishop in a cathedral whereas the significant bishop(s) are historical figures and don't change. I haven't checked the colour that you propose but if it is only a slight change then I don't think it would be a problem. Thanks, -Bill Reid | Talk 11:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Bill. Are there medieval cathedrals that are still in operation today, thus creating a situation where there will be both historical and present-day bishops? I assumed that medieval cathedrals were purely historical, in which case then there wouldn't be an issue with using the "bishop" parameter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes pretty well all cathedrals are medieval in origin and so have both a historical and a present day dimension. So two seperate Bishop parameters would be needed. Thanks, -Bill Reid | Talk 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to expand a little. The RC community re-established and formed new cathedrals but in modern times, not medieval. Thanks. Bill Reid | Talk 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The parameter "bishop" is already in use for modern-day bishops, so I've added a parameter called "past bishop". If it is decided later on to replace {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} with {{Infobox church}}, a request can be made for a bot to transfer the information stated for the "bishop" parameter in {{Infobox Medieval cathedral}} to the "past bishop" parameter in {{Infobox church}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Rgds, --Bill Reid | Talk 19:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On retrospect, past Bishop may not really deliver what is required. Somebody might see this parameter and pile in every bishop for a millenium, while what is really meant is those bishops that made a difference, so if you could use Significant past/historical bishops or such like then people would see what is required. Thanks, Bill Reid | Talk 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple fields for saint dedication

Needs multiple fields for saint dedication, and I say multiple because many churches have more than one (in Scotland, it's usually a "native" versus foreign dedication, as Blaan/Lawrence at Dunblane, Boniface/Curetan at Fortrose, etc). Also need a field for other important saints, to indicate the it was either a or the important cult centre. E.g. Crowland is dedicated to St Guthlac (I think), but was the cult centre for Earl Waltheof; likewise Dunfermline to the Holy Trinity, but likewise St Margaret's cult was there (other examples include Westminster Abbey, Worcester, Dornoch, Melrose, etc). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the existing "dedication" field is sufficient for this purpose, for example, "dedication=[[Saint Boniface|St. Boniface]], [[Curetán|St. Curetán]]; cult centre for [[Waltheof of Melrose]]". I'm not really in favour of multiple fields for the same type of information as that will really bloat the template (which is huge enough!). If a particular church is dedicated to and is the cult centre for a large number of saints, then this information really needs to be set out in the main body of the article rather than crammed into the infobox. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
These fields probably don't look important to you, but they are important from my point of people interested in medieval history. Besides, there's little wrong with separate fields ... and it's inevitable when you merge different templates. Compare Template:Infobox UK place (though admittedly this was created by pan-UK ideologues solely to avoid separate templates for the four main "regions"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the "dedication" parameter is unimportant, but do we really need two or more of them? Won't the existing single parameter suffice? I'm just thinking that
Dedication   St. Boniface, St. Curetán
looks better in the infobox than
Dedication   St. Boniface
Dedication   St. Curetán
I can add an additional parameter for cult centres if you think it is better that this information not be lumped together with the saint(s) that a church is dedicated to. What should the field label be? "Cult centre" or "Cult centre of", perhaps? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it will be fine if you add two more fields: "earlier dedication" and "other dedication", to give editors options. Another optional field for relics would be useful (as well as a "significant cult(s)" field).Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Will add a "cult" parameter, but what's your specific objection to making use of a single "dedication" field? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The dedication can change; different parts of the church can be dedicated to different entities (e.g. St Regulus at St Andrews), one dedication can have more status (St Blane and St Laurence at Dunblane Cathedral), etc, etc. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we quantify this? Do many, or just a few, churches have multiple dedications? In other words, is the extra effort worth it? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Have no idea, Andy. Just know there are some occasions when I will need the field, and if it's not there it will just have to be created. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Deacon, I see you've gone ahead and added the parameters. Could we try to achieve consensus first? I do not see why a single "dedication" parameter does not suffice, even if dedications take place at different times and for different parts of a church building, e.g., "Dedication   St. Boniface (east transept, 1603), St. Curetán (north chapel, 1658)". I don't think you've given a convincing explanation as to why the single "dedication" parameter isn't enough. If the history of a church is much more complicated, then the information is best presented in the main body of the article. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking this conversation was a little ridiculous before it got to this point. But sorry, please see WP:OWN and WP:BRD. You don't own this template and users don't have to get your agreement to anything before it becomes "consensus". The fact that I'm convinced I will need them should be enough, given use of them is optional. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no ownership issue here. Please read WP:AGF. It would seem to be you who needs to read WP:BRD - you Boldly edited, Jacklee Reverted and now it's time to Discuss and reach consensus; not to edit-war, as you have done by reverting Jacklee. Your personal preferences do not justify such actions, and nor does your essay. You have so far failed when asked to provide a convincing argument in favour of the new fields. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've always understood it to be the practice at Wikipedia that if there is an ongoing discussion concerning a particular issue, an editor does not go ahead and made edits according to what he or she thinks the case should be without consensus having first been reached. Deacon, you will note that I only reverted the parts of your edits adding the "earlier dedication" and "other dedication" fields, and not the "cult" and "relics" fields which were not disputed. I certainly don't own this template, but that doesn't mean you do either. With respect, "I want to have these fields in the template and therefore they should be there and no one else can tell me not to insert them into the template" is not what reaching consensus is about. Why not explain why you don't find my position convincing so we can take the discussion forward? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, forgive my impertinence, but this ain't a talking shop and my wikitime is quite limited atm and this is quite boring. I've explained why these fields are needed. You haven't given any reason why they shouldn't be there, and since these the fields are optional, I don't see what there is to discuss beyond some of the generic ownership issues that I see all the time on wiki and have long grown weary of. It's much easier for me just to paste all that stuff into a new template and add the fields I need than spend half an hour writing a mini monograph to "convince" Jacklee(/buddy) on every suggestion I make because he'll revert if I don't give whatever it is he thinks is a "convincing explanation". Gimme a break. Either give me some serious objection to these parameters or move on. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, why use three parameters when one will do? Some users have raised the point that they find the infobox too complicated because of the number of fields, so thought should be given to only including fields that are absolutely necessary. But like you I'm not interested in carrying on a discussion that is going nowhere. Why don't we compromise on two parameters, "original dedication" and "later dedication(s)"? It seems a little odd to have three fields, "dedication", "earlier dedication" and "other dedication", because (1) it isn't entirely clear what information should be stated for "dedication" as opposed to "earlier dedication"; and (2) "other dedication" isn't very intuitive either. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
1) Who said one will do? We're going round in circles. Clearly it wouldn't, and that's what I'm saying. Dedication in the case of a modern church means what it is dedicated to now, or in the case of a ruined one what it was dedicated to before it was dissolved. Some churches can have multiple dedications. Such dedications can go together in the dedication field. Earlier dedications can't, and neither can ones which are unclear (Fergus at Scone, Regulus at St Andrews, etc) or junior (e.g. where a part has been dedicated, or where older churches are subsequently incorporated into an expanding religious house without being rededicated). A template designed to handle in theory all of the tens of thousands of parish churches across Europe and the rest of the World needs flexibility. ~
2) If "complication" (i.e. adding more parameters) was really a big issue - i.e. an issue both for parameters you support as well as oppose - you wouldn't be trying to merge every second religious building template into this and I wouldn't be here.
3) Parameters are optional and don't therefore need to be mutually exclusive, but offer acceptable wording for a wide range of examples.
4) Regarding unclarity, since I presume you know the meaning of "earlier" maybe you don't know what a "dedication" is. Dedication isn't a simple matter for historical religious houses as for current ones. The idea of "dedication" is a bit of an anachronism in a certain part of the Middle Ages, but you'd understand and expect the term to mean the chief associated saint (which is presumably what happened when a church building was never "rededicated"), as well as the saint to whom the community gave the building in a formal ceremony (dedication). Cult sites emerge naturally and this is later rationalized into a "dedication" model which means you can try to plan cult sites in advance; in reality if you take over an older cult site or some guy gets martyred later the chief religious focus on the religious house is not going to be the Being to which it was artificially "dedicated". Earlier churches get "dedicated" to the martyr or hermit (insular) supposedly associated with the place rather than being formally "dedicated". Obviously Iona wasn't actually ever "dedicated" to Columba nor Lindisfarne to Cuthbert (though those are taken to be the dedications later); such perspective is later, but does or certainly may come into existence post facto and become historical "truth"; in many cases there's simply no way to know who the if the claimed dedication of the building reflects what happened in the ceremony, and to a great extent it doesn't really matter. Examples. The chief saint of Melrose before the Scots took the land over and turned it into a Cistercian religious house would be Boisil (whose remains the Durham churchmen snatched up in the late 11th century to bring to safety in Durham). But judging by other examples, because Melrose was part of the Lindisfarne-Chester-le-Street-Durham pre-Norman familia, it would probably have been claimed that its dedication was St Cuthbert or if it were rebuilt would have been "re"dedicated to this saint. This was the case with Coldingham, clearly really dedicated to Æbbe of Coldingham, but the Benedictine priory is allegedly dedicated to the Virgin Mary (whom Æbbe resembles) and Cuthbert. Dunblane Cathedral, mentioned above, was devoted to Saint Blaan, but when a French hierarchy (actually, probably from when the Dominicans started operating in Stirling in the 13th cent.) came in "Lawrence" was added to the "dedication", presumably because his feast day was the same. You go to the church today it is Blaan (Blane) everywhere, with little for Lawrence. In that case "Other dedication:Laurence" is probably better than using "Earlier dedication: Blaan"; in Melrose's case, "Earlier dedication: Boisil" is clearly preferable. And so on ... can we be finished with this now? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's say I agree with you there should be three separate "dedication" fields in the template. For the purpose of updating the template documentation, is this how each of the parameters should be used?
  • The "Dedication" parameter is for the saint that a modern church is presently dedicated to, or the saint that a ruined church was dedicated to before it was dissolved.
  • "Earlier dedication" is for a dedication that has been superseded.
  • "Other dedication" is for additional saint(s) that a church is dedicated to.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Denomination colour

This field doesn't seem to work over at Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned. Could someone please check it out? Thanks --Gibmetal 77talk 00:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. You had the denomination down as "[[Roman Catholic church|Roman Catholic]]" when it should have been "Church" with a capital C. I've fixed it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Gibmetal 77talk 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity Portal

I don't think that this template should advertise the Christianity Portal. Also - and correct me if I'm wrong - other infobox templates don't do anything of the sort. GregorB (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, I think the current practice is not to provide links to portals in infoboxes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Episcopal Church

Any objections to adding Scottish Episcopal Church to the   Anglican colour field? Johnhousefriday (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Don't forget to update both the template page ("Template:Infobox church/denomination") and the documentation subpage ("Template:Infobox church/denomination/doc"). Shout if you need any help. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Parish Administrator

Is it possible to add "Administrator" to infobox church? Many catholic parishes are administrated by Franciscans or other congregations.

So, we can write Administrator = Diocese, or Administrator = Franciscans--WlaKom (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Director of Music

...should probably link to Music director rather than Conductor. — MusicMaker5376 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK,  Done! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Change implemented.

The coordinates in this template cause there to be coordinates in the infobox AND in the upper right hand corner. Since across the project, the coordinates are usually in the upper right hand corner, they should probably be hidden in the infobox. — MusicMaker5376 19:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A large number of templates have them in both examples {{Infobox school}}, {{Infobox GB station}} etc. Keith D (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. But they shouldn't. — MusicMaker5376 20:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The parameter and title "Coordination" should be hidden in the Infobox. It doesn't make sense to have them both. That they are in other Infoboxes, does't mean that there are also by mistake.--WlaKom (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
They are there by design in this and other templates, and should remain so. The infobox is a summary of salient points, which coordinates are; and including them in the infobox also includes them in the emitted hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In Template:Coord, "display=" has two optional parameters: inline and title. Note: using the title attribute indicates that the coordinates apply to the article, and not just one of (perhaps many) places mentioned in it — so it should only be omitted in the latter case. Therefore, if we use only the parameter "title", we have line with only the parameter name "Coordinates" and no data. That what I am talking about. --WlaKom (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

←That can be fixed. The usual mark-up is: 

<code>
|-
{{#if:{{{Coordinates|}}} |
{{!}} '''[[Geographic coordinate system|Coordinates]]'''
{{!}} {{{Coordinates}}}
}}
</code>

but the use of hard-coded <tr> seems to be causing the problem, in this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Could you do it?--WlaKom (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Check the source code of Coordinates parameter in User:WlaKom/Sandbox - Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Boston. Should be some kind of criteria: if value of |display= is only "title" or "t" then don't display whole line of coordinates including name of parameter, within the Infobox. Right now, we have the Coordinates line without value.--WlaKom (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
If the consensus is that when the {{coord}} template is used together with an infobox the co-ordinates should always appear at the top right-hand corner of the article and never inside the infobox itself, or both at the top and inside in the infobox, then the easiest way is just to move the |coordinates= parameter out of the infobox as I have done at {{Infobox church/sandbox}} and tell editors to always use |display=title and not |display=title,inline with {{coord}}. The sample output is at User:WlaKom/Sandbox - Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Boston. What do you think of this solution? Or should we give editors the option of displaying co-ordinates inside the infobox if they wish to (which may be more difficult if not impossible to achieve)? The current solution may also create problems for hCard. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It may be that the current solution will not affect hCard. I note from the "Microformat" section on the template description page that the HTML class "Geo is produced by calling {{coord}}". Thus suggests that regardless of where the |coordinates= parameter is located in the template, if an editor uses the {{coord}} template with it, the Geo HTML class will automatically apply. Perhaps someone familiar with hCard can comment on this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I already did, above: "including them in the infobox also includes them in the emitted hCard microformat". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What if {{coord}} is part of the template but physically outside the infobox table, as in {{Infobox church/sandbox}} (I moved the |coordinates= parameter just after the table to try and fix the issue raised by WlaKom). Does this create a problem for hCard? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think, you are very close :-) I founded this template which also solved this issue: Template:Infobox university if |display=title only. Would be very difficult to force editor to use only |display=title.

The Coordination issue should be solve globally, I mean codding of "coor".--WlaKom (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that {{Infobox university}} uses {{coor}}, which is now deprecated in favour of {{coord}} (in other words, the consensus is that editors should avoid using {{coor}} and use {{coord}} instead). In my view the difficulty is that there is no way to use parser functions to detect whether an editor has added |display=title or |display=title,inline to {{coord}}. If someone else has another solution, do share it. Otherwise, the solution I proposed at {{Infobox church/sandbox}} is the only one I can think of right now. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it another area on Wikipedia we can move part of this discussion related to "coord", to discuss this issues more widely?--WlaKom (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You could try at WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Keith D (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else have comments before I make the sandboxed template live? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, going ahead to do so, then. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
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.

Mergers

I have successfully merged Template:Infobox Medieval cathedral and Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals to Template:Infobox church.

The same could easily be done for Template:Infobox Parish church. The only significant change would be the formatting of the image. Debresser (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Switch from Parish church

Please can I warn people that are switching from {{Parish church}} to this one to be careful to not loose information. So far on my watchlist I have picked up 3 articles where the change has been made and information has been lost. The numbered fields, such as vicar1, need to be combined with the existing unnumbered field. Thanks Keith D (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Debresser has fixed all affected articles. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Church/Parish address

Is it possible to add the field "address" for church or parish location?--WlaKom (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about this (see "Template talk:Infobox church/2008 archive#Contact info?"), and it was pointed out by some editors that having an address parameter would violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. Feel free to initiate a fresh discussion on why you think this guideline would not be violated by an address parameter, though, if you wish. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory.

The name address for the church and parish is very misleading. Should be location of the encyclopedic object. For simplicity, parishes and churches, I will call objects. Recently a number of objects, which are places of which our ancestors were proud of for decades, are now closed. So are the historic objects. That is, churches and parishes should be considered as historical objects and not institutions.

  1. Not all objects may have own website.
  2. Some of the objects no longer exist, but the insights encyclopedias should be determined by the location where our ancestors prayed and where was the center of their lives.
  3. We allow coordination to be placed, that's also used to determine the location of the object.
  4. Around the world are placed commemorative plaques on buildings in order to locate the historical event.
  5. Using the "location" parameter, we can enter not only the exact address but approximate locations. Eg: "the place where there is the ABC store parking"
  6. People use the Internet to find its roots, then travel long distances to see the places where their ancestors lived.

--WlaKom (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that "churches and parishes should be considered as historical objects and not institutions". This infobox is used for many churches that are still operational. But I take your point that the infobox may also be used for churches that are no longer in use, and so do not have a website from which one may find out its current address. I suppose there is nothing to stop you from using the |location= parameter to provide more detailed location information for defunct church buildings, such as an actual address in addition to the city and state or province that the church is located in. However, as mentioned above, there may be editors who disagree that such information should be included. In any case, a separate |address= parameter is unnecessary, and should probably be avoided as this will tempt editors to add the full address of churches, thus possibly violating WP:NOT. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no major problems with that, but as I mentioned, other editors may disagree that addresses of churches should be stated in infoboxes. This may have to be discussed further at "Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Vicariate/Cluster

Which parameter should I use to add "Vicariate II" (see Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Boston), or "Cluster 42" (see Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Worcester).--WlaKom (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You can use the generic |division= and |subdivision= parameters. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You are always right :-) Thank you.--WlaKom (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

priest in charge

Would it be possible to add priest in charge? I added a section for it to template:parish church, but I don't feel up to doing the same for this template. For the moment I'm just putting the priest in charge at Church of St. Mary Magdalene (Toronto) under priest. -Dhodges (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be working- what am I doing wrong? Anyway, thanks-Dhodges (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The parameter is |priestincharge=, not |priest in charge=. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Assistant

An editor added the parameter |assistant= to the template. Would somebody please explain what an "assistant" is, and whether this is different from "assistant priest" (|asstpriest=)? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Archdiocese

We have 

| deanery              =
| archdeaconry         =
| diocese              =

but |archdiocese= is missing. Is it possible to add it?--WlaKom (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK.  Done. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Could you also fix the above "Coordinates"?--WlaKom (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I read what was written at "Coordinates" above, but don't really understand what is being discussed. Could you explain it to me? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The answer is above, in "Coordinates"--WlaKom (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates (again)

How does the template handle {{oscoor}}? The St Michael's Church, East Peckham article currently has the grid ref displayed above the lead. This is not an ideal situation IMHO. {{Infobox windmill}} keeps coordinates and grid refs together in the template as can be seen in the Union Mill, Cranbrook article. This is a much better way to display both of these together. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. There was a discussion above where an editor suggested that it did not make sense to have the co-ordinates of a church appear both at the top of an article and in the infobox. He expressed the view that the co-ordinates should only appear at the top of the article, so I edited the template to make this happen. However, the |coordinates= parameter now only handles {{coord}} and not other templates such as {{oscoor}}. Let me think about how that should be dealt with (other editors, please feel free to jump in and help formulate a solution). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The reason I ask is that in the UK we have the OS Grid Reference system as well as global geographic coordinates (for the benifit of non-UK readers). Some people are happy with grid refs, others prefer coordinates. It's a bit like providing distances in miles and kilometers. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling that there is no way to accommodate both {{coord}} and {{oscoor}} with a single parameter, if it is desired to use the |display=title parameter with {{coord}} so that co-ordinates appear only at the top of articles and not both there and in infoboxes at the same time. How do editors feel about a separate Ordnance Survey grid reference parameter? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Grid ref as an optional parameter would be one way around it. Optional as it only applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Isle of Man churches. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The two usually go hand in hand you get the co-ordinates & the OS reference together in the infobox. Why are the co-ordinates not optional in the infobox, in its current state it is pointless putting the coordinates into the infobox and would be best placed in the usual position with the templates at the end of an article. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The co-ordinates are optional – if you don't indicate any, the parameter doesn't appear. However, the |coordinates= parameter is currently designed only to work with {{coord}} with the |display=title parameter. Not sure what you mean by the co-ordinates being in the usual position at the end of an article; can you give an example? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You have misunderstood what I meant there. By optional I was meaning optional display in the infobox as well as in the title area. On the second part I was indicating that {{Coord}} template is better located outside of the {{infobox}} code, if it has no display in the infobox, and placed just before the categories. Keith D (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that, with |display=i, the outside coordinates moved from right-top to the left, above the text.--WlaKom (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keith D – actually, that's what I did. To solve the issue raised by WlaKom, I took the |coordinates= parameter out of the infobox and moved it just after the table markup. But that solution doesn't deal with Mjroots' wish to use {{oscoor}}. We can go back to the version of the infobox before I made the most recent change. That version allows users to give the |coordinates= parameter the value {{coord}} with |display=inline, title or just |display=inline. It is also possible to use {{oscoor}}. However, as WlaKom pointed out, that version of the infobox does not handle |display=title properly, as readers will see the parameter label "Coordinates" appearing in the infobox with a blank space on the right side.
  • WlaKom – yes, the current version of {{Infobox church}} no longer handles |display=inline. But I thought that was what you requested for. You said that editors should use only |display=title.
I do not see any way to tweak the template so that it solves all of the above problems. Should I revert the template to its original state before the recent change until there is consensus on how the |coordinates= parameter should work? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way of checking for the string "inline" in the text using something like {{Str find}} and putting out the co-ordinate line only if it finds the text? Keith D (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know {{str find}} existed. Let me think about this. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've just found this discussion after a Robot modified a couple of articles that I watch. At the very least you (JackLee) should fix it so that if someone does enter "display=inline,title" it behaves as expected and places the inline display within the infobox not to the top left of the article above the lead as at present. That is undoubtedly "broken" behaviour.
Also and relatedly, should we include a location map in the template? The "pushpin" variety provided by "Infobox Settlement" (Template:Infobox_settlement#Maps.2C_Coordinates) is very convenient for editors and useful to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbus Driver (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the most recent edit. We need to reach consensus on whether there is any problem with geographic co-ordinates appearing both at the top of an article and in the infobox simultaneously (WlaKom suggested that there was). If not, then the template is fine as it currently is, and all editors will have to use |display=inline,title and not |display=title with {{coord}}.
Do we really need to have a location map? The template is large enough. I'd like to hear what other editors think before attempting to implement such a change. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need location map. As you said, the template is large enough. Co-ordinates at the right-top of the article only are enough.
|display=inline,title - works fine.
|display=title - works fine.
|display=inline - red error.
See test User:WlaKom/Sandbox - Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Boston.

BTW. Missing pipes in each parameter. For example: #if: {{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>|}}} --WlaKom (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, WlaKom. |display=inline works fine; it's |display=i (which is what you had in your test page) that causes an error. Why is the additional pipe needed for each parameter? The infobox is working fine. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I would go for having the option of the coordinates in the infobox as well as the title area, most other infoboxes have this as the normal situation. A map would be helpful but may not be useful unless the maps are of sufficient detail to enable the church to be located to some degree of accuracy. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The infobox looks silly at present - it has a blank space following blue-linked "Coordinates". Where's the saved space there? Everything else in the infobox is elsewhere in the article, why not the coordinates? Most other infoboxes seem to do it this way. And, as in UK many churches are notable because of their architecture, why not have a field available for their listed status (and even a linked colour coding, as in Template:Infobox Historic Site)? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The utility of location maps varies from case to case. If it was available as an option then editors could choose to use it or not as seemed appropriate. Similarly the option to have the coordinates inline in the infobox as well as in the title (per other infoboxes) would seem to be the best approach. -Arb. (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. If the field is available the editor can choose whether or not to use it. There are only two mandatory fields; leave the others blank and they will not appear. So the editor can choose whether or not to include a map. Similar with coords, the editor can choose whether to have them inline, title, or both. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I will go with an optional for both in the template. The editors can then decide what to do in the article. Keith D (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like we have consensus on the location map issue. Where in the infobox should it be located?
  • Hi, Peter. Sorry, this was a change consequent upon the now-reverted template. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Infobox church for the problem to be fixed. WlaKom had earlier suggested that geographic coordinates should not appear both at the top of an article and in the infobox, so I changed the template to achieve that. I have now changed it back. There is a parameter you can use to indicate a church's listed status: |heritage designation=. I have no objection to some sort of colour-coding system if the colours can be agreed upon, but bear in mind that: (1) there is already a colour-coding system for the Christian denomination of the church; and (2) the infobox is intended for churches anywhere in the world, so the colour-coding system will have to cover different heritage designations in different countries. Feel free to propose a colour scheme if you have one in mind. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I was the one who filled the request for these changes using my account User:AK Auto. I just wanted to pop in to let yall know I'm getting to work reverting the 462 edits I made to fulfill the request. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, I have reverted all 462 edits. Thank goodness for rollback :). --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've had another think. It wouldn't work on this infobox; there are enough coloured bands already. Also sorry I overlooked the "heritage designation" field; I've used it often enough! As for the map, if there is already an image, it looks better at or near the bottom of the infobox. An example of how this works in the Historic Site Infobox is here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would stop messing around with this unless they knew what they were doing. One recent change, as mentioned above, I think, left the coordinate field in the infobox, but it was empty. This kind of thing affects a lot of articles I'm working on. Then while I was rectifying this another change was made (hopefully for the better, but I haven't checked it out yet), reverting the previous change. If this goes on I'll just remove the infobox altogether.Hohenloh + 03:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional pipes

[Copied from above.] I don't think we need location map. As you said, the template is large enough. Co-ordinates at the right-top of the article only are enough.

|display=inline,title - works fine.
|display=title - works fine.
|display=inline - red error.
See test User:WlaKom/Sandbox - Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Boston.

BTW. Missing pipes in each parameter. For example: #if: {{{location<includeonly>|</includeonly>|}}} --WlaKom (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[Copied from above.] Hi, WlaKom. |display=inline works fine; it's |display=i (which is what you had in your test page) that causes an error. Why is the additional pipe needed for each parameter? The infobox is working fine. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
With additional pipes Template:Infobox settlement you won't see Location {{{location}}} --WlaKom (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which aspect of {{Infobox settlement}} you're referring to. Could you reproduce the relevant wikitext here? I don't think that putting two pipes side by side (i.e., "{{{coordinates||}}}") has the effect that you claim, though I am happy to be contradicted on the point. There is already one pipe between the "<noinclude>" tags. The latter tags are there to make the template's parameters visible on the template description page.
  • I notices, that some of the Administrator using bot to add this pipe, to make template's parameters invisible on the template description. That's what I am writing about.--WlaKom (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I have heard of this being done. I don't see why it is necessary to hide the parameter names, and wonder if there is consensus for this to be done. Previously, when I tried hiding a template to make the template description page look neater, another editor reverted the change, saying that it was useful for editors to know what the template looked like. You may wish to query the operator of the bot as to why he or she is adding an extra pipe. In any case, adding a second pipe is not the right way to hide the parameter names. Just removing the "<noinclude>" tags will do that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought: are you sure that the bot is adding a second pipe? Maybe it is just adding a single pipe. That would make the parameters in a template optional. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think, that making parameters optional is the right direction, but hiding parameter on the template doesn't make it optional. Maybe I am wrong :-) --WlaKom (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant that perhaps the original parameters in the infoboxes that the bot was changing were not optional, like this: "{{{parameter}}}". By adding a single pipe, thereby changing the parameters to "{{{parameter|}}}", this would make them optional. Therefore, the bot was not actually trying to hide the infobox on the template description page. Anyway, what's the bot name and can you give some examples of infoboxes that it has modified? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_church/Archive_3&oldid=1141950792"