Template talk:Infobox religious building/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace

I've employed the template in the article about the Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace in Honolulu, Hawaii and like the idea of developing this template for use on more articles concerning religious houses of worship. In terms of Roman Catholicism, I had to add a Province section to the Infobox and used the diocesan name under District. I guess people can look at this particular Cathedral to see how the Infobox could work and determine improvements. Gerald Farinas 17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How to use?

I think that this template, or something derived from it or similar to it, could be of great use. As near as I can tell, there is no other infobox for this purpose, and as many religious complexes (I'm thinking particularly of Buddhism & Shinto) do not consist of a single building, with a known architect, client, construction cost, etc, the more generic Architecture/Building infoboxes do not really apply.

• How do we use this template? - I think a detailed description here would be very useful. Some of the questions I'm asking may be answered on the talk pages of a dozen other infoboxes, but they're not answered here, and they should be, please.
  • How do we input geographical coordinates?
  • What is meant by "district"? Is this meant as a reference to Christian dioceses?
  • What is meant by "status"? Are we meant to put "Active", "In use", "Open to the public", "Open for services, charged admission for tourists" or what? The establishment of some standards for this field would be good.
  • What's the difference between Architecture Type & Style?
  • I think it's great that elements are included here for spires, domes, and minarets. "Spire" could probably be useful to describe the pagoda height, I suppose, though it may be pertinent, as applies to large complexes rather than individual buildings, to include fields for total area and number of buildings.
  • Might be keen to create a field for saints/deities to which a particular church is dedicated. Christian churches tend to be devoted to individual saints, while Buddhist temples of all sects can be devoted to different Buddhas or Bodhissattvas, and Shinto shrines are dedicated to individual kami.
  • Might be good to include a color field, so we can help make this all look nicer (I really don't like the grey), and to help distinguish religions, according to the color guide seen at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Society#Religion.

I apologize to be a pain, criticizing or whatever. But I do not know the first thing about coding templates, and in any case, as I'm not especially active on religious topics moreso than other topics, I think this is best left to members of WikiProject Religion and/or to the original creator of the template. Thank you very much. LordAmeth 12:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, I made this from my experiences, which is does not include any experience in the Roman Catholic Church, but I also tried to make it fairly generic so that it can be used by anyone/any religion.

• I had intended diocese/district to be synonymous. Some protestant denominations use district (i.e. the UMC Church).
• I intended the status field to denote the ecclesiastical status of a building. (I.e. Cathedral, Basilica).
• Regarding architectural type v. architectural status I'm not entirely sure what the difference is (this template is based off one that had been proposed before, but was never created). I guess we could just remove the architectural type field.
• I like to last two ideas. I'll make something up and in a sandbox over the next two weeks and post a note here. I'm going out of town for a week and leaving the laptop behind so I have to wait until I get back in the land of connectivity. -- Sapphire 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

misspellings

I noticed that this template has a few misspellings in the argument names: "religous", multiple instances of "quanity". Is there any way to fix that without breaking existing uses of the template? JavaTenor 09:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I could do a work-around, but I'll go ahead and just fix all of the templates. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Sapphire 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. All templates currently in use should be fixed, though a lot of articles only used parts of the template. -- Sapphire 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

Does anybody have any objections to me...

1. Adding latitude, longitude and map_type fields to add the same dynamic map functionality as {{Infobox Historic building}}?
2. Fiddling with the css to bring this more in line with other infoboxes? The black horizontal lines are a little distracting.

...? Joe D (t) 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to having the coordinates display in the infobox when entered as "latitude" & "longitude", as they currently do if entered as "coordinates"? Andy Mabbett 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bug

As can be seen at Template:Infobox religious building/test, the template as it currently stands is placing a "-" in the top left of the body of the article. I'm not sure whether or not that was caused by my recent edit, but can't see why it would have been. Any ideas? Andy Mabbett 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have also noticed this - and find it very annoying! I hope it wasn't me either! I also can't seem to trace the problem, although I have no experience in template formatting. Help somebody!!! Chesdovi 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I noticed it too the bug is awful. I found an extra - in the code and removed it but the - is still on the pages. These boxes are very complicated for how simple they can look. I don't know how to fix it, I hope someone shows up who does. D. Recorder 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. –Pomte 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Franchise expansion

I created three additional templates:

• User:Sapphire/Template:Infobox_religious_building_(Sunni)
• User:Sapphire/Template:Infobox_religious_building_(Catholic)
• User:Sapphire/Template:Infobox_religious_building_(Buddhist)

The idea is to color code the templates to identify the specific religion and/or denomination/sect a specific building is identified with. (I.e. Sunni/Shia.) If consensus is to expand the template to use the color coded templates along with this one (which could serve as generic cover-all). The templates are a bit older so I'll have to update everything to add all the changes others have made to this template. -- Sapphire 01:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is bad. Color can and should be specified as a parameter, this is creating multiple redundancies and potential for the templates to get out of sync. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of using color to help distinguish between specific groups using both Sapphire and Night Gyr's ideas I have taken and created a template that automatically colors the infobox based on what value is placed within the religious affiliation parameter. So far I have only mimicked the colors from Sapphire's three templates and then the default color. The template can be seen at User:Dan9186/Sandbox/Infobox relgious building. What other groups should be put to specific colors and what colors? ~Dan9186 November 24, 2007 00:50 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and applied the color changing scheme with a handful of colors. Add colors for different affiliations as you see fit. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} November 29, 2007 04:39 (UTC)

Image and image size

Something that needs to be fixed with this infobox is the image field. [[Image:picture.ext|size]] should not have to be put into a field. The template needs to be fixed to have image be picture.ext and then another field for image_size that defaults to 250px if no size is specified. Any suggestions short of making the changes and then fixing all of the articles that use the template? ~Dan9186 November 24, 2007 02:23 (UTC)

I have proceeded with making the changes to the image code in the template. I have also created a list of all the articles containing the template with the old syntax at Infobox Religious Building To Do. I am working on making the changes on the articles to reflect the new code those who wish to assist in the changes please do so. If you use the list please cross out the articles that are completed. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} December 8, 2007 00:06 (UTC)

I have written many of the articles on Cheshire churches and used the infobox. I am willing to deal with these in the "Category:Churches in Cheshire" over the next day or so (I have already done Christ Church, Macclesfield). I may reduce the size of those in portrait orientation as they look rather overwhelming. Incidentally I should have preferred one of the traditional ecclesiastical colours for the captions for Anglican churches; pinkish colours seem to have taken new meanings in recent years! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly change the color to something that is more fitting or suggest one and I will be happy to change it. I think you may be right about the default size of the images and will at least be reducing it to 250px for the time being. Does anyone have any suggestions for an alternate default size? -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} December 10, 2007 21:26 (UTC)

I suggest something nearer purple than pink (sorry I don't know how to do that). Also I think the 250px looks better than 300. Thanks for improving the infobox. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the color for the Anglican affiliations to CA95E4 which is a little more darker purple than the previous pinkish purple. Hopefully this is more towards what you were hoping for. If you still would like to see it changed to another color just let me know and I'll take care of it. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} December 13, 2007 18:44 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Groundbreaking category

Could a date for Groundbreaking be added? (per other building templates). Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to so I added it. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} January 17, 2008 03:34 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. There's a lot of these buildings out there that took decades to build. I left a message on your talk page that I thought it was causing a malfunction but it is working now so disregard my comment. Thanks again big time! Americasroof (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Functional status vs. Ecclesiastical status

Chesdovi, I like the new variable and distinction, but all the old templates were using "Ecclesiastical status" to describe "Functional Status" (at least for synagogues). Is there a way of updating them all? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had wondered about such changes, did you put into any consideration for the articles that were broken or any effort to change all of them? Any time you make a change that breaks something I will gladly help update all of them if thats what it comes down to. Just make up a list of what hasn't been fixed so that fixed ones can be crossed off. I've already done it once when I added the image_size parameter, going through them again wouldn't be that big of a deal. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 6, 2008 03:18 (UTC)

The only way to update them all is to go through them one by one as was done with the image size. After my alteration I proceeded to fix 18 synagogue pages. I would also like to thank Dan9186 for his constructive changes to the infobox, especially the facility of removing the specifications section, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Come the weekend I will see what I can get done in the way of maxing the changes. If you don't mind though next give some sort of heads up about a change and I'll be glad to start repairing sooner. I don't always have the pleasure of reading my watchlist every day so I sometimes miss changes. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 7, 2008 03:10 (UTC)

Parish priest

Could there be a slot explaining who the parish priest of the church-(if it is a church)-is?
Adabow (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure but wouldn't that be information that could fit under the leadership parameter? -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 11, 2008 17:04 (UTC)

OK, didn't see that part; must be blind.
Thanks,Adabow (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem glad to help. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 13, 2008 07:09 (UTC)

Colour of Islam

I propose that Islamic Green (Hex: #009900) be used for Islam and Sunni, while Emerald Green (Hex: #50C878) be used for Shia. Chesdovi (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're on the same page as I am, I came across that yesterday and was going to run it by you guys to see what you thought. Sounds good to me though. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 11, 2008 14:52 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Color for Judaism and Orthodox Judaism

For most of the history of this infobox, the "Religious affiliation" for Judaism has been blue. For some reason a couple of days ago ChesDovi changed it to mauve, claiming the color used was "too bright". I then changed the color to Cornflower Blue, which he objected to claiming it was "too dark", and insisting it needed to be a "pastel shade", and changed it back to mauve. I've now changed it to a "pastel shade" of blue; if you have any objections, please bring them to Talk first. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I was the one to put several of the colors up there and you have been quite helpful in changing a few to some other more preferable color. Just taking a look at some of the others do you think we might wish to reconsider changing them all to some form of a pastel color instead so that they are neither too bright nor too dark? Merely a thought. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 3, 2008 22:58 (UTC)

I don't want to be reminded of an Israeli Flag each time I see a synagogue infobox. I have worked hard adding the infobox to various synagogue pages I have created. The colour Jayjg originally chose and the latest one don't work for me. While it looks okay in Beit Knesset Kohanim HaDintreisa, it looks revolting on Old Synagogue (Przemyśl). I feel the last colour I picked is a suitable choice. As far as I believe, I never changed it to mauve:

Colors

Name	Hex (RGB)	Red (RGB)	Green (RGB)	Blue (RGB)	Hue (HSL/HSV)	Satur. (HSL)	Light (HSL)	Satur. (HSV)	Value (HSV)
Mauve - This was never used	#E0B0FF	88%	69%	100%	276°	100%	85%	31%	100%
Lavender blue - 1st change	#CCCCFF	80%	80%	100%	240°	100%	90%	75%	88%
Lighter shade - 2nd change	#ddddff	0%	0%	0%	0°	0%	0%	0%	0%

Best, Chesdovi (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's rather disappointing to discover that the reasons you gave for not wanting the colors before were all false, and that you are making some sort of political point. The first color I used was DodgerBlue - named after the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the color of their logos. The second color I used was Cornflower blue, named after the Cornflower. The third color I used was LightSkyBlue. None of them have anything to do with the Israeli Flag. Does this infobox have anything to do with the Israeli Flag? How about this? Or this? They all use the current color, and there are dozens more like that, because the color is quite attractive and entirely appropriate for infoboxes. Please stop trying to change it to lavendar so that you can make some sort of obscure political point. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mention Israel and suddenly I am making some kind of obscure political point! Agreed, I worded it wrong: I mused that the colour chosen resembles an Israeli flag by way of illustration: All the previous shades were all vibrant and bold enough to appear on an image of the Flag of Israel. If the most suitable colour indeed made me think of an Israeli flag, so be it! (The current colour does go with some pages, as I mentioned). If I was so worried about it looking like an Israeli flag, surely I should be insisting it be changed to fluorescent pink! Getting back to my view on the usage of colours, I don’t see why the #CCCCFF I chose is unsuitable. I see that Jayjg has also tried a few times to find a suitable colour, but would like to know why he is being so defiant on insisting on retaining the colours he feels blend perfectly and in his mind are “quite attractive”? I feel colour needs to be neutralised so it blends in with all the images featured in the various infoboxs, not just some of them. The shades chosen are too bold, effulgent and loud. It needs something softer, more watered down. At the moment I feel pages are being ruined by sporting such vivid shade. Besides, who said it can’t be lavender? Where’s the statute that blue must be used for Judaism? Blue and white may be the colour of Israel, but since when was blue the colour of Judaism? (Please don’t insinuate this has a sinister political motive – it hasn’t!) The original colour of the infobox, grey, worked well. If we are going to introduce different colours for each separate sect, outlandish shades must be discouraged. The #9BB4EB used in Reform Judaism seems okay. Maybe just have one colour for synagogues? Chesdovi (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you reject any actual blue color, regardless of how bright, dark, or pastel it is. LightSkyBlue is hardly "outlandish" or "vivid"; as I have pointed out, it is used widely in other templates. Your other argument, that it looks "revolting" next to a particular image makes little sense; there are hundreds of synagogue images, and a color that, in your view, looks "suitable" next to one might indeed look "revolting" next to another - we can't make these decisions based on your personal view of one image. As for blue, for better or worse it actually is associated with Judaism, in the same way that green is associated with Islam. Borders the color of tekhelet are entirely appropriate for a Jewish article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It has not been so for all of the colors, but as I have added more I've tried to chose colors relevant to the religion/sect that I am adding. The first three color adjustments that I had added to the infobox were colors that Sapphire had chosen and so I can't very well say that they have a relation with their respective groups. I would say that if there are to be different coloring schemes at all then it should have some sort of tie in with what group it is representing. While I do agree with you Chesdovi that the colors shouldn't be bright and overbearing because it is the place of the infobox to enhance the article not draw away from it. I am also a little hesitant to all of this changing of color on the template itself and having it cascade through all its subsequent articles so often. If you don't agree with the color then please do suggest ideas and possibilities so that a consensus can be reached. If you don't agree with some shade of blue for Judaism, then what other color would have some sort of significance and work for the appearance of the articles? -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 6, 2008 03:07 (UTC)

On my first post on this subject I wondered whether Jayjg was colour-blind, but retracted it thinking it was a little too harsh. But now I ask in all sincerity: Are you colour-blind? Lavender blue is so named for a reason. I have not rejected any "actual blue colour". Does Jayjg hold the veto on the colour? Please explain why your chose should be preferred over mine. I feel the shade I chose will work for all the images because it has a more neutral undertone. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Colour of Judaism

“As for blue, for better or worse it actually is associated with Judaism”. Why? Because Judaism is associated with Israel. Blue has been associated with Judaism ever since it was added to the colours of the flag of Israel. For decades the strips on the prayer shawl have been black, not blue. Tefillin, the most holy object available on a constant basis to Jews must be black, as must the ink used for the writing of a Torah scroll. Most orthodox Jews dress in black. Which colour would you associate with Christianity? Why is the Catholic colour peach? Chesdovi (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards; tallesim were often colored with blue stripes, as a reminder of the tekheles. The flag of Israel copied that coloration; it is the Flag which has usurped the color of Judaism. In any event, I've substituted an even lighter shade of actual blue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point on the color black having significance to Judaism is well made and certainly does prove significance but lacks a little in working for the appearance. I think what Jayjg is getting at by "actual blue colour" is the color you have picked out is as well lavender as it is blue. The colors may have been to bright, I'm not beyond understanding they may have been. Still, should it not be slightly more defined to blue or do you feel that is still too similar to Israel's flag? I only ask out of curiosity but why is it that you seem so opposed to a semblance to something Israeli? I would think that if you do agree with a shade of blue, which I'm still not certain if you do or don't, that your time would be better spent looking for a color we could all agree on. Is it not possible to suggest several colors and allowing for a possible decision and ruling out of what is not liked? Help resolve the disagreement instead of just banging our heads into the wall until someone gives.

As for the Catholic color that is merely the color that Sapphire chose for it when he suggested the change in the template. It has merely stayed as is because I haven't taken the time to pick something with more significance and no one else has bothered to come and discuss it on the template talk page for a possible change. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 7, 2008 03:05 (UTC)

It seems that Jayjg has a problem with the colour not resembling blue. He called lavender blue (a shade of blue) mavue as a reason to revert my change. Will Jayjg explain why the blue shade I chose is unacceptable. I had noted above two shades I prefer and that the Reform shade may also be an option. Here are some more that may fit:

And please, my objections have nothing to do with the Flag of Israel! Chesdovi (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Chesdovi, if you don't mind what were some of the articles that you were saying the other color looked bad against the image? I figure if those are the problem articles then lets go ahead and knock those out right away. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 7, 2008 07:49 (UTC)

Swapped around Reform with Orthodox, at first glance seems okay. Still feel not the right shade for Reform, but I'm mainly concerned with the Orthodox pages. Chesdovi (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to sound down cast or nothing but don't forget the documentation when you do those swaps Chesdovi.

Also I was just thinking about it and I have a feeling there is going to be a good bit of "testing" done with the colors in the very near future. To prevent numerous changes back to back of just the color I have created a sandbox for the template. Any changes you wish to make and or put up for discussion put do them there so that the appearance of articles are changing from day to day or even hour to hour. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 7, 2008 23:57 (UTC)

I've put in more appealing colors, and ensured that they are all fairly pastel. I'm not sure why you grouped Reconstructionist with Orthodox, though, it's much closer to Reform than anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on my brothers computer and am astounded to see that the original colours I had chosen look very different to how they appeared on my laptop. It indeed looks rather mauve, even violet. Even my selection of various shades looks very different to how they looked on my computer. How strange. The point of contention has now become apparent. Chesdovi (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, an understandable problem that has happened to us all. I work on a lot of computers for a living and have run into that a handful of times. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 18, 2008 22:50 (UTC)

Adding commons link to infobox?

I came across a version of the religious building infobox in Polish wikipedia [1] and am wondering what type of reception it would receive were the concept of the commons link placed somewhere in the box added to the English version? Chesdovi (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how beneficial that would be, but then again I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting the idea of the commons link to just link to media about the subject on the commons? As for a new section though generally I'm all for it provided that it has some relevant use and can be accomplished without a lot of continuous maintinance. -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} February 21, 2008 06:41 (UTC)

architecture and specifications

It seems the "architecture" and "specifications" paramaters have an odd behaviour. Normally, whether a parameter is included as a blank field, or omitted, the value and behaviour is the same. However, if "architecture" is present, but blank, architecture defaults to "no", and certain architecture-related fields are supprressed. If it is omitted entirely, architecture defaults to "yes", and those fields appear. I think this inconsistancy is inappropriate. I think, if these flags are omitted, then the value should default to "yes", and the relevant fields should be visible. Notice, how this edit caused the architecture-related fields to appear soley because I removed the blank "architecture" paramater. --Rob (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rite versus Nusach

It is a problem now that the "rite" parameter actually wikilinks to nusach. "Rite" per se would be more appropriate to Catholic Church buildings, where the term actually applies as it is. I'm not sure what the best way to address this is, but at the moment misleading usage of the parameter is invited. Mangoe (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Website field

"website — the current and official website for the building and congregation"

Should that be a plain URL or a link with an anchor? The parent {{Infobox building}} doesn't have this field. --Geniac (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the plain URL better, as it also tells you the website name at a glance. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New color for Mosque infobox

How come the color was changed to teal? See al-Aqsa Mosque, Nasr Mosque, Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Istanbul). I think we should restore the original green. It's more representative of Islam. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heritage / US NHRP / UK Listing

What does "attained Heritage status" mean? Is that an international term, or specific to some unspecified country? If it's appropriate that this template includes US NHRP info, it should also include the UK Listed building grade if any, and equivalents for all other countries which have similar listings. PamD (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other countries have similar heritage programs, but there's only really a project here devoted to the US NRHP. That was added to accomodate that status. You could put whatever British listing grade exists in there, I suppose. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried for Dom tower of Utrecht, but the fields themselves carry Wikilinks to US-NHS so these are not usable for non-US programs. It would be nice to have at least a few 'open' fields in this group so that international monuments can be added (such as Saint Peters cathedral in Rome - which I guess is much more a religious monument than anything build in the US). Arnoutf (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia

Does someone know how to center map in this article? Is there a bug in this template or is it a problem in the article? --93.87.132.140 (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I fixed it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Additions to NRHP section

If no one has any objections, I would like to add an "mps" line allowing entries for Multiple Property Submissions (similar to the one in the NRHP infobox) and possibly something allowing us to indicate if it's a contributing property to an independently-recognized historic district as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. For this Infobox to effectively serve religious buildings which are also listed with the NRHP, it needs to more closely adopt certain attributes and functions of Template:Infobox NRHP.

• Many houses of worship are U.S. Historic District Contributing Properties. This status is different from an individual listing with the NRHP or NHL status, but as far as I can tell *, NRHP and NHL are the only two cases which are recognized by Template:Infobox religious building. Additionally, I know of at least one church which is a U.S. National Historic Site. This again, is a status not presently included in this template. _{(* if these options do exist, please let me know)}

Template:Infobox NRHP property types & colors
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
U.S. National Historic Landmark
U.S. Historic District Contributing Property
U.S. National Historic Site

• I would suggest that for the NRHP section only, the colors should follow the conventions used by Template:Infobox NRHP, as their historic status may be wholly unrelated to their religious affiliation, and these are the established color protocols for structures with this status. The colors are assigned in:
  • Template:NRHP color - for properties listed with the NRHP, the color is #A8EDEF
  • Template:NHL color - for NHL properties, the color is SkyBlue
  • Template:CP color - for Contributing Properties, the color is #CCFFCC
  • Template:NHS color - for NHS properties, the color is CadetBlue

Any thoughts? Objections? - TampAGS (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Doc needs to be updated

I'm happy to see that fields have been added to work with template:designation, but no instructions are given. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you could draft something, I would be happy to help edit it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

column

In Islamic architectures there are column/pillars. Many Islamic buildings have big number of columns. I think that should be in the template. --Kondicherry (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Automatic coloring

The template should change the color of the infobox automatically to # FFCF00 for the Georgian Orthodox Church, but it does not really work (e.g., here). Any thoughts? --Kober^Talk 10:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for adding address and telephone

Hi people. I want to propose adding two extra items to this template:

• address,
• telephone number

What do you say? Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church #FFCC99

For the religious affiliation field, please map the term Catholic Church to the color code #FFCC99. This is the article name. Thanks. Bede735 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

added Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Bede735 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow!

I just wanted to drop in and give a kudos to everyone that's edited this template since I decided to run with the idea and try to get it off the ground. I almost never edit WP, but I'm proud to have made this contribution and I'm amazed at how well and how much it has been implemented on the wiki. -- Sapphire (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Location map caption

Gorton Monastery shown within Greater Manchester

Why does this infobox specify style="font-size:smaller;" around the {{Location map}}? It makes the caption "Shown within Greater Manchester" at Gorton Monastery almost impossible to read. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a demonstration of the problem (see upper right), because I've just noticed the same problem at Maidenhead Synagogue. Using the "Inspect element" feature of the Firefox browser shows that there are several stages of font size reduction, due to the various classes in use in addition to the two explicit settings of font-size:. Taking them in order:

1. the class="infobox" applies font-size:88%
2. an explicit style="font-size:90%;" which overrides the 88%
3. a style="font-size:smaller;" which is in addition to the 90%
4. class="thumbinner" which applies font-size:94% to the figure calculated at step 3
5. class="thumbcaption" which applies font-size:94% to the figure calculated at step 4

Gorton Monastery shown within Greater Manchester

If one of the explicit stylings font-size:smaller; is removed from {{Infobox religious building}}, as with the second demonstration, the caption is still small (94% of 94% of 90% is 79.524% of the normal text size - Gorton Monastery shown within Greater Manchester), but is now readable. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, remove the font-size:smaller, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of geobox for churches

It is proposed to deprecate the use of {{Geobox}} for buildings (currently there are 260 such instances), possibly in favour of this template in some cases. Please comment at Template talk:Geobox#Use for buildings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Default styling

I made some minor changes to the default styling to better match {{infobox building}}. in particular, the default width is now closer to the standard 22em, and the font-size is the standard 88%. I don't seen any strong reason why the font-size or the infobox needs to be larger than the standard set by {{infobox}}. you can always make the box wider by specifying a wider size for the image. let me know if you see any serious problems. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Header specifications

I used the template, found in Aachen Cathedral, for Hildesheim Cathedral and am surprised that a header "Specifications" is give although nothing is filled (yet). I consider to change to infobox church because the history of destruction ad restoration is not well shown in this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it seems silly, but you have to set |specifications=no to hide the header. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Monastery

Can the authors of this infobox assist with fixing up Infobox Monastery? I think this has a nice interface, but it's title is too broad for many Roman Catholic Abbeys. Thanks and God Bless! Twillisjr (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge Template:Infobox mosque

{{Infobox mosque}} has been waiting for a merge in to this template for roughly forever. I'd like to get started with that. A reasonable approach seems to be

•  Not done check if all fields in infobox mosque can be represented in infobox religious building, and add fields as needed
  • I have a couple of fields that don't seem to map cleanly. For all identical fields, we can map 1:1, as far as the others go, I propose
    • name -> building_name
    • native_name -> add to template  Done
    • native_lang -> add to template  Done
    • pushpin_* -> add to template (map, label, label_position and map_alt), under the image
    • year -> I don't know. Ideas?
    • tradition -> If this has a value, affiliation gets this value. Otherwise, affiliation gets "Islam"
    • administration -> I don't know, ideas?
    • ownership -> I don't know, ideas?
    • area and total_area -> add to specifications
    • renovations -> add to architectural description
    • specifications -> currently unused. Don't map.
    • imam, chairman and spokesperson -> combine in to leadership
•  Not done check if there is either an easy way to convert the template invocation, or check if there is an easy way to express infobox mosque in terms of infobox religious building
•  Not done if the former, convert them all. If the latter, do that, and subst: them all
•  Not done delete the template

Is that groovy with all'yall? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Native name params added. Ownership = Affiliation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The examples I saw had things like Sunni Islam in tradition, which should go in affiliation, so that one is "taken". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, affiliation has difficulties of its own. It often has things like Sunni – Salafi, as for example on North London Central Mosque. This templates affiliation parameter expects somthing like Sunni (and adapts to color of the template based on that parameter). Salafi could go in to the parameter rite, but I'm no expert, and I don't know if that's something sensible to do.As Syakirin Mosque has an Administration parameter, which contains "Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP)" and I don't know where that would go - or what it is even. It sounds like something of an equivalent to a diocese or archdiocese. That doesn't help me much, because a. I'm not sure, and b. I don't know where I would place that in this template anyway. Currently, if the parameters mainly align, you can subst in a replacement template for infobox mosque. if you subst in {{infobox mosque/sandbox}} (it's a Frankenstein, but it only exists to be subst'ed in, and the result looks fine) it should mostly work, or warn you about missing arguments. I'm going to do a handful through that manner, and see where I hit problems and things need improvement. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: Hows that going? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No feedback from wikiproject Islam or wikiproject Religion, which is really frustrating to me. I don't know how if the rite param is the right place for the Salafi part in the example above, and I don't know where else to ask. Maybe reference desk humanities? I can't remember whether I asked there or not. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: That's disappointing. Ref desk may be worth a try. Otherwise, I suggest making an arbitrary decision, applied in a warpepr template, so reversible, and see what response we get. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing I'm starting to fear that might indeed be the only solution if the reference desk isn't able to help us here. It seems nobody cares, but when I do make an arbitrary decission, and it´s the wrong one, it´s a net negative, even if nobody really cares at this particular moment. It´s quite possible I just should get off my ass and start doing the ones that are possible to change, and do a couple I´m less sure of, in the hope that someone will disagree on a specific article, and show the correct way forward. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added an administration parameter, and will simply use the most precise affiliation, adding it to the color switch if it doesn't exist yet. That should take care of most. That still leaves the map stuff, I don't know how that works, but I should be able to replace most now, and we can cross that bridge when we get there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Deconsecration date

Good Morning, would it be possible to add a "deconsecration date" attribute for buildings having been deconsecrated? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Default image size

The documentation says that the default image size is 250px, but if I leave the image_size parameter undefined, the resulting image is definitely less than 250 px wide. Shouldn't the template markup for this parameter be |size={{{image_size<includeonly>|250px</includeonly>}}} instead of |size={{{image_size<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}? - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

NHRP Section Suggestion

@Martijn Hoekstra:Suggestion: Can the set of parameters (Added to NRHP, NRHP Reference no.,Designated as NHL) be made to work for other countries with similar National historic / heritage site databases? Maybe by adding a country-code parameter (defaulting to US if country code not added). Otherwise can we have a separate set of parameters for other countries that maintain similar registers? (e.g. country-of-designation=(country code), designation=(e.g. National Heritage Monument, Listed Building), reference no.= (e.g. ABC-12345), date-added=(date) ) Such information would be valuable (and I think the way it is now makes the template seem too USA specific). Thanks.

Chris Fynn (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger Jain temple

Is the {{Infobox Jain temple}} still up for a merger into this template? Since I see no action over the same, does it imply that the merger has been dropped? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

merged. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Destruction date

Can we add a destruction date to this infobox? There is a lot of object that can use that info in the infobox... --Axiomus (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

added. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

color change

@Closedmouth:, the color shades were changed to accommodate Ahmadiyya. Islam was given a slightly darker green as a result.--Peaceworld 11:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I didn't realise you'd made that edit only a few minutes before I looked at it and went off a bit half-cocked with the revert. There was a complaint in IRC that the infobox's formatting had changed and I think I prematurely blamed your edit, so, apologies for that. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

no worries. Thanks :) --Peaceworld 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist / Hindu Temples

There are several Newa temples in the Kathmandu valley sacred to both Buddhism and Hinduism. While most of these were probably originally Buddhist temples when Hinduism became the predominant religion in the Kathmandu valley they were also incorporated into that religion. Today both Buddhists and Hindus worship at these temples. How should this be handled? Chris Fynn (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Colors

Back in March Peaceworld111 added the Ahmadis to the list of colours and in the process changed the colours for Islam and Sunni. Closedmouth reverted the changes to Islam and Sunni in the template but not in the documentation; thus documentation and template disgreed. For the sake of consistency I'll revert the documentation, too, so that it matches the actual template, but IMO at least for Islam the documentation's color is prettier than the template's. Huon (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At a closer look I see that the clours for Sunni and Ahmadi agree. Again, that already was so in the template; I just adapted the documentation to reality. Thoughts on how to fix this? I wouldn't mind using the colour scheme proposed by Peaceworld111 unless the darker green is felt to impede readability. Huon (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation	Color (template)	Color (Peaceworld111)
[[Islam]]	#9BE89B	#13C900
[[Ahmadiyya]], [[Ahmadiyya Islam]], [[Ahmadiyya|Ahmadi]], [[Ahmadi]]	#CCFFCC	#CCFFCC
[[Shia Islam|Shia]], [[Shia Islam]], or [[Shia]]	#ABE9CC	#ABE9CC
[[Sunni Islam|Sunni]], [[Sunni Islam]], or [[Sunni]]	#CCFFCC	#9BE89B

link for "status" leads to article only applicable to Christianity

This template is used for mosques, like Grand Jamia Mosque, Lahore, but the link on the key/index cell leads to Ecclesiastical polity, which is only applicable to Christianity. Is there a more appropriate, generalised article it can link to? --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Architecture and specification - unsupported parameters

The parameters architecture and specification respectively control whether the infobox sections "Architectural description" and "Specifications" are shown. Their default value is yes. If left blank, as in Altenberg Abbey, they have the unexpected effect of putting the article into Category:Pages using infobox religious building with unsupported parameters. There is no warning message about this in preview. I'm no expert, but as far as I can tell, this behavior may be a result of the code:

{{#ifeq:{{{specifications|yes}}}|yes||[[Category:Pages using infobox religious building with unsupported parameters|σ]]}}{{#ifeq:{{{architecture|yes}}}|yes||[[Category:Pages using infobox religious building with unsupported parameters|α]]}}

added by Frietjes in this edit.

Is it desirable for articles to be in this maintenance category if the architecture and/or specification parameters are left blank? If so, could editors be warned about it in preview? It wasn't at all obvious to me from the template documentation that this would happen. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Worldbruce, I will check the logic, but should we just disable this feature entirely? in other words, make it so that the headers are always there? Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A good question, Frietjes. I'm not a power-user of the template, so someone else may be better qualified to answer. The feature was added in January 2008 by Dan9186 in this edit, with the documentation updated here.

I believe the code already hides the section heading if there is no data in the section. The idea behind the manual toggle, I think, is that if the only reliably sourced information about a building is that the architect was Fred and its height is 50 m, then it looks silly to display the colored section headings with just one fact in each section. If many details are known, however, then the section headings improve readability. I don't feel strongly about whether the feature should be retained or not. I don't know how many editors use it. Perhaps other long, sectioned infoboxes have come up with a better way of handling the general problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Worldbruce, we could toggle it based on the number of items in the subsection. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Frietjes, that sounds like a smart solution. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Worldbruce, now implemented, will see if there are any unexpected problems. Frietjes (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Festivals

Should we get rid of this parameter? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Historic designations

The way this template handles religious buildings with official historic designations is completely hosed. After browsing through the talk archive, I see some of these issues have been brought up since 2010 without being addressed in any meaningful way.

• The template is U.S.-centric only supporting buildings listed as U.S. National Register of Historic Places under these parameters:

  | nrhp = | designated = | added = | refnum =

• Otherwise, the template has a "heritage_designation" parameter intended under the documentation to display the year the building attained Heritage Status without providing a means to define what that status is.
• The color display in the NRHP section is wholly inconsistent with the way colors are displayed in infoboxes of most other NRHP articles throughout English Wikipedia.
• The template only supports two additional designations which may not be enough for all sites. Besides being individually listed as an NRHP, a building may also be a contributing property of an NRHP historic district, listed on one or more registries in the state where the building is located, and hold municipal status as a historic structure. An example where this is a problem is Mission Nuestra Señora del Espíritu Santo de Zúñiga. This building is an NRHP, a contributing property in a broader NRHP district, a Texas State Antiquities Landmark, and a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark. The mission's RTHL status does not display at all due to template limitations, while the template suggests that its NRHP status was designated under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church rather than the National Park Service due to the color in which that status is displayed.

Again, many of these problems have been mentioned for approaching eight years with no attempt to fix the template or justify why it shouldn't be changed. If internationalizing and addressing the color and designation problems in this template are too difficult, perhaps the easiest solution would be to scrap this section of the template altogether and allow the embedding of {{Infobox historic site}}, {{Infobox NRHP}}, or the infobox template of any other appropriate national heritage register.Fortguy (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata images

This template gets infobox images from Wikidata if they exist, but still adds the Category:No local image but image on Wikidata. See Synagogue of Besançon for an example. Can Frietjes or someone take a look? MB 16:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

should be fixed. Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Colors missing

Frietjes can you please add the Buddhism color to Zen Buddhism, Chan Buddhism, etc. in the sub template. User:Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 13:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Can you please update the date of the request to merge to September 17. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice included in the article

@Zackmann08: it seems like the notice for merging is included in the articles this template is used in. (e.g Jama Mosque, Champaner) Is this supposed to happen? Mohammad (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mohammad: it is supposed to be included so that other people can chime in on the discussion. That being said, it was supposed to be much smaller. I fixed it. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

geo

For articles using the parameter geo, such as Temple of Saint Sava, the {{coord}} overlaps with the line. I suggest taking it outside the template. –Pomte (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2007‎ (UTC)

Tibetian Buddhism automatic coloring

Can someone add Tibetan Buddhism to the documentation for automatic coloring and change the style color to:

 | abovestyle = background-color: #800547; color: #FFD068
 | headerstyle = background-color: #800547; color: #FFD068

Which is based on the deprecated Tibetan Buddhist Monastery template --Cs california (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at the code in Template:Infobox religious building/color and propose a specific set of changes. If you are feeling ambitious, you could make your suggested edits to Template:Infobox religious building/color/sandbox. Tibetan Buddhism already has a color. Do you want it to have a different color? Should any other links be assigned that color? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Ok I changed it in the sandbox page you created hopefully it works. I think the deprecation of the old Tibetan Buddhism template was done too quick there are lots of broken links in the template that needs to be fixed that are currently in the code including the following

1. `location_country` should be changed to location
2. `geo` to should be changed to coordinates
3. `pushpin_map` should be changed to map_type
4. `mapsize` should be changed to map_size
5. Also these fields have no comparable in the religious building template: head_lama,colleges,no._of_monks, date_renovated

--Cs california (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added the coloring, but then after looking at your other comments, I found that the old template was incorrectly turned into a redirect instead of a wrapper. I have reverted that change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't forget to add the changes to the Documentation--Cs california (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected. You should be able to update it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Implementing a wrapper template

Please see Template talk:Infobox Tibetan Buddhist monastery if you are interested in giving input on implementing the merger of Infobox Buddhist monastery into Infobox religious building. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Automatic coloring maintenance

About affiliation coloring (|religious_affiliation=).

I have created an overview of all options in color/doc. Also, I have updated the list in the documentation (complete now).

• I propose to update {{Infobox religious building/color}} with its sandbox (diff). Changes:

Removed double listings AAC, Anglicanism.

Grouped: same color = in single switch list.

Use regular, external {{Documentation}} page.

These are non-changing (cleanup only). Sandbox testing is in color/testcases.

• I propose to add: code that lists unrecognised affiliation. That is: when |religious_affiliation=[[Foo bar]] is not in the color list, the article will be categorised in Category:Infobox religious building with unknown affiliation (2,358). This allows us to check the input for typo's and completeness. See /testcases. New code is in the sandbox (diff). Note: sandbox code is in testmode now (inversed {{Main other}}, /sandbox etc.).

• Whitelist completed. The parameter whitelist for Module:Check for unknown parameters was incomplete. I have added: | category| child| module| nocat_wdimage, these are actually used in the template. I see no indication that they are deprecated.

Comments? -DePiep (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Added to sandbox: whitelist completion [2]. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Second idea with this: we could categorise all affiliations. Sort "*, _" for these unknown/blank ones, and use ~26 letters for the affiliations (Z for Zen, H for Hindu, ...). -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Added: also check for Hindu affiliations, to prepare Hidu temple merge (check which templates already use this infobox). -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Please

1. copy/paste all Template:Infobox religious building/color/sandbox code into subtemplate (diff)
2. copy/paste all Template:Infobox religious building/sandbox code into main template (diff)

Changes in /color subtemplate: 1. cleanup code, 2. remove duplicate entries, 3. make documentation external page. In main template: 1. Add tracking category for |religious _affiliation= not recognised or blank, 2. complete whitelist to Check for unk parameters (see #Automatic coloring maintenance). New Category:Infobox religious building with unknown affiliation (2,358)

Testcases: color: /color/testcases main: /testcases.

Proposal, discussed: #Automatic coloring maintenance. No rendering changes are involved. All changes are re maintenance. DePiep (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added to the main sandbox: check & categorise for Hindu affiliations (use same tracking category; used for an ongoing Hindu merge task). -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Religious affiliation: checking & improving

Useful links: Template:Infobox religious building/color (subtemplate)

Affiliation & color demo
Religion
Affiliation	Judaism

I have started a research into the |religious_affiliation= parameter. The parameter ("affiliation" from here) does two things:

1. Text: Shows as text, unedited by the template, with lefthand label Affiliation
2. Color: When input is in the affiliation-to-color list, it adds a background-color to the section headers (otherwise: grey)

The research intends to improve this usage, generally not just typos. Using new categoty Category:Infobox religious building with unknown affiliation (2,358).

If you want to help: today some 400 articles use {{Infobox religious building}} having no input for |religious_affiliation= (sorted under * in Category:Infobox religious building with unknown affiliation). Would be good to enter input there, even when not from the 'color list'.

Just want to tell what is happening, later more about improvements. -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

What does the {{{module|}}} parameter do?

I see that {{{module|}}} is used in this template,[3] but I don't get the purpose of it and it does not work the same way as it does in most other templates, e.g. in Template:Infobox person. Does it need to be fixed or is the current implementation intentionally so? Dalba 07:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You'r right, it is only used as another synonym for |nrhp=yes check. As is |embedded=. Is this a habit with NRHP-embeddded NRHP infoboxes? Asking Capankajsmilyo.

In {{Infobox building}}, which could be our guide in this, the parameter is used like this (/doc):

{{Infobox building
...
| embedded            = 
 {{Infobox NRHP
 | embed = yes
 | name = Deming Armory
 | coordinates = {{coord|32|16|00|N|107|45|24|W|display=inline}}
 | locmapin = New Mexico
 | map_alt = Located in New Mexico, in the southwest portion of the state
 | map_caption = Location in New Mexico
 | architect = Henry C. Trost
 | governing_body = Luna County Historical Society, Inc.
 | refnum = 83001624
 | added = April 21, 1983
 }}
 {{Designation list
 | embed = yes
 | designation1 = USNM
 | designation1_offname = Deming Armory
 | designation1_date = January 20, 1978
 | designation1_number = 584
 }}
}}

Can people familiar with these subboxes help us? Looks like we should use {{Infobox NRHP}} this way too. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

From [4]: Some 142 articles use |nrhp=: [5], none use |modue=, 2 use |embedded=. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: add param 'religious feature', rearrange headers

I propose to make these changes to this infobox (demo's are in /testcases):

1. Add parameter |religious_features= in top section. It can contain all information deemed relevant for that religion regarding the building. It can be a list ({{ubl}}). With it comes parameter |religious_features_label=, that allows overwriting the lefthand label.

At the moment, most religions have their own relevant features, but it would be cumbersome to add specific ones for each. It is up to the article editor (or the community working with a set of religions) to find a best approach. It is nigh impossible to add this centrally (here) as a definitive list.

2. Split section "Basic information" into sections "Religious features", "Location".

This first regular section now is a bag of data re these two topics, and the boring sectiontitle illustrates this. I propose to open with section "Religious featuresReligion" [no double name, see below; DePiep], and below that "Location".

"Religious features/Religion" then contains all religious aspects including rites, religious organisation like diocees, and new parameter religious_features. Its headerbar is colored by religious affiliation, as are all headerbars.

"Location" has the maps, coordinates, and other geographical information. The location map now is right below the image (if present), even above the Basic section. (See Al-Hakim Mosque). When in "Location", all geographic info is together.

3. Remove color from |native_name= subheader.

The regular name stands out above in top (with color background), removing that color from native name reduces attention-grabbing effect; current coloring unbalances the infobox (top-heavey). Native name is not that important information.

Questions: Maybe the order within the two sections could be improved. I am not very familiar with church organisation terms ("province" is religious organisation in here?). Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent issue: Infobox_Tibetan_Buddhist_monastery, ping Jonesey95. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposals 1 and 2 are interesting, and the sandbox and testcases show that the organization of these parameters is much improved. I don't know that "religious features" is the right header, and it is confusing that the section header and parameter name are both "Religious features". That bit needs some work, but I think you're on the right track so far. I am wary of "catch-all" parameters like |religious_features=, because they tend to be abused with all sorts of nonsense and trivia. An infobox should summarize the article's content, not serve as a dumping ground for trivia. There have been no objections to leaving out all of the minor fields in the Tibetan Buddhist monastery migration.

I have no comment on proposal 3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the 'trivia creep' you mention. But I don't think this high-level IB (covering all religions) can solve or prevent that, while also acknowledging that there are important architectural features that relate to religion. As I said, seems best these could be decided on a religion base ("feature A can be included, feature B not"), or removed from an article per WP:TRIVIA (-in-WP:INFOBOX). Maybe even a list can end up in documentation (as religion-dependent info). The advantage in having the option outweighs the risk of trivia creep (I'd rather have it available for a GA/FA article accepting the risk of minor misuse elsewhere). Such is my tradeoff.

Examples: the Tibetan_Buddhist_monastery you merged into this one did not have this need, but anyway it was not possible except by adding another specific parameter (by religion, by object: "for Tibetan head_lama use parameter ..."). IOW, the situation was forced, more or less, into this solution. OTOH, an {{Infobox Hindu temple}}, I am working on, can have a Pushkarani (temple tank) as large as 23 acres (9.3 ha) — quite a presence.

And yes, that new LH label could be better. Or move "Religious affiliation" (the color ID!) into the header? ("Religion: ..."). -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Renamed sectionheader into "Religion". Is clear, and no need to be perfectly descriptive in there. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

4. Oops, this change is proposed too: move |website= to bottom of infobox, as is the habit with most infoboxes ({{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox company}}). It is an external link. -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

Please copy full /sandbox code into main template {{Infobox religious building}}.

Changes: add sections and allocate parameters, add generic parameter for religious building features, list website at bottom, rm bg color from subheader. See also testcases.

Proposal: #Proposal: add param 'religious feature', rearrange headers, above. DePiep (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

remove meaningless parameters

I propose to remove (delete) these useless and meaningless parameters:

• |specifications=, |architecture=

In the code, these parameters do nothing. They do populate: Category:Pages using infobox religious building with unsupported parameters (16) (sorting under Σ, Ω?).

-DePiep (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

Please replace all template code with /sandbox code (diff).

Change: deprecate and remove unused parameters |specifications=, |architecture=. Not used, no effect. DePiep (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Was the removal of the wikidata image section intentional? I did not see it discussed above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Better be back in, will do so in next update. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Extension:Kartographer

Hi. Shouldn't the new map design recently inserted into {{Infobox building}} also being used for this template? It will be better if we can see a map in the infobox for religious buildings too. Night Lantern^halo? 08:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes.

The longer answer is, you have enough experience of templates that...

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. The sandbox and testcases already exist and the sandbox is currently in sync with the live version. Reactivate the request (|ans=n) when you're ready. Cabayi (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

Please replace all code with /sandbox code (diff). Changes: 1. Restore Wikidata check on image tracking (unwanted removal in previous edit 16 Feb 2019), 2. Whitelist some parameters that are filling up tracking category.

- DePiep (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

-Activated. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

• Please copy/paste all sandbox code into live code (diff)
• Changes:

1. {{Infobox Hindu temple}} has been merged into this main template, no need for tracking any more (it helpful it was).

2. Remove "{{Infobox religious building/count}}", let's just do simple header check.

• Consensus: discussion not need IMO, technical only. DePiep (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, this was added after this discussion with Worldbruce, but if no one cares anymore, then so be it. Frietjes (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Frietjes. I re-read that discussion, and it makes sense to me. Seeing no other discussion recommending item 2 above, I have restored the original code that uses {{Infobox religious building/count}} to header60. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, you should really undelete the template first, otherwise it creates a big mess. Frietjes (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Argh, RHaworth was too efficient at deleting (temporarily) unused templates, so my partial revert needed to be reverted. Sigh. I don't know what rationale led to the very speedy deletion of {{Infobox religious building/count}}; maybe someone better versed in deletion criteria could tell me. There are something like 5,000 untranscluded templates, so I don't know what the big hurry was. (And I don't have the ability to undelete pages, so I'll just have to wait.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95, thanks, it turns out there is a lua module that does the same thing, so we can get rid of the subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done. You've earned your volunteer wages for the day. Not me, though; I'll have to do some makeup work on Saturday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• ??? Jonesey95, Frietjes This not about the edit request. What is going on? Why don't you raise a different issue in a different thread? -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: I object to the reversal(s). -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Hindu temple tracking was reinstalled, ignoring this edit request. That is amateuristic. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, Frietjes, I was the one proposing the change, but you did not ping nor address me. That is disingenuous. You being an experienced editor, it could be called BF. (You did ping two other editors intentionally). -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

DePiep, you incorrectly asserted that discussion was not needed to implement your two edit requests. It turned out that these were not "technical only" changes, so your bold proposal #2 ended up not being implemented. Now you are returning to make accusations. Please slow your roll. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• My deletion of Template:Infobox religious building/count was triggered by this edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) re Jonesey95. Yes re #1. And so then Frietjes or you should have returned with: "I wish to challenge, & ping DePiep". That is what a talkpage is for. The edit became disputed, not wrong. #2: You nor Frietjes started a talk with me. You explicitly avoided engaging a talk with me, while indirectly smearing other editors. Even now you could & should have started a discussion. Let me remind you that you and Frietjes used TE rights to enforce undiscussed reversals. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Appalling and disgusting that Jonesey95 "sigh" involved RHaworth in their accusations & smears as if this editor handled improperly while they themselves clearly showed insincere behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh again. Now I remember why I stay away from this editor. I will let third parties assess this conversation. My mistake was interacting with this editor at all, with whom I am unable to communicate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To RHaworth, CSD G6 does not appear to be a valid criterion for a template that had recently been used and was not discussed at TFD. It appears that we were both drawn into a trap by misleading edits. I'm sorry that you were dragged into this situation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You and Frietjes each were supposed to start a talk here by pinging me. The rest is red herring manouvring. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on locations &tc.

Just noting. Recently the sections Religion and Location were split from single section General. The idea is that Religion should also contain the religious organisational parameters (like 'diocees', 'ecclesiastical province'). I'm not sure how the next parameters are to be read, so we should check their usage(-intention) ([6] can help). If 'worldly', then move into section Location.

|province=?: if:Roman Catholic= Ecclesiastical province

|region=

|district=? label "District" links to Ecclesiastical district, so Religion

-DePiep (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• todo: move "website" to above designations. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• todo: when designation is present, add regular (IB) header, not out-of-the-blue designation fmt? -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• todo: |elevation= next to coord & location, is more logical than orphaned at the bottom. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• todo: rm |module= from code completely. unused, 3x redundant. -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• todo: maybe move |inscriptions= to religion? -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• todo: add |engvar= using {{Engvar}} (organiS/Zation, ) -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• todo?: use image from Wikidata (not just categorise) -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is a large number of parameters identifying the religious affiliation: religious_affiliation, rite, tradition, (branch), (religion). That is confusing. For a parameter (not the infobox labeltext!), the number should be small. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Add |diocese=: ecclesial (Roman Catholic) administrative district (with a bishop)? -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Redundant adjectives in labels

The Architectural type and Architectural style labels underneath the Architecture header seem pretty redundant, and not to mention, unnecessarily long. It's safe to assume that the absence of redundant adjectives from these labels won't impact the infobox's legibility, since in this case context is derived from the aforementioned Architecture header (which, in any case, is a header's purpose). Please add the following code:

Architectural building
Something about architecture, maybe?
Architecture
Type	Seems
Style	Redundant

| label42 = Type
|  data42 = {{{architecture_type|}}}

| label43 = [[Architectural style|Style]]
|  data43 = {{{architecture_style|}}}

jdeazy (t • c) 05:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

MSGJ: thank you. Could you also have a look at my other request just above this one? I feel like you may have accidentally glanced over it since I made these requests in quick succession. jdeazy (t • c) 19:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing religion

Mahayana is missing from the color list, despite it being one of the two main branches of Buddhism. Please add it to the list.

The code should be

|[[Mahayana Buddhist]]
|[[Mahayana Buddhism]]
|[[Mahayana]]

Presumably the color is the same as Theravada, #FFCC33. --Auric talk 09:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please also add [[Zen]] as an alternative Zen Buddhism.--Auric talk 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Code ready in {{Infobox religious building/color/sandbox}} (diff). Please copy all sandbox code into {{Infobox religious building/color}}. Demo checking added to Template:Infobox religious building/color#Full list. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Please add the highlighted code, so that Czech and Slovak Orthodox religious buildings may also be properly color-coded:

| [[Bulgarian Orthodox Church]]
| [[Bulgarian Orthodox]]
| [[Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church]]
| [[Czech and Slovak Orthodox]]
| [[Serbian Orthodox Church]]
| [[Serbian Orthodox]]           = #FFCF00

jdeazy (t • c) 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this request is for {{Infobox religious building/color}}. jdeazy (t • c) 20:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

+ added to documentation (Template:Infobox religious building/color#Full list). -DePiep (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Structural engineers

There is an important omission from the "architecture" section. Architects will credit structural engineers with making their ideas practical – Ted Happold (Sydney Opera House, Pompidou Centre) or Michel Virlogeux (Millau Viaduct), for example. The etructural engineer therefore deserves a place in the infobox as much as the main contractor. The term "consulting engineer' is also used, but several other types of engineer may be retained on building projects, so I suggest "structural engineer" for clarity. EEye (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Location grids

Please could the infobox support alternatives to latitude/longitude for locations. The UK has the Ordnance Survey National Grid, on which the maps that everybody uses are based. For example, a grid reference in the form TQ 3951375927 includes five digits of easting and five of northing, which locates to a 1-metre square. (The number of digits is optional.) Other countries including the USA have similar grids. EEye (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Religious affiliation and its color

Can somebody move Syriac Orthodox Church to #FFCF00 as it is more related to church rather than #CCB2FF . Even Aramean-Syriac flag does not have variations of this color #CCB2FF. Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 03:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Done in Template:Infobox religious building/color/sandbox ([7]). diff.

I cannot judge or !vote on this proposal. If others agree, just put all sandbox code into live code (edit request). -DePiep (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing pushpin maps

Template seems to accept either |coordinates= or |geo= to specify coords, but the pushpin map only displays if |coordinates= is used. Not sure how many articles are affected. Frietjes, should we fix the template or identify cases with Category:Pages using infobox religious building using Geo and just deprecate it. Basilica of the Assumption, Aglona is an example I just fixed by changing to |coordinates=. MB 16:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the template to support |geo= in all locations where |coordinates= is supported. |coordinates= is used in 3,100 articles. |geo= is used in 1,800 articles. (The slightly misnamed "monthly error report" is the only thing that is 100% useful about TemplateData.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

thanks, I added tracking for cases where both are used at the same time. those cases will be added to Category:Pages using infobox religious building with unsupported parameters under Γ, so at the end of the category (e.g., see Wat Chayamangkalaram). Frietjes (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice. I considering doing that but was too lazy! I was just looking for a quick fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Color problem

Curtea de Argeș Cathedral is listed in Category:Infobox religious building with unknown affiliation, yet the value in |religious_affiliation= is valid (Romanian Orthodox Church). Is the article in the cat by mistake? Frietjes? MB 16:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It was listed in the documentation, but it wasn't in the template itself. I have fixed the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping that would fix more of the articles, but there are still 1553 left! MB 17:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I just went through the category and found a few common values that editors have inserted, typically redirects or wikilinks with customized text. I added some of them to the template, which should remove a couple hundred articles from the category. The instructions do not always make it clear whether unsupported parameter values should be "fixed", changing them to a supported (but possibly less accurate) value, or whether those values should be added to the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed there is a table of colors at Template:Infobox religious building and another at Template:Infobox religious building/color. I assume the latter is the better documention (it looks longer). Can you verify and replace the former with a link? MB 00:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Those tables are not protected, as far as I can tell. You are free to edit them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Change leadership line from Kari Tuling to David Kominsky. This will update the current leadership of Temple Beth Israel Ceriseny (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox religious building}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Diacritics in Baháʼí Faith

I note that the template intends to use the "orange-y" #FF8C00 as the colour pattern for buildings of the Baháʼí Faith. However, the template is built on the name without the proper ʼ diacritic (size exaggerated here) used in the actual article titles, resulting in a "greyish" colour scheme if the actual article title is used.

Please replace the template's:

• [[Bahá'í Faith|Bahá'í]]   [[Bahá'í]]   [[Bahá'í Faith]]

with:

• [[Baháʼí Faith|Baháʼí]]   [[Baháʼí]]   [[Baháʼí Faith]]

Apologies if this is something I could do myself - not being lazy, just being cautious. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. If there is a page that still does not work, please link to it here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

Taoism and Confucianism should probably be assigned colors as well. Both religions have dedicated temples and worshippers that don't belong in Buddhism. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

Assign Taoism a color. I propose using #505858 as the background and #FFFFFF as the text color as a reference to yin and yang, like so: Taoism

Stick | [[Taoism]] = #505858; color: #FFFFFF; in this template somehwere. Thanks, ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Ganbaruby!:  done; let's give it a go since the contrast passes accessibility codes. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Register of Historic Places in Egypt

Hello Everyone, I wanted to know if it is possible to create a new subsection for the infobox that would allow users to systematically include heritage site data for Historic Cairo monuments that are religious buildings. The authorities in the Egyptian government have a numbering system and I would like to add this important data to Wikipedia pages. Thank you! Mamlukist (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The template already has |designation1= (and related) that can be used for this. MB 13:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of Shinto

I propose we should expand the Shinto color to include the folk East Asian religions that are different from formalized religions like Buddhism or Taoism. Specifically, I think we should include Chinese folk religion, Korean folk religion, Vietnamese folk religion, and Confucianism on the same color since religious ideas from these places blend and are influenced by a their close geography.

Bluealbion (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting an update to parameter link (resolved)

The parameter "Rite" links to Rite, but this is a disambiguation page. Someone with editing privileges should change the target to Christian liturgy, which includes a list of Christian rites. -- Scyrme (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This infobox is specifically for non-Christian places, those should used {{infobox church}}. The documentation says |rite= is mainly used for Jewish synagogues for rite of worship, so Christian liturgy wouldn't be correct. MB 16:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@MB: You're right about the documentation, I hadn't noticed; my mistake. It's used on quite a few articles for Christian church buildings. eg. Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Cathedral of Our Lady (Antwerp), Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo. It seems the field is also used on a lot of articles for Japanese temples. eg. Manman-ji. Either the documentation needs to be updated or a lot of articles need to be corrected. Regardless, perhaps the field should simply be de-linked to circumvent the targeting issue? -- Scyrme (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the documentation says "primarily" for synagogues... (but like much of template documentation, it can certainly be expanded). As far as the link for rite, if you add a Jewish section to Ritual#Religious perspectives, it could probably link there. Otherwise, I would agree with unlinking. MB 17:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Someone more familiar with the topic would be better suited to writing a new summary section for Ritual, and it wouldn't help people clicking through from Buddhist temples (although I suppose another section could be added to remedy that too). Looking at articles using the field, it seems far more churches, Buddhist temples, and mosques use the field than synagogues. Ironically, many articles for synagogues that use the template seem to leave the field blank. Looking at articles that use the field (regardless of denomination), they generally link whatever is entered into the field anyway, providing a context-relevant target for each article, so I don't think the field itself needs to be linked in this case. -- Scyrme (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95, per above, can you unlink the rite parameter as the old link is now a DAB. MB 20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Scyrme, it looks like BD2412, probably unaware of this discussion, changed the link to Ritual and then you marked this as resolved. But that's not what we were planning. Don't you think its still best to unlink, since Ritual doesn't cover several of the main religions that use the field? MB 00:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we are missing an article on a general concept of a "Rite" that is not a "Ritual"; the disambiguation of "Rite" created a lot of errors, and these need resolution one way or the other. BD2412 T 00:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have unlinked this label. Changing links to "Rite" into links to "Ritual" is probably not correct in general, and probably should have been addressed before the merge was implemented. As things stand now, Ritual contains some of the text from Rite that describes types of Christian liturgy, and the word "ritual" is not interchangeable with that meaning of the word "rite". I think the merge and conversion to a dab page should be reverted and a further discussion should be had about where to house that content about liturgy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• @MB: It wasn't what I suggested, but it resolved the linking to dab issue which was my main concern when I made the request.
• @Jonesey95: The merge had been discussed before being implemented; I allowed months for people to raise their concerns. Neither article actually made a distinction, and the varieties of "rite" briefly listed in the lead of "Rite" were all already covered in greater detail on Ritual. As for content outside the lead, there was only that section on Christianity and two stub sections on Islam and Freemasonry; that was it, I didn't leave anything out of the merge. There was literally no content in either article making a distinction; simply reverting the merge will not create such a distinction. After considering the issue, I converted "Rite" into a dab rather than a redirect to Ritual precisely because of the concern that the terms aren't always viewed synonymously. If you feel the paragraph on Christianity has irrelevant material, I think a better discussion would be over whether to move the content of that section to the main article, Christian liturgy. However, Ritual already had references to Christian liturgy/mass before the merge so I think a summary about liturgy providing an emic Christian perspective is helpful, particularly as the lead mentions emic perspectives but the article was previously missing any such content. -- Scyrme (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding the remaining links to the new dab page, I started working on them yesterday, and will continue to do so later today; most of them have already been fixed by myself and others. As a note, doing so has allowed many unhelpful links to be corrected, such as changing links to "Rite", which had no info on Confucianism (before the merge), to target Li (Confucianism) on relevant articles. -- Scyrme (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

Currently some of the "rite" link for Jewish buildings go to Nusach (a disambiguation page). Should be changed to Nusach (Jewish custom). Natg 19 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Can "Year consecrated" be wikilinked to Consecration? Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 07:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@FunIsOptional:  Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 22 March 2023

Description of suggested change: Requesting a change involving the tradition parameter, as despite being listed as an acceptable parameter, it does not appear to have any effect when used in the template, with nothing showing up. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The |tradition= parameter is valid only when |religious_affiliation= is set to Islam. You can see it working at Eyüp Sultan Mosque. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 22 September 2023 - different types of Hindus

​There are different types of Hindus in the same way that there are different types of Christians and different types of Muslims. One way to handle this is as done at Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir, which has Affiliation =Hinduism (Gaudiya Vaishnavism), but that results in the colouring being grey not orange. Please can a way be found to allow this - such as by getting the template to use the first Wikilink to control the colour, or excluding stuff after the first bracket, or by adding Gaudiya Vaishnavism to the list of Hindu religions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not complete information. I have enough knowledge about Hinduism, and I am doing research on this subject. Sri Mayapur Chandrodaya Mandir is following Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma). Under Sanatan Dharma, there are four major traditions. 1. Vaishnavism; 2. Shaivism; 3. Shaktism; and 4. Advaita Vedanta. This temple follows Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism is divided into seven major Sampradays.

1. Sri Vaishnavism

2. Gaudiya Vaishnavism

3. Pushtimarg

4. Swaminarayan Sampraday

5. Ramanandi Sampradaya

6. Nimbarka Sampradaya

7. Vallabhacharya Sampraday

And under Vaishnavism, it is following Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which was founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Should we include all this information in an info box? It is better that we simply call it Hinduism. There are multiple wiki articles that are related to Hinduism; they are also doing the same. And it is absurd to talk about Muslims and Christians here because the differences are huge between Dharmic religions and Abrahamic religions. Sandip 11:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: User has been blocked for sockpuppetry. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Mapframe?

Is it possible to use a mapframe instead? toobigtokale (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the template talk page, this has been suggested a few times before without any opposition. It just seems that no one well-versed in template-editing has taken it up yet. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 9 October 2023

Description of suggested change: Mapframe capability (I hate pin maps!!). I think Template:Infobox building already has this capability; maybe just as simple as copying code over? toobigtokale (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that inclusion of |image_map= parameter would suffice to gives @Toobigtokale: option to include Mapframe template, or at least common parameters such as |embed= and/or |embedded= where we can add this or any other template any specific object requires. I too believe this is something that would be useful.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Or all three, these are all useful parameters; it doesn't matter in which row, but usually |image_map= gose somewhere at the top, and both |embed= and |embedded= are usually placed at the bottom of an infobox. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, |image_map= could be one way of accomplishing this. A more robust solution would be the inclusion of |mapframe=, that behaves as described in the "Mapframe maps" section of Template:Infobox building. It comes with a lot of optional extra parameters that modify the mapframe. toobigtokale (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To editors ­toobigtokale and ౪ Santa ౪: not exactly X to Y format, but okay, I've synchronized the [sandbox] to the live template. You can include whatever parameters that are needed to make this work in the sandbox, and then they can be added to the live infobox template. Thank you both for your patience! Please remember to add all new parameters to the "check for unknown parameters" module near the bottom of the sandbox's edit page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks PI I will try to edit sandbox with these new parameters. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale, @Paine Ellsworth I tried to tinker with this template last night and I didn't succeed, but before I could remove the changes, editor @Jonesey95: did it for me and, obviously realizing my predicament, included the "module" parameter. Now, this parameter can be used to embed the mapframe template but it needs to be created/prepared manually. Toobig I can show you a working example to activate the mapframe in the infobox. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale take a look at Zavala Monastery, at the bottom of its Infobox you will find |modul= with a mapframe template using, for my needs, all the necessary optional modifiers (focus, line thickness, icon pointers, colors for lines and fillers,, etc.). You can use mien, or add some other values/parameters or remove some, but you can see on that example how is created. Maybe it's not most fortunate but it works for me. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And thanks to both Jonesey95 on inclusion of "modul" and Paine Ellsworth for taking our request into consideration, I really appreciate it guys!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Uniting Church in Australia: proposed denominaitonal colour

There are 25 churches of the Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) with Wikipedia articles. In addition, there are 44 schools affiliated with the UCA with Wikipedia articles. The default colour for the church template is #CCCC99. The UCA is a protestant denomination and was formed in 1977 through a merger of most of the Methodist Church of Australasia, about two-thirds of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and almost all the churches of the Congregational Union of Australia. In line with the colours of the UCA, it is proposed to assign a colour for inboxes when Uniting or Uniting Church in Australia is used for the denomination field, using a colour in the hues of either #AA00FF or #D400FF. Feedback would be most welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 27 December 2023

Description of suggested change: Restoration of status, which populates the infobox as Ecclesiastical or organizational status. For some reason status has dropped off the template, although it produces the Ecclesiastical or organizational status, when used. Please note, I'm not referring to functional status, which populates in the infobox as Status. The Ecclesiastical or organizational status refers to synagogue, temple, shrine, etc., whereas the functional status refers to active, closed, etc. For an example of where the status and the functional status are both used, please see this featured article: Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee). Without the status, one would not know if the religious building is a synagogue, yeshiva, temple, shrine, etc. Diff:

−

+

Status

Rangasyd (talk) 12:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The linked article shows both "Status" lines, and the diff above does not show what code would be changed. If you want a change in the documentation, you can change it yourself; it is not protected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

Please, change the line at "label93 = Designated as NHL" to "label93 = Designated as" with an instruction to use preferred register such as NHL; KONS; etc., and not just NHL by default. Let as chose which register and / or embedded template to use

Explanation: when I want to include my own heritage register template like this:
"| designated = {{designation list | embed=yes | designation1 =kons | etc." Infobox produces desired output, but it also forces "Designated as NHL" by default just above intended inclusion - you can see example in Infobox here → Čelebića mosque in Donja Bijenja, where above "KONS of Bosnia and Herzegovina" sits forced "Designated as NHL", which of course is completely unwanted. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the article for you. |designation= is only for US national historic designations, apparently. The documentation could be improved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, i really appreciate it Jonesey; and yes, it gives NHL by default but I think it would be better if it's left for usage as general purpose parameter - not much would change, only editors would have to enter desired register by hand instead. I hope it gets improved in that direction. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Using OpenStreetMap to show the location

Hi, the same as Template:Infobox museum and by copying/pasting the same code, I propose to use new zoomable maps to show the location of religious buildings in a city. For example, the same maps as used in British Museum could be used for Umayyad Mosque. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

District vs (Arch)Dioceses

I was looking at the article Saint Joseph's Oratory, and noticed an awkward construct in the infobox that the church was located in the "district" of "Archdiocese of Montreal". Would it make more sense to have this parameter be "Diocese", "Archdiocese", etc, (maybe a sub parameter to change the label? Maybe a more generic term such as "Jurisdiction" could work for this parameter? –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)