Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bytebear (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 31 December 2007 (→New picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has an Archive : Archive1, Archive2, Archive3

New picture

I like it, well done! -- SECisek (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the new picture as an all inclusive image of Christendom. The image is from a (presumably) Catholic Cathedral. Does the image accurately represent Protestants? What about Iconoclasts (or those Christians that feel depictions of Jesus break the 2nd commandment)? I think the basic cross is a better representation for the top tier template because it is extremely iconic, yet simple and universal. -Andrew c  15:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Andrew c. I'm not a fan of the cross as a symbol itself (i.e. I possibly wouldn't fill my house with them), but as something that is recognizable as the basic symbol for Christianity it's unbeatable. I think the cross should be put back on the info box. --Woofboy (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Image:Cefalu Christus Pantokrator cropped.jpg, though technically in a Catholic church, seems to be more based on Greek orthodox iconography (it's from a part of Italy that was very heavily influenced by Byzantine culture for centuries). AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it added a good deal of color to the box, but I am not going to argue with anyone over it. That said, I do disagree with a claim of "no consensus" in the edit summary prior to any editors posting an opinon on the subject. -- SECisek (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have made a mistake. You may want to examine the timestamps again ;) With my initial concern, and woofboy's additional comment, at the very least, we could not say that there was a consensus. So I didn't think it was inappropriate to revert to the long standing version while the discussion continued here on talk. I agree that the image "looks" better, but unfortunately, there are other things to consider besides aesthetics. Maybe there is another option to consider besides the cross and the Cafalu image. Any ideas?-Andrew c  19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel any strong emotions about it either way. The cross is fine with me. -- SECisek (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometime in the dark past of Misplaced Pages, I remember one of those interminable discussions where one party claimed that the 'cross' is not a universal Christian symbol. I believe the Mormons don't recognize it although they are sort of 'out in left field'. I must admit I liked the 'Cefalu Christus Pantokrator' image 'cause it looks neat and I'm quite Protestant. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the members of WikiProject Christianity to give their two cents here. -Andrew c  19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The cross isn't a universal Christian symbol. However, the two groups which to my knowledge don't recognized it are the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both of whom use other templates. That would seem, at least to me, to indicate that perhaps their specific concerns regarding a template they don't use are somewhat less significant. Having said that, I could see changing to an image of Jesus per se, although the size of the image might conceivably be a question. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a fish symbol? It was a Christian symbol before the cross became used a symbol. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A fish is less universal than the cross. I would be happy with an image of Christ, but I think it should be a glorified image, rather than just a picture of Jesus. I actually liked the image that started this discussion. Oh, and Mormons do recognize the cross, but the LDS church chooses not to use it in their church adornment. Personal crosses, images of Jesus on the Cross, etc., are not discouraged by any means. Bytebear (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)