Template talk:Orthodoxyinaustralasia

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 09:18, May 26, 2006 by Chrisg (talk | contribs) (Macedonian)
Jump to: navigation, search

What would you think about compressing this template, as was recently done with Template:Orthodoxyinamerica? Perhaps the lists of monasteries and bishops could be turned into one general link connecting to a list article for each. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 10:05, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

i like the idea, but the problem is deciding what should be included and what shouldn't be...australasia being so small and all. particularly the bishops list - there's, like, 8 bishops. perhaps getting rid of the auxillery ones? shrinking the monastery list somewhat would be good (and easier); perhaps listing the major monasteries as well. i'll do that now, let me know what you think. oea 22:34, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
The list of bishops could include all bishops that have historically served in Australasia, which I'm sure would be more than eight. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 23:43, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)
oops! only just saw this, sorry! what do you think about the way it is now? Pistevo 19:46, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)


Similar to the Talk:Orthodoxy in Australasia thing: should we list the Macedonian Diocese? Keeping in mind that, if we do, every other group that calls itself Orthodox must be listed. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:00, May 22, 2006 (CDT)

I think it would be better to stick with the Mainstream-Chalcedonian Bias (cf. OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Churches)). As far as I can tell, that would mean not listing the Macedonian Diocese in the template. —magda (talk) 09:49, May 23, 2006 (CDT)
It is not my diocese, but the Macedonian Orthodox (albeit under a different name) were granted autonomy by Serbia. Not one mainstream orthodox church seems to seriously dispute that, although some are not happy about it. The diocese in Australia is part of this group. By not including the diocese in the listing it could appear that you are taking a biased position against that group. The thin edge of the wedge argument in this case seems a bit off beam. chrisg 2006-05-26-1914 EAST