This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
It appears that this info box has become dominated by a Seventh-day Adventist church perspective, and does not reflect the smaller movements so much. I am therefore modifying it to reflect this. Tonicthebrown03:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the remaining groups are not very notable when compared to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Here are the claimed sizes from their Wikipedia articles:
I do think that the order listed in the template is well chosen and needs no modification. However I am also tempted to remove the last entry from the list also. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I have removed it after all. It is a whole order of magnitude smaller (that is, ten times smaller) than the Church of God General Conference, which is perhaps the next most notable church group. There were 427 people, but that was 17 years ago, and the article does not state how many there are now. This is a small number, the equivalent of just one large congregation in a more mainstream denomination. Colin MacLaurin15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I disagree with the critical link. Here are my reasons:
The article which is linked to is currently of very poor quality
The article is only a critique of the SDA Church specifically, not the Advent movement in general (to which the template applies).
I think that the infobox should be a portal to the main informative articles, and I don't think criticism fits there. There is very little of informative value in the criticism article as it stands. Also, on last check, there was roughly as much apologetic there are criticism!
It's easy enough for an interested person to find the critical page, following the link from the main SDA article.
It's fine if others disagree, but this is my opinion. And in case you are concerned about my POV, please note that I've worked hard to maintain the Criticism section of the SDA article against "pious" SDAs who have tried to damage or soften it! Tonicthebrown10:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is with the article, fix the article or AfD it. The village pump discussion suggested this, and also concluded that if criticism articles exist, per NPOV, they should be included. I don't see how a criticism article isn't informative. In fact, you can learn a lot about a topic by listening to critics and the response to criticism. That said, I believe your 2nd point is the strongest. The criticism is to a specific church, while this template is for the whole movement. However, isn't the SDA the largest adventist group? I suggest you read the village pump discussion (if you haven't). You bring up some decent points and I wouldn't be too upset if the link was removed from this template. However, for consistence across the religion navboxes, and to respect the VP discussion, I would support including it and focusing on improving the article itself (or AfD the article and removing the links that way.)-Andrew c03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Davidian SDA
Which name is more well known, "Davidian Seventh-day Adventist" or "Shepherd's Rod"? I suspect it is the latter but I don't know for sure. Let's put the most well-known name on the template. Colin MacLaurin17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Branch Davidians have/had no affiliation with the Seventh-day Adventist church. Their claims are silly; perhaps -former- members, though nobody brings up the sects started by former baptists or former Catholics. I move to remove the Davidians from the template altogether, as it is a cult/sect that does not adhere to the ideals of the Advent movement.--24.107.9.33 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point all the groups listed are not Seventh-day Adventists - having left the church and having adopted their own statement of beliefs. A great many groups left the Catholic Church and I don't think it conveys the right idea to list them all on the Catholic wiki page as if they are all still Catholic.BobRyan777 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
T. M. Preble
I'm not an expert in Seventh-day Adventist history, but is T. M. Preble really one of the top five most notable Adventists? I am content with Smith, White, White and Bates; but am not convinced about Preble. Colin MacLaurin05:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ellen White is the most notable, followed by Joseph Bates and James White to form a trio (as George Knight says, for example), and perhaps Uriah Smith would be 4th. But 5th, I am not sure about. Colin MacLaurin07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The five listed are all pioneers of the church. The template has a definite bias towards the early beginnings of the movement. Who are the major people over its recent history? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user has added Andreasen twice. Perhaps he is one of the most notable figures. Who would it be? Perhaps him, Froom, Heppenstall, and Ford? Input from a history expert would be good. The leading ex-Adventist critic would be Canright, I guess. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I thought the other was more appropriate? I'm curious as to why you think this one is more appropriate? Since the church came out of the millerite movement, would it not be more suited to use William Miller image? I personally would like to see another face for the project. This new image may create wrong impressions to the reader of the article(s) since EGW is the most single controversial person. What are your thoughts? --Maniwar (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maniwar, I changed the image because James and Ellen White are perhaps the two main founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (the other main founder being Joseph Bates). However many other groups descend from William Miller. He is not unique to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. There were perhaps more than 100,000 Millerites according to one article here. As I understand it, only a small percentage became Seventh-day Adventists. Colin MacLaurin23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Founder Shmounder. Most if not all other religious templates use a symbol for their template, not a person(s). Change it (with permission) to their logo. --24.107.9.33 (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must use a free image on templates, per policies/guidelines. The church logo is copyrighted. However if an artist wants to make their own symbol, we can discuss using it. Colin MacLaurin00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too find the use of the Whites objectionable. We need the church logo. Many articles about organizations and companies use their logos without any problems. Just look at Microsoft and Yahoo!. That's an application of fair use, and we can do it here as well. -- Fyslee / talk05:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those two articles have the church logo in an infobox, which appears on that single page only. This is a template. Copyrighted images (like the church logo) may not appear on templates. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is true. This use is covered by fair use. Whatever the case, if we want to make Adventism look like a cult, then keep using the image. Fine with me, since it is. If you want to make it look respectable and not like a sect, then find a respectable logo or something not connected to any persons. That would be fine with me too, since Adventism also has a few aspects that aren't cultish. -- Fyslee / talk06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was recently changed to an image of a church stained-glass window representing three angels. Certainly the "Three Angels' Messages" is a very significant self-identity of Adventists, however this is not clearly portrayed in the photo - in fact the number of angels is not even clearly three. Hence I consider the original photo of Ellen and James White better at this stage, and have reverted it. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History and Background
I recently added "evangelicalism" and "fundamentalism", as these movement have had a large impact on Seventh-day Adventism. Andrew c removed them, commenting "neither of these articles mention Adventism". Actually other articles in the section don't mention Adventism either. I understood this section to be about the movements which have been formative on Adventism, so I think they have a place. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing any article that doesn't mention Adventism. If evangelicalism and fundamentalism are so important to Adventism, then it should be mentioned in those article (or alternatively, if doing so would give undue weight to a minority view for those articles, then there should be a spinout article covering those topics in relation to Adventism). However, as it stands, if I am researching Adventism and use the navbox and happen to click on the evangelicalism link, I would have no idea what in the world evangelicalism has to do with Adventism from reading the Evangelicalism article. Navboxes are to help users in researching the topic, and these two specific articles simply do not deal with the topic the way they are currently written. I am also appalled to see you edit warring. It's ok to make bold edits. But if someone in good faith reverts them, it's best to get talk page consensus BEFORE re-inserting them. Editing warring is never productive. I am glad you came to talk, but it wouldn't have hurt to wait to see what others felt before reverting again.-Andrew c[talk]16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting one of your edits once, with a description on the talk page as to why is not edit warring by me, and saying it is is not assuming good faith. The idea of the section was to list earlier, not-necessarily-directly-related- movements which impacted Adventism. I didn't create the userbox, but if this is not policy, then I appreciate you letting us know. Certainly these movements are mentioned in Adventist articles (I've added statements on e'ism and f'ism numerous times). I think a sentence on Adventism would be warranted in the e'ism article, but it would only be a brief reference. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose of this template?
Exactly what is the purpose of this template? If it is to cover related to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, then it should not be placed on articles that are not about the Seventh-day Adventist Church or its leaders. If it is to cover the Adventist movement in general, then a better balance should be made between topics related to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and topics related to other Adventist demonstrations. In it's current state, the nav-box appears to for the former and not the latter. --Farix (Talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on the template's history, it appease to have started off as a navbox for general topics about the Adventist movement. However, a couple of conspicuous edits converted the topic to just the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But my general challange still stands. Ether change the template to focus less on Seventh-day Adventist Church and more on other Adventist denominations, or remove the template from all non-Seventh-day Adventist Church articles. --Farix (Talk) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. I have had first hand experience with people confusing the Advent Christian Church with the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the current use of the template only makes the confusion worse. And yes, I'm somewhat offended that WP:SDA tagged several non-SDA articles. But that is a different topic related to WP:SDA's undefined scope. --Farix (Talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to give a final, definitive answer to the question - I was merely drawing two related conversational threads together, for joint discussion. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for move/changes
Several months ago, I asked a question about the purpose of the template located at Template:Adventism. Although the template's name implied that it was about the general topic of Advantism, the contents of the template itself was entirely dedicated to just one branch of Advantism, the Seventh-day Adventist Church.1 However I never received an answer as to why the template was almost entirely focused on the Seventh-day Adventist Church, while still being applied to general Adventist topics that had no connection with the Seventh-day Advent Church. After mulling this over since then, I've decided to move the previous template to Template:Seventh-day Adventism, which more accurately describes the template, and create a more general, and more inclusive, Adventism template at Template:Adventism. Hopefully, I've updated all of the links from the articles relating to the Seventh-day Adventist Church to use this template instead of the one at Template:Adventism. --Farix (Talk) 18:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Rice
I have some question about Richard Rice being among the "notable people" in Seventh-day Adventism. Frankly I have no idea who he is, and a visit to the linked page didn't provide me with much more insight into how he has been a significant factor in the movement. Of course, that could simply be my ignorance, so could someone shed some more light on the reasoning behind his inclusion for me? Qinael (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rice is an Adventist theologian. He is one of the best known Adventist theologians to the wider Christian community, particularly known for developing open theism. He also has a popular textbook introducing Adventist Christian theology: Reign of God.
I do think that some of the names are quite subjective. I also consider it would be quite difficult to come up with a perfect list. Quite likely even the experts would disagree. Having said that, can you think of any Adventists, say theologians, more prominent than Rice? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some sort of reference for his being "one of the best known Adventist theologians?" It would be difficult for me to suggest someone "more prominent" since, as I mentioned, I have no idea who he is. - Qinaelλαλεω | δίδωμι22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know off the top of my head (just as for most people on the template). But I did recall reading once he is one of the best known Adventist theologians within the broader Christian community, especially through his "open theism". See also some comments in the Chartier article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seventh-day Adventist portal
If no one minds I would like to add the portal for Seventh-day Adventist at the bottom of the Seventh-day Adventism template such as in Calvinism template. The code would be added before 'navbar|Seventh-day Adventism' as follows:
I agree with Cedric, the new version has been edited by multiple editors and is much easier on the eyes. No reason to go back to the version before changes without discussion/consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraoihp (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is completely different from the stable version. Many links are omitted and new links added. This template is the main SDA template used on essential articles. These drastic changes must be discussed. And the slow edit warring must stop. – Lionel(talk)12:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK lets talk ab out change to the compact version.
From what I've seen the compact version is much better than the monstrosity that exists now. I vote that it gets changed to the new compact format. The links could be exactly the same as in the monstrosity, but some of those are entirely unnecessary. For instance the 'other Adventists' section needs to GO>>> This is about SDAs not 'other Adventists'. And there are several excellent links in the compact version that are missing in the monstrosity.
Also, fundamentalism and evangelicalism links need to go. SDA are neither fundamentalist nor evangelical. There are important names that need to be added to the people list such as Venden and Heppenstall and others. [User:Johnjonesjr|Johnjonesjr]] (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links are needed and this affects every page used for Adventism, so its not just a small change and needs discussion before any change and especially major ones.Simbagraphix (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which links? I'm all for eliminating these: Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, True and Free Seventh-day Adventists, Davidian SDA (Shepherd's Rod), Advent Christian Church, Church of God General Conference, Branch Davidian. Having them on the SDA template gives them far more exposure with SDAs than such insignificant movements with such few people deserve. They impact such a small minority of SDAs they don't deserve major treatment like this. There are many individual SDA churches that have more members that some of these 'movements'. There are over 16 million SDA. How how many members of these 'movements' are there? A several thousand all together?? If someone wants to list them on some WP page, fine, but on the SDA template.... No Way.... Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concise version provides links to the foundational concepts while also presenting it in a format that is easier to navigate. It also removes the links to other insignificant groups and adds links to more relevant pages. The current version also unnecessarily overwhelms shorter pages (does this not look ridiculous?). — Preceding comment added by Eraoihp (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don, most editors just dont seem to understand that the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, True and Free Seventh-day Adventists, Davidian SDA (Shepherd's Rod), Advent Christian Church, Church of God General Conference, Branch Davidian, etc.. are part of the history of the Adventist movement and some including the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement, Davidian SDA (Shepherd's Rod) and even with the issues they have still come to SDA churches whether to visit or connect with members or just worship on Sabbath with fellow believers when away from their home church. So to cut off that part is like cutting off all Historic or all Progressive Adventist or any Adventist who has issues with the GC or a doctrine or fundamental beliefs, and then what do you have left, a few members in the middle with no connection to other members or those with issues with the church. Its like saying the only Americans that exist are white/anglo-saxon/white collar workers, and the rest dont exist. This template needs some careful study and consideration to see what is needed and what improves or destroys, and not just cut and take out without any understanding of the movement or the history.Simbagraphix (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These groups are minor blips in the history of the SDA church. their numbers are very small, and W/AS/WC workers to boot. These deserve some mention somewhere, but certainly NOT the MAJOR recognition that listing on the template gives them. I believe that eventually, we will even look back at Progressive and Historic adventists in the same way. Johnjonesjr (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnjones, some are perhaps minor, others have more profound impact. If there is an Adventist connection and if there already exists a Wikipedia article on the group, it probably should be included in the template somehow. We should consider a template which has some expandable features such as "smaller groups" and a "+" capability to expand and show the names of those groups. If that is not possible, then we should examine the nature of the group, its impact on the other Adventists. At some point a line needs to be drawn between those who no longer use Adventist in their dialogue and those who do. For example, Jehovah's Witness and World Wide Church of God have their roots in the Millerite movement (Adventists) but do not acknowledge the Adventist name. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Active editors' voices important in resolving issues.
As we consider the Template:Seventh-day Adventism, we should seek the advice of editors who have a reputation for improving Adventist articles. If we slow down the template improvement process and seek advice, it should be possible to arrive at a consensus. The question seems to involve: 1) the length of the template and 2) what groups should be included on the template. Let's work toward a standard for both these areas, if possible. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it needs to be a process for improvement, not a drive by change from impulse. I think the Adventist editors need to be involve along with editors who have a reputation for improving Adventist articles, and they should all be sent a request to come and give input on this template which involves almost every article on Adventism and its history in Wikipedia...Simbagraphix (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so lets hear from somebody rather than just talk about hearing from somebody, already. The minorities are not worthy of the major advertising the template provides. lets get them off...... Johnjonesjr (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Don if you could notify those editors that can assist us and I will notify the ones I know who work on Adventist articles, and we shall look at each link or entry, and go over them with care, and see what we can do to improve the template.
Here is the current template,
Background and history
Christianity · Protestantism
Anabaptists · Restorationism
Pietism · Millerites
Great Disappointment
Fundamentalism · Evangelicalism
People
Ellen G. White
James White · Joseph Bates
J. N. Andrews · Uriah Smith
J. H. Kellogg · M. L. Andreasen
H. M. S. Richards · George Vandeman
F. D. Nichol · Le Roy Froom
Samuele Bacchiocchi
Theology
28 Fundamental Beliefs
Pillars of Seventh-day Adventism Sabbath · Second Advent
Baptism by Immersion
Conditional Immortality
Historicism · Premillennialism
Investigative judgment · Remnant
Three Angels' Messages
End times
We need to consider the criteria for mentioning an Adventist person or group. For example, the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement has an established track record for close to 100 years. Also the Advent Christian Church has it roots from the Millerite movement of the 1840s. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a group to be within the Seventh-day Adventist realm, its relationship to the writings of Ellen G. White should be considered. It is safe to say that all groups who consider her writings "inspired" can be considered within the Seventh-day Adventist group of organizations. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I am someone who has over time edited a lot of the SDA articles (and also created a number of them originally). I don't have a lot of time at the moment to get into this discussion, but my initial thoughts are: (1) a collapsible version of this template is a good idea to reduce clutter, however (2) I don't agree with proposed widespread alteration that removes many of the existing links. Tonicthebrown (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links that I believe are essential and should stay.
Backgroud/History: Protestantism, Methodism, Millerites, Great Disappointment
People: EGW, James White, Bates, Uriah Smith, Andrews
Theology: 28 fundamentals, Sabbath, 2nd advent, Conditional Immortality, Historicism, Premillennialism, IJ, Remnant, 3AM, End Times (eschatology)
Other Adventists: I honestly don't care much for this category, and if there is consensus, it can go.
Let's look at this another way. If the issue is that the template is too long, then (1) widen the template, and (2) instead of having 1 entry per line, put multiple entries on a line.
Regarding the appearance of the template on short articles such as Dime Tabernacle, use a horizontal navbox such as such as {{Conservatism US footer}}. The vertical counterpart is {{Conservatism US}}. And yes, these beautiful navboxes were created by your's truly. Lastly this is an important template. I recommend that you create a workpage where you all can work on the template collaboratively, and when you have consensus you can just move it into position. That will reduce disruption to the multitude of SDA article that use the template. Click here to create the workpage: template talk:Seventh-day Adventism/workpage. Hi Simba! Hi Donald!– Lionel(talk)19:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don, I know somewhat how the coding works in Wikipedia so I created the template in the workpage and did some of the changes that Tonic and I had discussed on reducing some of the links and saved it. Now the editors can check the adjusted template and make suggestiongs and with Lionels help, I think we can do the suggested changes and see if we come to a consensus.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simba, do we discuss here or on the work page. Is it possible to have the main topics on display and to hide others which become available when "others" is clicked? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don, take a look at the workpage now, I hid the Other Adventists and it reduces the footprint of the template nicely. If Lionel can check/clean up the collapsible coding I used, we can then move ahead on what links should be included on this discussion page and see what the consensus is.Simbagraphix (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope my reputation is well enough established to comment here (lol)... Template looks great! My only comment is about the "Divisions" section. Of the 3 or so links that I clicked one was a decent article and the rest were underdeveloped and boring. I don't know what the significance is to the church, but I would not be opposed to keeping General Conference and dumping the rest. – Lionel(talk)21:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy of the last entries in the previous sections:
the workpage now, I hid the Other Adventists and it reduces the footprint of the template nicely. If Lionel can check/clean up the collapsible coding I used, we can then move ahead on what links should be included on this discussion page and see what the consensus is.Simbagraphix (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I implemented that part in the live template so check it out, see how it works on the pages, and comment. Now we can proceed and go over the links in the workpage and see what should be taken out or if some feel its needed, new ones added.Simbagraphix (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of people implies that the only important people in the SDA church were those from the 1800s who started it. There are many others who have had significant impact on the SDA church over time who should be named there also. such as:
Cedric, we appreciate your input but it seems that most of the editors have felt it necessary to reduce the number of links, so that is the direction we are moving towards. I would like to include everyone and maybe even add more if it was up to me, but that doesnt seem to be the consensus at this time. If you can propose in the discussion a complete breakdown of the links as you would like to see them, we can go over them...Simbagraphix (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
when you use the collapsible format, the number of links is largely unimportant. And the silly notion to "center" all the links makes it look an absolute mess. CedricElijahHenry (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Adventists"
I agree with Cedric....'s change. There is no need to have a list of "other" adventists on the SDA template since they already appear on the Adventism template and are talked about on the Adventism page. I think he was more than generous to include a link to the Adventism page. Johnjonesjr (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes also as shown in the the workpage and so restored some links that I took out and added Wesleyan/Arminian and Literature section and moved up other adventist and some clean up, now we need time for the other editors to go over it and see if any changes, and then we can implement it. Good Job, Cedric...Simbagraphix (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An Overall Review of the Test Page
This section is intended to help develop a consensus on the Template as displayed on the workpage.
I restored the link for Background as that is important, and then the People as that is needed, and took out Raymond Cottrell from under it as that was never proposed or discussed as far as I can tell. Dont know how he was inserted under the people section. I put some links in the other headings and see if can find better links.Simbagraphix (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that didn't answer the question. However, I see that someone else has fixed the link in the meantime to point to a specific meaning of "Restorationism." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many WP articles of Adventists of lesser prominence. Is there a list page where all of these people's articles can be hyperlinked? If not, perhaps such a page can be designed and the page linked to the template? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the template to use sidebar which allows for a massive reduction in the code complexity, and a more uniform appearance when placed in articles with other sidebars. feel free to discuss any problems with the new format here. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is already in the major Adventist articles and is highly inappropriate and not needed in the Template. It appears to be a part of a smear campaign and should not be added in any form.Simbagraphix (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what was stated before..
The list of people implies that the only important people in the SDA church were those from the 1800s who started it. There are many others who have had significant impact on the SDA church over time who should be named there also. such as:
