Summary
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church footer template. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
 | Christianity: Catholicism Template‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Religion: Interfaith Template‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Suggested edit edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the image from this template--the template is already huge and the image makes it unwieldy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting that this navbox be converted to WP:HLIST. Changing to hlist does not affect the output, it just makes navboxes better for those who use screen readers. You can copy/paste the code below (which I've hatted because it is quite long). Thanks in advance, Jenks24 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Russian Catholic Church was recently renamed to Russian Greek Catholic Church. Please update this link in the template. --Chonak (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Chonak (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Political catholicism should be included in the template. Eiter as a section with detailed listing of relevant articles or at least a link to the one article.
Some relevant material is also in Religion and politics (now redirecting to Political science of religion, not quite appropriately!) MGTom (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved, no policy reason for such a move as template names do not conflict with article names Mike Cline (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request 06Aug12 edit
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a version in the sandbox that fixes several article links that have had name changes, fixes bodyclass, and narrows the 1st column. Please update the template, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The temple only includes a portion of our preceding Popes. There was a lo more as shown in the Catholic Encyclopedia online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm Please include all the Popes or none of them. It gives the wrong impression that the papacy is a new thing if you only include a few of them. Thank you. ThePepel-Eterni (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen to Doctors of the Church section. --Jayarathina (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
– Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request
- To edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen
- Do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. That is to remove the list of Doctors of the Church completely and embed it as:
|list6 = {{Churchdoctor|list only=true}}
so that it will be easier to add a Doctor of the Church when the list changes by modifying just Template:Churchdoctor. I have made similar change at Template:Catholic saints. I have edited Template:Catholicism/sandbox to show how the changes would be affecting the template. As per WP:EDITREQ#General considerations:
- To keep this Template up-to-date the edit (1 - Adding the names) is necessary.
- This edit is necessary to maintain the template in order to add new Doctors of the church easily (2 - Embedding the template).
- I don't think this edit is controversial in anyway.
Jayarathina (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}}template. Also, the "full code" was identical to Template:Catholicism/sandbox, to which there is a link in the{{editprotected}}box, so there's no need to include it here as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reopened I have tried to establish a consensus below. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 | Please vote below on this proposition using  Agree ,  Disagree,  Comment: etc., Thanks --Jayarathina (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . I don't know whether my own vote counts.  --Jayarathina (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen, newly declared Doctors, are to be inserted. --பவுல்-Paul (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . I completely agree - John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen need to be inserted. Eire102 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . The two saints were made doctors back in October. Also like the idea of embedding. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . Sounds good to me! Elizium23 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . They need to be inserted. but an opinion of a priest or nun has to be taken.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC))Reply
Agree . I don't have a problem with this, and don't see why it would be controversial. InfernoXV (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Agree . Obvious, unless we have some new criteria, a doctor of the Church is a doctor of the Church when declared to be so by the Pope. However, I am not sure about embedding. Would it cause the Doctors of the Church template to need to be locked so as not to affect the Catholicism template? If so, don't embed. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that; so Just some minor link fixes (which ARE allowed as templates are exempt):
TJ Spyke 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Pope Benedict 16th is needed for preceding popes.
SHZ (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Byzantine-rite Church of Croatia should be Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro instead of just Eparchy of Križevci. Thank you. --123.16.254.245 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Croatian Greek Catholic Church should be like in Template:Eastern Catholicism--113.190.138.181 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Compare to see the difference between this template and Template:Eastern Catholicism about the Croatian Church/rite. The in-link Eparchy of Križevci need to be changed to Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. Sorry for my bad English, can somebody edit it? 113.190.218.183 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Done Greenknight dv (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The background color of navboxes for the Catholic Church were recently changed from yellow to gold. I recommend that we change this navbox background color to gold as well. Bede735 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This template looks as if drafted solely by Catholics, and therefore biased. There should be entries for Catholic scandals and controversies now, such as the Catholic sex abuse cases, costing the church $2.6 bn in the US alone before 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigailgem (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
please change the 'portal-inline' to 'portal-inline|size=tiny' to reduce the height of the icons prefixing the portal links. thank you.
Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add the following text: {{Icon|Book}} '''[[Book:Roman Catholicism|Roman Catholicism book]]''' next to the portal links. Thanks.
Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
As this is an infobox specific to Catholicism I think that instead of the infobox linking to the salvation article it should link to the Catholicism section of the Salvation (Christianity) article. 86.41.66.210 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sounds reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of the groups in 11 are boldfaced, contrary to WP:MOS. Please remove these. They are distracting and raise more questions than they answer, even if they weren't emboldened contrary to the manual of style. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
While we're in there, can we separate "Particular Churches" from "Liturgical rites" which are two separate concepts? And why don't I see "Roman Rite" or "Dominican Rite"? Oh, now I'm seeing why some are boldfaced. It is distinguishing the Liturgical Rites from the Particular Churches. "Latin Church" is a particular Church, though, not a Rite. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Shouldn't Vatican City be listed somewhere on the template? The section including 'Institutions' may be a good place for that. Or even an 'Above' listing. Seems to be a major omission. Personally I would also add a subsection to a 'Vatican City' listing: 'Index of Vatican City-related articles' as 'index'. So I'll suggest that as well. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:44 18 January, 2015 (UTC)
Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, When looking at this section, Particular Churches and Liturgical rites after a few mouse hovers it becomes clear that the rites are in bold and churches not bold. It would be helpful to readers, first of all, to be in alpha sequence, and sub-sections. Since all of the above sections of the template do not have any sub-sections, it's probably better to just divide churches and rites into their own section. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, For this template: any need to keep or remove the Preceding popes section? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
* Discuss
I say keep it, but rename it to "Recent Popes". If making the template smaller is a consideration, possibly combine "Preceding Popes" with "Pope Francis", into a "Recent Popes" section, where Francis is listed with a note that he's the current pope - so, for example:
I think it's worthwhile to keep some history of the papacy in the template, to indicate the continuity and history of the Church. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
The template group header "Pope Francis" could be changed to "Incumbent pope" with {{Incumbent pope}} template as the first group item. It would convey more information, i.e. explicit about who is the incumbent, be more consistent with the "Preceding popes" (or re-named "Recent popes" or "Past popes") group header. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I say keep it. Leo XIII is often considered to be the first the pope of the modern era (for example, he's the oldest pope listed on the main section of the Vatican website, if I recall correctly), and there is a strong continuity of thought among all the popes from Leo XIII onward. The phrase itself, however, is a bit awkward. Maybe something different than "preceding popes"? Too much alliteration there. 8bitW (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, FYI the Charity section is updated with 'Aid to the Church in Need' and 'Catholic Relief Services' both of which I am familiar with. There may be other Catholic church charitable organizations (not local) within the global scope that might be added in the future. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The current background colour gold is garish (on my screen anyway), resulting in a navbox that overwhelms it less-flashy neighbours. How about something less hard on the eyes, something like #ffee66 ? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should consider a revision to the "rites" section. In this context, "rites" would normally refer to the historical liturgical tradition of a particular church. In that sense, "Anglican Use" and "Ordinate Use" don't fit, since they are particular uses or expressions of the Roman Rite. (Additionally, according to the articles, the Anglican Use has been retired and superseded by the Ordinate Use.) Secondly, there are also several historic rites listed which descended from the traditions of the Latin Church, but developed somewhat separately from the Roman Rite (the Ambrosian, Sarum, and Mozarabic rites). These rites are now only used in very limited geographic areas and are not permitted to be used by the Church at large.
I think it's a bit misleading and unnecessarily confusing to newcomers to list these rites as if they were on equal footing with the main rites of the Catholic Church, which can in fact be celebrated without prejudice in any geographic location. I would suggest removing these rites from the infobox so people aren't confused into thinking they are celebrated at large throughout the Church.
Additionally I would like to check if there is a "Rites of the Latin Church" category or something like that to organize the various rites of the Latin Church, including the historical ones.
Thanks for your consideration, 8bitW (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This template is currently rather large. Perhaps the list of Doctors of the Church, having its own template, should be lifted from this template? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by a page mover) QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:Catholicism → Template:Catholic Church – More specific according to its contents. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC) The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC) A discussion has been opened here at the Catholicism project about adding a section named Josephology to the template below Mariology. Please discuss it there. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking it would be suitable to harmonise the contents of the history section of this template with the history contents of Template:Catholic Church sidebar, and Template:History of the Catholic Church.
Here below is an idea:
Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, Today I re-grouped similar elements on the template's "below" line. Wonder if "Templates" and "WikiProject" can be removed? IMO not needed for Wikipedia readers. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The word concilium in Sacrosanctum concilium should be lowercase as title case is not used in Latin and concilium is not a proper noun. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done Nihlus 03:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This template is too long, this template would not look better if looks like the Template:Eastern Orthodox Church footer? (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)).
The Mass of Paul VI is not named "Novus Ordo" except by its detractors. It is not neutral to display that term uncritically here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Kindly introduce changes that will take into account the distinction that is found here in this other template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Catholic_laity
Please notice that association of the faithful is just one canonical structure under the catholic laity.Marax (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
OK. I have never done this and want you to do it. I wanted to ad to the "charities section" One of the most well known Catholic charities is missing. Its literally called Catholic Charities and it is in every city. Please list it. Also, somewhere you should list the two Nationwide Catholic support groups for homosexually oriented Catholics: One is called Courage. It is sanctioned by the Catholic church and supports Catholics in living celibate lives in line with Catholic teaching. The other is called Dignity, and it is not sanctioned by the church and it is for Catholics who want to meet other Catholics who are gay and believe that God does not condemn them for living fully as fully sexual beings in same sex relationships. Both organizations can be found by simple google searches. Thank you 2600:1700:11E1:3090:5079:D090:A0CD:9E9F (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not quite good enough at wikitext to see why this footer has vte with a line break in between them? Usually they don't right? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC) |
