Template talk:Roman Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.
 

Template[edit]

This is a template, available for placing on relevant pages. Use the code {{Catholic Church}} It should display on the right. Xandar (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Work needed[edit]

This is a good start - I've done a bit of rejigging, removing duplicate links and moving things into more appropriate categories. An awful lot of what's linked to here is still general Christian material rather than specific Catholic Church material; this all needs looking at to see whether it is relevant enough to the Catholic Church specifically to be in this infobox, and if so whether there are articles and sections relating specifically to the Catholic Church's approach to the topic which can be linked to, rather than current links which are often to a general article relating to the topic in Christianity in general, or in some cases (e.g. Salvation, Saint) across all religions. TSP (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should be entering this on the WikiProject Catholic discussion rather than here in view of the above admisssion. I was surprised that "Contemporary Catholic music" was skipped, but on the other hand, there just is no article on regular Catholic music, so what are you going to do? (I was looking for an article that contained info on the RC music revolution, in the US, anyway, that followed the 1990s publication of "Why Catholics Can't Sing." There is none. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a "History" section to the template?[edit]

At a minimum, the following articles should be in the template: History of the Roman Catholic Church and History of the Papacy. --Richard (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we include Papal Primacy, Papal supremacy and Papal Infallibility?[edit]

Seems logical to me that these articles also belong in the template. --Richard (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Size[edit]

There were several formating errors that I have corrected in the template as it was before. Please do not revert without discussion. Here are some comments concerning the consensus debate for size that took place elsewhere:

"...In my opinion the template is too wide. It really intrudes into the article, in fact dominates it...At this point it is wider than many other templates. These boxes are not supposed to dominate the article, but are simply a placeholder of a list of links to aid the reader. Please reduce its size." --RelHistBuff

After some further debate, the smaller size was agreed upon. Xandar, what are you refering to when you say the picture is now "too small" - compared to what? Which template are you refering to? This is much closer to standard: on the general Christianity box the image is a mere 100px. -- Secisek (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC) -- Secisek (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Christianity box is however an extreme of thinness, ugliness and user unfriendliness. The size of the Catholicism template is comparable to many in Wikipedia. Most article-top Infoboxes are actually wider than this, so where the idea comes from that this is "dominating" surprises me. In addition, the thinner the box, the less information can be included easily and accessibly. The present width is okay for me, but I do not see the purpose of the 11 point type face rather than the former 12pt. The 11 point is very hard to read, particularly on screen resolutions over 800. The emphasis should be on clarity, and ease of use for readers, not all of whom have perfect eyesight. therefore we should return to to 12pt text. Xandar 11:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite some examples where consensus has backed the 12 pt? Or the larger width? I saw this box was based off the Anglicanism box that I helped designed. I liked what you did here. The Anglican Communion box in turn adopted a number of the features of this templates, only to have a number of editors promptly complain that the width and 12pt size made for a template that - in the words of one editor - "takes up half the screen of every article (and) is badly formatted." There were some content concerns, as well - which was what I was really intrested in debating. I conceded the format changes in the interest of getting people talking about the content. As soon as I conceded to the format changes, all objections to the content seemed to be dropped. Wikipedia can be a strange place.

I agreed with consesnus and came back here to improve the template per our discussion over there. Thoughts?

I'm not sure who created this "consensus" or when. But we don't seem to have been involved on the Catholicism pages. In any event, I think the wider box format is more common on Wikipedia and doesn't seem to create the problems raised. Examples of the wider format can be seen at Presentation of Jesus at the Temple, or France, or World War II or Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire or Catholic Ecumenical Councils.
Personally I dislike the skinny boxes, especially at the top of articles, and as I said above, I think they contain less information, necessitate smaller print, and are harder to read. I use several computers, and while on those set at 800px resolution, 11pt print is okay. At the more modern, higher resolutions it becomes practically unreadable, and I'm not particularly short-sighted. I don't see a great reason for uniformity across Christianity articles. Xandar 14:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that there has been no consensus on size here because this navbox (which duplicates another) is almost entirely the work of you and two other editors - hardly enough for a consensus as such. That was why I brought the changes here, to see if there was consensus for them here as there has been elsewhere. So far you are the only real opposition, with one editor saying he would like to see the box smaller still.

All I know is I copied this box's format and it touched of more complaints than almost anything else I have ever done here at Wikipedia. I gave into consensus and I have further proposed that the Navbox footer should go on pages in the series that already have info boxes in the lead, the vertical nav box could go on series articles that have no infobox, and the portal link should go on related articles that are not in the series as such. Would you support such a policy?

See below for a more pressing issue. Which links do want to bring over from the old nav box? Do people want to merge from the old to the new...or from the new to the old? I like the new box on the whole - enough that I think something like it should be the standard for all Christian nav boxs.

The size issue will solve itself as more people weigh in on it. - How could you comment on the size, but not the more pressing merger? -- Secisek (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

These are issues that don't ring alarm bells until a radical change occurs - then everybody shouts. The present template is IMO a good combination of picture, information and links, which is a lot better than the scrappy-looking infobox or photo plus narrow template stuck on beneath it, as seen on some other articles. On merger of templates - see below. Xandar 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

While looking over the Category:"Part of a series on" templates, it has come to my attention that there was already a {{Roman Catholicism}}. These two templates need to be merged as they are intended to serve as the primary Nav Box for the series. How should we procede? -- Secisek (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the existence of the apparently-older {{Roman Catholicism}} template. Perhaps that is because it isn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism, and tends to have been stuck away near the bottom of most of the few articles it has been used in, such as Vatican City and Pope Benedict XVI. In these positions it is "neither use nor ornament." As such, I think it should be merged into the present template. Regarding the usage of templates, the collapsible Template:Catholicism can be used at the bottom of any article including those with an existing navbox, however. I agree this is best used on maiinstrean Catholic articles without a separate navbox. However in some circumstances, e.g. joint interest articles like Eastern Catholicism, this, Template:Catholic Church, should be present even if it is not at the article head.
The narrow template actually links to a range of topics not in this one, and vice-versa. Pope is on both> if we need a subsidiary on this topic, we should keep "Papal primacy" but not "Primacy of Saint Peter". "Scripture" and "Apocrypha" don't need to be carried over, as they're covered in "Biblical canon". Nor are "Encyclical" and "Papal bulls" really needed as essential links here. "Mass" is better covered by the "Eucharist in the Catholic Church" article linked here. As for the rest of the "Practices and Beliefs" section ..."Monasticism" and "Saints" are already linked. I don't think we need links to "Ascetiscism," "Ritualism" or "Veneration". "Penance" and "Transubstantiation" could also be left out as either too general or too technical. I think we should add "purgatory" and leave out "Prayer for the Dead", which covers the same territory in a less Catholic-specific manner. I don't think the "controversy" and "Important figures" sections need to be in the template at all. I'm not sure about the "History" section. It lionks to a hodge-podge of articles of varying quality and relevance. We already have a link to "History of the Catholic Church", that should do. As for the "Mary" section. We have one link to the range of Mary articles reworked by Ambrosius. Perhaps we could add Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of Mary to this template from the list.
From this template we should lose History of Theology and "Apologetics" (too general), "Preaching", which links to {{Sermon]], (too general), "Symbolism" (not central enough), and the second link to "Liturgy" (which links to Christian Liturgy rather than the Catholic-specific article.) Xandar 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all you points and carried out the merger, except I did not add the addition Marian links. -- Secisek (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Now the template is much more Rome-centric in its world-view, with a distinct lack of controversy. The Pope should be pleased.Brian0324 (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brian0324, I hope you have been well. Criticism is on there. The content was discussed. What specifics would you like added or removed? It IS Rome-centric, but it IS a Nav-box for the Roman Catholic Church.

The template is over-used at present. -- Secisek (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The way that this template has changed has only minimized the controversial elements and highlighted the universal claims of the church of Rome. Hardly the broad scope of perspective that it once had from an outside perspective.Brian0324 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the Template is not a place to debate the religious issues, etc. and as is, there is a criticism link anyway. The purpose here is to have links that relate to Roman Catholicism not debate it. I think the template works pretty well as is now, if it uses the 12 point font as on this page. And given that it says Roman Catholic at the top, it should probably refer to Roman Catholic issues. If you are unhappy about Roman Catholicism in general, you should not modify the template about it, but perhaps you should write a blog... History2007 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The current template doesn't refer to the issues regarding the Roman church either in history or in current events or theology to differentiate it from other Christian churches the way that it once did. If anyone thinks that there might have been a reformation or a counter-reformation or some issues around Papal supremacy - then you won't be linking to those things from here. It's just very safe and quite honestly diluted right now. Thoughts?Brian0324 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there are so many subtopics (we can come up with 500) that they can never all be included. But that is obviously beside the point here. The real debate (and I am not going to debate it) would have been about "using tone to send a message". I think what you call diluted is what I call moderate and what you may have called non-diluted I would have called politically charged. One thing I am sure of: we could debate this for the reign of 3 more popes and never agree. I think it is a "moderate=diluted" template because a template is not intended to send a message of dissent via tone. The criticism link already addresses all the points anyway. So I think it should be left as is. History2007 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Papal supremacy isn't even mentioned. I AM an outsider, Brian0324, you should know that, not that it should matter. What would you like here? Reformation and Counterreformation? We can add them? What else? -- Secisek (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and Papal supremacy is a Rome centric topic, so it will make it more diluted/moderate. And if that gets added, how about Papal infallibility? Then how about 200 other topics? If you keep going that way you will get "The Wallmart of Templates" where the template includes everything, but will require a serious diet before it can be used on various pages, due to its obesity. Reformation is certainly part of history and does not make sense to be a button on the template by itself. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would feel better about adding Reformation and Counter-Reformation if we had East-West Schism on here. This should really before the Top level articles from the project. Brian0324, I am uncertain I see how the template has shifted in tone or flavor. Can you offer some suggestions? -- Secisek (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Post merger[edit]

Part of a series on the
Roman Catholic Church
StPetersBasilicaEarlyMorning.jpg
Organisation

Pope - Pope Benedict XVI
College of Cardinals
Ecumenical Councils
Episcopal polity  • Latin Rite
Eastern Catholic Churches

Background

History  • Christianity
Catholicism  • Apostolic Succession
Four Marks of the Church
Crucifixion & Resurrection of Jesus
Ascension  • Assumption of Mary
Criticism of Roman Catholicism

Theology

Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
Theology  • Apologetics
Divine Grace  • Sacraments
Purgatory  • Salvation
Original sin  • Saints  • Dogma
Virgin Mary  • Mariology
Immaculate Conception of Mary

Liturgy and Worship

Roman Catholic Liturgy
Eucharist • Liturgy of the Hours
Liturgical Year  • Biblical Canon
Rites
Roman  • Armenian  • Alexandrian
Byzantine  • Antiochian  • East Syrian

Catholicism Topics

Ecumenism  • Monasticism
Prayer  • Music  • Art

046CupolaSPietro.jpg Catholicism Portal

First serious point: Why not add the Marian links? The Virgin Mary is an essential part of Roman Catholic thought. The Marian links absolutely need to be there. There is a whole series of articles on Mariology that need to be there. Xandar was trying to say it ever so gently, so let me say it emphatically: It does NOT make sense to have a Roman catholic template without Marian topics. Second point: Does using this template require a visit to the optometrist? The font is so small, it is just too hard to read. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The main link to Mary is still on there and there is a seperate Nav box for mariology already: {{Roman Catholic Mariology}}. Do you want to have the same set of links reproduced here? -- Secisek (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. But I think that the two I suggested are quite important and often controversial issues. Three Marian links is not too much, I think. Xandar 23:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add them. -- Secisek (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised that the Mary link leads to Mariology. I think the link should go to what it says (the what you say is where you go concept), namely: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and adding the one link Mariology itself will then clarify the issue. As is the template has huge amounts of unused real estate and the word mariology can easily fit therein. Those in the semi-conductor industry spend their entire life doing the oppoiste of this type of design. They try to fit the most in a small amount of space. Here there si so much blank space and so many small words.... Just looks inefficient. History2007 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Xandar? Those are elements of your design. Thoughts? -- Secisek (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is a suggestion. The logic is as follows: If we were to make a list in terms of importance of figures/people in Roman Catholic thought, undoubtedly the trinity would come first and the order is usually given as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then who comes next? It is probably not Saint Augustine. I think it is the Virgin Mary next. So we should have the one word Mary next after the Trinity, and it should lead to the Virgin Mary page. And there is space for it. Now in the Theology section: the link to Mariology is absolutely well placed, because Mariology is the area of theology that deals with Mary. So we should have Mary as one word, just after the Trinity and change the label Mary to Mariology further below. Then we will have a logical design. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting complicated. The Trinity is in the Theology section. Placing Mary Directly under the Trinity would tend to give a false impression in my opinion. (A number of people, including many Muslims think that Catholics believe Mary a part of the Trinity.) I would like to see the Mary links together, and Theology is the best heading for them, (rather than Background) but perhaps not directly after the Trinity. I agree "Mary" should link to BVM (Roman Catholic), then a link to "Mariology", then either "Assumption" or "Immaculate Conception." The IC is more important, I think. Xandar 00:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Xandar, I think you are absolutely right that placement of Mary next to the Trinity would confuse some people. And since you agree that there is need for both a Mary link that links to Mary and a Mariology link that links to Mariology, then it will be best that you place both those links in the least confusing manner yourslef. If we debate it anymore, we may get into a heated agreement so let us just leave it in your hands to add both links as appropriate. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking about bold let me again point out that the ratio of the bold font at the top of the template to the fine print that forms the body of the template is really large and ophthalmologically speaking creates brief periods of asthenopia as the inner eye muscles try to focus on dramatically different fonts. But let us wait for the Mariology link to be added, then worry about a new article perhaps titled: "Computer vision syndrome in Roman Catholicism". Cheers History2007 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've rearranged it. And yes, I still think 12pt is better as a font size here. Xandar 12:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The link sequence and content look good to me. As a minor issue I would have guessed that just saying Mariology would have been enough because the context implies that it is Roman Catholic. And that would have bought you some space for another link. You could have even said Mary. But these are minor issues now. Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Every one who complained about the 12pt was encouraged to come here and comment. Nobody has posted a word. If you want to try the 12pt font, I will not object. --Secisek (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the 12point demo-model to this page. It is effectively the same size real-estate as the other one, but more readable. I also made a narrower template, so we could all see what that looks like. While still not as slick as the Cigarette boat design of teh much older tmplate, this takes less space on pages where it will show. Please provide comments on which of teh 3 choices is best. I prefer the narrower template with 12 point fonts. Unless there are objections, I think we should make that the actual template in a day or two. Cheers History2007 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Secisek, I think the new template you added based on the narrower demo-model I had posted here now looks right on the 3 browsers that I tried it on: IE-explorer, Netscape (yes, yes, I still have that) and Firefox. I think those are the 3 major browsers in use (I do not have Opera installed, but its market share seems to be small), and I tried a couple of different text display sizes and they looked ok. IE-explorer still seems to like to take too much horizontal space, but by and large it should work. But now that you have added additional lines, you may even be able to make it even narrower. Please compare the spacing to the demo-model on this page and you will see the difference. Your version is actually more readable than my demo-model, but takes up a little more space. But no big deal really. However, I had deliberately removed the noinclude from the demo-model, and when you pasted it, it is no longer on the page. Did you intend to avoid it? If not, please add it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed that the word Rite repeats 6 times at the end of the template. It should really be factored out and that will probably buy you some more space. History2007 (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not keen on the narrow version, which isn't substantial enough for the top of articles, and makes the picture too small. I noticed in Pope Benedict XVI where it is in second position, the two templates were identical in width two days ago, now the difference is very marked. Xandar 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think should be the standard size for a picture in a navbox? Again, what do you mean "too small". I like the new size and adopted it for a number of other templates already. -- Secisek (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do see Xander's problem with Pope Benedict XVI where a much wider template would have been much more visually pleasing. The main issue is an attempt at one size fits all design: usually a design failure. Most designs are about tradeoffs. The narrower template is more efficient when it is displayed on pages where real-estate is a problem. There were previous complaints about template size before, even on this page. But sometimes one wants a really large template. When Ambrosius and I built the Mariology templates the only way we found was to have two templates, one much larger than the other. So my feeling is that with minimal effort a much wider/larger template (with even more buttons) can be derived from this one for use on major pages, and this will be standard template. The other one can be called Roman Catholic Large or something to that effect. Tha will also solve the problem with more buttons. As they say: don't use elephant gun to shoot mosquitos so the wider template will be too much for many smaller Wikipages. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That would mean two templates again though. There's no real problem with that if they're comptible in content and design. Anyway, its just my preference. Lets ee what others think. Xandar
If you look at the Roman Catholic Mariology and Roman Catholic Mariology (long format) templates you will see that it worked well there. The long template is just too large to use in most articles, so the standard one is used. There is even a very small template that does not overwhelm the smaller articles such as Marian prayers, whose size is less than the large template itself. And I keep the two templates consistent, and have not had any problem is doing so. I think your point about the need for a large and impressive one is valid, and we should have a larger one as well. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the real question is content. What should be on here that isn't? I think we need about 50-100 Top priority articles from the wikiproject - which is about what we have. I am quite satisfied with it as it is at present. We also have the footer already for use on articles where this template is to big or small. Again, lets see what others think before we bang off a series of templates. -- Secisek (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, the content can be identical and the larger template is just for visual effect, as Xander wanted it. In time, say 2-3 months if/when there are other suggestions the larger template can grow, while the standard remains almost the same. I see no urgent need for new items on the standard template. If you make a document too long, people will find it harder to read. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be very easy to do. Have one identical, but the old width, and call it Template:Roman Catholicism2 Both could be on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism page. Xandar 01:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course. History2007 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of these vertical boxes altogether. I usually remove the Anglican one where it cramps the text or pictures. People tend to add them with no consideration of the size of a section or the position of images, disrupting the look of a page. Also, generally many of the articles listed in the box have no relevance to the article itself, though this may apply only to the Anglican template. On the other hand, I am easy with horizontal templates at the bottom of articles, where they act like the after-matter in books. qp10qp (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There is always, of course, one way to remove all problems from a template with a single stroke: delete it! But that aside, I think the vertical/horizontal issue happens to be a matter of personal taste for I happen to find teh horizontal ones hard to see and manage. And I have, in many cases learned several things from various vertical templates. It may also have to do with the way each of sets browser side-bars and teh screen size, fonts, etc. History2007 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The vertical boxes are better in most circumstances since they are most easily seen and used. The ones at the bottom of articles, collapsible or not, are only used by people who already know they are there and will scroll down to reach (and then expand them). In other words I consider the bottom boxes pretty unfit for purpose 95% of the time, since the purpose is to provide unfamiliar users with a quick and accessible range of links. Problems with vertical boxes can be solved with good placement. That is one reason why I like to use such boxes at or near the the top of articles, where there is more room for them or they can act as infoboxes as well. Xandar 10:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment too. History2007 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good... but.....[edit]

This template looks good now. Then I clicked on a few of the links. Ouch!!! Some of the links are hardly about Roman Catholicism. E.g. Salvation talks about at least 7 different religions and groups! These include not only protestants, but Judaism, Islam and eastern religions. What is that link doing in the Catholicism template? I think it is there because there is no article on Roman Catholic teachings on Salvation. Should it remain there? I think not.

Then as I clicked on various links and saw that many of them have tags that complain about one thing or another. E.g. lack of references, lack of neutrality etc. etc. The Marian items such as Assumption, Immaculate conception, Mariology, etc. seem in reasonable order, but the rest is not.

My conclusion: the representation of many Roman Catholic items in Wikipedia is really sub-standard. There is a great entrance to Roman Catholicism now, but many of the rest of the articles need real help. Is there a group that can focus on improving this?

I typed this comment here because it is the entrance. If you know where it should be posted again, please re-post it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor style tweaks[edit]

History2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems keen on the use of the undo button, while not so keen on the use of edit summaries. This is just a note to say that the style / code tweaks here and here have no semantic impact, so unless there's some layout-specific reason for undoing them then I'll be adding them back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this template is a MAJOR template that is used a lot of places. Xander, as the unofficial mayor of the Catholicism page, had worked on it with Secisek to make it work. I also made comments and changes. Any new change to this page may make many other pages change format. Please wait 2 or 3 days for responses from others before making any changes. Please post your "proposed" template here for a review. And please explain what is to be gained from your proposed changes. The first item I reverted was quite out of style. Please discuss first before making sudden changes to major templates. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure what you're doing, Chris/Thumperward, but it's making a horrible mess on my browser. As History says, this template is used on a LOT of pages, so any changes made -particularly if they are botched well mess up a lot of articles. Also the current template and the layout was agreed between interested editors a few months ago. Could you perhaps explain what you're trying to do, and why, on this page before acting? Significant changes should be by consensus. Xandar 21:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, those changes ChrisThumperward made would look really off on many browsers. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The changes in question are solely for the purpose of interoperability and code cleanup: the removal of manual line breaks where they don't belong, a slight change to the default width, and an alteration of the font size so that it is the same on both IE and Firefox. The changes in question bring the template in line with the baseline sidebar styles given in {{infobox}} and across a great deal of navigational sidebars. They ensure that when templates are stacked on pages (as occurs very often) that the styling of said templates is not incongruous. I have yet to see any constructive opposition to said changes, as neither inertia nor appeals to authority are valid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you say interoperability ? Did you say that? Wow.... Your changes are totally disasterous with regard to that concept. That is why they are terrible. So I see no gain from your changes at all. They are a mess, as Xandar also said. History2007 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain, preferably with examples, why adjusting the width to match that of the majority of the encyclopedia's infobox and sidebar templates is "disasterous"? Again, "they are a mess" is no more constructive an argument than "I don't like it", which is no argument at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
So you expect me to spend significant amounts of time tutoring you on style? No way. This is not a remedial class for starting programmers. You have two users against you, and no consensus to change a major template. How do you spell "lack o consensus"?. History2007 (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the last personal attack you'll be making on this thread, and preferably anywhere else on the encyclopedia. Insulting my technical skills is completely unproductive.
I've now put up a test cases page demonstrating the difference between the two layouts. As you can see, the width change is in the order of a few pixels; the primary change is that the template is significantly more compact and does not contain line breaks inserted seemingly at random. Again, unless there are constructive reasons not to deploy this then it will be deployed - nobody owns this template, and consensus is not achieved by counting heads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
NEWSFLASH: Consensus involves counting heads. History2007 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that your only argument against the new layout, other than it being "disasterous", is that it wasn't agreed upon beforehand? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not. By the way there is template Roman Catholicism2 as well. You must realize that these templates were not just put together by chance, but were the result of a great deal of careful thinking and design. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In my experience it is just as likely that a style was chosen arbitrarily and left as it was out of apathy as deliberately made that way. (there's a humourous analogy here to evolution versus intelligent design, I suppose.) What are your other objections to the proposed styling, then? As for {{Roman Catholicism2}}, I can see absolutely no reason to maintain two different templates which differ only by font metrics; the two should be merged before they deviate too much. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Does the history of discussion and style changes to this template look arbitrary? Do I sound apathetic to you? Do you detect apathy in my tone? Buddy, both of these templates were designed carefully. As for apathy, I can wear out the keyboards of the opposition before the matter is settled. FYI these two separate templates were designed to be used in different pages based on major or minor dominance. I was not the only designer, most of the work was done by others - and it fits well in the pages where they are used. And yes, there are a few people watching this page right now, waiting for me to do the front line work before they come in for further discussion... It usually works that way... Any way, there is no point in the merge when separation was done as a design choice in the first place. Period. History2007 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If others have something to say then I'm all ears. I'm still waiting to hear of an actual constructive reason for preferring the current version to the proposed one as shown on the test cases page. The template would "fit well" even better if it used the same font metrics as the majority of the rest of the encyclopedia's infobox templates - just looking at Roman Catholicism, I could point at the successful transition of {{infobox Pope}} and {{infobox saint}} to use said metrics without any substantial opposition. As for the styling, yes - it looks arbitrary, and after asking you repeatedly you've been unable to provide a rationale for why the metrics in question were chosen over the proposed ones. I'd be very happy to have that argument, either with you or anyone else alleged to be watching this page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Metrics and style[edit]

Ok, here is the start of a brief tutorial on metrics and style, since you keep referring to the "metric". The saint and pope templates are much smaller and different. Anyway, first please look up metric and metric space and read those pages very carefully. The basic idea is that these impose a distance relationship between elements. The existence of a metric structure is "essential" for good design and presentation, while topological structure comes way behind. Some topological spaces may not even have a metric. Indeed part of HTML as a display language is only partially metric based, and relies on the topology of juxtaposition. Hence various HTML elements extend it with metric capabilities.

To understand the importance of metric structure in display and presentation, think of a Picasso painting that contains various lines that connect points. Imagine that the line connectivity remains the same but the position of the lines gradually changes. The topology remains the same, but the metric distances change. Obviously, the painting will lose quality as this happens. Lesson: "metric structure is essential to good display".

The changes you proposed, effectively destroy some metric structure, while preserving topological connectivity. Hence the display becomes inherently inferior on most systems. The word "mess" that Xander used to refer to the changes you proposed is usually utilized to refer to this type of loss of metric structure.

On simpler templates this loss of structure is less noticeable, but on a large and key template like this one, it is a disaster. Because this is a key template, it is important that it projects a well balanced image to the reader. Hence the metric structure is essential.

You wanted specific reasons, you got them. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So to summarise, your sole specific reason is that you are aesthetically disposed towards the current width and font size. Noted. If this is Xander's sole complaint as well, then an RfC should quickly settle the matter, as consistency and code simplicity is a far better reason to go with the sandbox version. I'll get an RfC going when I can. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is more serious than that. It is not just "the look" but the functionality. As a start, two separate points:

  • It is not just the template itself, but the rest of the text that becomes hard to manage when templates are "unnecessarily wide". On a page such as Beatification and Canonisation of Pope John Paul II the width issue is obvious. Anything wider would not just look terrible, but would make the text hard to read.
  • As is the entries are well separated as conceptual tokens and are easy to and observe and comprehend. The loss of metric structure makes them harder to read and follow. This is a large template and needs to be easy to read. If it looks disorganized, less people will click through the items, hence gaining less information. The goal of Wikipedia is to help educate people, and good presentation is crucial to successful education.

And "code simplicity"? There is no code here, just some display directives. Trying to make something that looks bad and has inferior functionality because it is "simpler inside" is not a good idea at all. And the template is there, and works, so why change it? History2007 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My feelings on seeing the "proposed new" version next to the existing are that I don't see an improvement. In fact the new version looks more cluttered and less user-friendly.
1. The print is smaller, making it harder for many people to read.
2. Centre alignment not only looks better design-wise, it helps make the information stand out better. Left alignment looks unbalanced. Mostt series templates, (as opposed to infoboxes) use centre align.
3. Crushing the text together makes it harder to read, and identify what is listed - for no good purpose. Currently there are no more than two subjects per line, which makes them stand out a lot better. The proposed version has up to four subjects a line, which makes them a lot harder to find and identify - and all for not much of a gain in space usage.
As History2007 says, we have two template sizes because one works as a main header box, and one is for smaller articles. This is to meet two user-identified needs. Xandar 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Replying to both of you, on a sensible indent:
  • The width, once again, has changed by approximately three pixels altogether. This is not a noticable difference under any circumstances, let alone an obvious one.
  • Semantically useful tables should use new table rows to separate different notions, not line breaks. I can trivially alter the proposal to do so, which should eliminate this concern.
  • "Display directives" are code. It is possible to retain the existing semantic structure with much simpler code. If it is truly required to restyle the template afterwards, that can be done much more simply if the code is cleaner.
  • The font size changes matched those of {{infobox}}, which is one of the most widely deployed templates on the project. The default font size for that template is evidently not inherently difficult to read. We should therefore endeavour to follow the lead of the project as a whole in that regard, rather than making up new usability requirements for individual sub-projects.
  • That can be trivially changed. It was a personal choice based on the length of the lines. As proposed, splitting these down by moving new topics onto new rows will obviate the need for left alignment.
  • I see no established need for two templates which differ only in font size and level of maintenance other than one anecdote related to an unnamed user by Secisek (talk · contribs) in February. Templates should not be forked at the drop of a hat, nor as a cheap compromise. Not only does it increase the burden of maintenance, it also confuses editors who now have to pick between two templates. There is no apparent documentation of the process by which one is chosen over the other either right now.
I'll have another crack at the sandbox in a bit, to see if a compromise can be reached here on the various points above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There are two templates for the very good reason that there are two different uses for the template, as mentioned earlier. I really do not think that having to choose which one ia appropriate to use will be overly challenging for the brains of the average editor. Xandar 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OBE[edit]

Chris, this situation is an OBE case, i.e. overcome by events. It is over. Another user, Gary King, popped out of nowhere, made changes that are admittedly better than what we had before in that they look like what we had, but are more flexible on multiple browsers (I tested that) and the matter is over as far as I can see. If you want to debate it, please do so with Gary King. I still think that the font can be 90% of default to look better, but that is a cosmetic issue. However, I should say that in one of my edit summaries I meant to say too large instead of too small, if that sounds confusing. However, Gary's template will be hard to beat, so discuss it with him on his talk page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There are still various points from the above discussion (the template fork, the use of hacked-up styling instead of a CSS class for CSS, the use of new rows instead of line breaks) still in play. If by "it is over" you mean that you've dropped your pretense to having an executive veto then so be it, but I'm happy to continue this discussion as there are still non-trivial proposals to sort out. I'll ping Gary King about it as he hasn't responded here yet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The executive who used the veto was not me but Gary King. He did a great job I think. History2007 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't quite what I meant. Anyway, I'll take this up with Gary King if you're finished here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am by no means finished here, but I like what he did. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Having not heard from Gary, I've used the existing layout to proerly fix the internal code. Negligible change in output. I trust that this is settled. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but your fix made the template way too wide on Firefox - please see teh Real Estate discussions way above. Gary's code was clearly better, and your changes were not a "minor" difference. Have to go back to Gary's. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The difference, as demonstrated on the template:Roman Catholicism/testcases page, is three pixels. The previous code intermingled line breaks and new rows at random. Your repeated edit warring here is aggravating, and continuing to exercise a veto on a template which you don't own is liable to result in administrative action. I'll ping Gary: should there be no response, I do not expect you to continue to edit tendiciously without a better reason than an appeal to authority. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Heart of the matter: visual difference is a lot more than 3 pixels on my screen. What you need to tryto understand is that I am not defending my own work, but the work of anothe ruser who has a better solution than yours. If you have a better solution, I will accept it just as I accepted Gary's without hesitation. I have nothing against you as a person, a lot against the design you propose since it wastes space, and is inferior to Gary's. If you are unhappy, please call the United Nations, or ask for opinions elsewhere in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the previous discussions regarding this template's visual look, but I'll do my best to respond in a helpful manner. Both templates have almost the same width; I don't know why History sees the sandboxed version as wider than we see it. I think we should resolve that first. What browser are you using, and what version is it? What operating system are you using, and what version? Regarding the sandboxed version, it looks fine to me compared to "my" version; the difference is so minute that I don't really care. However, I would prefer it if the font size and line height used the defaults; that's about it. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

On Micosoft InterExplorer they look almost identical. But on Firefox 3.014 on Win Vista, Gary's is much narrower and more readable. To get an idea, Gary's version starts on teh left edge just before where the U is for "unwatch" in the Wikimenu, while Chris's version starts under the V of the "move", so a big difference. And Chris's version has smaller font and a LOT of unused space that is reminiscent of driving through Nevada. But then there is another fact that makes it OBE: Gary's version uses "default" sizes and is hence inherently superior. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide a screenshot of this alleged width problem I'll see if I can fix it. I can adjust the font size easily, and it isn't the main point of the changes. For what it's worth, the current version doesn't use a "standard size" of font for navigation templates: it misuses the toccolors class and inherits the font from that. Which would be fine if this were a table of contents, but it's not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you are trying your hardest to duplicate Gary's visual results, what is the point anyway, apart from a personal imprint. What there is works fine. History2007 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm only trying to "duplicate Gary's visual results" due to my (seemingly misplaced) desire to compromise with you. The point is that we should not be arbitrarily mixing line breaks and new rows in table code, nor should class="toccolors" be used on anything other than an article's table of contents. In addition, the template should be as consistent with other modern navigation sidebars as possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Those are internal changes. Why don't you just modify Gary's code to use a different color class. As for line breaks vs table rows.... wow that one brought tears to my eyes.... what an "amazing" contribution to world knowledge via Wikipedia will that one make.... Gratitude, salutations and greetings should be sent to you by the population world wide when you achieve that goal. Of course, none of them could see the difference... Give me a break and do something useful like fixing many of those Wikipedia articles that have "references needed" flags on them instead of fixing internal items that no one sees..... Cheers History2007 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If you aren't interested in the technical reasons behind the changes in question then I don't expect you to be lecturing me over them; you certainly have no right to tell me what I should be working on, considering that it is your obstructionism here which has been my biggest time sink over the last six weeks. toccolors is not just a "color class": it modifies various font metrics, and shouldn't have been used here in the first place. Right now, the only rationale for leaving it in place is your personal aesthetic sensibilities; there are good technical reasons for making the change, and Gary has indicated that it doesn't matter to him either way, so the change should be made and we should both go back to doing something useful with our free time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Lecture people? Buddy lecturing used to be my job. I do see the so called tech reasons you have, but they are invalid since the end result is non portable. Get Firefox installed on Vista, try it to see how terrible your current design is, and then talk. Until then, listen to lectures. I did not even charge you anything. History2007 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't duplicate the result on Vista. Take the time to upload a screenshot demonstrating the difference. Continuing to use hyperbole in referring to a banal technical issue is unproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not your tech support person. History2007 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are, in that your dubious anecdotal evidence is the only plausible non-tendicious reason for your ownership issues here. If you're not prepared to provide evidence, which you can trivially provide with the tools available to you, then there's no reason not to dismiss your protestations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You MUST assume good faith. You failed. Even if I upload once, from what I have seen, you will need 9 iterations to get anything working baby. And then, what? It will look just as it does now. Big deal. History2007 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion sought. Despite your repeated protestations that this is not a "big deal" you have repeatedly vetoed what is by all available evidence a minor change to improve the template code, all the while attempting to demoralise me with repeated veiled personal attacks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. My main problem: your code achieves nothing new, and does not work as well as what there is now on Firefox. And a key note: I get paid nothing for doing this. I am just maintaining the quality of the visual interface of Wikipedia. Period. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Screenshot on Firefox

I am responding to the request for a third opinion. I think it is important to see a screenshot what History2007 is talking about before we take this any further. His protestation that "You MUST assume good faith" misses the nature of the good faith assumption. An assumption of good faith is a useful starting point. It is not a reason to claim that everything you say must be true. Furthermore, we can assume good faith and still want to see what you are talking about. Of the top of my head, two reasons for this are:

  • Our aesthetic appreciation of the template may be different to you own.
  • It may highlight the nature of the problem occuring in Firefox and hence lead us to a solution.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where do I load the screen shot? Wikicommons seems too much. But I will do that ONLY once, not load it 9 times as code gets debugged. I am not a tech support person. History2007 (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You can upload an image directly to Wikipedia at Special:Upload. With regard to your second point, Wikipedia doesn't have much of a tech support facility. It is a collaborative enterprise. If people don't collaborate it doesn't work. If you don't collaborate your influence will reduce accordingly. Yaris678 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please translate the last part again: Are you saying that I have to help upload images 12 times to help another user debug a design that is inherently flawed and useless? Buddy I am a software expert. If the other user does not have access to Firefox with Vista this could take for ever, if he is just experimenting. And what is to be gained. Please explain that first. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying you have to do anything. I'm just pointing out that the more we collaborate the better Wikipedia is going to be. You are right - if we establish that there is some kind of problem and that some kind of debugging is required then it would make sense for interested parties to replicate the problem on their own machine. However, making a big deal about how you are not tech support isn't helping anyone. I appreciate that you have probably spent far more time on this issue than you would have liked, but let's just be nice to each other and get it sorted out quickly and efficiently. Yaris678 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you are being reasonable. So I will capture and upload. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome Yaris. I put the image on this page, and also lined them up for comparison. It shows that the proposed change makes it quite wider on Firefox, cutting into the readability of the text. However, on IE Explorer, the two look almost identical. And there is really no change in the "look", except that the new design wastes valuable page space. It is not my "personal taste" that is the subject of the debate, it is a question of geometry. The proposed change is too wide. It buys nothing, just wastes space and time. I guess one could say it wastes "space time"... At least we can get a laugh out of that pun.... History2007 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
From the looks of things you're using a significantly higher DPI on your display than the Windows default. This is probably forcing the template width out because 22em will be much wider. I've edited the sandbox to compensate for this: please check if this has fixed the problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks better. But height needed to be auto as well, so I changed that as well....Now it looks EXACTLY as it did 3 weeks ago.... fantastic.... What an amazing waste of time..... But at last it is over... History2007 (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if everyone is happy with it now then that's great. I'm glad we were all able to work together to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. Yaris678 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If nothing else was gained (and I think a better codebase with no unwanted artefacts is certainly a gain), it's hopefully been instructional in what moves a discussion forward and what doesn't. Thanks, folks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Type face[edit]

I see the type face has been made smaller again - for no good reason. Xandar 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But do not worry Xander, it may look worse "externally" to you, but "internally" the code looks better to a person (who shall remain anonymous) concerned with internal code style. That must be very important somehow, although I do not know why. That was all the talk above was about. Alas you did not complain before. If you want, I can restore it again to the way it was 2 months ago. Shall we have a vote on that? History2007 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't "vote" on how to proceed: we discuss it, and explain our opinions. As the edit summary in question points out, the reason for the "smaller" text size is that 88% is the only font size which leads to the text being the same size in both IE and Firefox. This avoids any problems with article layout in a given browser. This size is the default used in {{infobox}} and {{sidebar}} (amongst others) for this reason. I shouldn't need to point out that making this personal would be just as unproductive for everyone involved this time as it was last time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much for that explanation. It is just fantastic. Users are unhappy, developers explain and explain. Welcome to the "developers planet".... History2007 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Users are unhappy and complain when text shows up in different sizes on different browsers. You were fortunate enough not to participate in the long and acrimonious resolution to that particular debate. And characterising me as a "developer" isn't helpful either: I have just as much of an argument to be speaking for "users" as anyone else does. You can be "unhappy" with my explanation if you want, but it's an explanation nonetheless, and rather a more valid one IMO than the personal aesthetic considerations of what has amounted to no more than two editors in quarter of a year. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the two browsers argument is that convincing - since most people are satisfied using one browser at a time. My objection to the smaller text has been simply that it is harder to read. I have a 17 inch TFT monitor (bigger and more stable than some,) and I find the smaller text harder to read. Xandar 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
All of the common religion infoboxes use the same default font size. It has broad acceptance not only across this limited domain but across the encyclopedia as a whole. I would not argue for a smaller-than-default text size were there not clear consensus across the project as a whole that it is desirable. Regarding most users only using one browser at a time, that is beside the point: in oder for us to ensure that our articles do not only look acceptable under one particular browser, we are required to check that the output is similar across commonly-used ones. Otherwise, we may make edits to articles which inadvertently make them ugly, difficult to navigate or difficult to read by users with other common browser configurations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hereby vote to revert Chris on both templates. I do not buy his explanations. All others please vote below. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Decisions here are decided on weight of argument, not weight of numbers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Xander's argument has much more weight. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2nd Template[edit]

Chris Cunningham's apparent totalitarian insistence on removing the second template, and making everyone conform to his preferred version is tiresome. I have already explained why the larger template is required - because it is used as the head template and infobox in certain articles, including the main Catholic Church article. This requires a larger, more prominent template with clearer text than a template used lower down in some articles. he made the second template a redirect to the ist without discussion or agreement, and I have twice reverted it. The larger template is important to the presentation of the Catholic Church page, and other pages that use it as lead template/infobox, and doesn't need tampering with independent of the pages it was set up for.

There are several templates that have considerably more than two forms - for use in articles of different sizes and contexts - so the alleged "problem" with having two templates is not sufficient reason to eliminate the advantage of the more prominent template. Particularly with the newly minute text of the standard template. Xandar 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Xander, please clarify whether it just apparent totaliterian behavior or real totaliterian behavior. But jokes aside, why do you tolerate it then? Why put up with all this? If you agree to speak up, we will fix it, fix it, fix it to the way it was before. Totaliterian behavior can only last if the public keeps quite, alas as you did in the past month. I am fed up with Chris too. But if users such as you do not speak up...
If you want things to be fixed, all you need to do is the following: Type below: "History, please put the two templates back to the way they were before". I will do so, and if Chris does not like it against the two of us, he can go complain to the united nations. I will revert him, and you should too. Very simple. The user comes first. Developer's reasoning (and his reasoning is flawed by my logic) can not thump user satisfaction. Period. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hereby vote to revert Chris on both templates. I do not buy his explanations. All others please vote below. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't a vote. Telling others how to "vote against it" is counterproductive. Consider this a warning on the "fed up with Chris" point. I've acted in good faith throughout this discussion and have had to put up with continous low-level name-calling and attacks on both my motive and character. I strongly advise to to read and take to heart WP:CONSENSUS, as the third opinion last time resulted in an amicable conclusion here and that strengthens the status quo: promises to revert in opposition to weight of argument are unlikely to result in long-term gains, and indeed the history here makes it far more likely that you'll be flagged for ownership issues here based on your repeated insistence (against any firm backing) that your position represents "the user" and that of those who oppose you does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It is hardly "totalitarian" to ask you for a concrete rationale for your arguments, especially considering your neglible contributions to the discussion thus far. You have twice reverted the other template without waiting for consensus, while I have not reverted on this occasion. Again, there are two reasons to merge the other template. The first is that, as the two should have identical content, keeping them separate leads to duplication of effort (and means that often one fails to pick up on changes to the other). This can be trivially solved by making the font size here optional (assuming for the moment that this is actually required). The second is that there is not of yet a rationale other than your personal aesthetic sensibilities for the smaller font anyway: most religion sidebars / infobox templates use 88% for the previously-explained technical reason that it is the only way to ensure consistency across the majority of common Web browsers. You have not yet addressed this argument at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xander and disagree with Chris, as stated above many times. I hereby vote to revert Chris on both templates. I do not buy his explanations. All others please vote below. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chris, I don't think you gained a consensus to "merge" the templates in the first place. Your main reason for eliminating the RC2 template; alleged effort in the duplication of maintenance, is not convincing. The effort of adding a new link to an extra template, should this be considered necessary, is very slight. It certainly doesn't outweigh the gain provided by the flexibility of having two templates, the need for a larger template for the article lead section, and better readability. As far as consistency across web browsers is concerned; I have viewed the original templates on IE and Firefox, and have never noticed a difference in how they display. (There may be a difference, but not a noticeably significant one.) I certainly prefer the old templates.
The argument for standardisation of religous article templates is certainly over-stated, since there is such considerable variety of size, typeface and form. See below. Xandar 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said in the original comment I made to you, I am happy to provide a switch which will allow for this template to have two different text sizes depending on how it is called. I'm going to do this regardless of the outcome of the general font size discussion, because it is a simple technical solution to the problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Navigation Template examples[edit]

Xandar 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would note that despite the significant variety in the overall layout of those templates, the font size of the entries is consistently smaller than that insisted on here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would note that Xander is 100% right and you have lost this argument. History2007 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be of the opinion that having the last word is somehow important here. If you aren't going to contribute constructively then feel free not to comment; it is in your own best interest not to appear incapable of contributing productively to this discussion, especially if the issue is escalated to the point where administrators are involved. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Wooooooo... I am going to cry now... woooooo....., I am just pointing out that after months of discussion, you have succeeded in getting things to look like they did before in some cases, and worse in others. Is that constructive? Long and short of it, I agree with Xander and think you have lost this argument, and the template changes you have made achieve nothing. Period. I think we should go back to what there was 3 months ago. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nasrani[edit]

Nasranis or Saint Thomas Christians are the ancient Christians found in India. They were converted to Christianity by St. Thomas the apostle in AD 52. I think Jewish Nasrani history is definitely an important part of Christian history in general and Catholic history in particular. Saint Thomas Christians belong to various denominations with majority in communion with the Catholic Churh. I think it will be useful and highly informative to add Nasrani. Most of the Western world have either forgotten or is unaware of this history. It is one of the ancient Christian groups of the world and presently constitutes a major part of Indian Christians. 'Nasrani' truly deserves a space in this template. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 16:30, 09 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let us see what others say. My guess is that it is not a top level item. In this template you are putting it at the level of Crucifixion and Resurrection as two top level items, and there is no way it can be of that level of relevance. By the way, are these people Catholic? I do not see them in the category catholic. This template is about Catholics. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians belong to various denominations with more than half the population in full communion with the Pope. Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is a Major Archiepiscopal Eastern Catholic Church with Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil the current head. Also there is Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 19:00, 09 November 2009 (UTC)

But are they listed as one of the 23 autonomous Churches that make up the Catholic church? Even if they are, why do they get listed and the other 22 do not get listed? I think you are trying to pick a relatively obscure item and elevate it to a top level template. The Nasrani article itself does not portray them as "Catholic" at large. History2007 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are listed as one of the 23 autonomous Churches. Im not trying to elevate a particular church. My intension is to list the tradition. The article is not about a particular church. All the 23 autonomous churches come under Eastern Catholic Churches which is listed in the template. So there is no question of not listing the other 22. My intension is to show the jewish and thomasine tradition of the community which dates back to AD 52. And Syro-Malabar Church and Syro-Malankara Church together becomes the largest Eastern Catholic community with about 4.5 million believers. So it does have an elevated position among the Eastern Catholic Churches in terms of tradition and population. But as I told the article 'Nasrani' is not about the church but the ancient tradition which is a part of the Catholic History. Moreover, the Nasrani community was a single group until the arrival of Portugal Catholic missionaries to India in the 16th century. The portuguese(Latin Catholics) tried to latinize the Syrian Nasranis which made them split into different groups. So it is closely related with the history of Catholic Church. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Catholic_Church#Nasrani . So one part of them is Catholic, and others are not. So it looks like 1/46 as a ratio..... nowhere near a situation where it gets "preferred treatment" over the other 22 groups. There is not even an item for "Roman Catholic" which is the largest group, so to get an item for one of the crowd of churches and not others is very clearly against WP:Undue weight and can not be done. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Two parts of them are Catholic - Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara. And the ratio is not 1/46...! Please try to understand. If there are 6 million nasranis 4.5 million are Catholic. And I told its not just the numbers. The History of Nasranis is closely related to Catholics. i will type it again for you. The Nasrani community was a single group until the arrival of Portugal Catholic missionaries to India in the 16th century. The portuguese(Latin Catholics) tried to latinize the Syrian Nasranis which made them split into different groups. So it is closely related with the history of Catholic Church. So Nasrani deserves a place in the template.User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in any case, WP:Undue weight clearly applies here. The place to discuss these people is in the History of the Church article. In order to understand Catholicism, there are just too many top level items. You may wish to seek a "third opinion" here through official channels to resolve the issue, since I am not changing my mind. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Replace photo with Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg[edit]

Please stop random test edits. It will get you blocked out. I suggest you revert your own change to the Catholic Church page, I already reverted you template change. History2007 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

and how exactly was that a random edit? emblem of the papacy is much better symbol of roman catholicism than random and low quality photo of st peter basilica at dawn, i'll wait for your explanation before a revert, regards --ro|3ek (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"Is much better" based on whose opinion? That type of change to a MAJOR template is fully subject to WP:BRD. I did not select the image, it was done by several other users who had participated on templates and pages for RC articles. And the large item was deliberately done by another user after discussion I remember. Coming from an IP out of nowhere, I call it random edit - and I happen to have just written an article on randomness. Is that random? I say so. In any case teh change is subject to WP:BRD without question. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
for a start it's used as a symbol of Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, all over Portal:Catholicism and was used in this template before this revision (merge of two templates), it seems reasonable to keep it consistent. btw I can't find use of this image discussed anywhere and if you did not select that image i'm sure you'll have no problems with it being replaced by papacy emblem--ro|3ek (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not buy the "i'm sure you'll have no problems" part. I do not agree to the papacy item. So it is back to WP:BRD. History2007 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
ok... and is there a reason behind that...? i'm willing to listen why an unclear photo is better then an image which is totally relevant, very well made and featured on commons File:Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg --ro|3ek (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually since you are suggesting the change, justification for the change is your responsibility. But anyway, I do not see the image as unclear (maybe I have a good optometrist) and I do not disrespect the emblem of the Papacy. But I do see it over used all over. The St Peter's image and the whole template came about after several revisions in size etc. by 3 editors and is the Status Quo. I do see it as having more perspective than the emblem, given that the Catholic Church is characterized by a "central teaching office" unlike the Baptists etc. Hence the relevance of the image. History2007 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I did provide justification for change above... guess we'll have to wait for someone else to voice their opinion
PS I see your optometrist has greatly improved : Does using this template require a visit to the optometrist? The font is so small, it is just too hard to read. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC) --ro|3ek (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, the font size, look of the template etc. were all discussed when it was taking shape. It did not just happen at random. The initial font they used was far too small, so I joked about that until they increased it. And they played with the image until it just fit right. History2007 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
A better characterisation of your conduct was that you repeatedly edit warred over any changes you personally disproved of until you (mercifully) listened to the third opinion offered you. Incidentally, make any more comments like this to editors acting in good faith and I can assure you that someone will be brought to the attention of the admin corps, though probably not the person you'd prefer.
As for the issue at hand, I agree that the emblem is a better image here than a random church; it's more distinct, more inclusive and matches the prevailing use of such iconography on sidebar templates. Given that the counterargument is, as usual, no argument at all ("it was like that before" or "I see no reason to change it"), I think that's pretty good grounds to go ahead with the change.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, hello old friend Mr Chris. So you still like me? But given our history together, the opinion you express involves too much of the previous encounter we had and needs to be viewed in that light, i.e. is not unbiased here and is beside the point. As for my calling that IP's change a random edit, I still say so. The IP came out of nowhere and changed a major template, no questions asked. I could have just undone it, but I was in fact trying to get the IP to stop changes without any discussion. So let us hear another viewpoint, or a 3rd opinion, which will be fine with me, give that I have myself used the Papacy emblem on several pages I have built. History2007 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to invite the third opinion yourself this time, if you're truly interested in getting a wider opinion and not in simply throwing barriers up. For the record I've better things to do with my time than contradict you for the sake of it, so I do hope you'll refrain from suggesting such in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think that this version was ok.Brian0324 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually the content therein is different as well. And that is another Pandora's box. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly with the replacement. 1) The symbol is NOT that of the Catholic Church, but the Pope, so it is wrongly used. 2) The rather outdated Papal arms says very little about the Church, and in fact introduces misleading connotations of crowns (no longer used) and wealth. 3) The images on other religion navigation templates portray famous buildings or religious iconography which says something about the faith. This says very little. 4.) The previous image was right in balance. It shows the iconic image of Saint Peter's, which stresses the papal link, but not overly, while displaying a great example of Catholic architecture. There may be better images, but the papal arms is not one of them. Quick revert please. Xandar 21:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid point. Given that the symbol represents the pope and not the Church, it must go to the pope template, not the Church template. Any arguments against? And by the way, the St. Peter's Basilica image is not NOT just a random Church as Chris said above and has serious symbolic connotations regarding the "claim to Catholicity" of the Church. E.g. in 1864, when the Holy Office rejected the Branch Theory and claimed itself as the Catholic Church, in the letter written to the English Bishops it stated that "there is no other Catholic Church except that which is built on the one man, Peter ...." (See: Avery Dulles (1987), The Catholicity of the Church, Oxford University Press, p. 131) Hence St. Peter's Basilica, housing his tomb, as the location of the Church built on the one man, Peter is most appropriate. Any arguments against before I change back? History2007 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse scandal[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section named "Controversies" or "Criticism" and shouldn't that section reference Catholic sex abuse scandal?Rinpoche (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an item there already, and has been for long, called "Criticism of the Catholic Church" which directly leads to and deals with that. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't notice. I asked because I wanted to see what Wikipedia precedent there might be with regard to linking Buddhist sex abuse cases into the Buddhist equivalent of the template. Rinpoche (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I did not know Buddhists had those problems too. Seems to be "equal opportunity" abuse all over the place. An amazing mess everywhere. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What does "equal opportunity" have to do with it?
It was a joke... that memebrs of all religions have equal opportuity to be victims... perhaps not a good joke. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Adding Catholic sex abuse cases to Controversies section, as it seems as prominent as a topic as the other three listed. 8ty3hree (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Template image[edit]

I suggest change the template image to File:Sãopedro1.jpg 84.90.95.71 (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a twisted, amature jpg image. We all know the Vatican has its problems, scandals etc. but their image may not be that twisted yet. Do you know some secrets we don't? History2007 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.192.67.168, 24 August 2011[edit]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 792 --Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." col 1:18

108.192.67.168 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not clear why that belongs in the template. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Theology[edit]

Most of the items under the heading "theology" are not mere theology but rather dogma. Should there be a distinction on the template? 68.192.134.169 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Several items such as Purgatory, etc. are not dogmas. And breaking them up will probably scatter the template. And dogmatic definitions are part of theological discussions. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)



Template:Roman CatholicismTemplate:Catholic Church sidebar – The name of the article is "Catholic Church", so I believe the name of the sidebar should reflect that. See Template_talk:Catholicism#Requested move for why "sidebar" is needed in the name. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Users do not see the template name, so no difference to encyclopedic content. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 28 September 2012[edit]

The Roman Catholicism template on the page of Pope Benedict XVI is far too wide. It covers the entire width of the screen and leaves a large, empty, unsightly white space between the introduction and the remainder of the article. This should be fixed.


99.231.15.144 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Shows up just fine with Chrome 22 on a computer running Windows Vista. I guess it's a problem at your end. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Organisation[edit]

Can the Organisation be placed somewhere below Liturgy and worship? From a non Catholic or non Christian perspective, the template gives an impression that this religion gives more emphasis on its leader rather than to its faith. --Anime (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)