Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Page Name: reply
Page Name: anything new?
Line 134: Line 134:
::No. It's there by common consent. Plus there's a disambig notice ([[Catholic Church (disambiguation)]]) right under the title,just in case anybody has wandered into the wrong room. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::No. It's there by common consent. Plus there's a disambig notice ([[Catholic Church (disambiguation)]]) right under the title,just in case anybody has wandered into the wrong room. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Ri, it might help to take a look at the archives for this page, because the arguments ''against'' "Roman Catholic Church" are there, explained with a lot more eloquence than I ever could. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Ri, it might help to take a look at the archives for this page, because the arguments ''against'' "Roman Catholic Church" are there, explained with a lot more eloquence than I ever could. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ri, I understand your position and this was discussed in depth when we were discussing the proper name of the Catholic Church. Although this is not a black and white discussion, there was a great deal of discussion and then a vote where Catholic Church was chosen as the best name for the article. You may want to go back and review the lengthy discussion. Nothing is ever in stone on Wikipedia and if you think you have valid points we did not discuss previously that may sway the majority of the readers then feel free to bring those points here for further discussion. I participated in the discussion and voted that the most correct title for this article is Catholic Church, but I am more than willing to review it again should new information be brought forward. Cheers, --<sup>[[user:Storm Rider|'''''<font color="01796F">Storm</font>''''']]</sup>[[User talk:Storm Rider#top|'''''<font color="1C39BB">Rider</font>''''']] 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:25, 3 September 2014

Template:Vital article

Former good articleCatholic Church was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 17, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 30, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 15, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 18, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 8, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 13, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 19, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 4, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 8, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 20, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 31, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Catechism of the Catholic Church citation template

Greetings,

I have developed a template to help quickly cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church (found here: Template:CCC), based on the citation style that has become common here at the Catholic Church article.

The template takes the paragraph number, automatically generates a link to the online English version found at <www.vatican.va>. It also automatically formats the citation using the template:cite web internally, and also can display both a single paragraph or a simple range of paragraphs. It also automatically generates a reference name based on the paragraph or range, and will assign the same footnote to citations with identical paragraphs or ranges.

At this point, I see no need to convert well formatted footnotes, but it might be useful when editing portions of the text with bare paragraph numbers, with no link or access date. I have tested the template, and have worked out most kinks, and documented a few workarounds, but I would appreciate anyone who can find the time to test it out and give me feedback. Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Edits

Please pardon the dozens of minor edits I did today. I attempted to standardize years worth of references, and encountered numerous minor, but difficult errors, due to incompatible templates using similar parameters, etc. Wherever possible, I attempted to perform multiple edits at once, and limit these mass edits to a specific category. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary diff for before and after:Aug6-Aug7 Edits --Zfish118 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your perseverance. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name

Greetings. I believe the title of this page is misleading. It should read "Roman Catholic Church" because the Eastern Orthodox Church is also officially called the "Orthodox Catholic Church". And historically, it was Rome which separated itself away from the historically continuous Christian practices of the rest of Christendom. It is important for readers to know that the Roman Church is not the only Church simply referred to as the "Catholic Church" and it has less claim to historical continuity the Orthodoxy. Therefore, the title is both misleading and presumptive. Ri Osraige (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. No. Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's there by common consent. Plus there's a disambig notice (Catholic Church (disambiguation)) right under the title,just in case anybody has wandered into the wrong room. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ri, it might help to take a look at the archives for this page, because the arguments against "Roman Catholic Church" are there, explained with a lot more eloquence than I ever could. Achowat (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ri, I understand your position and this was discussed in depth when we were discussing the proper name of the Catholic Church. Although this is not a black and white discussion, there was a great deal of discussion and then a vote where Catholic Church was chosen as the best name for the article. You may want to go back and review the lengthy discussion. Nothing is ever in stone on Wikipedia and if you think you have valid points we did not discuss previously that may sway the majority of the readers then feel free to bring those points here for further discussion. I participated in the discussion and voted that the most correct title for this article is Catholic Church, but I am more than willing to review it again should new information be brought forward. Cheers, --StormRider 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]