Template talk:Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated Template-class, Top-importance)
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.
 Top  This template has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.

Suggested edit[edit]

Please remove the image from this template--the template is already huge and the image makes it unwieldy. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please discuss and reactivate if there is agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I love the image. Please keep it. ThePepel-Eterni (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (2012)[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done, with some other code simplification and cleanup. Thanks. You may want to consider using a sandbox next time rather than including all the code inline, as it makes it easier to compare the revisions (along with not adding a ton of code to the talk page). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Chris. And thanks for the advice about using a sandbox. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2012[edit]

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)

X mark.svg Not done, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Political catholicism[edit]

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)

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) 16:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:CatholicismTemplate:Catholic Church navbox – The name of the article is "Catholic Church", so I believe the name of the sidebar should reflect that. See Template_talk:Roman Catholicism#Requested move for why "navbox" is needed in the name. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:22, 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 06Aug12[edit]

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)

Done, but I made some small adjustments: (i) I amended the two instances of <br> to <br />; (ii) I added some newlines inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> at the end.
The first was because although <br> is valid HTML, it's not valid XHTML, whereas <br /> is valid in both HTML 4+ and XHTML). The second was so that {{documentation}} appears on a line of its own - the formatting of some boxes inside {{documentation}} doesn't work properly unless {{documentation}} starts a new line. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on August 8, 2012[edit]

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)

Edit Request on October 08, 2012[edit]

Please add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen to Doctors of the Church section. --Jayarathina (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I second that. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64#Request to Edit Template:Catholicism: Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I request you to edit the list of Doctors of the Church in Template:Catholicism to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen. I made a request in the talk page, but received no response.

I would like to suggest 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. I have already altered Template:Churchdoctor to be embeddable and embedded it in Template:Catholic saints. I have edited Template:Catholicism/sandbox for your convenience. Hope I make sense. If you need any clarifications, please do revert back. Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(end of moved thread)
You didn't get a response because although you posted above (on 8 Oct), you didn't use {{editprotected}}, and I don't normally watch this page. However, these changes don't appear to be either uncontroversial improvements or supported by a consensus of editors, see WP:EDITREQ#General considerations. Has this been discussed elsewhere, perhaps at WT:CATHOLIC? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops I didn't know that such long procedure was there to get an edit request for a protected template. I saw that you were the last one to have edited this page, so left you a message. Anyway as per your guidelines I will create a new edit request to gather consensus I have created a request below. Thanks for the help. --Jayarathina (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2012[edit]

I request

  1. To edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen
  2. 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)
Symbol recycling vote.svg Reopened I have tried to establish a consensus below. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree . I don't know whether my own vote counts. SInnocent.gif --Jayarathina (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree . John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen, newly declared Doctors, are to be inserted. --பவுல்-Paul (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree . I completely agree - John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen need to be inserted. Eire102 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree . The two saints were made doctors back in October. Also like the idea of embedding. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree . Sounds good to me! Elizium23 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 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))
  • 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)
  • 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 (parlemusfeci) 10:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that Template:Churchdoctor has to be at-least semi protected. Because it is embedded in other templates too. But even if it is fully protected, it won't be a problem, as we are not going to edit it very often. (Penultimate declaration of doctors of the church was 15 years back) --Jayarathina (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that; so Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you very much for your guidance and help --Jayarathina (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013[edit]

Just some minor link fixes (which ARE allowed as templates are exempt):

  • Change "Catholic Church hierarchy" to "Hierarchy of the Catholic Church"
  • Change "Catholic marriage" to "Marriage (Catholic Church)"
  • Change "Works of Pope Benedict XVI" to "Pope Benedict XVI bibliography"

TJ Spyke 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013[edit]

Pope Benedict 16th is needed for preceding popes.

SHZ (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: It occurs to me that several other changes are needed, and that these should be done at the same time. In particular, there is an entire row titled "Pope Benedict XVI", containing links to: Papal conclave, 2005; Theology of Pope Benedict XVI; Pope Benedict XVI bibliography; Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI; Dominus Iesus; Sacramentum Caritatis; Deus Caritas Est; Summorum Pontificum; Spe Salvi; and Caritas in Veritate. I expect that some of these should be amended, others removed; but I am not in a position to decide exactly what should be done. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've disabled the {{edit protected}} template per RedRose64's reasoning. Please add all the changes to the template sandbox and then reactivate the request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I've added a new group and list to the template sandbox with regards to Pope Francis. It's similar to the one for Pope Benedict XVI but as Pope Francis is still new it only contains the conclave 2013 link. I suggest for now to keep the group for Pope Benedict XVI's papacy as a seprate group and not included him in the group listing the previous popes yet. I did rename it as Pope-Emiritus though. I suggest we keep it as such as a separate group for the duration of the Pope-Emeritus' life. Once Benedict dies, one can/should re-evaluate the issue, but for now he's still a large living part of Catholicism. -- fdewaele, 14 March 2013.

Edit request on 14 March 2013[edit]

Byzantine-rite Church of Croatia should be Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro instead of just Eparchy of Križevci. Thank you. -- (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Croatian Greek Catholic Church should be like in Template:Eastern Catholicism-- (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
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? (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Greenknight dv (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013[edit]

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)

Criticisms of the Catholic Church[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013[edit]

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)

It reduces them to vague shapes: one is blue with a bit of white Catholicism portal the other is red with a bit of gold Pope portal Very hard to spot what they're supposed to represent. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
then remove the icons entirely or replace them with {{icon|portal}}, they are purely decorative. as it stands right now, the below line is unnecessarily stretched, where the emphasis should be on the template contents, not on the portal links. Frietjes (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Portal links could be moved under cross of San Damiano: The bottom yellow line could be emptied and shift those 2 portal links into the right-side margin. I have made similar shifts, to place items in the right-side margin of other navboxes, by adding "<br><br><br><br>...items" at the end of the right-side "image=" parameter. That would allow to retain the large icons, but condense the bottom line. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • no need for that when the icons could be simply removed, see most all the other templates in Category:Roman Catholic navigational boxes. this one is non-standard. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Nothing wrong with having these images there as they are; virtually all images in templates are decorative, and we have no standards against the practice. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2013[edit]

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)

  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I'd like to see some discussion and consensus before adding this to this template. Please start a discussion for this purpose. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that adding the link is a precedent, as seen in {{Popes}} and {{Roman Catholicism}} specifically relating to Catholicism and other navboxes relating to other issues. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please leave |ans=y until you have achieved a consensus for this change. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 01:48, 24 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. (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: rm boldfacing in group 11[edit]

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)

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)
Right! I don't understand why you crossed that out: Split them into two groups and rm boldfacing. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 January 2015[edit]

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)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: @Randy Kryn: Could you add the relevant code to the sandbox and leave a few days for others to comment? If there's a consensus after that, please reactivate the edit request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I've reduced the protected to semi-protection, as there are only 900 transclusions. But it still might be a good idea to wait for others to weigh in. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Section 'Particular Churches and Liturgical rites'[edit]

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)