Template talk:Catholic-Church-stub

Imagery - Sacred Heart
The image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus reflects a distinctly nineteenth century spirituality and is not the best icon for the Catholic Church. I substituted it with the image of St. Peter's which is not only more timeless, but more fundamental to the unique history and identity of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis the other Christian churches. -Invincoli 21:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Actualy now that I changed it, I have some reservations. I still feel strongly about my initial argument mind you, but at 35px, the dome of St. Peter's is easily confused with that of St. Paul's in London or (gasp!) the Capitol Building in the United States. Any thoughts? -Invincoli 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is the Sacred Heart outdated? I don't quite get it. It's certainly old, but nothing in its article indicates that it's distinctly 19th century. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Veneration of the Sacred Heart was first promulgated by Pope Pius VI in the late eighteenth century and only became widespread in the nineteenth century, as the article suggests. I am advocating a depiction of the Vatican since the primacy of the bishop of Rome as successor to Peter has been a defining aspect of the Catholic Church from the very beginning (I will not attempt to define the beginning here, but suffice it to say that it is quite a few centuries before Pope Pius VI!). - Invincoli 04:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, can you really find a clear symbol for that concept? I don't think we have widely recognized pictures of Peter. Whereas if you walk into a house that has the Heart stickers on the door, you're pretty sure you've come to a place where there are Catholics. Well, at least in my 90% Catholic country :) Only the rosary could be a more noticable Catholic symbol. Perhaps use that? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think St Peter's Basilica is a pretty clear symbol of that concept since it is both the tomb of Peter and the seat of his successors in their capacity as Pope. I just wonder if the current image is recognizable enough to laypeople or if it might be confused with other domes around the world.


 * Exactly. That's why I figured the heart would be better - recognizable to laypeople. Guess not. Whatever. We apparently can't fit enough information about RC into a 50px space. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * My qualm about using the rosary as a symbol for the whole Catholic Church would be the same as using the image of the Sacred Heart, i.e. its use does not transcend the history of the Church; it's a representation of one aspect of the Church, but doesn't speak to the bigger picture. Also, devotion to Mary is common among non-Catholics (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox for example), some who also use the rosary and even recite the Ave Maria (I am thinking specifically of Anglicans here). So I don't think that's the best candidate either. --Invincoli 17:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I definitely think an image of St. Peter's is better than the image of the Sacred Heart. When it was initially changed to the Sacred Heart image, I was surprised. I'm sure it was merely my ignorance, but I hadn't thought of the Sacred Heart as specifically Catholic. Whoops. Anyway. Maybe an image of the Vatican coat of arms? Or is that more for the political entity of the Vatican City? --User:Jenmoa 02:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Dividing the category
Hi, many of the RC-stub are actually nothing but RC Cathedral stubs. That's why I wonder if we can use also a template like this one :


 * If, in addition to its ecclesiatic role, the cathedral is significant for its architecture or art, why not just add the architecture stub in addition to the rc-stub? I see no problem with two stubs. In fact it may draw greater attention to the article and hence more contributors. -Invincoli 04:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Architecture stubs


 * Well, actually, the only purpose of a RC Cathedral stub is to stop the inflation of RC-stub. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to add an architecture stub in addition of the religious stub, but it should not prevent us fom creating a RC Cathedral stub, no ?--Revas 01:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the rename?
In December 2005, there are almost 800 articles that use "RC-stub". Why is it marked for a rename? What should we used instead? 69.181.82.102 03:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2016

 * The following is a closed 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: Moved. Even though I took part in this vote, I'll close it now for WP:SNOW. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:RC-stub → Template:Catholic Church-stub – More specific as well as consistant. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the lock of the template could well be lifted. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Template:Catholic Church-stub, surely? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the correction. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the move to Template:Catholic Church-stub. I've filed an RFPP to get this unprotected and moved.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:29, 9 June 2016 (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.

Thank you. Chicbyaccident ( Please notify with (Talk) 17:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)