Template talk:Catholic Church footer

Suggested edit
Please remove the image from this template--the template is already huge and the image makes it unwieldy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please discuss and reactivate if there is agreement. &mdash; 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)
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)


 * ✅, 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
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)
 * ❌, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Political catholicism
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

 * 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:Catholicism → Template: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 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
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done, but I made some small adjustments: (i) I amended the two instances of to ; (ii) I added some newlines inside the  at the end.
 * The first was because although is valid HTML, it's not valid XHTML, whereas  is valid in both HTML 4+ and XHTML). The second was so that  appears on a line of its own - the formatting of some boxes inside  doesn't work properly unless  starts a new line. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on August 8, 2012
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
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 (parlemus • feci) 17:41, 21 October 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 = 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, 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. Has this been discussed elsewhere, perhaps at WT:CATHOLIC? -- Red rose64 (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
I request |list6 = 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:
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Also, the "full code" was identical to Template:Catholicism/sandbox, to which there is a link in the  box, so there's no need to include it here as well. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to establish a consensus below. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I don't know whether my own vote counts. SInnocent.gif --Jayarathina (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen, newly declared Doctors, are to be inserted. --பவுல்-Paul (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I completely agree - John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen need to be inserted. Eire102 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. The two saints were made doctors back in October. Also like the idea of embedding. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sounds good to me! Elizium23 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 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))
 * ✅. 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)
 * ✅. Obvious, unless we have some new criteria, a doctor of the Church is a doctor of the Church when declared to be so by the Pope. However, I am not sure about embedding. Would it cause the Doctors of the Church template to need to be locked so as not to affect the Catholicism template? If so, don't embed. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Red rose64 (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
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013
Pope Benedict 16th is needed for preceding popes.

SHZ (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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. -- Red rose64 (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
Byzantine-rite Church of Croatia should be Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro instead of just Eparchy of Križevci. Thank you. --123.16.254.245 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Croatian Greek Catholic Church should be like in Template:Eastern Catholicism--113.190.138.181 (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? 113.190.218.183 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

✅ Greenknight dv (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013
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
This template looks as if drafted solely by Catholics, and therefore biased. There should be entries for Catholic scandals and controversies now, such as the Catholic sex abuse cases, costing the church $2.6 bn in the US alone before 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigailgem (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013
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 the other is red with a bit of gold  Very hard to spot what they're supposed to represent. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * then remove the icons entirely or replace them with, 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 "    ...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)
 * see most (if not all) the other templates in Category:Roman Catholic navigational boxes, seems non-standard, and no reason to deviate from the norm. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2013
Please add the following text: Roman Catholicism book next to the portal links. Thanks.

Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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 y until you have achieved a consensus for this change. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Salvation
As this is an infobox specific to Catholicism I think that instead of the infobox linking to the salvation article it should link to the Catholicism section of the Salvation (Christianity) article. 86.41.66.210 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: rm boldfacing in group 11
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
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: 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'
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)

Discuss: 'Preceding popes' section
Greetings, For this template: any need to keep or remove the Preceding popes section? Regards, JoeHebda   (talk)  14:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

* Discuss

I say keep it, but rename it to "Recent Popes". If making the template smaller is a consideration, possibly combine "Preceding Popes" with "Pope Francis", into a "Recent Popes" section, where Francis is listed with a note that he's the current pope - so, for example:
 * Pope Francis (current) · Pope Benedict XVI · Pope John Paul II · Pope John Paul I · Pope Paul VI · Pope John XXIII · Pope Pius XII · Pope Pius XI · Pope Benedict XV · Pope Pius X · Pope Leo XIII · (more)

I think it's worthwhile to keep some history of the papacy in the template, to indicate the continuity and history of the Church. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The template group header "Pope Francis" could be changed to "Incumbent pope" with template as the first group item. It would convey more information, i.e. explicit about who is the incumbent, be more consistent with the "Preceding popes" (or re-named "Recent popes" or "Past popes") group header. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I say keep it. Leo XIII is often considered to be the first the pope of the modern era (for example, he's the oldest pope listed on the main section of the Vatican website, if I recall correctly), and there is a strong continuity of thought among all the popes from Leo XIII onward. The phrase itself, however, is a bit awkward. Maybe something different than "preceding popes"? Too much alliteration there. 8bitW (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Updates to 'Charity' section
Greetings, FYI the Charity section is updated with 'Aid to the Church in Need' and 'Catholic Relief Services' both of which I am familiar with. There may be other Catholic church charitable organizations (not local) within the global scope that might be added in the future. Regards, JoeHebda   (talk)  14:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Background colour
The current background colour is garish (on my screen anyway), resulting in a navbox that overwhelms it less-flashy neighbours. How about something less hard on the eyes, something like ? &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now changed it to . &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * fyi, there are actually hundreds of Catholicism navbox templates, all with color of gold. So to be consistent should they all be changed? Working on an unrelated issue, today I changed my Wikipedia skin to Vector & immediately noticed it's less colorfull so perhaps that might help with less color contrast. Regards,  JoeHebda   (talk)  02:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On my browser (a clone of Chrome) there is an add-on ScreenShader which can adjust color contrasts, bells & whistles, may be helpful for you also. JoeHebda   (talk)  02:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you propse changing colours, you should probably post the question in a more general place of the templates than this individual one. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Rites section
I think we should consider a revision to the "rites" section. In this context, "rites" would normally refer to the historical liturgical tradition of a particular church. In that sense, "Anglican Use" and "Ordinate Use" don't fit, since they are particular uses or expressions of the Roman Rite. (Additionally, according to the articles, the Anglican Use has been retired and superseded by the Ordinate Use.) Secondly, there are also several historic rites listed which descended from the traditions of the Latin Church, but developed somewhat separately from the Roman Rite (the Ambrosian, Sarum, and Mozarabic rites). These rites are now only used in very limited geographic areas and are not permitted to be used by the Church at large.

I think it's a bit misleading and unnecessarily confusing to newcomers to list these rites as if they were on equal footing with the main rites of the Catholic Church, which can in fact be celebrated without prejudice in any geographic location. I would suggest removing these rites from the infobox so people aren't confused into thinking they are celebrated at large throughout the Church.

Additionally I would like to check if there is a "Rites of the Latin Church" category or something like that to organize the various rites of the Latin Church, including the historical ones.

Thanks for your consideration, 8bitW (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Excluding Doctors of the Church?
This template is currently rather large. Perhaps the list of Doctors of the Church, having its own template, should be lifted from this template? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Looking at this template, I really like the "Popes" and "Associations of the Faithful" sections use of the (More) wikilink. So for the "Doctors of the Church" section, I suggest doing something similar. For example, only list the 6 most recent doctors, followed by the (More) which wikilinks to the same as "Doctors of the Church". Any feedback is welcome. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: For better overview. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 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. (closed by a page mover)  QEDK ( T  ☕  C ) 13:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Catholicism → Template:Catholic Church – More specific according to its contents. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Proposed name corresponds with template. Gulangyu (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, applicable and corresponds with the improved visible title. Randy Kryn 10:48, 6 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.

Requested move 30 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. (non-admin closure)  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Catholic Church → Template:Catholic Church footer – WP:CONSISTENCY with, and to avoid confusion with, Catholic Church sidebar. Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 10:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Jujutsuan ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 22:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppose, unnecessary, it's fine as is and corresponds with the visible title. It seems that most titles which have a side-template and a footer name one of them with just the topic, as this one. So in that consistency is already achieved. Randy Kryn 11:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral . Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't you yourself just make this mistake? :) Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 11:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did. So I change my opinion: Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I wp:refactored your original vote with a strikeout for clarity.  Feel free to revert if you disapprove for some reason.   Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think you mean Template:Catholic Church footer... PC78 (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've corrected the nomination.   Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 11:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. It will avoid combustion. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀   19:30, 19 July 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.

Discussion on adding a Josephology section
A discussion has been opened here at the Catholicism project about adding a section named Josephology to the template below Mariology. Please discuss it there. Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Harmonisation of history section with equivalent templates
I'm thinking it would be suitable to harmonise the contents of the history section of this template with the history contents of Template:Catholic Church sidebar, and Template:History of the Catholic Church.

Here below is an idea:

Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

For "below" line, are "Templates" and "WikiProject" really needed?
Greetings, Today I re-grouped similar elements on the template's "below" line. Wonder if "Templates" and "WikiProject" can be removed? IMO not needed for Wikipedia readers. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think it hurts much, does it? For the rest, I'm sceptical about separation of below section in two rows for space economy in already cluttere templates.

Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017
The word concilium in Sacrosanctum concilium should be lowercase as title case is not used in Latin and concilium is not a proper noun. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Nihlus  03:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Size
This template is too long, this template would not look better if looks like the Template:Eastern Orthodox Church footer? (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)).
 * Its size seems fine, although it may have too many listings for some topics (and the one in the section above, that's way too big). A template is a Wikipedia topic map. A good template will divide the topics into sections, present each section coherently (chronological order, or importance to the topic, or other formats), and act as a guide to the collection as much as completeness allows. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Templates could be big, but not huge. Admittedly this template is closer to maximum than most typical templates, but still within default larger size, I would interpretate. Conversely, don't you think Template:Eastern Orthodox Church footer could be extended somewhat? PPEMES (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass of Paul VI
The Mass of Paul VI is not named "Novus Ordo" except by its detractors. It is not neutral to display that term uncritically here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Association of faithful not equal to catholic laity
Kindly introduce changes that will take into account the distinction that is found here in this other template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Catholic_laity

Please notice that association of the faithful is just one canonical structure under the catholic laity.Marax (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
OK. I have never done this and want you to do it. I wanted to ad to the "charities section" One of the most well known Catholic charities is missing. Its literally called Catholic Charities and it is in every city. Please list it. Also, somewhere you should list the two Nationwide Catholic support groups for homosexually oriented Catholics: One is called Courage. It is sanctioned by the Catholic church and supports Catholics in living celibate lives in line with Catholic teaching. The other is called Dignity, and it is not sanctioned by the church and it is for Catholics who want to meet other Catholics who are gay and believe that God does not condemn them for living fully as fully sexual beings in same sex relationships. Both organizations can be found by simple google searches. Thank you 2600:1700:11E1:3090:5079:D090:A0CD:9E9F (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ only topics which have a Wikipedia article are in this footer. Catholic charities is already hyperlinked in the footer. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, the main one has an article (Catholic Charities USA) and, since the template has the section, seems a good suggestion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request
I'm not quite good enough at wikitext to see why this footer has vte with a line break in between them? Usually they don't right? Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  23:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I'm unsure what you're referring to, I don't see a line break. It looks normal on my end (PC). Actualcpscm (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)