Template talk:Catholic Church footer/Archive 1

Undoing of Koavf's edit
I removed the entry of Koaf, because he does not seem to understand the structure of the church. The part:"Particular churches sorted by Liturgical traditions" actually does not show traditions, but churches, sharing traditions/rites. Therfore, first the shared rite is mentioned, then the churches, practicing this rite. It's different with the Latin rite. The Latin rite actually is no rite but the name of what is usually called the "western church". This church has one "main" rite, the so called Roman rite. There are four other rites, besides this rite, which are practiced within this western church (I have to confess, that we, the editors of this template, are still unsure about the relation between these rites). Therefore in case of the western church, instead of one tradition/rite, leading to one or more churches, there are five rites leading to one church, called Latin rite. Please read the articles, the churches and tradition are linked to, and you will discover that this is the only correct way, to display the real situation. --Thw1309 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

General comments
First off, I like the template and have used it to roam around and find a lot of information about the Catholic Church. It is good to have a base that can direct you to most topics you are interested in.

With that said, I must object to having the Priestly Society of St. Peter listed as a separate Church from the Latin Church. This is just incorrect. Probably they should be listed under Orders but even that is not entirely correct. Perhaps a new place is needed of listing Priestly Societies like the Sulpices and the Jesuits. FSSP would fit in very well there.

Also, the other rites that you have listed for the Latin Church are not entirely separate rites. The issues involved here are complicated. They are still the Latin Rite just with a little bit of changing of this or that for local use. With a little bit of study we see the same thing in the other rites as well. The Byzantine rite actually contains four rites that are pretty distinct from each other. These are often called Liturgies but it is more complicated then that because it is not just a certain form of the Mass but also involves the praying of the litturgy of the hours and certian divotionals of the layiaty. The litturgies of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church are different and distict from the litturgies of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the difference is more then just lanauge.

Now I am not saying that you have to go and list everything and I am also not saying that it is wrong to have it listed the way you do but I am asking you to keep this in mind. The Mozarabic rite is part of the Latin rite not just contained within the Latin Church the same as the Litturgy of St. Mark and the Litturgy of St. James are both contained in the Byzantine rite. For that matter the Syriac rite also celebrates the Litturgy of St. James but with a few differences and the Coptics use the Litturgy of St. Mark with some differences.

The different rites are connected and learn from each other but at the end of the day there is the idea that regardless of exact litturgy, one belongs to this or that rite. I contend that the other rites within the Latin rite are part of the Latin rite and not just part of the Latin Church. I think it is great to list them but I worry about the way they are listed confusing people or having people come to incorrect conclusions. I know this assumes a lot of power in a template but some people only need a little bit to get way off track.

I thank you for your consideration in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a very large degree. The different rites are not all that different and take up a lot of real estate here. I plan to list them together eventually without all this space in between. Thank you for your comments and help. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Size
This is box is growing very large. Can a collapse option be added, such as was done for Template:Christian History? --Carlaude (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Hi, thank's for the viewing, but I think at the present probably not, although if if would get much larger, that is clearly an option. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Navbox template series was developed with the recommendation that they should default to "autocollapse", but WP is a place of freedoms, so the "state" parameter was designed to bypass the default setting. I set the default to "autocollapse" and implemented the "state" function to allow users to force a "collapsed" or "uncollapsed" option as certain situations may dictate.  See the documentation on the template to see how to use this.  Let me know if you have any questions. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Postscript: If this template continues to grow, it may be best to convert it to . Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank's Tombstone, this is really helpful, as not all pages need this big template open all the time. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Theology of the Body nominated for deletion
One of the articles linked in this template, Catholic Theology of the Body, has been nominated for deletion. (Note this is a separate article from Theology of the Body on JPII's speeches). All comments are welcome at this articles' deletion discussion page. LyrlTalk C 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cardinal of Catholic Church
I introduced this template to apply in cardinals' pages. You can see a demonstration on the page of cardinal Camillo Ruini and Angelo Bagnasco. I'm of it.wiki and I wish that you can apply this template to all cardinals in this wikipedia! Thanks. -- andrea_brescio   §  in fructus labore 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Congratulations, looks great--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Group One: History : Councils
'Thank you for protecting this page. editprotected Please replace Councils with the larger article Councils. Much appreciated --Ambrosius007 (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Jac16888 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Vatican II redundancy
editprotected In the second column of the row with the wikilinked title "Vatican II" (in the first column), there is a link to "Second Vatican Council". Of course, both the row title and subsequent entry link to the same article. I would suggest removing the "Second Vatican Council" entry in the second column. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Jac16888 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This template appears to be frozen
From the two sections immediately preceding this one it would seem that this template is now frozen. Both sections include a request for change and both have been ignored. I have recently requested the protecting admin to unprotect it while I make a correction, but he blanked me. I think this template should now be regarded as defunct. If someone would like to copy it to a new template we could make the requested changes and other modifications that may be required, and then substitute the current template with the new one in all relevant articles. Am I missing something - this is a Wiki, isn't it? 86.24.126.222 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bypass redirect
editprotected

Mariology

should be replaced with

Mariology

Note to admin: there are two more requests above mine, I've also tagged them with editprotected. GregorB (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Jac16888 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! So, to 86.24.126.222: this template is not frozen after all. GregorB (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Repairing links to disambiguation pages
editprotected

Hi, I'm trying to repairing links to disambiguation pages using WikiCleaner 0.8: (reporting 23 redirect errors). Unfortunately I cannot edit the page because it is protected. Help Desk suggested leaving message here for an administrator to help. --     02:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK Marek, I have made semiprotected so you can edit. I will reprotect in an hour or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. Now reprotected. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Particular Churches: Why are a few bolded?
Why are some of the particular churches bolded and others not? That smacks of NPOV, favoring some over others. It looks random, and also rather messy, since nothing else in the template is bolded. I suggest an admin simply make every church the same: unbolded. joye (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Taking a closer look, it appears that churches are not bolded and rites are bolded. Shouldn't this be indicated in some way, or done by grouping rather than formatting? Formatting is not at all an obvious method, and right now we've got "Armenian Armenian" right next to either other, with one bolded and one not, and only hovering over the link tells you that one will take you to the Rite and the other to the Church. Incidentally, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) is not a sui iuris Church or a Rite, and they would be the first to tell you so. It does not belong in that part of the template at all. joye (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could make a copy of what you think the template should be changed to in the Template:Catholicism/sandbox, ask for feedback here. If there is no response and you believe the change is uncontroversial, just add the editprotected template to this page and an admin will be along shortly. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have proposed an edit below to correct the misplaced reference to the FSSP.   The bolded terms in the Particular churches category appear as if they were intended to represent the respective liturgical traditions ("rites") of the particular churches.   However, some editor/s have used the same pattern to add links to the liturgical traditions within the Latin Church (Mozarabic, Ambrosian), and even to represent the relatively-new Anglican Use.   This is not quite consistent with the classic use of rite as a grouping of the particular churches. -- Chonak (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Order of Saint Benedict
The Benedictine link should be to Order of Saint Benedict which begins "The Order of Saint Benedict (Latin name: Ordo Sancti Benedicti) is a Roman Catholic religious order of independent monastic communities that observe the Rule of St. Benedict..." and not Benedictine which is more general. Peter Clarke 14:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Augustinian Order?
In the Order's section there is a link showing Augustinian Order but it links you to Augustinians where there is info about several other Augustinian movements. It should be changed to Order of Saint Augustine wich is, i think, the original purpose.--Kallme (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Prelate
Prelate should be added after bishop in hierarchy. Pinoyrk (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Redemptorist
Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorist) need to be added to the section on Orders. Also, do lay orders such as Congregation of Christian Brothers and Lasallian Brothers belong here? -- S Masters (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Benedict XVI notable writings: Caritas in Veritate
I was proposing adding Caritas in Veritate to Pope Benedict XVI's section.

I do recognize that some may think that too much detail. There already are two encyclicals, one apostolic letter and one apostolic exhortation in that section. However, as it is the most recent, and thus likely to be more highly searched for, it would make sense.

Discuss.

Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Preceding Popes
Please fix the following: we need not have the word "pope" in all the wikilinks to preceding popes. Without we can do without another line, which looks better. Str1977 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. This would save space and not hinder use of template of its clarity for navigation.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite his one-month reign, John Paul I should also be included in the list of preceding popes after John Paul II. --207.32.122.194 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

John Paul I should be there - he goes in list8 immediately after John Paul II.

list8 = Pope John Paul II·

list8 = Pope John Paul II· Pope John Paul I BPMullins | Talk 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Add Caritas in Veritate to protected template
Hello, could an administrator please add Caritas in Veritate (Pope Benedict XVI's third encyclical) to the list of articles related to that pope? This would go to the line beginning with "list7". Thank you. Loves Macs  (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this suggestion (see two sections above). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've added it to the end of list7; if it should be elsewhere let me know or reinstate the editprotected tag. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 19:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid the redirect 'Roman Catholic church' (first entry/link). The article has been moved towards 'Catholic church' Flamarande (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Move
The Roman Catholic Church does not represent all of Catholicism, so the template should be moved to a more appropriate location. —Eustress talk 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, unless of course the template is to include the other forms of Catholicism. As it is now, it should be  . Moonraker2 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the move.
 * As for adding more to template-- this is already got to be, if not the largest template I've seen, at least the largest template on my watchlist. The section on doctors ot the chuch alone is just a complete repeat of the Template:Churchdoctor. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then is what we want? It seems the obvious choice. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me —Eustress talk 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose a move towards . A move request should use the proper 'move request' templates. I would support a move towards  ; the church (the institution itself) is without any doubt the main subject of the template. Flamarande (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment, per Flamarande. Majoreditor (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing Orders in Orders and Societies Section

 * Norbertine
 * Cistercian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.24.117 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

bishops
The template currently has: Pope· Cardinals· Patriarchs· Major Archbishops· Primates· Metropolitans· Archbishops· Diocesan Bishops.

Each of the first seven links is to an article that discusses only that particular rank of bishop. The eighth and final link, however, is to an article -- Bishop (Catholic Church) -- that discusses all of the ranks of bishop, not just diocesan bishop. There is a separate article entitled Diocesan bishop.

May I suggest (1) changing the display name for Bishop (Catholic Church) from the current "Diocesan Bishops" to "Bishops (in general)" and (2) adding a link immediately before that one, to Diocesan Bishops. Eagle4000 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Holy See
A link to Holy See should be added. Perhaps to #Hierarchy or #History. -- Bonifacius 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Name change "Italo-Greek" -> "Italo-Albanian"
Please modify the link on "Italo-Greek" to "Italo-Albanian Catholic Church". The name "Italo-Greek" is no longer used for this Church, and the Wikipedia article has been updated accordingly. -- Chonak (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Italo-Greek

should be replaced with

Italo-Albanian

-- Chonak (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter misplaced
The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is a religious order within the Latin Church; it does not belong on the list of Particular churches. -- Chonak (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin · Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter

should be replaced with

Latin -- Chonak (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 배우는사람, 31 August 2010

 * 1) REDIRECT Template:Edit protected/preload

I want to add an interwiki
I created the Korean version of this template, named ko:틀:로마 가톨릭교회. I just want to add an interwiki to the Korean version to this template. Thank you.--배우는사람 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglican Use as a Particular Church
As I understand the term particular church, it refers to either dioceses or the Western church and the various Eastern churches. But "Anglican Use" is here labelled as a "particular church". Shouldn't it be removed, or the section renamed? If not, shouldn't it at least be placed in brackets after "Latin"? —Felix the Cassowary 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Image
Why is there such a large image in the template? The image may be fine on the page, but templates are not tools of evangelisation or whatever, they are to aid quick navigation (as in the related links), the image serves absolutely no purpose.Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We could make it a bit smaller but it is really not that big. It is smaller than most wp images. I really wonder why the template is so freaking big. It has soooo many links that nothing is found quickly. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would certainly help, it takes up the whole size of the template and thus forcing other links to a new line.Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
There were over 13 redirects in this template, and 1 duplication. When there are redirects in a template, then they will not "black out" when transcluded onto their article pages. I've updated the template, added a /doc page, cleaned up the links, put them in alphabetical and/or chronological order, fixed a broken redirect, and so forth. The updated template is at: Template:Catholicism/sandbox. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. I am taking it on trust that changing Roman Catholic Church &rarr; Catholic Church (per the current article name) is not one of those changes that looks completely innocuous from the outside but will throw certain factions all in a tizzy. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wondered about that also, but it looks like the change was made "per consensus at mediation and later discussion" on 2 July 2009, see: . --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 05Feb11
There needs to be one correction in the history section, so that it's in chronological order, see the sandbox:. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Anupam, 11 February 2011
Hello! I suggest that we add a "Social Principles" section underneath the "Theology" section with the following terms included: sanctity of life, solidarity, marriage, complementarianism, social mortgage, alcohol, homosexuality, slavery, just war, living wage, social justice, pornography, stem cell research, abortion, cloning, euthanasia and option for the poor. This will allow Wikipedians to easily access the social principles of the Catholic Church. I have wikilinked all the relevant articles to these words so you can simply copy and paste them into the template. Thanks!

AnupamTalk 02:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is the kind of request which needs to be discussed first. Please let this proposal stand for a few days to allow others to comment. In the meantime you may like to make your changes to the sandbox copy. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear MSGJ, I am happy to let this stand for a couple days. If there are no objections, then you can incorporate the material into the template. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian template
Russian template: ru:Шаблон:Католицизм — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisKrivosheev (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add St. John of Avila to the list of Doctors of the Church. Thanks in advance.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Orders and Societies"
The wikilink given for "Orders and Societies" is Catholic religious order, an article that concerns only an historical subdivision (with uncertain relevance to post-1983 Catholic canon law) of religious institutes, which in turn are a subdivision of institutes of consecrated life. One of the examples given, Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, does not fit under the heading "Catholic religious order". To accomodate this example, the wikilink should be changed at least to Religious institute. Making the wikilink Institute of Consecrated Life would also admit secular institutes and, since they are mentioned in that article, societies of apostolic life, and this last point would in turn justify the use of the phrase "and Societies" at present in the heading. In any case, "Orders" in the heading must be changed, because it excludes the religious institutes that the 1917 Code of Canon Law called congregations (as well as being a term that no longer appears in current Catholic canon law). Perhaps the heading could become "Religious institutes and similar", whichever wikilink is chosen. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Camel-case - Request for change
There are some examples of camel-case ub the template:


 * "Teachings" - should be "teachings",
 * "Liturgical Traditions" (two occurrences) - should be "liturgical traditions",

unless at the beginning of a sentence or expression, as neither are proper nouns.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Request: change to lower case


 * 1) the general heading to "Organizations, papacy, teachings and liturgical traditions"
 * 2) the subcategory subheading "Particular Churches sorted by liturgical traditions"
 * as indicated by HandsomeFella;
 * and also the subcategory subheading "Preceding popes". Esoglou (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that this request to make the heading accord with MOS:CAP will be attended to in the same way as requests and  above. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to rename the subcategory subheading "Orders and Societies"
Of the eleven entities listed under this subheading, three are not "orders": two are "congregations", and the remaining one fits under neither of these descriptions. "Societies" is far too vast a category: it would include associations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Newman Society, the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Association ... These associations are clearly not meant to be put in the same category as the eleven entities mentioned: the three entities that do not fit under "orders" are in the popular mind much closer to the idea of "orders" than to the wide notion of "societies". So I propose a change to:
 * Religious institutes and societies of apostolic life

The first ten entitities mentioned are all religious institutes, the last (the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri) is a society of apostolic life. Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is talk about the Template:Catholicism.
 * You want Categories for discussion. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance. I have difficulty in putting it into effect, since I can find no  to which to attach a tag such as ProposedName .  Would you please guide me further.  When I used the term "subcategory" above, I did not mean a category in that sense, but only in the sense of a subsection (or whatever is the best expression) of the Catholicism template.  My use of the term "subcategory" was doubtless unfortunate.
 * I presume that, in any case, the request I made immediately above, under "Camel-case", for de-capitalization of certain words here, will be attended to here. Regrettably, I used the expression "subcategory" there also.  Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have struck out the word "subcategory", replacing it with "subheading", in the hope that my request will be given consideration as what it is, not as what it is not. Esoglou (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked to comment on this request, but I don't think I care either way. Why don't you just make the change you think needs to happen, and if do no responds to the change, then you are all done. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't. Please read WP:REDLOCK.  I am hoping that my requests will be attended to in the same way as requests  and  above.  Esoglou (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't know that much about the orders and societies here, it just seems fine to me the way it is.
 * To me, subheadings don't need to stritly match the links therein. You just need the best links for the template subject, and then arrange them as best you can so that links can be found. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 14:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Headings should surely correspond to contents. Here, eight of the eleven linked entities are "orders" (a term no longer in official use in Catholic canon law). Only one of the eleven belongs to that special class of societies that are called societies of apostolic life.  To make the remaining two, which are not "orders", fit under the present heading, "society" must be understood, not in that special sense, but in the ordinary general sense, a sense applicable fully also to the eight that can be called "orders".  All eleven are equally "societies" in this general sense, making the heading somewhat tautological.  The present heading is certainly not "the best we can".  A better is available, one against which no objection has been raised: "Religious institutes and societies of apostolic life".  Esoglou (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, article names on Wikipedia are based on the most common name in use, not on the official name.
 * In fact links should match the article linked to on templates, so the current should even be changed from Orders and Societies to Religious orders... unless you can show that the Religious institute (Catholic) article is a better than the Catholic religious order article, for the purposes of linking to. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, as long as you defend an inaccurate name for this heading and nobody else intervenes, no change can be made. Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. What is the issue here anyway? I can not see what the discussion is about. Can you provide a 2 sentence description of before/after here? Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "before" (= "present") heading is "Orders and Societies" piped to Catholic religious order. The "after" heading - if there will be one - is "Religious institutes and societies of apostolic life" piped to Religious institute (Catholic) and Society of apostolic life.  The objection to the "before" heading is that only eight of the eleven entities mentioned are Catholic religious orders.  One of them is a society of apostolic life; all the others, including those that are not orders are religious institutes.
 * (I apologize for having failed to notice the piping to Catholic religious order and so for having needlessly written above about the meanings of "societies".) Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine. So what we know is that:
 * Religious institute (Catholic) is ontologically superior to Catholic religious order and subsumes it. However, it does not subsume society of apostolic life
 * Institute of consecrated life subsumes both Religious institute (Catholic) and society of apostolic life

The hierarchy/ontology seems well specified in the Code of Canon law, as specified in Institute of consecrated life as A.a vs B. Hence my suggestion would be that the link title should go to the highest point in the ontology, i.e. the title should be "Institutes, orders and societies" and the link should go to the most general item, namely Institute of consecrated life. Is that logical? And Carl does not seem to have a major objection, the main issue is the Redlock. So let us agree on the logic, then we will look for a Redkey. History2007 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Institute of consecrated life subsumes secular institute in addition to religious institute (Catholic), but it does not subsume society of apostolic life. The Code of Canon Law deals with institutes of consecrated life in Book II, Part III, Section I: Institutes of Consecrated Life (canons 573-730), and with societies of apostolic life in Book II, Part III, Section II: Societies of Apostolic Life (canons 731-755).  Canon 731 says (emphases added): "Societies of apostolic life resemble institutes of consecrated life; their members, without religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to the society and, leading a life in common as brothers or sisters according to their proper manner of life, strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions." It adds that some (not all) of these societies are "societies in which members assume the evangelical counsels by some bond defined in the constitutions" - not by public vows.
 * However, even that proposed change would be an improvement on the present heading: it would cover all but one of the eleven entities listed.
 * If it is wished to make room for secular institutes as well as religious institutes, then institute of consecrated life should be used in place of religious institute (Catholic). A list of secular institutes present in the US is given here. Lists of secular institutes active elsewhere are given, for instance, at it:Istituto secolare. Esoglou (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, my error. So what subsumes both Institute of consecrated life and society of apostolic life? History2007 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the question. The answer seems to be either "nothing" or "societies/ Catholic societies" (with no such Wikipedia article).
 * Don't worry about my POV much. I only expressed a view at the proding to do so by Esoglou. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Esoglou knows that topic much better than myself. So maybe he can start a short article to replace the "societies/ Catholic societies". Given that I was confused from a first reading of these things, I think other readers may be too, so some clarification may be useful, and once that has been achieved then we can link it logically. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The theme "Catholic societies" is so broad as to be almost meaningless. The Knights of Columbus?  The Catholic Association?  The Society of St. Vincent de Paul?  The Newman Society?  And thousands upon thousands more.  The eleven bodies listed are all a quite narrow class of Catholic societies: ten institutes of consecrated life and one society "similar to institutes of consecrated life".  There is no single term that subsumes and is limited to institutes of consecrated life plus societies of apostolic life.  The Code of Canon Law titles its Book II, Part III: "Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life", and then gives a Section each to the two.  Esoglou (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is getting so complicated, I am thinking of giving up and becoming a hermit or a monk... So what is your best, best suggestion then in one sentence and we will see if we can live with that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Religious institutes and societies of apostolic life was what I proposed. It covers accurately the bodies listed, and no objection has really been raised against it.
 * Institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life would take account of an observation by you and would allow inclusion also of secular institutes. I find this fully acceptable also.
 * So, which do you prefer? Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Either one is ok for me, after all the explanations. Let us see which one Carl prefers and then we go from there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They are both very long for the purpose of a sub head. I would rather have "Societies" with no article link. şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 13:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are both long. But we can shorten the terms, and given that the purpose of these templates is to tell people about the existence of articles, we probably need links. I did not even know that the article institute of consecrated life existed. So how about keeping the length almost what it is now, and just changing the links, i.e.:

It does not take too much space and has links. It may just work. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that "Societies" be replaced by "similar". "Societies" is such a vague wide-ranging expression.  Societies of apostolic life, which are the only kind of societies concerned, are officially described as "resembling" institutes of consecrated life.  The revised heading would then be "Religious institutes and similar", of almost exactly the same length as the present heading and much shorter than another heading in the template, "Particular Churches sorted by Liturgical Traditions", which has not been objected to on the basis of length.  (As you know, I have requested that "Liturgical Traditions" be changed to "liturgical traditions".)  Esoglou (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why not change what I had above so we can see what it looks like? And you can change the liturgical item too, so when the change is made, it will be just a copy. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. But I see now that the last heading is inaccurate: Roman Rite, Anglican Use, Sarum Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite are not particular Churches.  They don't belong.  The heading could be changed (and shortened) to "Particular Churches and liturgical rites", and then they would fit.  That question will have to raised separately.  Esoglou (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But now that you have focused on this, why not bring that one up, make a proposed change to hat and then we can get it all wrapped up in one go? History2007 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Including also the case changes requested above.  For the question of the last of the headings, perhaps it will be enough to repeat here, as a subsection, what I said above.  Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This fully discussed and agreed proposal was really part of the request below, of which only the final part has been attended to. Esoglou (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. To save me reading through the huge discussion above would you mind clarifying what exactly has been agreed on, and I will make the change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To replace the present text with that given here in the discussion [History2007 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)], which incorporates all the changes proposed and accepted by the commenting editors. Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tra (Talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Particular Churches and liturgical rites
The last section of the template is at present headed: "Particular Churches sorted by Liturgical Tradition". Its listing includes Roman Rite, Anglican Use, Sarum Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, which are liturgical rites, not particular Churches. I request therefore a change of heading to "Particular Churches and liturgical rites". Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, now let us wait a day or so for Carl and/or any other people to comment then we will see. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also posted a note on the talk page for Wikiproject Catholicism to see if any comments get generated there, and then if all is well, we can ask for the changes to be reflected within the template page. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will have to check one of the recent sources, but I believe in at least a few sources, like the Our Sunday Visitor annual almanac, the individual Eastern Rite churches are, to some degree, sorted by the specific rites they use. I don't know why exactly, just that they seemingly are. Give me a few days to check, and I'll come back with a few more details. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the words "particular Churches" be removed and that the heading be reduced to "Liturgical rites"? The present arrangement in the template, except for the final part on Latin liturgical rites, gives the names of particular Churches (not of liturgical rites) already sorted by the liturgical family (e.g. Alexandrian) with which they are associated.  I am convinced therefore that the proposed heading ("Particular Churches and liturgical rites") is the best.  But if you insist on only "Liturgical rites" and if nobody else opposes you, neither will I.  Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn't my intention. Your proposal works at least as well to me. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I will leave this to John and Esoglou, given that they both know more about it than myself. So you guys please figure it out and update it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand the situation, John has accepted the proposed change. It only remains to unlock the red lock.  Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you just need to remind him to do that. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Remind whom? John Carter?  Does he have the key?
 * How does one request whoever has a key to the red lock to use it? By inserting the template  ?  Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. John is an admin, so I think he has the key. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposal has been discussed at length with agreement reached between editors. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have one of these keys for the red locks :) ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)