Template talk:Catholic Encyclopedia

Position of tag
Where exactly in an article do I put this tag? at the head, footnote or as references?--Ariedartin 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, is is used asa bulleted item within the references section, but alternatively, you can also use it as a footnote. Circeus 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Template:1913Catholic seems to be obsolete. See what links there. But it is still easily found with a search. I suggest that it is done away with. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I redirected 1913Catholic here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Or: ‘Warning this article may contain discredited nonsense’
I would edit the template to incorporate the above if I could do the same, at the same time, to. The out-of-date and out-of-copyright text-dumps which we indulge in too often make our encyclopaedia appear to be a very silly encyclopaedia. —Ian Spackman 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good change . Can I assume that the template should be removed from text dumps that have already been edited for bias and anachronism, and replaced with a more generic acknowledgement of the source material?  For example:
 * Parts of this article were copied from the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Perhaps have Template:Catholic Edited be the acknowledgement version?
 * I wrote the current language when I saw pages about cities in Asia Minor (e.g. Hypaepa) which start off with "xxx is a Roman Catholic titular bishopric". This is still true as far as I know, but hardly the most salient fact about the city. --Macrakis 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes such a template makes sense to me. (Or a parameter on the existing template which would switch its wording if set to YES.) There are two key points, though:
 * The template should automatically place the article in an appropriate maintenance category: either the existing Category:Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia, or better still a new sub-category of that one. (There are people trying to import everything from the Catholic Encyclopedia—it takes all sorts!—and they wouldn’t want to lose track of what the derived articles are.)
 * The template should have a parameter to allow us to specify which article(s) from the CE are referred to. (They will very often not have the same title as ours.) Actually, the current template should perhaps offer that option too.
 * —Ian Spackman 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the entry has already been added to the Catholic Encyclopedia at Wikisource (which right now is, with one exception, just the Y and Z sections), the template Wikisource1913CatholicEnc can be used. --Benn Newman 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thinking, Ian. Someone please go ahead and make suitable maintenance sub-categories as Ian Spackman suggests.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're hitting it from the wrong angle. I actually have edited some Catholic encyclopedia stuff and not done mere data-dumps; that's the main usage of the Catholic template, the attribution. If you want to make a template with this text, I would support that. Even if 80% of the content with the tag is credulous datadumps, that's an argument for a bot-assisted move to a cleanup-template, with the standard one remaining, well, standard (and people moving cleanup to regular as warranted, and contributors warned that new content should take the cleanup tag by default).

Also, I think the section title is showing that a seriously wrong attitude is being taken here. I'm not Catholic, but seeing a 1913 Catholic perspective is very interesting, in the same way that the turn-of-the-century British academic perspective in the 1911 Britannica is. Opinionated is not even remotely a synonym for nonsense. Blame editors who introduce such opinions as simple fact, not the source. SnowFire 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SnowFire, I agree that the 1913 Catholic information and pov is valuable, as is the 1911 Britannica pov -- the Talk section heading wasn't mine. However, I have come across too many articles which are in fact direct dumps, or preserve the traces of direct dumps. Take a look at Stauropolis, Jassus, Harpasa, and many other towns in Asia Minor whose descriptions begin with "... is a RC titular see" rather than "... is a city in Asia Minor". These clearly need cleanup.

I think your idea of having a 1913Catholic-cleanup tag is just fine, as long as we can convert all existing Catholic tags to it automatically. --Macrakis 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * this template is used when material of the CathEn is included, not just when a CathEn article is copied part and parcel. I usually take care to edit the CathEn text against bias when importing, and am still using this template to indicate my source. In cases where, indeed, a Catholic pov transpires in imported material, a separate cleanup tag should be used.dab (&#5839;) 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if that were true for other contributors, but alas it is not. Take a look at the articles I cite above, for example.  Consider for example Jassus.  It starts with "Jassus is a Roman Catholic titular see", as though the fact that it is a city in Asia Minor is peripheral.  It mentions its role in the Roman Catholic church (as a titular see), but not in the post-schism Orthodox church.  It does not mention anything about its later Byzantine, Ottoman, or modern Turkish history.  The name of the modern town is given in an archaic form, and there is no reference to the current modern name.  It clearly needs a lot of cleanup.  I have started doing some cleanup on some of these articles, but much more is needed. --Macrakis 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hidden category for source
Editprotected

I think we should add the source category Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia to the template.

I propose we add the following code to this template:

--Eastlaw (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Two questions: 1)  where exactly am I supposed to establish this consensus?  Hardly anyone even cares enough to look at this talk page, and my note at WikiProject Catholicism has gone unanswered thus far.  2)  The edit I am requesting is fairly uncontroversial, so why is any sort of consensus necessary for a simple category addition?  --Eastlaw (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Yeah, this is uncontroversial.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was renamed Category:Articles incorporating text from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliability
Is this Catholic Encyclopedia even reliable? Articles shouldn't incorporate texts full of religious POVs! This can be exemplified in the article Publius Lentulus, where no other sources except the Encyclopedia are given. In that article, he is considered fictitious just because the Catholic Encyclopedia said that his existence is apocryphal. We should really discuss this. Pikolas (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace code with a wrapper around cite encyclopedia
I propose to do the same think to this template as I have implemented for 1911 see Template talk:1911.

I propose:
 * 1) to add an icon to the front of the template text so that anyone who watches for changes notices the change.
 * 2) to add to the template the ability to handle a new parameter called "wikisource="
 * 3) Change the documentation so that all new additions of this template use "wikisource="
 * 4) Change all the current use of the template so that the current parameters of not named and article use wikisource=
 * 5) Alter the template so that it has similar functionality to that of 1911

comments welcome -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just been informed of Cite Catholic Encyclopedia as that template uses "wstitle=" I will use that in place of "wikisource=" -- PBS (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The template Cite Catholic Encyclopedia makes it much easier to alter this template, because this template can call that one, and that one can do all the hard work. All that needs to be done in this script is to print a modified prescript and then call the Cite Catholic Encyclopedia template with the correct parameters. I propose to use the same format for the prescript as is used in 1911:
 * "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:"

As that allows for the dropping of the postscript. The postscript proved to be a problem because the cite encyclopedia (which is called by Cite Catholic Encyclopedia) ends in a full stop which makes the postscript look odd without modification. Removing it simplifies the code. --PBS (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to use the Cite Catholic Encyclopedia template because it did not handle the title= parameter as a none wikisource parameter, so this template calls cite encyclopedia directly. Some examples of the new code -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd-sounding result when adding the author's name. Please fix!
I'm currently editing this template on Gallican Rite. I used the parameters first & last (plus authorlink & wstitle, however I don't believe these parameters affect the text below). The resulting text is (emphasis is mine):

"This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Jenner, Henry (1913). "Gallican Rite". In Herbermann, Charles. Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company."

That result sounds odd and confusing to me in the portion I emphasized. Herbermann, Charles is not the name of the book, nor can we find articles in his abdominal cavity! I get that he's the editor, and so his name comes first if we don't use the author's name parameters. But I'd like to suggest some alternatives:


 * 1) In (Herbermann, Charles, ed.) Catholic Encyclopedia.
 * 2) In Catholic Encyclopedia (Herbermann, Charles, ed.).
 * 3) In Catholic Encyclopedia; Herbermann, Charles, ed.

I'd prefer #2. I can't follow up on things very often due to chronic illness, so please just run with what you think is best & don't wait for me to respond. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 March 2015
Please change the line  to   so that a ref parameter is propagated if provided. See where this is already done, the sandbox ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Catholic/sandbox&diff=651512110&oldid=651511429 diff]) and testcases ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Catholic/testcases&oldid=651513154 permalink]) pages. Thanks.

Mirokado (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I used triple braces as described above. Using double braces as in the sandbox would not have worked, because the template is not intended for this - it creates links, not anchors. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Silly me, I intended the triple braces. I should of course have checked the generated html too... --Mirokado (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2015
The template systematically produces a CS1 error "line feed character in |1= at position 1". I think there is simply one redundant pipe character after "cite encyclopedia".

FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The CS1 error-checking has improved since this template was written. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested additions
Could/should the template be amended to automatically set the parameter "location=New York", since that is where (I believe) the encyclopedia was published?

Could/should it wikilink the editor's name to his article Charles George Herbermann. Chuntuk (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2016
I suggest two additions to the automatically populated values passed to cite encyclopedia:

location is currently set to blank, editor-link doesn't appear at all. I have already made this change in the sandbox version and it seems to work OK.

Chuntuk (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Qed237&#160;(talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems a pretty uncontentious change to make, and I suggested it in the talk page entry immediately above this edit request nearly a month ago. Nobody has objected, or commented upon it in any way for that matter. I'll try again using RfC markup (which I was previously unaware of) Chuntuk (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Include editor-link and location in auto-populated field in Catholic template
Should the editor's name be wikilinked to his article, and the location be set to New York? Chuntuk (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to link to the editor's article - there are already a lot of links in the template, and I would prefer not to overwhelm readers with a sea of blue. Also, they can find his article by clicking on the Catholic Encyclopedia link. I've added the location, though. (I also reduced the protection to semi-protection, so you should be able to edit the page yourself now.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 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. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Catholic → Template:Catholic Encyclopedia – Since that is what it is about, not just "Catholic". Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

* Approve Adds clarity & eliminates confusion, always a good thing. — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:17, 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.

Double Icon
Right now, I'm seeing two icons in this template invocation: This doesn't seem right to me. Daask (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The issue appears to have been resolved. There have been major edits to the template since my report. Daask (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge title and wstitle?
Is it time to merge title and wstitle? I'm under the impression that the distinction was only significant when Wikisource's coverage was less complete. Wikisource said their edition was 97% complete in 2011, although that number may be made-up. I count 60 red links at s:User:Charles Matthews/CE Completion out of what I imagine to be thousands of articles, far below 1%. (I'd be happy to learn how to count them; they're listed via Special:PrefixIndex here.) In other words, every use of Template:Catholic Encyclopedia has an associated article available on Wikisource, although of greatly varying quality.

Currently, wstitle overrides url. I suggest that this be reversed, so that url overrides the default Wikisource link. I suggest that differences in wstitle and title be treated as errors. Daask (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 January 2021
Consider adding  to the attributes for File:PD-icon.svg and File:Wikisource-logo.svg to prevent these images from accepting clicks and (if I understand correctly) exclude these icons from the images shown by the media viewer. (See Template:PD-notice for an example.) 忍者猫 (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikisource logo is under an attribution license and needs the click feature to function for attribution purposes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, but do you have a link to the page saying that linking has to be enabled for attribution purposes? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ for File:PD-icon.svg. ❌ for File:Wikisource-logo.svg per Finnusertop. See Extended image syntax * Pppery * it has begun...  18:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi please fix the CS error. It says "missing title". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.59.209 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No can do, friend IP. The CS1 error appears in this template for a reason and cannot be omitted.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 10:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This can often be fixed by noinclude-ing a dummy title on the template page itself. I played around with it and was unable to make it work in this case, but someone may be able to fix it with a quick edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Letting this template throw the error on its page gives editors an idea of what to look for if they forget to include a title. It's useful.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)