Template talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Edit request
Admin, please changed "Roman Catholic Church" to just "Catholic Church." This is more accurate since "Roman Catholic" means only the Latin Church and the project encompasses East & West. CanonLawJunkie (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

earlier comment
Catholicism 101 was not formed from the Christianity project. Dominick (TALK) 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "subproject"
If one interprets "is a subproject of" to mean "spawned from" or "spun off from", then the above comment is germane. However, if one interprets "is a subproject of" to mean "is logically a subordinate component of" based on the inherent epistemological structure of the two concepts "Catholicism" and "Christianity", then it would make sense to have "WikiProject Catholicism" be a subproject of "WikiProject Christianity".

We have defined WP:AZTEC to be a subproject of WP:MESO which is a subproject of WP:Pre-Columbian. That's not a chronological ordering, it's a logical (epistemological) ordering.

The text of Template:WikiProject makes a plea that WikiProjects not be "orphans". I think this is an unnecessary concern. There is some value in indicating the logical hierarchial relationships between WikiProjects but I'm not sure that doing so is as important as the author of the WikiProject template seems to think it is.

Thus, I don't much care whether or not the logical relationship of Catholicism and Christianity is embodied in the descriptions of the two projects since it is really a second-order issue. So I'll not work very hard to push my POV on this one.

I'm also tired of having every little thing contested. It's just not worth that much effort. If it's important to people to not have WP:Catholicism 101 be a subproject of WP:X, then fine - let it go.

--Richard 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with icon?
The papal emblem seems to appear as "HAZ COM" in the current version of the template. This seems to have begun when the template was shrunk down recently - for some reason the picture didn't scale down further. Any ideas why? I like Centrx's version - I'm all for keeping templates small - but it looks rather odd right now. I'm using Firefox 1.5, do other browsers render it the same? I'm not with the project so I hesitate to "fix" it. Thanks, Walkerma 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional link to the Catholic Encyclopedia
In the next couple of days I'll try to add an optional link to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Will anyone have any objections? JASpencer 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've set up a test template to show what it should look like:
 * Test Template
 * I've also set up two test pages to show what the template would look like with and without the link:
 * With Link
 * Without Link
 * The code, if you're interested, is:
 *  {{ #if: {{{link|}}} 
 *  {{!}} [[Image:Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01.svg|35px]] 
 *  {{!}} This corresponding article in the Catholic Encyclopedia may be usefully used to expand this article: {{{link}}} 
 * JASpencer 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added it in and this is what it looks like: Talk:Ramsey Abbey. JASpencer 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added it in and this is what it looks like: Talk:Ramsey Abbey. JASpencer 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. For all the same reasons myself and many others have objected to the other templates that have recently been deleted. -- Stbalbach 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stephen, as someone who's shown no interest project Catholicism, don't you think it's you who's showing lack of consideration for concensus? JASpencer 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not make personal attacks. Deal with the issue, not the person. -- Stbalbach 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a personal attack and I wish you would stop muddying the water. The issue remains that you have had no prior interest in this project, which presumably would be against the "secular systemic bias" that you think is such a good thing.  JASpencer 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop fogging up the air here with these continued personal attacks. Deal with the issue, not the person. -- Stbalbach 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the personal attack? Your agenda has been to inject a "late twentieth century secular systemic bias" which is a "good thing".  That is not a personal attack, unless you think that I'm misquoting you.  I do think that you're wrong to confuse secularism with WP:NPOV.  That is not a personal attack and please stop trying to hide behind that baseless allegation.   JASpencer 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not make personal attacks. Deal with the issue, not the person. -- Stbalbach 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat, where is the personal attack? Please stop throwing mud at this particuar blanket. JASpencer 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a particular problem with the link, but I think it might benefit from a slightly different phrasing; the Catholic Encyclopedia, while useful for facts on some issues, is far from being either up-to-date or NPOV - as Catholic_Encyclopedia_topics notes, "nearly every article has a distinct POV and no article should be included word for word". If the template encourages people to expand articles by the word-for-word inclusion of Catholic Encyclopedia content, that might be counter-productive.  I'm not sure which articles you think this link should be included on - there has already been a reasonably extensive project including CE content where it is relevant; if there is content that's not been included so far, it's quite possible that it's because an editor has judged it not to be relevant; or in some cases the content may already have been included, but either removed for lack of significance or edited to the point that it is no longer recognisable as Catholic Encyclopedia content.  TSP 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Class= "messagebox"
Hi. Someone could please give me the details of this class used in this template, class="messagebox -talk". Specially the bgcolor and the border color. Thanks again. Mauro do Carmo 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just found this other class, class="messagebox disputed metadata", if someone know how I can see the css of those two classes, and let me know, I would appreciate. Thanks again. Mauro do Carmo 12:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image
Does anyone else agree that the image in the banner should not have a black background? From the talk page of the image, it looks like someone deleted the original image (which I remember did not have the black background) and it was replaced as quickly as possible, but with a black background. I propose changing the image file to File:Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg, which would look like this:  -shirulashem (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you, it is better like it was above. Please somebody change it back. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request
Admin, please change the "IMAGE_LEFT" parameter to: Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg  -shirulashem (talk)
 * Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Edit Request
Template:Project_Catholicism contains a project banner. Only talk pages should have them right? Could an admin please remove it? Thanks, Pollinosisss (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it has it on that page is because that page is the actual project banner template itself. Take a look at the Template Documentation on that page, under the "About this template" section.  -shirulashem (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you.Pollinosisss (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

quinceanera dress lynnwood wa
that is the end of this article. Here you'll find some sites that we think you'll appreciate, just click the links over — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.61.7 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm afraid I don't actually understand this comment? Could you be a bit clearer please? John Carter (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request
Could someone temporarily remove the full protection from this template so that I could be merge in the Canon Law project? I would leave instructions on how to fix this, but it would be easier for me to temporarily tweak the template if possible. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This would require an admin to do...however, the 'normal' way to accomplish this would be to edit Template:WikiProject Catholicism/sandbox to the desired form, and then ask an admin to 'subst' it to the live template. Revent (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, I forgot to even check that out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone ahead and updated the template, so if someone could fix that, that would be great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have simply copied the content from the sandbox into the template. Ping me if it is not right. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed on a couple pages that there seems to be quite a few red linked WikiProject Catholicism categories being generated. Someone might want to take a look at that. I was going to create them but since there has been some recent changes to this template I wasn't sure if that was intended. See |this article as an example.Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

various categories
I have created the misssing categories like Category:Catholicism articles needing attention to structure but looking at the numbers of articles in those categories it looks like the template is going a bit over the top. Agathoclea (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I turned off the "Display Start" so it will only show on the B-Class articles. Otherwise, 5,000+ articles are too hard to whittle down! Funandtrvl (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Class problem
Something isn't working right with this template. When using, it shows up as C-Class. Ardric47 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 July 2014
"WikiProject Catholicism/tasks" under "Catholicism task list:" should be removed. It is a non working link.

 Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. What if it was meant to be created? — cyberpower  Chat Online 07:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Finally found the right "To-do" page for the template. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

TODO_LINK
Replace

to

per WP:NS. Sawol (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Question
What's the difference between an article that's within the scope of a project and an article that's supported by a project? I notice that WikiProject Catholicism's banner says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism," but the WikiProject Christianity banner has an option to include text to say "This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism." I notice that using the latter and not former causes the article not to be included under WikiProject Catholicism's Assessment page. (I first noticed this with Lumen gentium.) Are there any guidelines for which one to use? Rocky Role (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The text and the assessment categorisation are completely separate issues.
 * Regarding the text, uses the default text for a WikiProject banner, which is set in Template:WPBannerMeta/core;  uses the default text for a task force, which is set in Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces/taskforce.
 * Regarding the assessment: I can find no difference in the catholicism-relevant categorisation between and  - both of these put the page into the same three categories: ; ; . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I realized I was looking under the wrong section for Lumen gentium. Rocky Role (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 November 2021
Change

to

- Change

to

- Change

to

The task force has been recently renamed. Veverve (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are changes like this not being made in the sandbox first? This will avoid code blobs clogging up the talk page. I've synchronised it for you: it hadn't been touched since 2014. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry if the above came across as brusque. Please could you make your changes to the sandbox (linked above) and then reactivate the request? This is also to ensure there are no mistakes, because I think there is a word missing in your request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Veverve (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)