Template talk:Project Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
NA	This page does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.

Catholicism WikiProject
General information Main project page talk Members talk To-do list talk Assessment talk Collaboration talk Terminology talk Strategy talk Project category talk Christianity Portal talk Project templates Project banner talk Catholic Encyclopedia talk Popes talk edit · changes

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

Contents 1 Depends on your definition of "subproject" 2 Problem with icon? 3 Optional link to the Catholic Encyclopedia 4 Class= "messagebox"

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Class= "messagebox"

Hi. Someone could please give me the details of this class used in this template, class="messagebox standard-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)