Template talk:Catholic Church sidebar
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theCatholic Church sidebar template. |
|
Archives:1Auto-archiving period:2 months  |
 | The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
| 1 |
This page has archives. Sections older than60 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5. |
The result of the move request was:Not moved as the request was withdrawn.(non-admin closure)— Music1201talk23:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WithdrawnTemplate:Catholic Church sidebar →template:Roman Catholicismtemplate:Roman Catholicism – This template is associated withCategory:Roman Catholic Church, and the template name should remain as such for consistency [this proposal is to revert the name change]. --Zfish118⋉talk18:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose adding a border around the sidebar. At present, the template can blend into pages due to the fact that most of the content is concealed within collapsed lists and the template as a whole isn't that striking. It's mostly blank space (again due more than half of it consisting of collapsed lists). Adding a border around the edges would make the sidebar pop out more and clearly delineate it as separate and distinct from the article text. This is already done with{{Sidebar person}}. I have added this to the sandboxhere.Ergo Sum02:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Please remove "Catholic Church and Pandeism", which appears to place this alleged topic on a par with Islam and Judaism.2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk)23:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the
{{edit semi-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk09:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]There is no significance established for promoting these heresies to the same level as Judaism and Islam. The Catholic Church has no "relations" with deism or pandeism in particular; they are especially not notable enough to feature in a sidebar of limited space and scope. (Disclosure: I was the editor above known as "2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26".)Elizium23 (talk)23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Catholicism (Why would you add this content in a sidebar talking about Catholic Church?)
Other Philosophies (Total nonsense, Monasticism should be moved to Philosophy section amd I wonder why these editors fail to mention Scholasticism which is Catholic's mark of distiinction when compared to other sects notably Eastern orthodox.)
NOTE:
Some topics leads to Interfaith pages instead of Catholic view such as "Theotokos".
Should we add the 'controversies'? Also, some topics included in 'controversies' should not be considered controversy like the Church's view on evolution. IS EVOLUTION ACCEPTED ACCEPTED BY MAJORITY OF PEOPLE NOWADAYS? WHY WOULD YOU CALL IT CONTROVERSY? HOW STUPID IT IS.Royalistandlegitimist (talk)04:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]