Template talk:Catholic Church sidebar

Requested move 31 May 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The result of the move request was: Not moved as the request was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

WithdrawnTemplate:Catholic Church sidebar → template:Roman Catholicism – This template is associated with Category:Roman Catholic Church, and the template name should remain as such for consistency [this proposal is to revert the name change]. --Zfish118^⋉talk 18:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but the alleged Category:Roman Catholicism category does not in fact exist. There is only a Category:Roman Catholic Church, which should obviously be renamed now the main article has been moved to Catholic Church. Roman Catholicism is only a redirect. The phrase "Roman Catholic" implies the existence of Catholics who are not Roman, which is nonsense, or at least it is not how the Wikipedia categories are currently structured. Gulangyu (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

[category corrected] --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and because the new name removes the continual question of "am I adding the sidebar or the navbox??" Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: they are two different types or categories of things: Catholic Church is an organization but Roman Catholicism is an intangible. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:15, 3 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.

Add border around sidebar

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 sandbox here. Ergo Sum 02:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Ergo Sum 14:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request, 28 March 2019

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)

• Note, please, above IP is now blocked for misconduct. See Talk:Catholic Church and Pandeism for well-participated consensus this article is fine as it is. There is no sort of rule that everything in the template must be of equivalent importance. Next person could come along insisting the Judaism page be removed on the claim of Islam being more important under current demographics. We need more of these, not fewer. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Deism and pandeism

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)

Significant enough for the Church itself to write of its own efforts to crush Deism. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure bruh... incidentally, notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we're going to admit deism and pandeism to this sidebar, then let's open 'er up to the other "Catholic Church and..." articles: there's "health care", "Nazi Germany", "slavery", "Politics in the United States", "HIV/AIDS", "evolution", etc. Why stop at your pet projects alone? Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, include all of them. Make the most informative collection of links possible. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

THE TEMPLATE IS NOT TOO CATHOLIC AND ALSO, THESE TOPICS IS TOTAL NONSENSE, IN SHORT, NOT NECESSARY AND NOT EVEN WORTHY TO MENTION ON SIDEBAR

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)