Template talk:Infobox papal document

Language parameter

You might want to adjust this infobox to accommodate the fact that most language articles are at "Foo language" titles (e.g. French language, English language, Spanish language. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Date

I have replaced the old {{{day}}}, {{{month}}} and {{{year}}} parameters with a new {{{date}}} parameter. The dates are no longer linked as per WP:MOSNUM. Jimp 11:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Image margin

Would it be possible to add a margin of a few pixels below the image of the coat of arms? I'm also wondering if the code could be simplified by adding a coat of arms parameter. All instances of the infobox that I looked at add the coat of arms with a br tag and FILE statement. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Use for all papal documents

If you take a look at d:Q6421065 you can see how some languages use the interliked similar navbox for all type of documents (e.g. Papal bulls). I think we should remove the link and create two items but there is no hurry if you plan to update the template for a more extensive use (such as itwiki and frwiki, for example).--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I will leave a message in the talk page on data. I'm practical and I don't see the hurry in separating them, but it should be done soon or later.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: I support your decision, we need a model for motu proprio and apostolic letters, like in the Italian WP. Veverve (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion: Rename "Argument" to something else

Greetings, For this Infobox encyclical, would it be possible to rename Argument to another name. I would suggest either of these, and am open to alternatives.

• Subject - this would be the encyclical's topic
• Purpose - this would be the reason for encyclical being written

I do realize that "Subject" in the British realm has a completely different meaning, so I'm inclined to favor the Purpose suggestion. I will post a link at WP Catholicism talk since there are more page watchers. Also, this is my first attempt with a template update, so it would be great to have help from a more expert editor. Thanks. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Subject - I've only ever seen this param used to summarize the subject of the encyclical Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What would "subject" mean differently for British readers? I don't think anyone would confuse subject=topic for subject="citizen" of a monarchical state. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a separate label to precise the original language if not Latin?

Should there be a separate label to precise the original language if not Latin, or should there only be a "[{{{web original language}}} In original ]" line in the Text label? You can see for yourself how the first choice looks in the current Evangelii gaudium page (the infobox uses exactly the same code as Infobox encyclical). Veverve (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: @DividedFrame: pinging you since we are the only people who edited this template in four years. Veverve (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, I broke the displaay of the signature hour and tried in vain to repair it. I would be very glad if someone could fix it. Veverve (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the alert! I hope I'm understanding your question correctly. Are you asking us to choose between e.g. "View in original language" and "View in Latin"? I think "View in Latin" is much better — "original language" seems to be vague for no reason (and is longer than most language names!) so I don't see any advantage. Brad (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@DividedFrame: either A or B. Also, the template is considered for merging in cas you have not seen. Veverve (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

{{{number}}} and {{{total_number}}}

How are those two parameters supposed to be used? Presently, it is not clear, so if anyone can explain it could help everyone. Veverve (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Compromise for the bulls

@Ravenpuff: @DividedFrame: what do you think of the compromise I found for the bulls? I.e. "Note: if it is a type of document is only in the form of a a bull, it is only the type of document which should be indicated; e.g. Unigenitus is an apostolic constitution in the form of a papal bull so it must be indicated as apostolic constitution, whereas Unam sanctam is simply a bull and so must be indicated as papal bull." Veverve (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: @DividedFrame: @Elizium23: The current version reads: "Note: if a type of document is only in the form of a bull or of a motu proprio, it is the type of document and not the form which should be indicated; e.g. Unigenitus is an apostolic constitution in the form of a papal bull so it must be indicated as apostolic constitution, whereas Unam sanctam is simply a bull and so must be indicated as papal bull." Veverve (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, I don't understand the distinction between type and form. Could you show me a source that explains what is type and what is form? Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I could not find any source stating this distinction clearly, but Papal bull says "A papal bull is a type of public decree, letters patent, or charter issued by a pope of the Catholic Church." Moreover, if you look here, there is numerous decrees being called "X under the form of Motu Proprio". Veverve (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I think that it would be a good idea in any case to state in the infobox whether some document is a papal bull (even if only in the "form" of one, as you described) – perhaps we could add a |bull=yes parameter to the template to handle such cases, like Unigenitus.

There also seem to be slightly differing definitions of what counts as a bull: literally speaking, any papal document sealed with the bulla would be a bull. The article has a picture of Benedict XVI's Magni aestimamus as an example of one (including a seal at the bottom), but the Vatican's website only describes it as an apostolic constitution. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus request

@Ravenpuff: @Elizium23: @DividedFrame: maybe a "form" parameter could be added with "b" and "bull", and "mt" and "motu proprio" as possible values. If this parameter is present and with a recognised value, it would add "under the form of a papal bull" (for "b" and "bull") or "under the form of a Motu proprio" (for "mt" and "motu proprio", as attested e.g. here). E.g. the infobox of Spiritus Domini would state:

• "Apostolic letter of Pope Francis
  under the form of a Motu proprio"

What do you think? If a consensus is reached, either someone with the skills required (so not me) can add this parameter and its values, or I shall ping Primefac and hopefully he/she will be available to add this parameter and its values. Veverve (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, I don't know. It's beginning to seem awfully complicated. I would rather have this conversation at WT:CATHOLIC where there are more watchers. I would also much prefer to have some WP:RS explaining these terms and how they work, rather than trying to reverse-engineer the vatican.va site, which is run by dudes who do not speak English as a first language. Elizium23 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Papal bull
2. Motu proprio (not very helpful)
3. Apostolic letters - very interesting.

Etc. The Catholic Dictionary is very helpful in this regard. I will check the Catholic Encyclopedia for more.

(edit conflict) @Veverve: I don't have any strong objection to this, although I'm still unsure that the concept of the "form" of a papal document is well-defined enough for us to consider it as such. If I recall correctly, there are also some documents issued "sub plumbo" – do these constitute a separate "form", or are they kind of also like papal bulls? Either way, I agree with Elizium's remarks above; we probably need to consider this in more depth. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I could find about the sub plumbo documents (e.g. this) is this definition and this one, so I do not know if it is a form. You are both right to say we have to wait for more information. Veverve (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, I notice that you are the one who documented the way to specify "type" and "form". I thought perhaps we could draw on the wisdom of one or more shapers of this template; you are the one and only. Hmm. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: It is indeed me who put this distinction, and at the time I created the heading above, and no one responded. If I remember correctly it was a disagreement we had on Ineffabilis Deus which brought me to add this distinction. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Veverve, well, I think the guidance should be revised. It's confusing. An "apostolic letter" or "papal bull" can be anything. A motu proprio is a rescript and a very specific thing. I think we should identify the most specific identifier for each document so that they can be distinguished easily. Elizium23 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@CanonLawJunkie: do you have any insight on this? Veverve (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: A motu proprio means that the pope is issuing it because he thinks it's a good idea, rather than because of specific information that has been given to him. It is not motivated by a specific request with specific info, but he has done it by his own motivation. The key difference is that, if the specific information upon which the pope has based his motu proprio decision turns out to be false and/or fraudulent, the motu proprio is still valid, whereas, if the pope issues a decision based upon a specific request with specific info, and such info turns out to be false, then the grant of the favor on the part of the pope is invalid. Not all motu proprios (motibus propriis) are apostolic letters, and not all apostolic letters are in the form of a motu proprio. A papal bull is a different type of document, and I am not aware of an instance of a papal bull being issued "in the form of a motu proprio" as such, although I imagine many are issued at the pope's own motivation and as such are in substance "in the form of a motu proprio". It is true, as canonical doctrine will attest, that the specific "forms" of documents and their titles are fairly fluid and do not generally have specific meanings. As canon lawyers, we look to what the document says rather than what it is called. The basic question is, "Who said what with what authority?" I'm not sure having this template mode will be very helpful. But I do object to having this template mode for "Papal Bulls", because I have never seen one "in the form of a motu proprio. Also, I think it should say "in the form..." rather than "under the form...". Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Language with name/for

This infobox template uses {{Language with name/for}} ({{langnf}}) in {{Infobox}} |above= to render the non-English (typically Latin) title of a papal document.

{{langnf}} has problems. The previous version called {{lang}} for no good reason so virtually all of the nearly 1200 transclusions of that template were implemented with the first positional parameter ({{{1}}}) blank. I have begun the process of making {{langnf}} more consistent with {{lang}} and other language templates. The first step was to make the template accept a language tag in the first positional parameter just like {{lang}} and others. As part of that, I had {{langnf}} populate Category:Pages with Langnf using second positional parameter.

Step two was to write an awb script to remove language names from the second positional parameter ({{{2}}}) and add the appropriate language tag to {{{1}}}:

{{lang|es|'''Casa'''}} ({{langnf||Spanish|house}}) → {{lang|es|'''Casa'''}} ({{langnf|es||house}}) → Casa (Spanish for 'house')

I have run that script and removed most of the articles from the category. The preponderance of remaining articles use this infobox or one of its redirects.

I propose to implement a fix to the infobox. I will change the call to {{langnf}} from this:

{{langnf||{{{language|{{{language of title|}}}}}}|{{{translation|{{{translation of title|}}}}}}}}

to this:

{{langnf|{{lang|fn=tag_from_name|{{{language|{{{language of title|}}}}}}}}||{{{translation|{{{translation of title|}}}}}}}}

{{lang}} function |fn=tag_from_name returns the ISO 639 language tag in |language= or |language of title= so for either of those set to Latin:

{{lang|fn=tag_from_name|latin}} → la

See Template:infobox papal document/testcases

There is a reason for this madness. In many, if not most, of the articles that use {{langnf}} the {{langnf}} is preceded by non-English text that should be marked up with {{lang}} or some other suitable template in keeping with MOS:FOREIGN. For example, from Ad hominem we have this:

'''''Ad hominem''''' ({{langnf|la||to the person}}) → Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person')

The goal of the above described exercise is to adapt {{langnf}} to accept Ad hominem as {{{2}}} (as {{lang}} does) so that editors will write:

{{langnf|la|'''Ad hominem'''|to the person}} → Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person') this is a mockup

This infobox doesn't easily support that format so {{{2}}} won't be a required parameter.

One last thing ... |above= also has this: {{#if:{{{title|{{{name|}}}}}}|''{{{title|{{{name|}}}}}}''.... |title= and |name= should not be simply italicized but should be wrapped in {{lang}} per MOS:FOREIGN so something like this:

{{#if:{{{title|{{{name|}}}}}}|{{lang|{{lang|fn=tag_from_name|{{{language|{{{language of title|}}}}}}}}|{{{title|{{{name|}}}}}}}}...

I have made this change to the sandbox.; at ~/testcases float your mouse pointer over Spe salvi to see the tool tip indicating proper html markup for non-English text.

Without objection, tomorrow (my time) I shall update the live template from the sandbox. Alas, the pretty box that lists all of the wikicode parameters (from {{Parameter names example}}) will show error messages from {{lang}} because the wikitext value that {{parameter names example}} gives to {{infobox papal document}} and thence to {{lang}} ({{{language of title}}}) is not a language tag. At the moment, I don't know of any way to get round that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Live template updated from the sandbox. I have also hidden {{Parameter names example}} on the ~/doc page so that it doesn't show the language tag errors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

For the records, I have unhidden the error message, because I feel such an error should not be hidden.

@Trappist the monk: at this page there was an error because the name parameter was not added.

I think the behaviour by default was to have the parameter say the title is in Latin, since this infobox was used for years as Template:Infobox Encyclical which and had no parameter for the language of the title (see this archived version). Veverve (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I can find no evidence in any version of the template that suggests that the behaviour by default was to have the parameter say the title is in Latin. The term 'Latin' appears only once in the template code and that is in the annotation for the link to the Latin version of the text (|web_la=).

Try this experiment. I have put the infobox from this version of In praeclara summorum (before your 10 March 2023 changes) in the template's testcases.

1. Edit your example archived version of the template (click this link to open the editor).
2. at the bottom of the editing page is a Preview page with this template text box.
   1. copy this to your clipboard: Template:Infobox papal document/testcases
   2. paste your clipboard into the Preview page with this template text box
3. click the adjacent Show preview button
4. inspect the rendered infobox. Note that "Latin for 'Among the many celebrated geniuses'" text is missing. ('Latin for Saved in Hope' is missing from one of the other infoboxes because |language of title= is not supported by the old version of the template)

Because the translation text is missing, that demonstrates that the archived version of the template did not assume that Latin is the default language. What it does demonstrate is that either of |language= or |language of title= has always been required. The error message that appeared at In praeclara summorum enforces that requirement. There are a handful of other articles listed in Category:Lang and lang-xx template errors that have similar problems to that which you encountered at In praeclara summorum.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying this. Better be safe than sorry! Veverve (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)