Template talk:Catholic

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.

[edit] Position of tag

Where exactly in an article do I put this tag? at the head, footnote or as references?--Ariedartin 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally, is is used asa bulleted item within the references section, but alternatively, you can also use it as a footnote. Circeus 22:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Template:1913Catholic seems to be obsolete. See what links there. But it is still easily found with a search. I suggest that it is done away with. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - I redirected {{1913Catholic}} here. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Or: ‘Warning this article may contain discredited nonsense’

I would edit the template to incorporate the above if I could do the same, at the same time, to {{1911}}. The out-of-date and out-of-copyright text-dumps which we indulge in too often make our encyclopaedia appear to be a very silly encyclopaedia. —Ian Spackman 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good change [1]. Can I assume that the template should be removed from text dumps that have already been edited for bias and anachronism, and replaced with a more generic acknowledgement of the source material? For example:

Parts of this article were copied from the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Perhaps have Template:Catholic Edited be the acknowledgement version?

I wrote the current language when I saw pages about cities in Asia Minor (e.g. Hypaepa) which start off with "xxx is a Roman Catholic titular bishopric". This is still true as far as I know, but hardly the most salient fact about the city. --Macrakis 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes such a template makes sense to me. (Or a parameter on the existing template which would switch its wording if set to YES.) There are two key points, though:

The template should automatically place the article in an appropriate maintenance category: either the existing Category:Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia, or better still a new sub-category of that one. (There are people trying to import everything from the Catholic Encyclopedia—it takes all sorts!—and they wouldn’t want to lose track of what the derived articles are.)

The template should have a parameter to allow us to specify which article(s) from the CE are referred to. (They will very often not have the same title as ours.) Actually, the current template should perhaps offer that option too.

—Ian Spackman 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If the entry has already been added to the Catholic Encyclopedia at Wikisource (which right now is, with one exception, just the Y and Z sections), the template {{Wikisource1913CatholicEnc}} can be used. --Benn Newman 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking, Ian. Someone please go ahead and make suitable maintenance sub-categories as Ian Spackman suggests. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're hitting it from the wrong angle. I actually have edited some Catholic encyclopedia stuff and not done mere data-dumps; that's the main usage of the Catholic template, the attribution. If you want to make a {{1913Catholic-cleanup}} template with this text, I would support that. Even if 80% of the content with the tag is credulous datadumps, that's an argument for a bot-assisted move to a cleanup-template, with the standard one remaining, well, standard (and people moving cleanup to regular as warranted, and contributors warned that new content should take the cleanup tag by default).

Also, I think the section title is showing that a seriously wrong attitude is being taken here. I'm not Catholic, but seeing a 1913 Catholic perspective is very interesting, in the same way that the turn-of-the-century British academic perspective in the 1911 Britannica is. Opinionated is not even remotely a synonym for nonsense. Blame editors who introduce such opinions as simple fact, not the source. SnowFire 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SnowFire, I agree that the 1913 Catholic information and pov is valuable, as is the 1911 Britannica pov -- the Talk section heading wasn't mine. However, I have come across too many articles which are in fact direct dumps, or preserve the traces of direct dumps. Take a look at Stauropolis, Jassus, Harpasa, and many other towns in Asia Minor whose descriptions begin with "... is a RC titular see" rather than "... is a city in Asia Minor". These clearly need cleanup.

I think your idea of having a 1913Catholic-cleanup tag is just fine, as long as we can convert all existing Catholic tags to it automatically. --Macrakis 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)