Template talk:History of the Catholic Church

WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon History of the Catholic Church is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject History (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Copied from Talk:History of the Roman Catholic Church [ edit ]

I finished today the Template: History of the Catholic Church. Friend Carlaude attempted to rename to Roman Catholic, and then redirected the new template to his Template:Christian History

  • 15:27, 10 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Template:History of the Catholic Church‎ (Template:Christian History)

No need to comment on this. The history of the Catholic Church is of course much more than the history of Roman Church. We will deal with that later. I would be interested in your comments and improvments on the two hour old template. Thank You. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This was only because of Ambrosius007 constant efforts to add the {{Template:History of the Catholic Church‎}} name everywhere. I have asked him to do so but still no answer. --Carlaude (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Carlaude, others here have repeatedly asked not to vandalize. I second this request, vandalism is childish in my view--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The title should match that of the main article. As long as the article is officially titled Roman Catholic Church, then the template should be called Template:History of the Roman Catholic Church. On a quick glance, I noticed that some of the titles don't match the articles and use a form that may not be obvious to nonCatholics. For example, why is Second Vatican Council called Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican? Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The longer names are the "offical" names and also serve to confuse-- as you point out. The only reason seems to be a need to push an RC POV. I have already fixed them. --Carlaude (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I took a quick look, and these are my first impressions. I suspect we will need to discuss each set of links separately, either here or on the template talk page. Under General, I'd add Role of the Roman Catholic Church in civilization.
I think there is too much information in much of the rest of it. It seems unnecessary, to me, to include pieces of the Church just because they were founded in that period (such as Swiss Guards). In my opinion, this should be restricted to events or people that had a significant impact on the church at the time.
Among the links I think are most likely to warrant being left off are Battle of Milvian Bridge, Cluny, Cîteaux Abbey, Avignon (why not Avignon Papacy?), Fall of Constantinople, Swiss Guards, Raphael, Michaelangelo, Thomas More, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Battle of Lepanto, Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, Edith Stein, Maximilian Kolbe, Our Lady of Fatima. Where should the discussion take place? Would it be all right with everyone to put up one time period of links at a time to discuss? Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, a 2000 year history leaves room for judgement. Official titles are the norm here, but if shorter ones do exist such as Vatican II, much better. Yes, some entries should be deleted or replace, while others are still missing, such as Thomas Aquinas.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally, I agree with Karen; things that were important for the Church, like the Fall of Constantinople, but where the article hardly mentions the RCC, should not be there. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican is somewhat POV anyway, as it was only "Catholic eucumenical". Art in Roman Catholicism should be there, and more general historical articles - Hiberno-Scottish mission - and fewer biographies. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to move this discussion over to Template talk:History of the Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2016 [ edit ]

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: Moved. The target page is gonna need to be deleted soon, the CSD tag is messing up lots of articles. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte(work | talk) 11:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:History of the Roman Catholic ChurchTemplate:History of the Catholic Church – According to the heading of the template, the convention of the title of the article it refers to, as well as its contents. Also in accordance with similar templates. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:07, 29 May 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.

General section [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

I would like to add Role of Roman Catholic Church in civilization. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Add the "Art in" too, and Roman Catholic religious order or Christian monasticism. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Those would be nice additions, I agree--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Church beginnings [ edit ]

Current links:

Shouldn't the row title "Church beginnings" be linked somehow? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I incline to keeping Ignatius & Tertullian, if the articles are good. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
if the articles are good hm, that an interesting point, some are not as good as others, but if they ar important and highlighted here, maye somebody works on them. Why remove Paul of Tarsus, what would christianity be without him? Please read each article to get the flavour. Obviously we should cut and add but the article should not be the bible. I agree on adding Apostolic Fathers.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
However, this template shouldn't really be focusing on "where would Christianity be without" X, but more on things that specifically impact the Roman Catholic Church. Paul of Tarsus would very definitely belong in a template on History of Christianity, but I disagree that he belongs here. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Constantine to Gregory the Great [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but use Constantine I and Christianity instead. I'd keep Jerome, but I'm not sure we need any Popes in this template at all - they have their own. Gregory perhaps an exception. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree especially with John, would definitively keep Gregorian Chant because of its unique role in liturgy since. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This bit is a mess. Byzantine Iconoclasm would be the article, but really the Western attitude made very little difference, not did Iconoclasm affect the Western Church much. Hiberno-Scottish mission and Celtic Christianity should be there too, plus perhaps similar "Christianisation" articles. Benedict, or, maybe better Rule of St Benedict? Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this subject, whatever you dicide is fine with me--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

High Middle Ages [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, missing are theologians Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas in their respective times--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Desintegration and reforms [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

- yes to all. If we have the general art article, that avoids promoting the very well-known periods and ignoring those as important, but less well known. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article is crap (as is The Reformation and art). Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Rafael and Michelangelo were key players in Church history at the time as art was much more central than today. They gave much of the present outward appearance their stamp. Avignon papacy is clearly a better choice. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reformation and Catholic Reforms [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all that except the calendar. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree including the calendar. Lepanto? There seems to be a consesus here to leave teporal battles out, then of course Lepanto should go as well. Jesuits, much better,and the additions proposed are all good ones. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Baroque Period to French Revolution [ edit ]

Current list

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with four removals including Clement VIII. Benedict XIV was very important, and Pope Pius VIreigned for 25 very tumultuous years. Shimabara Rebellion and Revocation of the Edict of Nantes would be noice editions, I agree--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

19th Century [ edit ]

Current link:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

I would rename First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican to First Vatican Council. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lourdes and Fatima (20th century) are not important by themselves but for initiating significant religious fervour, millions of pilgrimages, literature, organizations, not to mention papal teachings and visits. You may call it a social movement from bottom up, where none existed before. Therefore they are relevant. Baltimore and Westminster are important in the local context only. Pius VII and Leo XIII together with Pius IX together largely determined the papacy in the 19th century (for about 75 years)--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

20th Century [ edit ]

Current links:

Proposed changes [ edit ]

Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The sex abuse case is largely a local issue, which did not affect the Catholic Church in most parts of the world, it is still ongoing in the courts, definitely not histoy at this point. Regarding the removal of the mentioned categories, I do not fully see the rationale. For example, the pontificate of Paul VI was by far the most far reaching in the 20th century, as far as reforms go (his implementation of Vatican II). To leave out the important pontificate Pius XII, could be interpreted as hiding various views on the Church during WWII. I agree with the renaming and with the addition Lateran treaty. Thank's--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Further possibilities [ edit ]

Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a basic point here, as to include important local events in Germany, France etc. I did originally include US events, but this was not agreeable. Lots of opportunities! A tough decicion, where I would like to be on the restrictive side, given the length of the template. Papal States is a better entry, SI agree --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Done some of these. I removed Mysticism as completely inappropriate; Christian mysticism has little on the Counter-ref period - we have more on medieval mysticism. Raphael Rooms and Sistine Chapel Ceiling would be better than the biographies, but I think just having the general art article is best. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is better, thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to leave out most of the biographies. For people unfamiliar with the RCC, the name of a person is not likely to mean much. Far better to link to articles that describe what was important about that person's actions, if those articles exist. Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Germanic Christianity", is that really a proper wording? Wouldn't it be more suitable to have something like "Christianization" and then the referred region or people(s)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What is this?