Template talk:Gregorian chants of the Roman mass
 | The contents of the Template:Gregorian chants of the Roman mass page were merged into Template:Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I question whether such a bulky template should be put on articles that essentially have only 1 or two applicable sentences to the topic at hand. I speak specifically of Epistle and Gospel. I'd propose creating redlinks for articles that deal specifically with the liturgical use of these things, and remove this template from articles that deal 90% with other topics. If there is any support for this, I will do a more indepth analysis of what articles qualify, and perhaps start creating stubs for things like Gospel (liturgy) or something similar.--Andrew c 01:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am against that. The present use of the Template in those articles is correct and done on Wikipedia otherwise. There is no reason to delete the template for the two articles, and no reason to create new stubs. The template applies to a section of each article and therefore is relevant. The template is not "bulky" at all in my opinion. If it were a side template I might agree, but this is a sub-template. To me it seems you have another problem with the template in some way. That it is too Roman Catholic or something.Smith2006 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for speculating on my secret intentions, but please try again. I was being 100% up front. I was looking through the gospel article and saw the template on the bottom of the page and thought "what in the world does this article have to do with gregorian chants". And searching through the article I found two sentences dealing with that. It just seemed to me odd that a template dealing with such a small subject matter in the article was so dominant on the bottom of the page. I'm used to seeing templates like that at the bottom of Pope John Paul I. This article is about a pope, and there is a template that lists all the popes at the bottom. It would be like having the Template:Godfather at the bottom of that article. There is one sentence about that movie in the whole article, so why should a bulky Godfather III template be on the bottom of the page? I'd say if its possible to have a Communion (chant) article when there are 3 or more other articles related to Communion, it's possible to have a Gospel (chant) article as well. A side note, should this template order the topics in Chronological order according to how they are sung during mass? It seems strange to me to read that "the gospels is placed between the Alleluia or Tract and the Credo" when these topics are not listed next to each other in the template. --Andrew c 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I agree in the case of Gospel at least. In that case, the whole section on liturgical usage should be moved. They seem like fairly distinct meanings, the Gospel as an individual book (including the non-canonical ones), and a reading from the Gospel used in liturgy. (You can see that clearly by looking at the explanation given on Gospel (disambiguation).) I would not suggest Gospel (chant), as it is not a very musical chant (being an example of accentus), and in many liturgies it is not sung at all. Gospel (liturgy) seems ok, or perhaps Gospel (reading). The two sentences on the Roman Catholic usage should be expanded, and it needs to mention Protestant usage as well (most of which I believe include a reading), and Oriental Orthodoxy probably too. This should probably be discussed at Talk:Gospel, where recently someone suggested splitting off the liturgical use section. Epistle as it stands is probably too short to need it, but again it would be the Liturgical use section, and probably belong in Epistle (liturgy) or Epistle (reading). That article in general could stand a lot of expansion.
- As far as the order of the template, I sorted them into ordinary, proper, and accentus chants, and then they are in chronological order across. One benefit of this is that the ordinary serves as a template for movements of a Mass (music), as well, and separate the chants that are not very interesting from a musical point of view, while not leaving them out as they are obviously of great interest from a sacred point of view. Rigadoun (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for speculating on my secret intentions, but please try again. I was being 100% up front. I was looking through the gospel article and saw the template on the bottom of the page and thought "what in the world does this article have to do with gregorian chants". And searching through the article I found two sentences dealing with that. It just seemed to me odd that a template dealing with such a small subject matter in the article was so dominant on the bottom of the page. I'm used to seeing templates like that at the bottom of Pope John Paul I. This article is about a pope, and there is a template that lists all the popes at the bottom. It would be like having the Template:Godfather at the bottom of that article. There is one sentence about that movie in the whole article, so why should a bulky Godfather III template be on the bottom of the page? I'd say if its possible to have a Communion (chant) article when there are 3 or more other articles related to Communion, it's possible to have a Gospel (chant) article as well. A side note, should this template order the topics in Chronological order according to how they are sung during mass? It seems strange to me to read that "the gospels is placed between the Alleluia or Tract and the Credo" when these topics are not listed next to each other in the template. --Andrew c 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am against that. The present use of the Template in those articles is correct and done on Wikipedia otherwise. There is no reason to delete the template for the two articles, and no reason to create new stubs. The template applies to a section of each article and therefore is relevant. The template is not "bulky" at all in my opinion. If it were a side template I might agree, but this is a sub-template. To me it seems you have another problem with the template in some way. That it is too Roman Catholic or something.Smith2006 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Follow WP template layout
[edit]Propose: that the layout of this template be aligned with that of the other Wikipedia templates (e.g. Template:CatholicMass. Template:Christian music, etc.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Please check for errors. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)