Template talk:History of Catholic theology

One problem

I think that isn't necessary to put three templates in almost every article about Roman Catholic history, theology etc (I think that best solution is to put one specific template if it is possible aand to put more than one if it is necessary).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you want keep this template-- limit it too RC theology, not theologians. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it isn't problem to use this template in articles about theological topics and theologians but I mean that it is not good to put three different templates (look for example Aloys Grillmeier; There are three templates: {{History of the Roman Catholic Church}}, {{Roman Catholic Theology}}, {{Catholicism|}}). My propose is to use template where is direct link from template to article: in this case we can remain {{Roman Catholic Theology}}. Agree?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the underling issue is that these articles are repeatly linked to 2 or 3 of the same 3 templates. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of tham. Do you want to check this and leave only templats with direct links to article? I can do it alone but I need few more days--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I saw disproportion of letter size between letters in article and in template. In other articles everything is OK. Does anyone see like me?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Fontaine

i think that there is mistake in link from template to article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

There were great picture of Saint Thomas Aquinas in this template. Can someone put some other picture because this one is fair use?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not, I restored it. The user who removed it did it out of spite. I've dealt with him in the past, he is very unpleasant and has been blocked on many occasions. I undit his edit here and on three other Christianity templates he did the same too. Calistemon (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 04:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the logic with regards to including a given figure in one century vs. another?

For the most part, I can see that theologians are included in the century in which they make their major contributions. So for example, even though Ronald Knox and Teilhard de Chardin were born in the 19th century, they're included as 20th century figures. To me, this makes perfect sense, and should remain the standard. But I'm curious about the inclusion of a few figures in the 21st century who, to my mind, probably belong more to the 20th.

The main one is John Paull II. Of course, Pope St. John Paul II died in 2005, and issued several magisterial documents in the first five years of the new millennium. But it seems to me that he properly belongs at the end of the 20th century; his papacy was largely definitive of late 20th c. Catholicism, and his most important theological contributions (Theology of the Body, the Acting Person, the reform of canon law and the Catechism) all occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, just before his papacy and in the very early years thereof.

It also seems to me that Ratzinger is more decidedly a figure of the 20th century, given that his major contributions to theology were from his time as a professor and as head of the Holy Office, though I am open to being convinced that he belongs to the 21st. But I certainly think JPII is a decidedly 20th century theologian. Any objections to moving him? GreenLoeb (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]