Question: any discussion or consensus before moving this template?[edit]

Greetings Chicbyaccident – Wondering reasons why this template was moved? Under View history I did not see any communications from additional contributors. Did this conclusion happen at WP Catholicism or WP Christianity & I just missed it? Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I did follow the related talk pages for Template:Politics of the Holy See and Template:Politics of Vatican City. The consensus seems to be that Holy See is a larger entity, embracing the Vatican City rather than the other way around. This, of course, not denying the raison d'être of having Vatican City articles and templates and what not. However, the way I perceive the situation and talk pages, having a distinct Holy See perspective is more important than a Template:Vatican City topics. If anyone wants to create part double content Vatican City topics, of course that could be a possibility, but I have a hard time seeing Holy See topics being refused. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jujutsuan: and more: we could use your help here. The idea was to merge this template with Template:Holy See. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that ((Holy See topics)) and ((Holy See)) should be merged, and the former redirected to the latter. Besides my opinion, what would you like me to do, Chicbyaccident? Jujutsuan (Please notify with ((re)) talk | contribs) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at ((Holy See)) it seems that this template should be put back to its original name before the undiscussed move, 'Vatican City topics' and left unmerged. Randy Kryn 21:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaving it all up to you. But I do think some kind of merge would do. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This merge process still needs some attention. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good it's back, and the name should stay at 'Vatican City topics' until an RM is held. Randy Kryn 00:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section heads (Geography)[edit]

An odd coding that I can't figure out. I wanted to change 'Geography' to 'Sites' (the geography article is mostly unrelated to the section's entries) but the coding only includes the lower-case name 'geography' with no link. The other section heads have the same coding and unusual style (lower-case unlinked names). Does anyone know how this works, and why the section heads actually link to their pages? Maybe it's so easy I'm missing it, will look again (nope, can't figure it out). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Randy Kryn: Recently, I added the outline icon next to the link, and you reverted it, saying that icon shouldn't be used at the top of a nav box. In that case, are you okay with moving the outline link to the bottom? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Outlines are usually at the 'Above' section in templates, as are Indexes. A topic summarized in an outline or index seems best offered to the reader right off the bat. I can't recall seeing an outline icon used on 'Above' and would probably remove them if I did. Honestly, I can't recall ever seeing an Outline icon, and can't really make out what it signifies (looks like a blue light bulb). Thanks for the question, maybe others will comment as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've only seen them below until today, when I was going through to add the new icon to all of the links in nav boxes. I understand not having icons above, but I think the outline should be moved to below, especially now that there is an icon for them. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines for the discussion to create the icon. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because an icon was chosen (or was it, the discussion you linked to is less than three days old and doesn't seem close to consensus on using it let alone distributing it to templates) doesn't mean that outlines should be moved to the bottom of the template from their "traditional" place at 'above' or leading off a template section. I would hope you would hope off on the good faith additions of the icon to templates, or at least don't add more until the issue is RfC'ed or something. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll stop adding them to templates if the outline is currently located at the top of the template, but I disagree that that is their "traditional place". The Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline gives Template:Spain topics as an example navigation template. It's the only footer navbox with an outline link, and the link is at the bottom of the template (along with the "index" page, which is also at the bottom). --DannyS712 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will answer further later today, but wanted to thank you for the Spain topics link, which sent me on an edit run through many visual arts pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Randy Kryn: I'm sorry I completely forgot about this. I'm stopping, but (when I have time) I plan to open an RFC on:

  1. Where general links (Wikiproject, portal, category, outline, etc) should be (top or bottom) on navboxes
  2. Which of the general links (the same as above) should have the icons included.

--DannyS712 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Randy Kryn: I have started planning for an RfC at User:DannyS712/RfC. To ensure that the question is presented in an unbiased manner, please add any templates you think would make the table there better representative of the navboxes in general. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contents generally[edit]

...could perhaps be harmonised with those of Template:Vatican City topics? PPEMES (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]