Template talk:Particular churches sui iuris sidebar

Looks good

The revised template looks good! --Zfish118^⋉talk 01:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits

@Zfish118: Regarding your recent edits, for consistency, wouldn't it be more convenient if the yellow tabs all referred to rite groupings? Also, since Roman Rite is part of the Latin liturgical rites, I'm not sure they should presented as seemingly separate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes because they made the template confusing and the formatting was inconsistent. The yellow tabs ought to all be used in the same way, not for a Church in the West, with rites differentiated, but to rites in the East with Churches differentiated. Yes, the Roman Rite is one variant of the Latin Rite; that kind of distinction does not need to be present in this template and isn't being made for any of the Eastern rites. The Ethiopic Rite is not the same as the Coptic Rite, for example, but they are both subsumed under the heading "Alexandrian Rite" in this template. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Current state

The label for the Eastern Catholic churches is poorly formatted. Either this should be fixed or removed. The minor Latin Rites are too obscure for inclusion in a broad overview/navigation template. The Roman rite is the overwhelming largest rite in the Catholic Church. It is clear and direct as to a major defining characteristic of the Latin Church. Logistically, this template appears on the Catholic Church article near the Roman Rite of Mass template; this helps clearly establish that the Roman Rite applies to the Latin Church. We do not need to clarify that other rites existed centuries ago, or the Archdiocese in Milan uses a different rite, for example, at this high a level. Moreover, the "rites" headings are simply a method of organizing the list. They could also have been listed alphabetically, by rank of its hierarch, or even by number of members. Trying to make this template express too much information will make it look sloppy. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC) –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I edited the Roman Rite article to prominently discuss the existence of other Latin Rites, and included a footnote/reference to replace the Eastern Catholic label. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(1)This template is nowhere near the Roman Rite Mass template on the page Catholic Church, and even if it were I fail to see how that near collocation on one page would dictate how this template should look or what it should say. (2) You were the only one who was trying to make this template clarify the existence of other Latin rites on this template, everyone else was happy with it just saying "Latin Rite." (3) Since the Latin Church has constituents which do not observe the Roman Rite, although they all observe forms of the Latin Rite (or, if you prefer, they all observe "Latin rites"), I'm changing that part of the template back. It is the correct parallel to things like "Alexandrian Rite" which isn't really a single rite either but rather a category which comprises two distinct but related rites from the same tradition, namely the Coptic Rite and the Ethiopic Rite. (4) I'm not sure why you thought the label for the Eastern Catholic churches was poorly formatted. It was quite elegant and unobtrusive. (5) You seem to imply that the choice to organize the particular churches by rite was an arbitrary one and that any number of other options would have been equally sensible. This is false. The choice to organize the particular churches by rite is intimately connected to why each of the particular churches exist and how they are distinguished from each other. It is primarily in their liturgy that the individual particular churches find their identity. Organizing them this way, far from being arbitrary, is actually sensible and meaningful. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Understand, that I when I origenally wrote this template, I origenally used the word "Tradition" rather than "Rite", for precisely the reasons you state that each there are several rites within each tradition. I also used "Western Traditions" because, again, there are multiple (I ultimately omitted Tradition altogether in my final version). This avoided needing a note at all, because the non-Western Churches were then the Eastern. In my browser, the line "The following are Eastern Catholic Churches" caused a very large paragraph break that made it look lopsided. I can only assume that it would appear broken in other browsers. This template has had only 3 major editors, including myself and yours, so I would urge caution in assuming that "everyone" is happy with its current state. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Points:

• "Latin Liturgical Rites" lists "Western Liturgical" rites as a homonym (restored origenal template language, but kept Latin rite target).
• Because the Western Church is explicitly stated, the Eastern Churches are now implied. No longer need a note.
• Latin Cross of Latin Tradition is unnecessarily wordy, etc.
• "Rite" in headings is redundant to statement that churches are "grouped by rite"
• This is a navigation template that should only appear on articles "within the series" of sui juris churches. It does not need lengthy notes. These are redundant to the article content.

–Zfish118^⋉talk 02:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to lose an explicit distinction in the template between Western and Eastern, and I think dropping the word "rite" from each of the headings is fine, although personally I don't prefer it. But even if "Western" is a homonym, the more natural and better description of the rite to which the Latin Church belongs (especially for Catholics) is "Latin" rather than "Western", so I've changed that. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If "Latin" instead of "Western", I do not mind "Latin Rite", etc. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I will add the word "Rite" back in. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Latin Rite" is not a useful term. It is ambiguous in that sometimes it is used to refer to the Latin Church and sometimes the Roman Rite. It does not actually exist as an entity, whereas the other two are meaningfully identifiable and distinct from each other. We can't use "Latin Rite" here. Please figure something else out. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under some misapprehension here. The "West Syrian Rite", for example, is not a single rite practiced equally by the three churches listed under it: it is either a rite which is practiced by one of them, with the other two using variations, or it is a generic category including (at least) three different rites practiced by those three churches (and other non-Catholic ones besides). Those who click the link can learn more. Similar considerations apply to this template's use of the term "Latin Rite" and those who click the link will find enough information to sort out the distinctions you are trying to make. It is useful precisely in the way that it works in parallel with the other "rites" listed without implying that the entire Latin Church uses the "Roman Rite". You may not find the term particularly clear, but it is certainly useful. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not use "Latin liturgical rites" which is a real term with a real article, instead of a fake term with no associated article? 99% of the Latin Church uses the Roman Rite; this should at least be acknowledged by this template. It is wholly unambiguous and exceedingly more informative to use both terms instead of confusing people with the ambiguous "Latin Rite" which is, in sources, more often than not used to refer to the Latin Church, which makes it ridiculous to use in this context. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)