Template talk:Catholic Prayers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism | (Rated Template-Class) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Prayers template. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
[edit] Organization
Many of the prayers in the common prayers section are also indulgenced. Is there a better way or organize the prayers? Dgf32 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was concerned about this also. Maybe organizing by where the prayers are said? (Mass, elsewhere. . .?) or perhaps having some sort of different formatting (bold, italic, something?) for indulgenced prayers in other sections? --Liempt (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I split it up into Prayers of the Mass, Marian Prayers, and Other Prayers. I think it looks good now, but futher categorization might be useful in the future of the list of other prayers expands. Dgf32 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nicely organized. I did change the formatting on the indulgenced prayers from bold to italics, as the wiki software automagically bolds an article's name in a template when you navigate to that page. — MrDolomite • Talk 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I split it up into Prayers of the Mass, Marian Prayers, and Other Prayers. I think it looks good now, but futher categorization might be useful in the future of the list of other prayers expands. Dgf32 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Way of the Cross
Hmm, the Way of the Cross link is a redirect to Stations of the Cross. While that is a good article about what the stations are, it does not have the actual prayers, which is what this template should be linking to. Maybe the prayers themselves are in another article. Found Scriptural Way of the Cross, but those aren't actual prayers either. — MrDolomite • Talk 10:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Litany of Saints
Given that the Litany of the Saints (the Litania Sanctorum) is a "major" RCC prayer, why isn't it included in this template? Should I be bold and include it, or is there some reason why it isn't already? --MicahBrwn (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)