Talk:Catholic Church

I think I prefer both of Dylam's suggestions to the current one. File:Petersdom von Engelsburg gesehen.jpg is less obscured by other parts of the building than File:Saint Peter's Basilica facade, Rome, Italy.jpg, while still showing them, and File:St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City.jpg is clear and bright. I think I lean slightly towards the Petersdom, for greater context. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Each image is partially obstructed, each image only captures a portion of the basilica, but the long-standing image captures a greater proportion of the basilica (including its loggia), shows other portions of the Vatican, and is at an extraordinarily high resolution compared to the other images. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What motivated me to change the current lead image is that I see it as quite disturbing visually (regardless of it having an excellent resolution). First of all, the image is not purely focused on the Basilica itself, it has a lot of trees and buildings that are making the picture pretty crowded and visually cluttered, and more importantly they are blocking a complete view of the front of the basilica (specifically the basilica's facade). In addition, the cloudy weather in the image does not make it look professional (The article for the Catholic Church is a very high-visibility page so Its lead image's visual quality is important). A more professional looking image of a building should have it depicted in a clear and bright day to better reflect on the building's architectural details and for better visuality.

I initially proposed File:St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City.jpg, as it is depicting the basilica in a bright day and is purely focused on the basilica itself. But I later realised that the dome is not completely visible and the St. Peter's square's obelisk in the middle is taking a big part of the image. I later proposed File:Petersdom von Engelsburg gesehen.jpg as it has all of the advantages that I mentioned in the previous image I initially proposed, and very clearly shows every architectural detail of the front of St. Peter's basilica, whether it's the facade or the dome. The only downside of the proposed image is that it has less resolution than the currently used one, but I argue we should focus more on the content of the image rather than its resolution.

I currently support replacing the current lead image with File:Petersdom von Engelsburg gesehen.jpg and I hope we can reach a consensus on this decision. Dylam X (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Your reasoning runs contradictory to the standards used across most articles. Looking at other Wikipedias, the current image is used as the infobox image on the Wikis for Spanish, French, Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, Esperanto (!), Portuguese, Scots, and Turkish (twice!). A lower-quality image like either of the above proposals are inferior and inconsistent with the other consensuses previously established on this article, other Wnglish language articles, and other Wikipedias. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

How is it contradictory? The English Wikipedia is the most widely viewed Wikipedia, and many articles of other Wikipedias (discussing the same topic), usually copy the some of the content from the article in the English Wikipedia as it is more detailed, and gives more insight (as most sources are in English). It's very common to happen and you can see it in the Image used for example. Dylam X (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Precisely why we shouldn't pick a low resolution, angled image of part of a building when we have one that covers a good portion of the Vatican and has been a consistent element of this article since 2017, when it replaced one of the proposed images. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, the aim of the lead image in the Infobox is to depict St. Peter's Basilica, not to depict a landscape view of the Vatican in front of St. Peter's square. And yes, the Image has been a consistent element of the article for 8 years by now simply because it is the highest resolution image depicting the basilica there is, but regardless of that, the image has many visual downsides that I pointed out previously, and that it doesn't fulfil Its aim of depicting only St. Peter's Basilica (which is the only element of the image that is needed in the infobox) but instead gives a landscape view of the Vatican from the front St. Peter's square, which in turn has many other buildings and trees blocking the view of a lot of the basilica's architecture. The image I'm proposing despite not directly facing the basilica, captures every architectural detail of the front part of the basilica, in a clear and bright day, Which the current image does not offer. Dylam X (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m with you on this. The current lead image feels messy and doesn’t really highlight the Basilica itself. There are too many buildings and trees in the way, and the cloudy sky makes the picture look dull, which isn’t ideal for such an important article. A proper lead image should show the Basilica clearly on a bright day so its details stand out.

That’s why Petersdom works better. It presents the whole front and the dome clearly without anything blocking the view. Yes, the resolution is a bit lower, but the actual content and clarity of the scene are more important. WalkingPie7 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dylam X and WalkingPie7: Have you noticed that you both seem to share a lot of opinions on several topics? I have started a sockpuppetry investigation. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know or recognise @WalkingPie7, and they seem like a fake persona account made to repeat what I said to trigger a sockpuppetry investigation. They had no right to change the lead image as we had not reached a consensus yet. Thank you for understanding. Dylam X (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Dylam X and WalkingPie7 blocked for sockpuppetry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nautical Mongoose

The lede (and some Wikipedia articles) claims that the Great Schism occurred in 1054. Alas, it is one of the better-known inaccuracies in the history of Christendom. To quote a source of very high quality, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe (2022), p. 70:

"The events of 1053-4 were more symptomatic of a state of mind than a primary cause. Rather than the estrangement brought about by Cardinal Humbert's legation, it was the Fourth Crusade (1202-4) that was the definitive break between East and West."

The schism emerged very gradually, at any time between the late 9th century and the 13th, and some would even delay it to the 18th. Claiming that it happened in 1054 is purely misleading. AddMore-III (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I added your source and your comments into the lead-in. RottenEgg780 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the "Name" section (since it is way smaller than other sections) should be merged into a header in the "History" section, preferably at the beginning. The "Name" section should be used to introduce the history of the Church, as it is important to know where the name came from historically.

I would love to hear your thoughts. RottenEgg780 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect USECAR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 23 § USECAR until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)