Talk:Sacred Heart

message: I've tried to resize the images (see my markup). Why won't this work? Thanks!! --Dpr 06:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the "framed" setting implies the original size - you would want the "thumbnail" setting, were it not for something else - there's no point in resizing images beyond their actual size because they only come out pixelized. (Try it yourself with the preview mode.) --Joy [shallot] 16:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help! --Dpr 04:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics help 

message: I've overhauled the article, and included a significant amount of text from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  Please read it over and help to wikify anything I missed.  Thanks! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Cheyinka!  Incorporating all that Catholic Encyclopedia text was a big undertaking, so I'm glad you're lending a critical eye. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hee, thanks. Sorry for the dozens of edits. Do we know why St. Margaret Mary felt "dreadful confusion" when Fr. de la Colombière's "little book" was published? Cheyinka 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No idea.  That came straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  I assume the quotes mean that there's a written record of her having spoken those exact words.  It might be best to take them out, though. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Collaboration 

message: I see a couple things that need to be cleared up. Two sections "Vatican endorsement" and "Worship and devotion" seem to have come verbatim out of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which results in archaic language that needs to be simplified and cleared up. I'd also go so far to say that a bit of that information seems to detailed/obscure/irrelevent for a wikipedia article. Secondly, I am not fond of the opening. It is worded in a manner that reeks of Christian POV. Go to the Zulfiqar article about a sacred symbol in Islam and compare how the tone and language differs from the opening here (and notice the lack of a reeking Islamic POV). I'd say the opening needs a whole new rewrite, but want to hear other suggestions, or give others a chance to revise.--Andrew c 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheyinka has already taken the plunge and cleaned up some of the archaic language.  I suggest going ahead and tackling that effort.  As for the opening, since that may be more contentious, why don't you propose it here?  It's only a paragraph, so it's not too long for the talk page. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple issues 

message: Here's an external link to the most common depiction of the Sacred Heart among Catholics.  Does anyone know who the original artist is, what it's copyright status is, and whether we might be able to obtain a copy for Wikipedia? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - I've never seen one where he wasn't pointing at his heart. --Cheyinka 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: "Some Catholics have been critical" apparently requires sourcing, I dunno.
"Anglicans generally reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart, except for a very small number of Anglo-Catholics." - but do they reject devotion to the Sacred Heart?
--Cheyinka 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that whoever added them was confusing the Sacred Heart with the Immaculate Heart. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I'd just like to ask, since there's a Catholic collaboration on-going with this article, do any editors forsee any large edits or content disputes to arise out of this? Because that would make it probably fail the GA nomination if the edits are too expansive and widespread, and even though there doesn't seem to be much discussion on the talk page about it, I just thought i'd ask, because I can put the article on hold on the nomination page until the collaboration is over if its likely to become unstable from the collaboration. Homestarmy 04:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Collaboration effor is over now. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, only link dates if they are full and in {{mmm dd, yyyy]] format. GA passed. Rlevse 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ga nomination

message: Four references, while they are in this case adequate to make a stub on this subject, are not sufficient to make a fully-sized article be well-referenced, and thus, this is not a GA. Homestarmy 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, like many other articles of on Catholic topics, incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia.  As this is the primary source for most of the material, and is well-cited itself, it is not necessary to have a plethora of other references.  You may not be familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia Project here on Wikipedia, which would explain your delisting, but the article really should not be disqualified. - MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submitted the article for delisting review. - MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: The article ought to explain the links between the Sacred Heart and the Eucharist. The Sacred Heart is sometimes called the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus. ADM (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eucharist

message: Another thing that should be mentioned is the flag of the Sacred Heart, which is a historical emblem that is associated with Sacred Heart processions. ADM (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of the Sacred Heart

message: This article is beautifully written, but the language it uses is very devotional. I think that it’s not entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I understand that this image is greatly loved by many people and the last thing I want to do is offend anyone; my own mother has several copies of this image in her home, so I know that it is a genuine devotional item to many. Would people mind if I went through the article and tweaked the language a little? 124.170.123.65 (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I don't think this article is "perfectly written". It needs some help, but I do not see the language as being over-devotional at all. The KEY challenge for this article right now is the image actually. Please see the "attempt to delete" here:  . If you have the image and can add it with the suitable copyright notice to Wikimedia that would be really useful and will be appreciated. Without the image, the article will be almost amiss. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devotional Language 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:SacredHeartBatoni.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: If editors want this to return to being a Good Article, could someone take a look at WP:MOSCAPS, and tidy up the POV capitalized pronouns.Straw Cat (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest and do it. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Article as it stands currently complies with MOS:ISMCAPS Artemgy (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: What's with all the "He"s and "His"s?

message: Hi, in response to the  template, following :Category:Articles with HTML markup I have a) removed the  markup (I considered converting to Template:Font color except the font was actually in a link), b) converted  to  and c) cleaned up some quotations in quotations MOS:QWQ. Thus I have now removed the cleanup template. Following the comment above I also rechecked that the article still complies with MOS:ISMCAPS.
However there is an image Gallery which, following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Consideration_of_image_download_size editors might consider moving to Wikimedia Commons instead. Thanks. 
Artemgy (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleaning up - consider moving Gallery? 

message: Could someone explain the sense of this newly added info on a diadem, because I do not get it? Thx. --Medusahead (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for answering: I know what a diadem is, I just could not find a sense or any context to the already given in the message Pope Pius X granted a Pontifical decree for the imposition of a golden diadem to the lowly foot of a statue bearing the same namesake to the Nevers Cathedral on 9 July 1908, via the Archbishop of Nevers and Besancon, Francois Leon Gauthey, both signed and notarized by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. --Medusahead (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Da Boauss Ss: I tried to give the statement some kind of sense and put it into any context, you could have done this also. Anyone can just remove control characters. If that statement had made much sense as it was, I would not have asked.--Medusahead (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A diadem? 

message: Dear "SSPXManillensis", dear various IPs: please explain what the improvement of your version against that of 5th November should be? Namely, subdividing continous text with subheadings containing the name of Popes. It is never desirable to do so. In case there is no explanation given (as before) I shall recover the last stable version. 
Furthermore, it is not necessary to say things like "[he] instituted a form of Catholic Mass" if it is already said in the same sentence that a pope did it. Greetings --Medusahead (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: "During the month of June, which is traditionally devoted to the Sacred Heart, many observant Catholics have posted images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus on social media in opposition to pride month, which they consider to be a celebration of sin by corporations, politicians, government agencies and other secular institutions."
The sources cited in this section do not mention the use of the Sacred Heart image on social media in opposition to pride month, and I can't find any sources that suggest this is a widespread practice. Unless someone can find a source, I think this section should be removed. Bear of Tomato (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient citations 

message: Both Alacoque and Mary of the Divine Heart are discussed at length here; their prayers of consecration don't need a separate page. Manannan67 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.—Alalch E. 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

text: +1 --Medusahead (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

text: all for it - the prayer page doesn't really have anything on it, other than the prayers themselves Onepo (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge