Talk:Catholic Church by country

message: I mean, you are putting numbers which have nothing to do with reality. For example, here in Spain, hardly 1/5th of the population goes to mass. So this thing of neo-con believers in all religions feeding us the idea we 'are a religion' because in the past we were is bogus. Most WESTERN EUROPEANS ARE AGNOSTIC, even in Italy...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.171.186 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Ludwig Ott, a Catholic is he who has been baptized, has not publicly committed apostasy, heresy or schism, and has not suffered the vitandus excommunication (now in disuse).--77.4.70.255 (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT IS THE METHOD!?

message: The map of Europe has a mistake - in Ukraine, only Lviv oblast is highlighted in red as mostly Catholic, while in reality three more oblasts should be added: Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Transcarpathian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.54.137 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukraine map

message: WP has now changed the article name from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, which now gives the possibility to change other article names where appropriate.  I think this is such a page.  In Spanish, no one say "La Iglesia Catolica Romana" for instance.  It is always "La Iglesia Catolica."  No one is a "Catolico Romano" but simply a "Catolico."  So if we are going to write about Catholicism throughout the world, we should be referring to it by its most common name globally, the Catholic Church.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: I see that here are many fake numbers, for example, in Guatemala it is written that there are 75% of Catholics, this has nothing to do with reality, just protestants make more than one third....
I please editors of this page to make a reality check! Article here must show figures which are shown by wiki Guatemala page and reality, not some vatican fabricated numbers...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.128.103 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guatemala??

message: Since the site where I got most of these percentages was Roman Catholic,  , should the title be changed from Catholism to Roman Catholic? OneGuy 21:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the current title [Roman Catholicism by country] is incorrect (as is the whole series of [Roman Catholicism in ...]) as this includes all Catholics, not only Latin Rite. For some countries like for example Armenia, Ukraine, Lebanon, various Middle Eastern countries the majority of the faithful belong to Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. --212.76.33.81 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: I think you should add this: <<Category:Roman Catholic Church>> to the end of the article. Obviously instead of the "<<" and "">>" you have to put "[ [" "] ]""  PMLF 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: category

message: I changed many of the percentages to US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 . 
These reports are more up to date than both CIA factbook and adherents.com,  and I also found them more accurate. OneGuy 03:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: changed percentages

message: OneGuy, you must use the official numbers for nominal adherence to each religion, not your own speculative numbers. For instance, the number of Catholics in France is 85-88% according to the CIA Factbook. Don't give speculations on your own. Another point, why are you trying to diminish numbers in a wicked manner across Wikipedia? User:212.98.158.4
I am not using "speculative" numbers. The source for everything is cited. If you want to change something, you have to cite a more authoritative source and cite it on the talk page instead of randomly changing the numbers. For France, according to the State Department:
:Asked about religious faith in a 2003 poll, 54 percent of those polled identified themselves as "faithful," 33 percent as atheist, 14 percent as agnostic, and 26 percent as "indifferent." The vast majority of the population is nominally Roman Catholic, but according to one member of the Catholic hierarchy, only 8 percent of the population are practicing Catholics. Muslims constitute the second largest religious group, with approximately 4 to 5 million adherents, or approximately 7 to 8 percent of the population. Protestants make up 2 percent of the population, and the Jewish and Buddhist faiths each represent 1 percent, with those of the Sikh faith less than 1 percent. According to various estimates, approximately 6 percent of the country's citizens are unaffiliated with any religion. 
Note 33% atheist and 14 percent agnostic. If you consider other religious groups, you are left (very charitable) with around 40% Catholics. The State Department (since it more uptodate and specifically related to religion) is the most authoritative source in this case (even more authoritative than CIA factbook). OneGuy 23:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The State report is a narrative commentary on religions and human rights that only quotes a poll and an unnamed hierarchical member. and is NOT used as a demographic analysis. That's third-hand "sourcing" at best. I've worked at embassies in Ukraine and Russian and have worked with the State Department for the last few years (I'm in another government agency). The CIA handbook is used regularly by State and other U.S. agencies as a guide for facts and figures. You've some sort of agenda to cherry pick with poorly sourced material. I am re-instating the 80-85% figure. Virgil61 14:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Logic 

message: A person is considered Christian if baptized, regardless of self-identification. In your page about Islam by Country, you are using nominal numbers, regardless of self-identification. You use slightly exaggerated numbers for Muslims, which when combined give a strange result of 1.47 billion Muslims or so (as everyone knows that Muslims are between 1 and 1.3 billions if we're giving a generous estimate). You seem to use the lowest available estimates for Christians and the highest available ones for Muslims. Regardless of this fact, Christians are still terribly more numerous than Muslims. You didn't go too far with all that!
Second,  why does the CIA factbook give between 83 and 88 % to Catholics? Can the CIA be that wrong (42 becomes 83) ??!!  Come on...User:pelikan
:: "A person is considered Christian if baptized", that is POV, and a definition used by canon law to determine who is to be considered one under the Catholic Church eyes. Religous freedom is an individual right and hence, under a NPOV perspective self-identification is most valid indication of faith denomination.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 1 to 1.3 billion is 5 year old estimate. I didn't "exaggerate" numbers for Muslims. Everything in Islam table was taken from either State Department, or some other source, like everything in this table. These are not my own numbers. The State Department quote is pretty clear on France. Atheists and agnostic are not "Catholics" OneGuy 19:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what you believe. The numbers for this page, and for the other religion by country pages, were taken from the US State Department 2004 report. If you want to change something, you have to provide a more authoritative and recent source OneGuy 21:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This violates WP code of conduct and I have deleted the offensive content which was unnecessary. It is not signed properly either.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The State Department reports are more recent and up to date, and unlike CIA factbook, they cite the source for the information. Am I "propagating" Islamic numbers by using the State Department as a source? The Muslim numbers for many Islamic countries are lower in the State Department reports compared to CIA factbook. It's easy to check that by comparing the numbers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Swaziland and many more with CIA factbook. You are the one who seems to have some kind of agenda here, given how you keep inserting your own deliberately false numbers in Lebanon article. OneGuy 18:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if you don't have the source for your numbers, you cannot replace your own number with the US State Department numbers. The numbers for Muslim countries was also taken from the US State Department. If your claim is that the US government is pushing up the Muslim numbers (for some strange reason), write and complain about that to the US government. You cannot expect Wikipedia to use your self made numbers. I am neither a Muslim, nor a Christian, nor Lebanese. What I do know is that the numbers you are trying to insert in Lebanon article are contradicted by the the US State Department. You won't be allowed to post your own numbers, regardless of whether you are a Lebanese or not OneGuy 22:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You are replacing the % as it appears on the US State Department site with your own numbers for which you have not given the source. That's not "correcting mistakes." That's "inserting mistakes" OneGuy 23:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont like the US State Department numbers either, but if you dont have any more reputable references you should not edit someone elses work. Let me point out that asking about religious believes in census is highly debated and most countries dont.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't try to "highlight" anything. The source for all religious pages is the same US State Department. Your agenda makes you think that everyone, including the State Department, is trying to "highlight" something you don't like. As for your source, it will have to be easily available on the web like the US State Department report so we can check your claims OneGuy 18:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, your above sermon just further shows that you have some kind of a religious agenda. Please spare me though. If I wanted to hear sermons, I would go to church. The fact is that you replaced State Department % in Lebanon article with your % for which you didn't post the source. You have continued replacing the % by using several different sockpuppet accounts OneGuy 04:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, this page is no place for bibble bashing or expresing personal political views, yahoo is very good for that. We are trying to be enciclopedists.It is alright to question the above mentioned report, but do so with better references. It is extremely unethical and childish to delete someone elses work without a corresponding effort.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read below you will see that baptism registars are just that, It should be not used as an indication of faith preferences.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong, wrong, wrong !!! 

message: Okay, someone will have to fill me in on why there's any need to divide European countries with regard to Catholicism into regions, and then at the same time omit the Northern Europe. --Joy [shallot] 10:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  regional split in Europe 

message: I miss San Marino, where more than 90% are Catholic, in your Top 60. 84.132.209.108 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Marino? 

message: I am currently working on an edit to the Roman Catholic Church section regarding world wide distribution and I find that the current page here has a lot of work but with the wrong approach. 
The fist issue is the definition of Catholic. The Roman Catholic church under canon law refers to the term Faithful (baptized Catholic) as essentially someone who is baptized. To the effect they keep an official registry, and though you may turn to any other faith or philosophy, as long as you do not formally request in writing to the church's corresponding national office that you no longer want to be include, you will still be counted as a Faithful (baptized Catholic).Hence it is no different than being a member of any association or club and you could be a Muslim and still be counted as a Faithful (baptized Catholic). This is the widest possible definition of Catholic, not even if you are excommunicated are you ceased to be considered a Catholic!.
An alternative definition is that a Catholic is anyone who claims to be one when asked. In which case you would use independent polls to obtain statistical estimates. However, in many countries, the census includes such question, and hence we have a statistical number and not an estimate.
Hence two sets of data are available. However it seems that the Catholic Church is cheating and that in countries were a question on faith is asked in the government census, they report this number, and not their own, to masquerade de issue. I have tried to find out details of this practice to no avail, so I can only speculate. One such country is New Zealand, and the census numbers and church figures do not significantly deviate even though 27% responded that they were atheists or agnostics (so there should approximately be a 25% difference between census and church reported number of Catholics).
A far more interesting and informative statistic is the extent of religious practise among Catholics, i.e. How often do you go attend church services? In my books, a practising catholic is that who attends mass at least on Sundays and special festivities. Recent official polls in Spain show that only 13.3% of the population claims to do so. Hence, from a church reported figure of 87%, to 79% who declare themselves as Catholics, I end up with a figure of 13.3% of practising Catholics (These numbers come from official sources referenced in Wikipedia).
It should be highlighted that in western societies the Catholic Church, as most of the other "majority" religions, are being watered down to their cultural role in the celebration of important social events. In the case of Spain, as in many other catholic countries, and contrary to laicism, government subsidies are negotiated in part based on church statistics, and hence there is additional bias to have the widest possible definition for Catholic.
- Conclusion -
We need to give more information on the differing definitions of "a catholic" and we cannot pick and mix between the two sets of data and present them as one as it is now being done.
An attempt should be made to provide data on attendance to religious services as an indication of religious practise and faith in each country.
Cgonzalezdelhoyo 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church statistics and official polls cannot be used together 

message: This page need Updating 217.132.196.144 14:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: The Roman Catholic churches in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria  have all recently published their 2005 church membership figures these differ (all are lower) from the figures listed on this WP page. Obviously, the roman catholic church should be the most reliable source for their own membership figures. So what source should be used the CIA "fact"-book or the roman catholic church. 
Ruud64 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good practise to use figures from a biased source, so no it's not 'obviously' :)  The CIA factbook isn't non biased either, but it's much more likely to be objective than figures from the Catholic Church itself. Vexorg 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect figures shown - what should be the source of data 

message: I propose merging the two templates "Roman Catholicism in North America" and "Roman Catholicism in South America" to just a single one reading "Roman Catholicism in the Americas".
I got the idea from this same page which already lists stats with them both merged.
CaribDigita 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about merging both "Americas" templates? 

message: Either Poland (#10 on left) has the wrong number of Catholics or is listed wrong in the top sixty.
:: Yes the Top 60 is totally messed up and needs a complete re-write. I'll do it if and when I get time, but don't let me stop anyone else. I've just finsihed fixing the rest of the page so I ned a rest :) :) Vexorg 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  top sixty is messed up 

message: I have removed the Top Sixty. The reason for this is that not only is the current Top 60 out of date and innaccurate, the Main Table can be re-orded to provide a Top List for both Population of Catholics and Percentage of Catholics for ALL Countries. Vexorg 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Top Sixty 

message: If I try to sort table by %, table is sorted by this column not as number, but as text. The result is, that for example 38% < 4% < 46%.
I'm sorry if this is not the right place to write bug reports.
Pista302 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorting by % not working 

message: Bolivia states a referenced 95% catholicism, yet the table was showing the same figure for population as for Catholics. I changed it to reflect the stated 95% figure. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through it, lots are "wrong" in that the figure given for total Catholics varies considerably from the stated percentage. Something is wrong somewhere. I am not sure if it's best to change them all, or try for better sourcing for the actual percentage figure given - perhaps both are needed. I will change the ones that are substantially wrong in the meantime. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we get "figure rot" in demographic-type information due to people trying to update from a different source and failing to understand what a "better" source is, particularly for information of this sort which does not have strong underpinning. Then there is vandalism with kids changing a figure someplace which doesn't get noticed. Perhaps we should consider article for permanent semi-protect? That might help a little. But won't help today's problem!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolivia 

message: It currently says: 29,251 with 95% catholics makes 29,230 catholics. That doesn't add up. -- Taketa (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Marino 

message: I've looked all over the page trying to make sense of the color coding system on this table.  Maybe I'm just missing something, but is there a consistent methodology to the coloring?  It does seem somewhat consistent with level of belief, but not quite right.  And if there is, might that warrant a table legend being placed in there somewhere?97.66.42.90 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Colors? 

message: When I click to sort on "% Catholic", it sorts alphabetically, so that 3 is above 29 but below 31.  Makes the sorting pretty useless here.  If it matters, I'm using FF 4.0. RobI (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage Sorting Wrong 

message: This map was reinserted without - once again - a source. 
A map like article text does not get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS. So please add a reliable (NON WIKI) source or this map will have to be removed in order to comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards. 
Furthermore this map is rather inaccurate - showing the Czech republic as catholic (% catholics on average is 10.3 % and in areas below 3 % as per the last census) and showing areas in Germany , UK , Switzerland as not catholic where catholics actually make up a much larger % of the population (in several areas a majority ) is misleading. 
So please comply with WIKIPEDIA quality standards and do not reinsert this map without a reliable source. 
Grsd (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And again a map was inserted without a proper source, so again the remark that a map like article text does not get a free pass on WP:V and WP:RS, please comply  with WIKIPEDIA quality standards and do not reinsert this map without a reliable source.83.87.3.224 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholicism in europe map 

message: I don't have time to do it now, but perhaps somebody else has time.  Here is a new Pew study on the number of Catholics by country called "The Global Catholic Population".  They have nice graphics too.  Can we use them? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we use their graphics?  I found this their policy on permission --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update with Jan 2013 Pew Study 

message: Data from the Vatican should be used here, as it is the most accurate. http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-12/05-6/proportioncathos08.htm --Daniel the duck (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally independent sources would be used. The CIA factbook bases its information off local census etc where possible, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Can you please not edit while logged out. The catholic church figures are also estimates. There is no catholic register, and the numbers are not based on attendance. The CIA figures are based off the census of the respective nations, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: To pick an example, church attendance in the Republic of Ireland is 30%, yet the figure cirus.org uses is much higher. Baptismal numbers are not the same as the number of people who self-identify as Catholic. Using census figures makes the most sense here. Census figures tend to over-estimate the number of practicing Catholics (many non-believers identify as Catholic), but they are independent, use a decent metric for measuring membership and the CIA fact book is continually updated. The number of people who believe in a personal God via survey is 70% according to a Eurobarometer Poll while 20% are spiritual. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text: The Vatican site overestimates the numbers (the figures are even older) also and is not independent. The problem is that we are not basing the numbers off polls which give the truest values. You can hardly claim what you said makes sense when the vatican source overestimates the numbers even more than the CIA. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a question for you: how are you determining that one dataset is "more accurate" than another? What reliable source do you have to prove your assertions? If you don't have one, then you are performing original research which is prohibited here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, Church data, which measures the actual amount of adherents, is more accurate than census data, because the censuses are known to be inaccurate.  Church data changes over time, but remain relatively stable over a period time, as the source shows.  No original research here. --Daniel the duck (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to prove those assertions by citing reliable sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel the duck, you continued to revert the Austria data, which is the best available church data. Please start to discuss this and explain which data beyond the outdated clerus.org table you will accept Nillurcheier (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

text: What I cited is the most reliable source of all, the homepage of the catholic church in Austria. And it is the most up to date data you can get compared to your 7 years old stuff. If you at least had the latest Annuario Pontificio data... Nillurcheier (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican Data

message: The edit war continues. The next revert to this page will send me to WP:EWN with reports of all edit warriors involved. Please discuss and cease editing. Seek dispute resolution avenues. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: In the article, we recently changed something like "1.2 billion" to "1,214 million" and we introduced some confusion. Some editors have been changing it to "1,214 billion" thinking that is what we meant. The confusion probably stems from the use of "," in many localities as a decimal point. I think we should consider using "1.2 billion" or even "1.214 billion" instead. Elizium23 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Million/billion 

message: Anonymous user 172.0.112.152 continues to revert this article, changing data for Brazil coming from a national population census to data without any known reference (see here), significantly altering the results. As I've already reverted this article two times, I won't continue to do so, and I ask other editors to remove any unreferenced data. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil data

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catholic Church by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925230110/http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/2010/princi_result/cpv2010_principales_resultadosVI.pdf to http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/2010/princi_result/cpv2010_principales_resultadosVI.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114093733/http://portal.statistics.sk/files/tab-14.pdf to http://portal.statistics.sk/files/tab-14.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Catholic Church by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304093021/http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/04/sub-saharan-africa-chapter-1.pdf to http://www.pewforum.org/files/2010/04/sub-saharan-africa-chapter-1.pdf/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929185539/http://www.abs.gov.au:80/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/2011%20Census%20-%20Census%20Help%20-%20About%20the%20Census to http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/2011%20Census%20-%20Census%20Help%20-%20About%20the%20Census
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221184947/http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/$File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf to http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/$File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=27086&lan=eng
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Discussion until now: Note that in the following pasted text, the terms "this article" and "here" refer to Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites, which is no longer being considered for merger.
The pages Catholic Church by country, Global organisation of the Catholic Church and here have had merger tags since March. I don't think merging this article with either is a good idea, but I maybe could be on board with merging the other two. I don't have a strong opinion about it but the issue needs to be decided. Pariah24 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in which case this discussion should move to the talk page of one of the other two articles and the merger tag should be removed from this article. Clean Copytalk 10:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Clean Copy - Late insert, but I also agree to merge those by-country articles.   I suggest that the merge be to Global Organization as having more narrative content, by having section "Catholicism by region and country" be replaced by the content of Catholic Church by Country - except merging the See Also and Reference sections. Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! Clean Copytalk 01:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't think such an operation is necessary. Edit history is kept. Feel free to carry it out at your will. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Catholicism articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Catholic Church by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/tab_7_1_population_by_religious_belief_and_by_municipality_size_groups/%24File/PVCR071_ENG.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170105061852/http://dne.mof.gov.tl/published/2010%20and%202011%20Publications/Pub%202%20English%20web/Publication%202%20FINAL%20%20English%20Fina_Website.pdf to http://dne.mof.gov.tl/published/2010%20and%202011%20Publications/Pub%202%20English%20web/Publication%202%20FINAL%20%20English%20Fina_Website.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008005424/http://www.osp.stat.gov.lt/en/web/guest/pranesimai-spaudai?articleId=223122 to http://www.osp.stat.gov.lt/en/web/guest/pranesimai-spaudai?articleId=223122
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319060208/http://statistics.gov.rw/system/files/user_uploads/files/books/RPHC4_Socio_cultural_characteristics_population.pdf to http://statistics.gov.rw/system/files/user_uploads/files/books/RPHC4_Socio_cultural_characteristics_population.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514112130/http://www.nsb.gov.sc/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Population_and_Housing_Census_2010_Report.pdf to http://www.nsb.gov.sc/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Population_and_Housing_Census_2010_Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420034328/http://www.prct.org.uk/downloads/research/18-table-1-2011-2012-statistics-of-rc-population-fourth-draft-1/file to http://www.prct.org.uk/downloads/research/18-table-1-2011-2012-statistics-of-rc-population-fourth-draft-1/file
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Church naming conventions RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catholic Church by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170709231248/http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features252016 to http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features252016
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, this statistic refers to the Latin Church in Egypt, whilst the Coptic Catholic Church article describes the Eastern Catholic Church sui iuris which is in communion, but distinct from, the Latin Church. Thanks for the heads-up! Elizium23 (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coptic Catholic Church and Egypt 

message: could you please use <ref name=xxx> instead of duplicating the same reference over and over again? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ok(The Sr Guy (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion