Talk:Church of Scientology

Long footers/captions of pictures

Long texts under pictures can stretch the picture frame sideways, much broader than actual pictures, and in some cases so much that on some monitors almost no text can be flowed by it's side.

I have tested putting line breaks </br> on suitable places in those lines and because in preview it reclaimed the wasted monitor space, published them.

User: Grorp reverted one of those with comment

Revert caption changes. they looked good on a cell phone but awful on a computer web browser. long captions automatically wrap

It seems my solution was not suitable for every configuration, but at the same time it seems his remark is not true in all environments. I worked on comp screen; before my change (and after revert) in my case long captions didn't. (and don't) automatically revert. It seems the problem (no automatical varp for long captions), which I fudged by inserting newline tags, might be environment (e.g. browser, and maybe even version) dependant. I used and older version of firefox at the time.

And you (Grorp) seem to have been right: in Opera on the same comp long captions do seem to get automatically warped, so I am reverting my other recent patchy picture caption changes.

edit: he already reverted all of them before I could. In Firefox 115.4.0esr on this comp long picture captions are not automatically warped, and are again looking awful on this version of this computer web browser. When I am at some other comp I'll see if it's just this version or FF in general.

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I checked 3 computer browsers (Firefox, Edge & Brave) looking at the current version (wrapping captions) and your version with the line-breaks in them. I tried it logged in and logged out, and tried two Wikipedia skins: Vector 2022 (default) and Vector legacy 2010 (my preference). The non-line-break version wraps correctly in all cases.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Unused sources from "Works cited" section

All of the sources mentioned in the "Works cited" section are not actually referenced in the article itself. I'm putting them here in case anyone needs to use or restore them. I'm leaving one, Lamont 1986, in "Further reading" because it is focused on the organization(s) and most closely matches the subject material.

• Corydon, Bent; Hubbard, L. Ron Jr. (1987). L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah Or Madman?. New Jersey: Lyle Stuart. ISBN 0-8184-0444-2. OCLC 16130709.
• Lamont, Stewart (1986). Religion Inc.: The Church of Scientology. London: Harrap. ISBN 0-245-54334-1. OCLC 23079677.
• Melton, J. Gordon (2000). The Church of Scientology. Salt Lake City: Signature Press. ISBN 978-1-56085-139-4.
• Partridge, Christopher Hugh (2003). UFO Religions. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26324-7. OCLC 51342721.
• Savino, John; Jones, Marie D. (2007). Supervolcano: The Catastrophic Event That Changed the Course of Human History. Career Press. ISBN 978-1-56414-953-4. OCLC 123539673.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

German “Sekte” mistranslated as “sect”; false friend; should be “cult”

Please change the word “sect” in the top summary in the sentence of how the German Government defines COS to “cult”.

This is a false friend: the German word “Sekte” is translated as “cult”, not “sect”. “Sect” means something different in English (as in a subgroup, an offshoot of smth.) - the German gov. actually sees COS as a full on “cult” (i.e. fanatic high-control-group working against liberal-democratic fundamental order). 2A0C:D242:3880:B500:89A3:75E8:92EE:5839 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

Thomas Cruise should be added to the Celebrity Section to bring awareness on powerful people who are associated with the church. 205.215.209.250 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There's already a main article at Scientology and celebrities, which does mention Tom Cruise. Per WP:SUMMARY, it's unnecessary to replicate all the contents of the article in this section. Liu1126 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)