Talk:List of living cardinals/Archive 1

Capitalization of "Cardinal"

Should the "C" be capitalized? Tuf-Kat 07:21, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. RickK 07:24, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No way; cardinal is a common noun, not a proper noun.

John Cardinal Smith is the proper name of a person, so the names and titles that are part of it are capitalized.

The College of Cardinals is the proper name of a body, so the nouns in it are capitalized.

Arguably, when used a noun of direct address, by someone too rude or ignorant to look up which "Your XYZ-ness" applies, it is short for the full proper name: "Oh, Cardinal, you left this crozier in the closet!"

But "John Cardinal Smith has been a cardinal for years, and has repeatedly spoken on behalf of the College of Cardinals, which is the body consisting of all current cardinals."

(It is possible that the style sheet of the Vatican PR office says that cardinal with a small C always means a bird, but if so, they are writing in a private language. They don't make the rules for English, which is used here.)

--Jerzy 21:00, 2004 Jan 28 (UTC)

Living/deceased

I suggest that this listing might be more helpful if broken up between living and deceased Cardinals. --Mark Delano

Date of birth/death

I would like to see the listing have the dob/dod of the Cardinals so that we know if they are still living or have passed. It might also be helpful to include what title they carried to elevate them to 'notable'.

--Jon Cates 13:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criteria

This list needs to be less inclusive than Category:Cardinals to be independently useful.It should include only cardinals who (while never Pope) held important offices or were particularly famous.Let's not see it grow haphazardly...L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it should list cardinals about whom there is a Wikipedia article. I don't think a Wikipedia article is generally created about a cardinal unless the cardinal is in some way notable. Michael Hardy 20:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that the College of Cardinals article has links for articles for every living Cardinal (implicitly inviting articles to be written about them) I don't see such an implication.I deliberately didn't make the names links when I added a list of Deans to the Dean of the College of Cardinals article even though incumbents of that office are likelier to be "notable" than are Cardinals as a whole.I think the List of Notable Cardinals should be for selected Cardinals who have articles in Wikipedia,while the Category of Cardinals should include all of them.--L.E./12.144.5.2 21:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

excess use of the word "Cardinal"

Since this is the list of cardinals, I really don't see the point in using the form "First name Cardinal Last name" in every single entry. They should all be pipe-linked out. --Joy [shallot] 23:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unilateral change in the purpose of this list

User:Bender235 changed this on April 6th to a list of cardinals living now. Where are the others? Michael Hardy 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

Please stop (whoever is behind this) with this ludicrous nonsense of "NAME Cardinal SURNAME". This is a style nobody has used since the middle ages. The Vatican itself is not using it, just run a search on vatican.va. It's frankly irritating. --Orzetto 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong in every single way. Firstly it is WP policy. Secondly it is still official Vatican Policy. Thirdly it was the only way cardinals were ever referred to until 1965, not the middle ages. Fourthly the reason WP uses that form is because it is the only way WP can list all cardinals, as many mediaeval cardinals' first names have long since been forgotten. We couldn't just list them as surname alone. Fifthly it keeps the words cardinal and <surname> together and so eases google searches. Sixthly, many cardinals until relatively recent times used different cardinalate names to their personal names. Their personal names are obscure. They are only known as Cardinal x. So again, to enable google searches and titling WP has to use the word that is associated with their surname, which is cardinal. That is policy. That is necessity. The issue is workability, not whether you are irritated. Your irritation is of no relevance. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Orzetto is right in every single way. Firstly, "NAME SURNAME" is now WP policy. Secondly, as Orzetto rightly said, the "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" style is not (and never was) official Vatican policy for referring to cardinals, but only for signatures. Thirdly, cardinals were referred to as "Cardinal NAME SURNAME" long before 1965 - at least as far back as 1848 - and this style may very well have preceded the appearance in English of the "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" style, which has won no foothold whatever in Italian, the present day-by-day language in the Vatican. Fourthly, a reason for WP to use "NAME SURNAME" and not "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" is that mediaeval cardinals had no surname, and if their place of origin is used in place of a surname (e.g. Humbert of Mourmoutiers), you can say "NAME of PLACE" (or, for that matter, "Cardinal NAME of PLACE", but you cannot say "NAME Cardinal of PLACE". Fifthly, "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" separates NAME from SURNAME, and is less useful as a search string for Googling, especially since the form "Cardinal NAME SURNAME" is the usual order in news items. Most important, since the relative correctness of "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" and "Cardinal NAME SURNAME" is in dispute, Wikipedia's basic NPOV policy does not allow either to be imposed, when the neutral "NAME SURNAME" is available. "NAME SURNAME" is policy. That is necessity. The issue is workability and simplicity, not primarily whether anyone is irritated. Anyone's irritation is of some, but insufficient, relevance. Lima 18:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as to whether or not this is a practice the Vatican uses, when the new Pope is announced by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon after his election, the text of the announcement names the man who has been elected as "Dominum NAME Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem SURNAME," which puts the whole phrase "Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church" between the name and surname. And Latin is the Vatican's actual official language, not Italian. 67.239.64.253 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cardinals by Pope

I'm going to start creating lists of Cardinals by original Papal appointment, so as we have a full list, and not just Cardinals in disparate categories. Gareth E Kegg 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Criteria, again

If this is a list of all cardinals who've ever lived who have an article in Wikipedia, then it is identical to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals, though that category is split into many subcategories. If this list is restricted to living cardinals, then it is identical to the list in College of Cardinals#Members of the College of Cardinals. Category:Italian cardinals alone has 598 entries. Taken together, there are probably nearly 1000 articles on individual cardinals. So, what exactly is the criteria for inclusion in this list? Should it include both living and dead cardinals, and if so, should it give dates of birth and death to indicate which are still living? Would it be worthwhile to include cardinals who do not have articles? Redlinked redhats? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear from the commentary on this very page that this has been a list of living cardinals for at least the last 3.5 years. Why no one has bothered to indicate that on the page itself I have no idea.--Dcheney (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case we should probably move the article to "List of living cardinals", as well as note the criteria in the lede. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Missed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac_Murphy-O%27Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.150.101 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He is included in the list. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Full list

It would be very nice if there could be a full chronological list of cardinals somewhere on wikipedia, and not just current living cardinals. I imagine it would have to be split up, but it would be quite useful, I think. john k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Assis

Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis has not his own article. Can someone create it? If there is lack of information i link you to: www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/cardinals.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.58.110 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

new cardinals -Feb 2012

I don't think, that it is correct to list them here before the consitory. They became cardinals during this ceremony on February 18th but not by the announcement of January 6th. --Heraklitcnl (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, they should not be included as Cardinals until the Consistory on 18 Feb. I actually posted about this on the Catholic Project page before the announcement. Perhaps the edits can be moved somewhere temporarily so they can be reposted on the 18th.--Dcheney (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Eligible to Vote

I would like to point out that neither the previous text or the new revision is accurate on this point.--Dcheney (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The actual text of Universi Dominici Gregis #33 reads (relevant portion): "The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant." It has nothing to do with when the Conclave begins. (Note: it did under prior law, but UDG replaced it.) --Dcheney (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious Acronyms / Order of Cardinal

1. Should the religious institute Acronyms be included in the names of the cardinals who happen to be religious? I see some, very few, included, but there are plenty more of religious cardinals without it.
2. Should there be another column stating if the Cardinal is cardinal-deacon, cardinal-priest or cardinal-bishop? It would be helpful.

---Coquidragon (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have commonly seen the religious-order designation added (for example, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, SDB), although it's usually omitted in the later, shortened, references to such a cardinal (in this case, simply use "Cardinal Bertone"). However, a member of religious order will OFFICIALLY be separate from that order once he reaches the rank of a prelate (bishop or cardinal). The current Pope was also from a religious order (he was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, SJ), but the order designation is now gone and he is "Pope Francis".

I think the table already specifies what rank of cardinal applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"A religious raised to the episcopate remains a member of his institute..." (Canon 705). --Dcheney (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have made a number of changes, including ones that address a point raised in the prior section (listing which order each belongs to). With respect to that, I used the {{sort}} template to allow the column to list them in order of precedence. The Cardinal Dean is sorted as 100, the Vice Dean as 101, and the rest of the Cardinal-Bishops continue from there. The same holds true for the other orders. Cardinal-Priests are numbered from 2000, and Cardinal-Deacons are numbered from 300. The use of 1, 2, and 3 as the leading digits ensures that Bishops come before Priests and Priests come before Deacons. As of today, 16 March 2013, the last numbers used are as follows: CB 109, CP 2151, and CD 343. In practice this means that it will not be necessary to renumber as cardinals come and go. Fully 90 Bishops can be added before renumbering is necessary (i.e., reaching 199); similarly, 848 Priests and 56 Deacons can be added before renumbering.

I have also added colour shading for over-80s. There are two reasons. First, it is an important enough distinction that it makes sense to highlight it. Also, it will allow for easy separation when creating a list of cardinal-electors the next time there is a conclave. The editor doing so can simply copy over the table and then search for the style= text and delete each row preceded by it. This makes culling the older cardinals out easier than it would be at present.

I have made the names properly sortable using {{sortname}}, meaning the names no longer have to be listed SURNAME, FORENAME. The dates appointed now also use {{dts}}, so they are properly sorted as well.

Finally, I have taken steps to truncate the table by using initials instead of names for popes and removing the ", [Country]" as the country is usually obvious from the city involved and is redundant in any event because of the given cardinal's country of origin. If a cardinal were a bishop in one country and from another, it would make sense to mark the country of the diocese involved, but that is not the case with any currently listed. I have also tucked the ages beneath the birth dates of the cardinals; it is not necessary to have two columns that contain essentially the same information and sort identically. -Rrius (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You could have used yellow instead of this eyesore pink.Just sayin--Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was really necessary to have a sortable list by order of precedence. But I'm sure (and afraid) you didn't take into account the possibility of being promoted to a higher order, which will boost the cardinals rank and sort him within his colleaques of the new rank by the day of creation not by the day of promotion. --Heraklitcnl (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that the order of precedence wasn't necessary, now that it is done, it is good to have. As to the problem raised about promotion to higher orders, technically, this is no problem, since we can just add decimals ad infinitum as the sorting number, which will allow us to sort anybody anywhere in order.--Coquidragon (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Wasn't sure about decimals in the sortkey-function. And I agree to keep the sorting by order of precedenca, as the work is done - just hope, that someone will keep an eye on it and the list up to date --Heraklitcnl (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

19 new cardinals

Pope Francis has announced 19 new cardinals for February!We need an addenda and some of those named need Wikipedia pages in English.--Killuminator (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Automated "As of"

The Automated "As of" date toward the top of the article is rather absurd since the rest of the article does not auto update - meaning the date is often flat wrong.--Dcheney (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That´s right. We should only update it when a cardinal turn 80 or died or when the Pope is creating new cardinals. --Nixus Minimax (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Listing Popes as Cardinals

Some editor added the following to the intro:

"In addition, there are two living former cardinals: both Joseph Ratzingerand Jorge Mario Bergoglio were cardinals prior to their elections as Popes Benedict XVI and Francis in 2005 and 2013, respectively."

"Cardinal" is just a title, and once elevated to the papacy, there is no reason to name them "Former Cardinals." Whay say you?--Coquidragon (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see the point of including a reference to them since they were cardinals and are still living.--Dcheney (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Note that the entry dies not "name them 'Former Cardinals'". We state a fact without giving them that invented title. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

'List' section needs correcting

Greetings, The article Cardinals created by Paul VI states that Pope Paul VI (r. 1963–1978) created 143 cardinals in six consistories. So the count in this list is incorrect. This is out of my area of expertise, so hoping another editor will be able to fix. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  22:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The table you modified -- and this should not come as a surprise given the title of the article -- provides data for living cardinals. All but one of those appointed by Paul VI are no longer with us, and he's 94. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my error; I really did miss the living part. Learning something new every day. Cheers!  JoeHebda (talk)  02:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Rosa Chavez: Cardinal Priest or Cardinal Deacon?

An anonymous user recently changed the page to say that Rosa Chavez will be created a Cardinal Deacon rather than a Cardinal Priest since he's not the head of his diocese. It is certainly true that those created Cardinal Priests are ordinarily incumbent (arch)diocesan ordinaries. But those created Cardinal Deacons are ordinarily either curial officials or retired bishops/priests over the age of 80. Rosa Chavez fits in neither category and is the first auxiliary bishop to be elevated in a very long time, so until Pope Francis tells us, I don't think we can predict what's going to happen here. Therefore, until we have a reliable source that says otherwise, I think we should leave it as Cardinal Priest since that is by far the most common rank. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The announcement from the Holy See Press Office (here) does not indicate what rank any of the Cardinals-designate will be created, although a reference to "the assignment of a title or a diaconate" may imply that we should expect at least one of the them to be made a Cardinal Deacon. GCatholic.org (here) has Rosa Chavez down to be made a Cardinal Deacon, but with no suggestion of where that information came from. Especially with the Vatican's apparent silence for now on the question, I would prefer to hold off on changing what the article says. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally there is no indication of what level a new Cardinal will be created until the ceremony itself (but it is often easy to guess). In this case it is even harder to predict since there is no modern precedent.--Dcheney (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So we shouldn't be saying CP at this point for any of them. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The normal current practice is for residential bishops (those with a diocese) to be created a cardinal-priest. So high probability that the other 4 are correct. But in the case of an Auxiliary, we just don't have any modern examples to work with. --Dcheney (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of the "high probability" standard for Wikipedia editing. We should leave this field blank for now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was somewhat worried about this myself. I have changed the table to say TBA for all five of them, although I left the previous details hidden. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

In the last paragraph, the sentence: "Those 14 countries would account for 73 cardinal-electors." should be corrected to "Those 14 countries would account for 72 cardinal-electors." since that is the actual sum. Luigifrunzio (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Per WP:CALC basic arithmetic (in this case, adding) is not OR so no need to ask for a source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Country of Cardinal Felix; inclusion of Central America

In the current article, Cardinal Kelvin Felix has his country as Saint Lucia (as with his archdiocese of Castries); I feel that this can be better represented by 'Antilles' instead, albeit not an actual 'country'. This is in line with the Vatican, which lists him as from the Antilles, as his episcopal conference / province is multinational. Furthermore, it has to be said that Cardinal Felix himself was actually born in neighbouring Dominica, not Saint Lucia. A further precedent may be found in distinguishing between 'Great Britain' (not a country) and Ireland, the latter of which includes Cardinal Brady of Armagh (Northern Ireland).

On the inclusion of Central America, while not strictly a 'continent', is included in the Vatican link (above) and, in my opinion, should be included in the table presented in the article. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We used to cite the Vatican as our source. You removed that citation with this edit, no? I added back under External links.

I think we should cite the Vatican as our source. We should use Antilles and footnote it as an exception. I thought I was indifferent as to categorizing by region or continent, but upon reflection I prefer region. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, I originally removed both that citation and also Central America in a different edit but it is probably better to have them back now. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree, at least with respect to Cardinal Felix, and am disappointed that you decided to proceed with the changes without waiting for my comment since I was the one who had reverted them the first time you made them. There is no reason why we need to follow the Vatican in calling something a country which is demonstrably not a country, and Cardinal Felix is still listed in the table as being a Cardinal from the country of Saint Lucia (so now the country listings don't actually match the table). If we want to list Cardinals by episcopal conference (rather than by country), then by all means let's do that (although, I do not want to do this) and change "Country" to "Episcopal Conference", but it is ridiculous to say that he's from a non-existent country and then use a note to explain what the nonsense is really supposed to mean. If you really feel it necessary to explain the Vatican's inconsistency, then use a note to explain that he was born in Dominica and that the Vatican lists him under "Antilles" which is actually a multi-national episcopal conference and not a country at all. However, I do not think we are under any particular obligation to follow the Vatican's country designations when we have our own information from other sources about what "countries" these men are from (especially, when we're already "correcting" the Vatican information in a number of other cases: Korea vs. South Korea, Papua Nuova Guinea vs. Papua New Guinea, Thailandia vs. Thailand, etc.). I do not think the examples of Cardinal Brady or Great Britain are either illuminating or dispositive. "Great Britain" is often used in casual speech to refer to the United Kingdom; indeed our own article on Great Britain indicates as much by its hatnote. Cardinal Brady really is from Ireland, even if you mean the country, rather than the episcopal conference, given that he was born in Ireland, and the Archdiocese of Armagh, of which he was bishop, straddles the border and contains substantial territory in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. At least "Ireland" has the virtue of being a country, which "Antilles" does not. I could also mention the case of Cardinal Jaworski, whom we identify as Polish (because he is Polish), but whom the Vatican files under "Ukraine" (because he was a bishop in the modern Ukraine). // As for the continents vs regions thing, I suppose either is fine provided that we're using our terminology consistently (i.e., don't say "continents" and then include "Central America"), but I have two objections to the "regions" framework: (1) All the regions actually are continents except for Central America and "North America" (which, according to standard usage ought to refer to the continent that includes Central America, but here apparently means Canada, the United States, and Mexico, which at any rate is not a coherent "region" at all, unless you mean "the part of mainland North America that is not Central America"). (2) This usage of "Central America" apparently means the seven countries between Mexico and Colombia (i.e., the region normally called "Central America") PLUS anything in the Caribbean (specifically, in this case, it includes at least Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Saint Lucia). This is a nonstandard and non-obvious usage of the term "Central America", which at the very least deserves explanation, but which I see no reason for us to follow, especially when clicking the link to Central America leads you to a page which does not define the region in a way that will be consistent with the numbers we are attributing to it in this context. I understand that this is following the Vatican's usage of "Central America", but again, I do not think that we are beholden to the Vatican's non-standard choices, when we have other options available to us. In the end, I do not think that the usage of "Central America" here can stand without explanation, and since I don't see the Vatican explaining its own usage of the term, I'm afraid that our attempt to discern its meaning would count as WP:OR. So I say, go back to continents. // I'm reverting all of these changes pending further discussion and hopefully more consensus. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thus conceded. I apologise for any disappointment or dissatisfaction caused by my impetuousity and will let the article stand, pending further consensus. Mea culpa. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My apologies as well if my own reply was more forceful than was warranted. I am open to further discussion and there are perhaps other arguments, facts, or relevant policies I have not considered or have misunderstood. I also note that I have found where the Vatican shows which particular countries' Cardinals are being included in its agglomeration of "Central America", but I think this is still insufficient to explain what they mean by the region as a whole (presumably it includes other nearby countries, but they have not said which ones they would include, and so we have no explicit evidence regarding which region the Vatican would apply to, say, Guatemala, which lies between countries they have called North American and countries they have called Central American). LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cardinals turning 80

I accept that Universi Dominici gregis specifies that cardinals who turn 80 on the day of vacancy can vote, but this leads to the question on how (or when) we update the list and tables for cardinals turning 80.

Do we a. update the article on the date they turn 80, which is more convenient but is technically inaccurate in terms of voting eligibility or b. update the article on the immediately following day, which takes into account UDG‌'s rules but makes it more complicated to schedule updates? Thoughts welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To further complicate matters, UDG does not specify how to interpret that sentence (and it has not been an issue since the age limit was imposed in the 1970's). When do we consider a cardinal to have turned 80? Is it based on the timezone (aka 12:01am) of his normal residence, of Rome, or where ever he happens to be in the world at the time?

Bottom line, until UDG is clarified by actually impacting whether or not a cardinal can enter the conclave, we won't know. As far as Wiki, given that English Wiki is used the world over, I don't think there is any harm in the current practice. --Dcheney (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you calling the current practice? It seems to me like we need to do the update the day following each Cardinal's 80th birthday. I don't know if this is the practice or not. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also exceedingly bewildered by what exactly you're finding difficult to interpret. The Apostolic See falls vacant on some particular date. Each cardinal turns 80 on some particular date. If those two dates are the same, then a cardinal may enter the conclave. What on earth do time zones have to do with it? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me offer a purely hypothetical example. Rome is in CET, so let's say a Pope dies at 6am in Rome on 9 Jun 2021. At that moment, it is 2pm on 9 Jun in Sydney, Australia. It is also 9pm on 8 Jun in Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Cardinal Pell happens to turn 80 on 8 Jun 2021. So if he happened to be in Sydney (or Rome) at that time, I think everyone would agree that he would NOT be eligible to vote because it was the day after he turned 80.

But, if he happened to be in Los Angeles that day at that time, it would still be the evening of 8 Jun - his birthday. So would he be eligible to vote? --Dcheney (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

But you are now referring to something which is, as far as I am aware, nowhere mentioned in UDG, namely the time at which the See becomes vacant. All UDG countenances, as I understand it, is the day on which it becomes vacant. If the See becomes vacant on June 9, 2021, then Cardinal Pell is ineligible to vote because he turned 80 on the previous day. It's not a question of how old he is at the moment the See becomes vacant. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The hypothetical which might turn out to be difficult is if the Pope were to die outside of Rome at such a time that it became ambiguous what day the See had become vacant on. For example, the Pope dies in Los Angeles at 9pm on June 8, 2021, at which point it is already June 9 in Rome. It seems to me like the See itself (which is the Diocese of Rome) would have to be judged to have become vacant on June 9, even though the Pope died on June 8 according to local time. But it still wouldn't matter which part of the world Cardinal Pell was in. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A more realistic example might be the Pope dies in his sleep overnight and it is unclear whether he died before or after midnight (in Rome). But as I indicated, because this portion of UDG has never been "tested" in real life, it is not at all clear how it should be interpreted in unique circumstances. --Dcheney (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the prevailing ‘policy’ on this article has been to update on the day that cardinals turn 80 (which, IMO, is a reasonable proposition, even if it's technically incorrect). It also seems to simplify wording (‘George Pell will be the next cardinal to turn 80, on 8 June 2021’, rather than ‘George Pell will be the next cardinal to become ineligible to vote, on 9 June 2021’) and allows us to push updates on only one day. That said, though, I don't believe that day-after updates are necessarily un-doable. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Since we're stuck with following the Vatican's own policies, however inscrutable we may find them, I think we need to do day-after updates. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Opening

Now has 14 bullet points. Starting to look cluttered or trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:69 (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree. I think the list has become very (obviously) trivial. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I was the original poster. The ProtoDeacon, Protopriest, Dean, and Vice Dean are also listed elsewhere in the article next to the cardinals. Could those be removed? Would that help? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.96.148 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it would; I'll go ahead with removing them. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oldest and youngest also seem like good candidates for deletion; those distinctions have no particular meaning (i.e., they are trivial) and are easily discovered by using the sort features on the table if anyone cares about them. So I'm deleting them. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember adding three bullets - the last to turn 80, the next to turn 80, and the last to pass away. Now it is out-of-control.Juve2000 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, basically all of the data (except former cardinals and last death) can technically be discovered using the table and other features of the article. I think it's perfectly fine to just keep the current few, though. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes look good thank you. - original ip anonomous poster :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.96.24 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This list is now much better. Can I just say I find the use of the word "serve" and its variations with respect to cardinals grates a bit. One is a member of the College and serves in various capacities, e.g., member of a dicastery. The bullet point "Roger Etchegaray is the longest-serving cardinal, serving since 30 June 1979." could read "Roger Etchegaray has been a cardinal longer than any other, since 30 June 1979." And that eliminates the echo longest-serving/serving. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. I have also converted the bulleted list to prose, as per a suggestion on WP:FLC. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not fixed. You changed "serving since" to "appointed". But cardinals are named or created, not appointed. And "longest-serving" is still not a proper description. It's like serving as a monsignor. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Reference Column

Why was this added to the table? It seems incredibly unnecessary and it's aesthetically displeasing. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It was added per a suggestion under WP:FLC (see here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 23:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

GCatholic just another self-published source. See here. Using it devalues the great work that's been done in recent months. There are better references available, though it would take a little work to add them. It needn't be one person's chore. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also added the Vatican's biography/statistics list to the table. What other sources do you suggest we add? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

GCatholic is still not acceptable. No number of additional sources will change that. I think each cardinal could have a ref of his own or we could use Vatican or news sources that are published at the times of each consistory. One or the other of those two types of sources are readily available in the entries Cardinals created by Francis et al. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think, then, we should mainly link individual cardinals with their Vatican biographies (here). Sources are probably more difficult to find for earlier consistories (e.g. before ~2005, let alone 1979). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Vatican bios are a good start. And I've been doing some work on the "Cardinals created by ..." series but only gotten to 1991. I'll get back to that soon.

Difficulty doesn't mean we shouldn't look, though it's true there's nothing better than a good obituary. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)