Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of papal elections/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 23 January 2012 [1].

List of papal elections edit

List of papal elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Savidan 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It's been stable for a while (although many of the redlinks have turned blue). It's comprehensive and useful. Savidan 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Comment

  • It is highly recommended not to introduce a list with "This is a list..." or "This list of Xs..."; check WP:LEADSENTENCE for more details. You can just remove that and start with the second sentence. Otherwise I would be happy to support this. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the first sentence as you suggest. Savidan 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not sure if this is best served as a bunch of century lists, or just one big list. Particularly as each individual list is sortable, but only sortable within its own century... somewhat diminishes the utility of the function.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Our own article has In nomine, not In Nomine...
  • Link conclave the first time, not second.
  • On the page you link "Ubi Perculum" to, there is no mention at all of Ubi Perculum. Confused.
  • "Oct. 1187" October... (and any others).
  • "1799-1800" en-dash required for year (and page) ranges throughout per WP:DASH.
  • Sortable tables so anything that's wikilinked needs to be linked every time.
  • The December/October elections sort out of order, you need to force them to sort by something like 1187.10 and 1187.12... Check every table for this.
  • It looks like a number of elections took place in multiple locations. This should be covered in the lead.
  • Refs don't need to be sortable.
  • Palais de Papes and Konstanz Minster captions, one with a full stop and one without, complete sentences need a full stop, others don't.
  • "Council of Pisa (1409)" vs "Pisan papal conclave, 1410" consistency is needed, either (year) or ", year".
  • "[53][1]" -> [1][53], check others.
  • Why three refs for 2005?
  • Check all page ranges have an en-dash and use pp., not just p.
  • Refs 108, 109, 110 (although only one is really needed) appear to be book refs, so you should have a page ref for them.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment need to ensure names sort correctly, i.e. that Pius IX follows Pius VIII etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Savidan 05:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough comments. I believe I have remedied the majority of them. I have opted not to make the wikitables sortable; I initially made them sortable by copy-and-pasting the markup from the cardinal lists in the individual election articles, and there is no utility to sorting in this context. As to the sources for the 2005 conclave, all three books are devoted in their entirety to the conclave itself. For this reason, it seems helpful to include all three, and no subset of pages would be particularly helpful to the reader. Savidan 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • You can increase the size of the lead image up to a maximum of 300 px, as per MoS guidelines.
  • Can you provide a source for the first sentence?
  • I'd change the wikilink in "process for papal succession" to "Prior to 1959", because that's what the article is about: the election procedure before 1959 and not a general succession process.
  • Remove the indentation and italics on the last sentence of the lead.
  • In fact, you could place the sentence mentioned in the previous item just after the initial sentence, rephrasing it so that you state how many non-legitimate papal conclaves where held (in opposition to the 112 legitimate) and then mention between brackets something like "(listed in italics in the tables below)". In alternative, you could place all of the table sections under one top-level section "Papal elections", and place this sentence there, as a note applicable to every table. Take these only as suggestions.
  • Singularize the last two headings; there's just one item in each.
  • A period is missing in the caption of the penultimate image.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented several of your suggestions. I have added a citation for the import of In nomine Domini, but I do not regard a citation as necessary for the count of 112. The body of the article contains a citation for each of the 112 and the lead simply adds these. Baumgartner's book attests to 111 of these (without counting), but it predated the 2005 conclave. I have not taken your suggestion regarding the note regarding antipopes. I want to avoid breaking the third wall by failing to distinguish stylistically between statements of historical fact and statements about how the article is organized. I also have not singularized the last two headings, but I will do so if you point me to a statement to this effect in the MoS (it is my longstanding understanding that the policy is the opposite). Savidan 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding how the citation (a list of the 1913 College cardinals?) sources the papal bull. Is the reference content complete? As for the heading singularization, I checked the guidelines and you're completely right - comment removed. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the cite. It appears there were two CE articles on Wikisource with the same title. Savidan 23:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • How come you decided to separate the list by century? Personally I think it would be more beneficial if the was all ion one, as it would allow the reader to sort by pope etc.
  • Tables fail WP:ACCESS, see MOS:DTT, for further information, i've done an example for you in case you're unsure of what to do
  • I know you've responded to TRM on this point above, but I really don't see the point in having three refs for in the last cell, when one would suffice

NapHit (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to make the tables more accessible, but I do not understand this. Nothing at WP:ACCESS or MOS:DTT says anything about "plainrowheaders." Any why does it unbold the first column heading? I perceive more utility in being able to jump to a given century (for the reader who knows the approximate era of the election they are interested in) than in being able to sort alphabetically by pope (there's no real reason to see all the Pope Alexanders next to each other). If a reader is looking for a specific pope, ctrl+f is a much better move than alphabetizing the list by pope. Nor do I see the harm in extra footnotes. Savidan 01:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the first column heading was unbolded was because i put the wrong parameter in, fixed it now. Plainrowheaders is used to prevent the links in the row headers form be bold, thus ensuring they remain they are at present. So you know why these improvements are necessary I'll point you in the direction of this, where RexxS very eloquently describes why these changes are needed. Regarding the sorting I would prefer if the table was all in one, but its a matter of preference I guess, so i'll leave it at that. The footnote bit still bug me, why does Benedict warrant three sources while none of the others do? Its pointless to include three references when one can easily do the job, so I would like to see just one used. NapHit (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined the tables. I still don't know that I can implement sorting without eliminating the two uses of rowspan, which I think is the fairest way to indicate that the same election elected two competing candidates. Savidan 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added anchors for the centuries within the unified table. Savidan 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the "extra" sources. Savidan 08:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, the anchors is a good idea as well. Two things you need to do i would make the table sortable, and you need to add rowscopes, I've done the first cell as an example, in case you're unsure of what to do. Once these two bits are done I'll be happy to support. NapHit (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added rowscopes. I cannot make the table sortable because of the need for rowspan for the 1130 and 1159 elections. If you can suggest a viable alternative for these, I will implement sorting. Savidan 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are done. --♫GoP♫TCN 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way of doing it, I think this does it, will have a better look tomorrow, as its bedtime now. NapHit (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i've managed to fix the problem with the rowspan, and the table is now sortable, there are few cells that can incorporate the markup (mainly the location, but that's up to you. One problem that sorting has created is that the years don't sort correctly, this will need to be fixed, and isn't too much trouble. I'll do a few examples for you so you know what to do and then it should be a piece of cake. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I have fixed the sorting for the years. I do not see any need to modify the current sort for the location, but would be open to changing them if there are specific problems. Savidan 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Might just be me, but I find List a bit generic as a section heading title. Something like Papal elections would be more descriptive of what's to follow, and headings with titles like this are used in many FAs.
  • In refs 72 and 76, the page ranges should have pp. instead of p., as multiple-page cites.
  • Is the last reference entirely about the 2005 papal election. If not, a page number would be handy there. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented your first two suggested. No subset of the Greeley book would be useful to the reader. It's all the conclave. Savidan 04:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_papal_elections/archive1&oldid=1076195629"