Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013[edit]

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list of cardinals who participated in the papal conclave of 2013 that elected Pope Francis. Overhauled over the last five days or so, partly structurally based on List of living cardinals (a previous featured list of mine), I believe that it now looks slick enough to pass the FLC process. Comments and suggestions welcome, as always. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals don’t "represent" countries. That’s easily misunderstood. A little rewrite perhaps.
One way of looking at the conclave not addressed is curia vs non-curia. I realize the subject/data needs to be handled with care since some people move in and out, but I think the reader deserves to have it addressed.
I’m puzzled at the attention given the cardinals from the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’d bury the names in a note and then combine this graf and the one following. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reworded to "originate[d] from".
  2. I suppose that's a viable addition to the article; where exactly would you suggest placing it? The section under "Cardinal electors" is currently purely from a geographical point of view, although a sentence about curial/residential cardinal electors could be placed at the top of the section.
  3. Names in {{efn}} as suggested; paragraphs combined.
@Bmclaughlin9: No. 2. above for your consideration, others responded; thanks for the feedback. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a single sentence in the summary either before or after (probably before) identifying the oldest and youngest. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bmclaughlin9: Added as suggested (along with another sentence about creating popes). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Four of the cardinal electors were from Eastern Catholic Churches: Antonios Naguib (Coptic), Béchara Boutros Raï (Maronite), George Alencherry(Syro-Malabar) and Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankara). – Does this belong in the WP:LEAD?
  • On 13 March 2013, they elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires as pope, who took the papal name Francis. – this needs copyediting for grammar and clarity.
  • precedence is determined by the date of the consistory in which they were created – this is pretty opaque for readers not familiar with the subject. Papal consistory should be linked and the sentence should probably be rephrased with something like "elevated to the rank of cardinal".
  • The reader gets no explanation as to why the precedence is important or how it affects the proceedings or the outcome.
  • the senior cardinal bishop, the senior cardinal priest, the senior cardinal deacon and the junior cardinal deacon are assigned specific roles in a conclave. – what specific roles are those?
  • I would suggest replacing the asterisk for the cardinal elected pope with a symbol that allows for WP:ALT text, such as {{dagger}}, {{double-dagger}}, or {{hash-tag}}.
  • The "Rank" for the cardinals not in attendance needs to be fixed, because it can be interpreted in different ways. I see three different options:
    • Remove the hypothetical ranks altogether.
    • Explicitly write which two cardinals in attendance the ones not in attendance would've ranked between.
    • Move the cardinals not in attendance to the main table, mark them with a colour and symbol, leave their rank blank, and add a non-integer sort value to place them between the two they would've ranked between.
  • Countries are grouped into continents according to the regions of the United Nations geoscheme; for the Americas, North America comprises the Northern America, the Central America and the Caribbean subregions, while South America comprises the remaining subregion of the same name. seems unnecessary to me.
  • If cardinals don't represent the countries they originate from, there shouldn't be flags per MOS:FLAG (and even if they do, I don't see what the flags add).
  • For the sake of completeness, a table of the cardinals who were not eligible would be nice (I am aware that it was deleted as a separate list article). I noticed that the Dean of the College of Cardinals, who is mentioned in the text, would be in that list.

TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Well, this note should be ideally made somewhere; the lead seems a good enough place to locate it, next to the general numbers of cardinal electors. Being buried in a footnote, it shouldn't be too intrusive as it currently stands.
  2. Reworded slightly; this should hopefully read better.
  3. Linked consistory (I thought that I did!) and modified slightly to "created cardinals". I would prefer to keep the standard terminology in this regard; its meaning should be apparent.
  4. Addressed, adding how precedence affects conclave proceedings.
  5. Some (two) examples of specific roles provided, without going too far into intricate detail.
  6. The asterisk seems to have worked perfectly fine on my previous featured list nominations. I don't think that this would necessarily cause accessibility problems; I'm not particularly fond on the insertion templates, anyway. What do you think?
  7. Ranks removed.
  8. Fair enough; removed.
  9. Even if they don't formally represent their countries, they're certainly still representative of them to a certain extent; placing some emphasis on nationality / country of origin doesn't seem out of place. This also matches the lower section, where flags are directly used in relation to countries in the table of cardinal electors by country.
  10. This could be something I could add over the next few days but not immediately.
@TompaDompa: I just realised that I forgot to address no. 10 in the original comments – now fixed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Actually, after some deliberation, I decided to rename the "Rank" column as "№", also reinstating it for the non-attending cardinal electors. However, the numbering is now independent to each table, which still allows each to be sorted by precedence. This would be useful especially for the table of ineligible cardinals to be added, which should ideally still be able to be sorted by precedence (the original rank numbering, as you pointed out, would be open for interpretation and difficult to implement). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:NUMERO, "№" should be replaced with No. (i.e. {{abbr|No.|Number}}). TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Some responses and replies above. Thanks for your review. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'd place the note directly following For cardinal bishops who are Eastern Catholic patriarchs, in the body of the text. That seems like a more natural placement to me.
Unfortunately, not all the Eastern Catholic cardinals are patriarchs, so I don't think it would fit there. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, right. Might it work to move Of the 115 attending cardinal electors, 74 held pastoral appointments, while the remaining 41 worked in the Roman Curia; 48 were created cardinals by Pope John Paul II and 67 were created by Pope Benedict XVI. The oldest cardinal elector in the conclave, Walter Kasper, turned 80 on 5 March 2013, before the conclave began; he was still 79 at the time of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and thus eligible to participate. The youngest cardinal elector was Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal, at the age of 53. to a new paragraph under the Cardinal electors section, and move the text in the footnote out of the footnote into that paragraph (which would then be describing the characteristics of the electors)? TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I've now moved that part into the Cardinal electors section as suggested, except the phrase relating to the oldest/youngest cardinal electors, in part not to empty out the lead too much. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. The new wording introduced a dangling participle. I'd rephrase it as "On 13 March 2013, they elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires; Bergoglio took the papal name Francis."
I've opted for part of the original phrasing, substituting "who took" instead of "taking". RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. I am decidedly not an expert in these matters. I just figured a screen reader would read it as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ asterisk" (whereas I would prefer it to be read as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ elected pope").
Looking through other featured lists, it seems largely acceptable to provide abbreviations and symbols in data tables, without using templates with alt text, provided that a suitable key or legend is included. Screen reader users would probably still grasp the meaning of the asterisk, despite the lack of alt text here. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
8: It's still there, no?
My apologies; it has now been removed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: Please see my individual replies above, including added comments on nos. 10 (ineligible cardinals) and 7 (rank). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: A table of cardinals ineligible to participate has been added, in accordance to no. 10 of your comments above. I have italicised the names of these cardinals, so as to distinguish them from the actual cardinal electors. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by TonyBallioni

I was very close to supporting here, but I am a bit concerned about the sourcing because it here seems to be around 200 individual biographies rather than one source that discusses the college as a whole during the time of the 2013 conclave. This causes a few problems:

  1. Yes, we know that everyone who is listed as participating in this conclave participated (the Holy See press office is an RS for this, even if primary), but we don't know from the current sourcing that you got all the cardinal electors. There is no source to measure the completeness of the list by.
  2. This becomes a larger problem with the over 80 cardinals: I'm assuming it was fairly easy to track down the bios of the participants, but there is a solid chance you missed some of the ones over 80. I would remove them completely because firstly, they are not cardinal electors and are thus outside the scope of this article, and, additionally, I think you're going to have to look really hard to find a source that lists all living cardinals in March 2013 who did not go to the conclave, because, to be blunt, no one really cared about them at the time because they weren't electors.

I don't think this can pass FLC unless you find a source listing all the participants, and a secondary source rather than primary source would be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, but wouldn't a source for the number of cardinals suffice? TompaDompa (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly for the electors: it’d be better to have one source for both the number and the participants, but that could work. For the non-participants, I think there’s both the sourcing issue and the scope issue that need to be overcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I obviously disagree about the scope since I was the one who suggested it in the first place (see my resolved comments above). TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the ineligible cardinals stay, that would be enough for me to oppose this nomination both on grounds of sourcing/original research and scope.
On sourcing and original research: all you have is the bio from the Holy See press office not mentioning a conclave and giving a birth date. That is not the same as positively mentioning them not being participants. The Holy See press office also isn’t known as a model of efficiency and while I’m slightly comfortable using them to confirm attendance at conclaves, I wouldn’t even use a lack of mention from a source like a NYT obit to confirm not attending. If you’re going based of their age, well, that is the definition of WP:SYNTH.
Re: scope, it makes an already long list pretty unwieldy and less useful for readers. They aren’t really relevant (they didn’t vote, and weren’t supposed to.) Most conclave histories at least up to the 19th century only list electors, omitting even the names of eligible cardinals who couldn’t make it. Their names are only relevant if they entered the conclave, and combined with the glaring OR issue, they should be removed.
Edit: I also just looked at the previously deleted article on the over-80 cardinals to see if I could restore it to userspace to be used for sourcing. All it had as a source was Salvador Miranda, who does not meet our RS policy as a self-published source. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni and TompaDompa: Regarding sourcing: refs. 3 and 4 give, respectively, the number of cardinal electors (plus the identities of non-attendees) and a list of all 115 cardinals in order of precedence. These are both from the Press Office (primary sources) but they'll hopefully suffice. Regarding non-electors: I agree that they're outside the scope of the list; however, I can't really excise that section from the article at the moment, as I don't have much access to a computer over the next couple of days. I'll remove it when I can. Thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just ping me whenever you get the chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Section on cardinals ineligible to participate removed, as requested. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a note that I would still prefer a secondary source listing all of the cardinals, but I feel this is sufficient for now and is not enough for me to oppose at this time. Everything else looks great, so I'm fine supporting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • There are a number of unreferenced statements. All should be referenced.
  • "nominal prerogative of honour" What does this mean?
  • "By default, the cardinals are sorted by precedence within each table, as denoted by the No. column." This explanation of the order in the tables is out of place in the middle of the paragraph about cardinal electors. It should be in the paragraph starting "The data in the table", which should itself be a separate section explaining the table. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Replies below.
  1. Which statements in particular would you like to see referenced?
    • The last sentences in the first and third paragraphs and notes b and c. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Added references to the first two. For the two notes, referencing is provided by the accompanying references in the last column of the table. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This refers to the relative importance of individual cardinals as implied by the precedence; in reality, this is a chiefly ceremonial convention that is not always observed (hence "nominal"). Precedence still governs the conclave, as explained in the same paragraph.
    • You could add a note explaining this. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that the wikilinks to the appropriate articles are sufficient for that. Writing "nominal prerogative of honour" should be a concise-enough description for the list. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phrase moved into the aforementioned paragraph. I don't think that it's long enough to merit its own section, however.
RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Further replies. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think "nominal prerogative of honour" needs explanation, but this is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your support. I have also slightly reworded the "nominal prerogative of honour" point, to simplify the wording. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, no issues found when I looked through, promoting. --PresN 04:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/Cardinal_electors_for_the_papal_conclave,_2013/archive1&oldid=866060011"