Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605/archive1

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605[edit]

Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605/archive1

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Camillo Borghese, who had been considered too young for the papacy a in the March 1605 conclave, was elected Pope Paul V on 16 May 1605. has a stray "a".
Fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Domenico Toschi was one of the leading candidates in the May 1605 conclave, but ultimately failed to win election after Caesar Baronius object to his use of vulgar language. is missing a definite article before "election" and "object" should be in the past tense.
Tense fixed. The ommission of the definite article is intentional in that sentence: it is the normal way to express election outcomes for individuals in English (see examples.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The papal conclave of May 1605 is kind of an WP:EASTEREGG; the link should extend all the way to "1605", or the reader will expect the link to go to Papal conclave.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph should contain a link to the previous conclave.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas II had reserved the right should give his title (or otherwise clarify which Nicholas II it refers to) and contain a link, since there have been multiple individuals known as Nicholas II.
Meh, I think context is key, and disagree with you here, but it’s not a big enough deal to argue over. Title added. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cardinal bishops were the highest rank, being the bishops of the ancient suburbicarian dioceses, the priests ranked next, who served as the titular head of historically important churches in Rome, and last ranked the cardinal deacons, who were nominally assigned one of the ancient diaconia where traditionally deacons had administered the temporal property of the Church of Rome. is a very long sentence with a high number of commas, which impedes readability.
Split up into a few sentences. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the temporal property – I'd use a different word than "temporal"
Another meh for me, I think temporal works better and is the term I've always seen used here, but I went ahead and switched to material possessions TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but could also be ordained to a higher order as well is a bit redundant, no?
I think that bit is useful to readers who aren’t familiar with the concept of orders within the College of Cardinals, especially given that today unlike the 17th century, all cardinals must also be bishops. Explaining the minimum requirements does not mean that an individual did not have higher sacramental orders is a necessary clarification, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant the phrasing of also [...] as well. Sorry for not making that clear. TompaDompa (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Agreed. Fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Sixtus V mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy – I'd either remove "would" (i.e. he demanded that it be seventy) or replace "mandated" with another word (i.e. he declared that it would be seventy). I might also say that he had done so, but I'm not sure about that.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to avoid starting two sentences in the same paragraph with Of these, [...].
Agreed. Removed the second one. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not Pope Innocent IX, who died in 1591 – I'd mention that Innocent IX was born Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti to explain why one might confuse the two.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons, there needs to be something in the table besides the colour conveying that Camillo Borghese was the one who was elected Pope.
Designated via footnote. Meant to do this to begin with. Thanks for pointing it out. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061 should probably be placed at the bottom.
I wouldn’t find that useful since we don’t include the lists of electors on it (and I don’t think we should. The template is crowded as-is.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there are some categories this should be included in?
Done. Thanks for pointing this out. It’d been in my userspace a while and I forgot to add categories when publishing yesterday. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLCR 5(a) stipulates that a minimal proportion of items be WP:redlinked. I'm of the opinion that this list (which by my count has 18 redlinks out of 61 entries) has a low enough proportion, considering I would have expected it to consist mostly of redlinks. I recognize that this could be controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: either acted on or replied to all the points above. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It seemed right to review your 17th-century list of cardinal electors after you reviewed my 21st-century one. Anyway:

Is there a particular reason to {{Use Canadian English}}?
I use a scripts to standardize my spellings. I combine a few different national varieties in my spellings, and using a script to make sure it is consistent is easiest. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the template is almost purely used on articles related to Canada; I would suggest removing the template, as this doesn't need to have an explicit linguistic connection to a variety of English. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's there because of WP:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON. I write in Canadian English, and try to standardize the articles I write to it when going through review. The MOS wants a consistent style of English, and for this article it happens to be Canadian. It's mainly there as a reminder should anyone in the future want to expand the article to keep the spellings consistent. I went ahead and removed it since it really isn't a big deal, but it will likely be in future FLCs I bring in this series because of the script I use to check myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Nicholas II should ideally be linked in the lead.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
of the Church of Rome: "Church" should probably not be capitalised.
Church of Rome would be the proper name of a specific particular church (equivalent to Archdiocese of Westminster, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reducing the total number of cardinals in the college by two: "college" should probably be capitalised.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also prefer it if there were some text immediately before the table in the List section; this could give a brief overview of the layout and the contents, such as the sort order.
I'm not a fan of that concept. I think it takes a lot away from the content by writing prose like that: it breaks from Wikipedia's voice and draws too much attention to the author, in my view. I try to handle the same material through the footnotes. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was perhaps looking for no more than a couple of lines in this regard, with no need to be verbose; this wouldn't make or break my support in any case. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For proper sorting, data-sort-values for names of cardinals shouldn't include any diacritics (this affects only François de Joyeuse and François de Sourdis).
Done. It doesn't/didn't have any impact on this list, but handy to know for the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The background highlight for Camillo Borghese should extend to the first column (his name), as in your previous list. (Also, I'm not particularly fond of the first column being designated as header cells but it could work either way, I suppose.)
Done. Kept the headers for the others. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Centre-align the sources in the last column.
Feel free to do this one if you feel strongly about it, but I looked over the table help guide and couldn't figure it out, and looked over your code for the 2013 conclave table, and have no earthly idea what is going on. I personally think it looks fine as is, but have no objection to someone centering it if they want to. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be about it for now. Good work on this list. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenpuff, see changes and replies. Thanks for reviewing TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies above; I'll also make a couple more comments below:

Section title: you could dispense with List of; it's obvious that it's a list.
Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some cardinals (e.g. Bellarmine) could benefit from post-nominals indicating membership of religious institutes, etc.
I'd be fine with that, but is it in line with the MOS? MOS:POSTNOM would suggest they should only be used for the lead of biographies. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I know generally in prose we leave them off, but I could be convinced otherwise on a list. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I've used them in basically all of my previous FLCs (including the one you reviewed the other day) and there haven't been any problems about them. Post-nominals are generally useful here, given the context (I suppose that the MOS refers more to orders and decorations, etc.). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 05:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I have mixed thoughts on it. Definitely useful, but to use Bellarmine as an example, I would never refer to him in an article with the SJ. Lists are a bit different, of course, but I generally like using article titles without piping. I’m busy most of the next few days, so I’ll muse on it in that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenpuff, so I thought on both this and the prose in front of the list over the past few days. I moved some of the content down from the lead to have some brief text in front of the list itself. Re: the postnominals, in this case, I keep going back to the Bellarmine example: in current texts, you would very rarely fine the postnomials in his name. Same with some of the other famous cardinals from this batch (Caesar Baronius was a member of the Oratory.) I think in the context of historical figures, its best to go without the postnomials. For living or recently deceased individuals, I see the argument being much stronger for including them. Hope this makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's reasonable. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm truly sorry but I don't see why this isn't simply an expansion of the brief Papal conclave, May 1605 article, and a bid for FA. Once again, TompaDompa's 3b acceptance here seems very peculiar to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC. I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article. I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone. I think TompaDompa is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial. Thanks for your approach, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more. If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either. I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs. It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        My view is that it is fine having them as one article or two, but as two cardinal lists have already been promoted to FL it is better to carry on with two rather than have a confusing mixture of styles. I think it would be very helpful to have hatnotes on the articles on each conclave cross-referencing as e.g. {{about|the list of electors for the March 1605 conclave|the conclave itself|Papal conclave, March 1605}}. I would like to see a decision on the principle before I review. Views of Giants2008 and PresN? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the previous one in this century I had a participants section with a hatnote in the section. That could also work here (and is something I intended to do when talking above, but RL and other stuff on WP happened.) Currently it’s a see also in the main article, but it can be changed pretty easily and I can incorporate in content. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was pinged to this FLC before and missed it. Sorry about that. I don't recall seeing it on my notification list, but my apologies nonetheless. I looked at this list and the main article and hate to further muddy the waters, but if I was editing the pages in question I would merge them under the papal conclave page (since I see TRM's point about whether separate articles are needed) and nominate it here, not at FAC. In cases like this where it's borderline whether a page counts as an article or list for FAC/FLC purposes, I like to look at the size of the prose in relation to the table size. On my computer, the list is almost twice the size of the body prose, which tells me that a merged page should probably be treated as a list. Some of our FLs with history sections and the like actually have prose sizes similar to this article. If the main papal conclave article had the table added and was nominated at FAC, I think there's a substantial chance that they would refer it back here. I hate to point such interesting articles away from FAC, but I have to call them like I see them. Of course, if consensus develops for a cross-referencing system, I could live with that. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts, as it seems like we're pretty divided here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd be happy to see the conent of the GA merged into this list and then taken once again through FLC. The GA is pretty sparse so it wouldn't be a big task. I certainly still have concerns over the way in which TompaDompa is interpreting the 3b rule, as this one, in particular, is a clear-cut case, just whether to merge into FL or FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I think that papal conclave articles should be in a consistent format. If this article should be merged then so should the two articles which have already passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly something to consider after the conclusion of this. We can't, from this FLC, mandate any merge of material. That would be up to the principal editors and probably need other discussions. Right now, this is about this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone will let me flesh out the article a bit more tomorrow, I’d appreciate it. It was one of my first major articles, and looking back on it, I agree I could add a lot more, especially when compared to other articles I’ve worked on in this series. →I’ve spent the better part of the last year cleaning up the self-published lists from microstubs and actually having them tell the story of the conclaves. I think merging back in would distract from the narrative, which is in my view more important than the list of participants. I’ve been putting off expanding the GA, but since there seems to be pressure to move along, I’ll make it my top priority tomorrow. I do appreciate everyone’s feedback here, even if we don’t all agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure from here, Tony. I made my position clear about a month ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this article should be considered in isolation from other papal conclave articles which have already passed FLC, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think past performance is no guide to the future. Let's deal with here and now, and if that impacts past endeavours, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with TRM and Giants here. It seems quite unnecessary to have both a relatively brief article on the conclave itself and a relatively brief list on the participants. I would have the same thoughts on the previous nominations; 21st century conclaves may have enough content to warrant a split, but the earlier ones can definitely cover all information in a single article. These are not independent topics - the narrative of the events around the election, even if the most important part, is closely related to the participants and they should be covered in the same article without a content fork unless length really warrants it. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and consider this withdrawn then. I strongly oppose a merge still for the reasons stated, but I’m big enough to realize that consensus on FLC is against me here, so I won’t drag this out. The Rambling Man would you mind doing the paperwork here when you have a chance. I also might poke you on other conclaves in this series if you don’t mind it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Pres N 06:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.