Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605 edit

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through the 17th century conclaves bringing them up to GA status, and have most of them done, so I've turned to working on the list of electors for them, and this is my first attempt at that. The March 1605 papal conclave was the first of two conclaves in 1605, which was the last Year of Three Popes popes before 1978: Clement VIII had recently died, and left a nearly full college. This list of electors includes several names that are very significant in the history of the Counter-Reformation, and was by far one of the most enjoyable conclaves to research and write about. I'm nominating this as a featured list because it is complete and I feel it either meets the criteria or is very close to doing so. I hope you all enjoy it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my extensive pre-FLC commentary yesterday. Great work. Courcelles (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Lower-case "cardinal" for list section title.
  • If possible, you could instead list the cardinals within each rank/order by the date of their creation, rather than by alphabetical order, as representative of precedence. Unless, of course, that concept didn't exist in 1605 or is unimportant for the article.
    • I can try to go through Eubel and do this by date of creation. I think he does it alphabetical by consistory date instead of by precedence as is the current practice, but it will get a rough idea of rank within the college (i.e. to the date of creation and then alphabetical on that date.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That could be most beneficial, although I'm unsure if some sources might also list cardinals for each consistory in some meaningful order.
        • Eubel is the standard reference work on this sort of thing for this era, so what he says is probably what other sourcing would have unless primary. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red-linked cardinals could be interlanguage-linked to e.g. the Italian Wikipedia. For example, Antonio Maria Gallo (Galli?) to here. Also, some cardinals without articles are red-linked, while others don't have links at all.
    • I generally prefer red-links to inter-wiki links for a few reasons: first, it encourages creation of the articles on en.wiki, second, the quality of it.wiki articles from this era of Catholic history is pretty low, in my opinion (not that our articles are necessarily better...) if you think it's needed, I can do it, just wanted to explain my reasoning. Also, why some aren't linked: the ones that aren't linked are individuals were articles exist on a person of that name, but the person is not the cardinal in the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, a link to an extant article on another wiki is still more valuable than a red-link to readers. WP:FLCR section 5(a) also seems to require that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked", although I'm personally rather ambivalent about this issue, as far as linking goes, so I'm largely fine with either case. (Also, you could deal with the unlinked cardinals by linking to [[<name> (cardinal)]], for example).
  • The elected cardinal surely needs more than a footnote in the table to indicate that; a different table row colour could be in order, as for recent papal conclaves (e.g. 2013).
  • Again, if possible, you could perhaps include a column for the offices held by the cardinals in the table.
    • This would be more difficult: Eubel includes offices, but for the ones with non-resident sees it is often just the titular see or a listing of positions that don't necessarily confirm the dates held (so it would be unclear if the position was held at this time). I don't think the titulus would add much value to this particular list personally (the focus being on the conclave and it's demographics. Ironic, I know, given the other FLC we just interacted on :) ). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well, then. I do suppose it's probably not as useful here.
  • Footnotes [iii] and [v] are identical and should be combined.
  • Nationalities could be linked and flags added (although, considering the 17th century state of Europe, this could be slightly more difficult).
    • This one would be tough re: flags. The narrative sourcing refers to the electors in general by nationality, while Eubel refers to Italians by city (and there was no defined Italy back then as a single state). I made the choice to go with the geographic location/nationality since that is what all the narrative sourcing went with. A possibility here is to link to the nationality articles Italians, French people, Germans, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just did this here as it was pretty easy to do. Let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • On second thought, nationality links probably seem slightly out of place here. The best solution now would probably be to keep them as they are, unlinked, unless they could be linked to contemporary countries (e.g. Kingdom of France or any of the Italian cities/states to which your source refers, such as the Grand Duchy of Tuscany or the Papal States).
          • Unlinked. The way Eubel handles Italians would make it difficult to link to contemporary states and meet WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all that I can spot for now. Otherwise, a good article indeed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: largely well-written and mostly thorough for its time period. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Add trans-title for titles in foreign languages; indicate the language of the source material.
  • Eubel, Konrad (1913a) does not have authors listed even though Worldcat does; I did not check all of them.\
    • Fixed: I also went through and updated the two sources that had previously been attributed to Eubel: archive.org had used the wrong bigliographic information on the second. This is easy to do because all the works are typically referred to as "Eubel", because he was the first author. I've double verified it against Worldcat, Google Books, and the publication information in the scans on archive.org. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref number order " Leo XI.[8][1]"
  • Do you know who took the photograph of the painting? Is there any way we can know if it is copyrighted or are we going to have to AGF on it?
    • The official stance of the WMF is that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional art are public domain. I checked to see if Getty had a version of this available for license to see if they listed an original creator and they don’t: but they agree it is 17th century. Under our copyright policy we consider it public domain, and the license tag reflects this, so we should be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase Pope Sixtus V had mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy in 1586. to In 1586, Pope Sixtus V mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy., unless I misunderstand what the sentence is conveying
  • Change having created to creating, and all those hads seem unnecessary
    • Tried this and ended up not doing either. I think the pluperfect is correct here as it is referring to specific events in the past that were complete before the event we are discussing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your alt text on the image could be improved
    • I added a bit here. I’m never good at these, so if it needs more, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back from more comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The title is March 1605 yet the opening sentence of the lead calls it the "conclave of March–April 1605".
    • Borrowed this from the main article text. Someone else had added April to it, since it technically did exist one day in April. I've removed it. I don't think a move of both pages (the conclave page and this page) is warranted over one day given the principles of concision in the naming policy. The date of his election is discussed in the prose, which should cover it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought Alessandro Ottaviano de' Medici should be linked in the lead.
    • He is, as Pope Leo XI. I can add a Wikilink to the redirect/pipe it to the Leo article, if you think it necessary. Just didn't want to have two links to the same article in the same sentence. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " two papal conclaves in 1605" this is a bogus pipe, I would expect you say something like "the second being held in May" and piping "second" or "second being held in May".
  • Is "Cardinal Ávila" notable enough to be linked?
    • Yes, but we don't have an article on this Ávilia (the existing article is of someone different with the same name.) I was trying to keep the red links out of the lead, since they're all linked in the list. I can add it to the lead if you think it'd be helpful in encouraging someone to create an article, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link cardinal bishop for those of us who struggle with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church...
  • "Out of this maximum of seventy" no need to repeat these facts so quickly after the previous sentence. "From these" (or similar) would suffice.
  • Since [9] and [12] apply to pretty much every entry, you could add each ref once in the table heading and then just add the extra refs in the Sources column to avoid the huge multiple usage.
  • Any images of the electors that could fill some of the whitespace down the right-hand side of the table?
    • I've added an image of Baronius as the runner up. I could also add images of Montalto and Pietro Aldobrandini as two of the cardinal nephews/factional leaders. I wouldn't want to include images of every elector, as we don't have them for each one, and I think it would be distracting in the table to have some and not others. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 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,_March_1605/archive1&oldid=845914557"