Talk:Francis I

Pope Francis
I think [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_I&diff=546712559&oldid=545119717 this edit] should be undone as unhelpful. Even if it's true that by some of the several competing schemes for naming Popes they are not supposed to be numbered until their names have been used more than once, there are plenty of references that nevertheless refer to the current Pope as 'Francis I', and the purpose of a disambiguation page is to help users find content, not to niggle. -sche (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And which would be these "several competing schemes for naming Popes"? Alex2006 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has one (there's disagreement on Talk:Pope Francis over what it is, but in the end it seems to be to avoid numbers except when multiple Popes have the same name, as you say). The large number of news organizations that refer to "Pope Francis I" seem to have another. Whether it's one they've codified or whether they're all making an error is a red herring of no importance—consider that e.g. the disambig page on England]] notes that "England may also refer to: erroneously, [...] Great Britain or to the United Kingdom" and that the disambig page on [[Severans]] notes that "Severans can refer to: [...] erroneously, to the Severians (or Siverians) - a former Eastern Slavic tribe". Add a line here saying "erroneously, it may be used to refer to Pope Francis"; if you like, add some parenthetical about why it's erroneous, like "(who will not be numbered as Francis I until another pope shares his name)" or "(who is not called Francis I because no other pope shares his name)"... but the point of disambig pages (like redirects) is to help users find content. -sche (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fast reply! Sorry to disappoint you, but the convention for naming popes is one, and is what I described above. For journalists who ignored it (and this is understandable, since almost none is a vaticanist), the Holy See communicated the official denomination ("Francis") 5 minutes after the election (and the professional swiss journalist who I heard live at the radio precised it). "The large number of news organizations that refer to "Pope Francis I" are just made of people which does not know (yet) the convention. Said that, we could write on the disambiguation page something like that:
 * Francis I (Pope): erroneous denomination of Pope Francis.


 * So people will find the article about the pope and at the same time will learn something. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've added a line. (I put it in chronological order, too...no idea why people were adding the Pope to the top of the list before.) Let me know what you think. :) -sche (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that so is perfect! Now we should only wish long life to the pope, otherwise - in case of a Francis II - we will have to change it again. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are only meant to get readers where they want to go, we don't need to lecture them on what's "erroneous". It's also debatable that it's really erroneous, considering how much "Francis I" has been used in various sources. Obviously many people will type in or click on that name looking for the Pope; this page's only real concern is getting them there. I've removed the unnecessaries.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this is the proper styling per MOS:DAB. I don't see any pressing need not to follow it.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I see that Alessandro has undone your edit; I agree with the undo. Dismbig pages do note "erroneously..." when applicable; see the examples I linked to earlier in this thread (England]], [[Severans]], etc). Also, note that the inclusion of "erroneously" is part of a compromise between including the name and not including it. -sche (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty off compromise; of course this should be included, as it's widely used. It appears that only Alessandro was advocating for removing it. At any rate, it's quite debatable how "erroneous" this actually is. Even if we did include that it's "erroneous", we still need the rest of info I added, and the rest of the lecture is unnecessary.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This way of naming the pope is wrong, not debatable. The convention to name popes is one, and the Holy See recalled it immediately after the election (see for example here). Moreover, you can see this way of styling them on all the literature on the subject (Pastor, Gregorovius, etc.). See also a similar discussion on wiki:it. BTW, here in Italy (I am in Rome) after the first couple of days after the election, none is naming the pope as "Francis I" anymore, which demonstrates that "lecturing others" sometime works. :-) After reading WP:MOSDAB, which I could not find yesterday (thanks Cuchullain!), I think that we can assimilate the wrong denomination to a misspelling, and put it under a "See also" subsection, as it is recommended there. I agree with Cuchullain that the rest of the info can be removed, and can be put on the article about Pope Francis (if it is not there already). @Cuchullain: please refrain to change the original version until this discussion is finished. Thanks,  Alex2006 (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You ought to acquaint yourself with the relevant style guidelines before you start reverting. At any rate, it certainly is debatable how erroneous "Pope Francis I" is, considering that it's used in literally thousands of sources. Descriptive language versus prescriptive language and all that. It's also a totally unnecessary issue to get into in a disambiguation page when we can just say "Pope Francis"; the reader will easily comprehend it and get where they need to go, which is the one and only purpose of a disambiguation page.
 * As for the MOS issues, as Pope Francis is frequently called "Francis I", he doesn't go in the "See also" section. The rest of the info I added needs to be restored. If we must insist on lecturing our readers that they're "wrong", I'd suggest something like this: "*Pope Francis, erroneously Pope Francis I (born 1936), Pope since 2013". It's unnecessary detail, but it's far better than the current version.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ciao Cuchullain, and thanks for your reply. The problem for the Pope's names, is that they are not decided by me, you, or google. It is the Holy See which decide them. If google gives millions of hits, well, there are millions of people which are presently wrong. It is absolutely correct to have the wrong spelling in a dab page (only idiots don't change mind :-)), but this spelling remains wrong (unless poor Francis won't end like John Paul (I), then we have to change the name of the main article :-)). Anyway, I made a little statistics regarding Italian sites on Google, and I saw that the frequency of "Francesco I" is dramatically decreasing in the last days. Regarding your suggestion, (*Pope Francis, erroneously Pope Francis I (born 1936), Pope since 2013) it is 100% fine to me. A final word about my reversions: I think that it's fine to revert once, but then one should always discuss, having as base the version which started the discussion (the wrong one according to you). That's the only reason why I kept reverting your changes. Buona Pasqua da Roma con Papa Francesco (I), who I hopefully will meet tomorrow at the Via Crucis (if it stops raining, otherwise we will see soon the landing of Noah on the Ararat :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We could go back and forth forever about how "wrong" the name is, the point is it's not an issue to bother with at the dab page. Just adding "Pope Francis (born 1936), Pope since 2013" here avoids the issue entirely while still getting readers to the article they want. However, I'll add "*Pope Francis, erroneously Pope Francis I (born 1936), Pope since 2013" for now, barring further input.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just say unofficially instead of erroneously for Pope Francis? Many instances of the mention of Francis I in the media are not because of errors, but rather to portray him as the first pope in a new direction for the Holy See? -- Francis Pontifex   talk  05:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (possible bias)


 * For sure Francis is not the first pope to pursue "a new direction" for the Church (not considering that, until now, little could be seen about this "new direction", except a couple of PR gags). Notable popes (like John XXIII) did it before him in a dramatic way. So, media which uses the adjective "first" in this meaning add mistake to mistake. As stated above, not adding the "first" numeral to a new name is the way how the Holy See styles the pope's name, and is the way how he choose to name himself. The only exception to this rule was with pope Luciani, who chose to name himself John Paul I, violating the rule. When the holy see let him notice that he was wrong, he answered that he meant "first" in the sense that you mentioned above. Anyway, the polemics could not proceed further since he died after a month, and after the election of John Paul II the numeral near his name became right. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * JP-I obviously didn't get enough time to set an actual precedent, as he conclusively ended up with the name within two months. That said, the Francesco I page that is linked here still mentions Pope Francis as without mentioning it is an erroneous use. (I'll leave that for somebody else, because it might seem odd with my user name.)-- Francis Pontifex   talk  13:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I concede that with your name you are not in the best position to start an edit war here :-) . I think that the main point here is that the new pope chooses his name, and that, with the above mentioned exception, none put an "I" at the end of the name. On the other side, the Style is unequivocal. (you can also read about that the italian wiki article about the pope's name) In this sense "Francis I" it is wrong. The adjective "erroneously" was IMHO a good compromise between not mentioning this pope at all (an excessive measure) and don't mentioning at all that this appellation is not correct. I must say that here in Rome (and in Italy) the appellation "Francesco I" after the first couple of days disappeared, and everyone names it "Papa Francesco", name which is also in accordance with his humble character. Alex2006 (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)