Talk:Pope John Paul II bibliography

Untitled
Why is this being proposed to be moved? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have separated this daughter article from the from the main article Pope John Paul II as the main article is thought to be too long (see discussion on talk page) to be considered for Featured Article.
 * I've had a proposal to merge this with existing article Cultural references to Pope John Paul II, which I think is logical.
 * Another thought I had was to merge three of the daughter articles articles: Cultural references to Pope John Paul II, List of places named for Pope John Paul II and this article:Pope John Paul II - Further Reading into one article, as they cover similar material. Anybody else have any thoughts on the matter? --     02:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This page has been moved to Bibliography of Pope John Paul II as per discussion on Wikipedia:Help Desk --     18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger with List of encyclicals of Pope John Paul II
A discussion at TFLS has suggested that List of encyclicals of Pope John Paul II is not fit for featuring on Wikipedia's main page because it is not sufficiently substantial to meet our current featured list criteria; a list of the encyclicals does not justify a standalone article. As such, that article should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Page structure... chronological order
Somebody told me "Rosarium Virginis Mariae" was JP II's last document as a Pope. That didn't sound right to me, so I came to Wikipedia to check. Ok, the document was entirely missing from this Bibliography! That's ok, this is WIkipedia, I just added it. Cool.

But what strikes me is that this is, globally, a mess of a Bibliography. I think it makes sense to make this in chronological order, not separated by Document types, which are hard to remember and understand. Does everybody understand the difference between an "Apostolic letter" and an "Apostolic exhortation", and remember in which category a certain document belongs? I don't think so. Also, I was on mobile, and these sections appear collapsed there, it's very awkward to search all the sections...

For me, this document type should be just mentioned as a relevant characteristic of each entry. The list should be chronological, or at least there should be an additional section giving a chronological overview, if that is possible.

Opinions/ideas anyone? Callmepgr (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)