Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Potential Solutions)

Refactored Discussion

 * At 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC), Švitrigaila said that:
 * I've asked for the renaming or this page on Requested_moves. Here is what I wrote:
 * Talk:Pope Stephen III – Pope Stephen III → Pope Stephen II – He is called Stephen II on all lists published by the Vatican since 1961 and the eviction of the "former pope Stephen II". [omission] (detailed explanations are here: Stephen (ephemeral pope) This page was formerly Pope Stephen II, but of course a better name could be found). After Stephen III has been renamed Stephen II, I'll have to rename all the "popes Stephen" pages the same way, ending with Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX.


 * Solution use the primary name as a dab page. Every Stephen from II on will have a dab page at that name, with the actual pope residing at Pope Stephen xx (1961) 132.205.45.110 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC), Švitrigaila responded, in part:
 * I can't see why it would be a solution. The same problem exists for further popes Stephen. What do you want to do with Pope Stephen III ? A redirect into Pope Stephen III (II) and Pope Stephen IV (III)? It has no sense.
 * [The following contribution moved from

as it is a potential solution but clearly not the object of a consensus. --Jerzy•t 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)]'' All right, now the cleaning work is done, and it's very well, thanks. Let's talk about solutions then. I propose : Do we agree on this basis? Švitrigaila 13:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Švitrigaila's answer:
 * 1) To find a better name for the page once called Pope Stephen II and now temporarily called Stephen (ephemeral pope). I propose Stephen (pope elect) as the better choice, but I'm open for all other suggestions.
 * 2) To rename Pope Stephen III into Pope Stephen II and to change manually and one by one all the links from other pages to this one, including links from foreign language pages. I'm ready to do the job myself.
 * 3) When it's done, to rename Pope Stephen IV into Pope Stephen III, to change the links, and to do the same thing again until Pope Stephen X into Pope Stephen IX.
 * 4) To let the page Pope Stephen X as a redirection page to the page Pope Stephen IX — until the 23th or 24th century when a new Pope Stephen X is elected. Then, we will see what to do...
 * 5) On every page from Pope Stephen II to Pope Stephen IX, to add a one-phrase warning about the ambiguity of the name with a link to Stephen (pope elect) for explanations. Thus, there is no need to have a dab page for every Pope Stephen n page. Such a dab page would be only a heavy and very useless complication.
 * I'm glad for your restatement, in clearer terms, of what i've thot all along was your plan. But, no, that's what i've said all along was unsuitable on the evidence so far available. More to be said in response, of course, but not on this page.
 * --Jerzy•t 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One good possibility in Jerzy's opinion:
 * the current Pope Stephen III becomes a Dab between Pope Stephen (II or III) and Pope Stephen (III or IV)
 * the current Pope Stephen IV becomes a Dab between Pope Stephen (III or IV) and Pope Stephen (IV or V) and so on, ending with
 * the current Pope Stephen IX becomes a Dab between Pope Stephen (VIII or IX) and Pope Stephen (IX or X) and
 * the current Pope Stephen X becoming a Rdr to Pope Stephen (IX or X).  Self-paraphrase of Jerzy•t 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer titles starting "Pope Stephen..." and ending with something further; i think straighforardly mentioning lack of consecration is better than indirect ways of suggesting why he's not a typical pope; thus i propose Pope Stephen (unconsecrated) as the article title for the only person that could refer to; i don't think i've heard any argument that an alternative is better.  Self-paraphrase of Jerzy•t 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Švitrigaila's answer:
 * Unfortunately, I still don't agree about the dab pages you propose. What's the advantage in creating more pages Pope Stephen n...? The dab needs only one line and it's useless to build more complicated schemes. I'll try to take an exemple:
 * Someone hears somewhere something about "Pope Stephen V". He doesn't know who "Pope Stephen V" is and decides to check Wikipedia. He searches then "Pope Stephen V". In your solution, he founds a dab page directing him either to Pope Stephen (IV or V) or to Pope Stephen (V or VI). If he doesn't know anything about "Pope Stephen V", this dab won't help him at all. He'll have 50% chances to make the bad choice with nothing to help him.
 * In my solution, he'll arrive on a page called Pope Stephen V (the same that is called now Pope Stephen VI), which has far more chances to be the good one. And if it is not, he'll have a dab phrase warning him this page may not be the good one. For exemple a phrase like this one :
 * There's a problem in numbering popes called Stephen. This pope is sometimes called Stephen VI and  Pope Stephen IV  is sometimes called Stephen V. See  Pope elect Stephen  for detailed explanation.
 * We can even use a Template for this phrase to keep a style unity in those pages.
 * The second thing against dab pages Pope Stephen (n or m) is that this solution presents the two numbers as equal alternative names. But in my opinion they are not. One number is really better than the other. Nobody contests today that the ephemeral Stephen was not a pope at all. He was not pope because he was not the bishop of Rome. He was not the bishop of Rome because he was not a bishop at all. If we keep the "III to X number", it's only for historical reason, and to help the reader to find the good "Pope Stephen V" he's looking for, that is to indicate him which choice is the good one. Not to tell him : "there are two possible choices. Period." We mustn't give him the impression that the two numbers are strictly equivalent and admitted. I think an encyclopedia must indicate what the good (or at least the better) choice is, even if the reader comes here with another choice. It's not a matter of pride, it's a matter of teaching.
 * To finish, about the title of the ephemeral's page. I don't like really the solution Pope Stephen (unconsecrated) since he was not a pope. I understand you want the terme "pope" before the name to keep a unity of style, but I prefer "pope elect" as more precise. So, I propose Pope elect Stephen.
 * I'm sure we'll finally agree on this.
 * Švitrigaila 12:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerzy's Detailed Solution
As i stated in Talk:Pope Stephen, i am convinced that User:Švitrigaila's scheme for this suite of bios is untenable. Specifically, it contemplates each of Pope Stephen II thru Pope Stephen IX being a bio article with a ToP Dab linking to another bio article, so that in the worst case a sufficiently befuddled reader could theoretically follow the chain of Top Dabs all the way from IX down to II. The fundamental design decision of my own proposal (which i expect to implement with all deliberate speed) is that each of those eight titles carries a degree of ambiguity, and that ambiguity is in each case best resolved by an explicit Dab page at that title, directing the user to one of two bios whose titles are fully Dab'd & thus require no ToP Dab. The cost of this approach is that the plurality (and perhaps majority) of users have to reach the bio they seek via a lk, rather than our using their preferred title as the bio's title; the cost it avoids is that no user having followed a Top Dab faces the confusing situation of a similar (but not complementary) Top Dab in the target article, in some cases resulting in a delay to understand or explore the chain of Top Dabs. --Jerzy•t 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Schematic Coarse Structures
(Note that Pope Stephen X -- tho in the Dab columns here -- is actually a redirect in both schemes.)

Švitrigaila's scheme:

Jerzy's scheme:

Sample Jerzy Dabs
(Note that, conrary to the WP:MOSDAB preference for earliest first, the more recent person is listed first. This reflects the assumption that the user is more likely to be using the new numbering.) At Pope Stephen VII:
 * Pope Stephen VII may be:


 * Pope Stephen (VII or VIII) (died 931), often "Pope Stephen VII" since 1961, and "Pope Stephen VIII" before
 * Pope Stephen (VI or VII) (died 897), often "Pope Stephen VI" since 1961, and "Pope Stephen VII" before



At Pope Stephen II:
 * Pope Stephen II may be:


 * Pope Stephen (II or III) (died 757), often "Pope Stephen II" since 1961, and "Pope Stephen III" before
 * Pope Stephen (unconsecrated) (died 752), often not recognized as a Pope since 1961, and "Pope Stephen II" before



Sample of Jerzy's Bio lead sentences
At Pope Stephen (VII or VIII):
 * Pope Stephen (died 931), invariably called Pope Stephen VII by the Vatican since 1961, and universally called Pope Stephen VIII from about the 17th century until that year, was a Rome-born pope who reigned about three years from 928 until his death.

At Pope Stephen (unconsecrated):
 * A would-be Pope Stephen (died 752), is since 1961 invariably treated by the Vatican as a mere Stephen, but he was universally called Pope Stephen II from about the 17th century until that year. His election to succeed to the papacy preceded his death from apoplexy by only three days, and his planned consecration never occurred.

Pope-Stephen Bio Title options
As a working title format above, titles like e.g.
 * Pope Stephen (VII or VIII)

and
 * Pope Stephen (unconsecrated)

have the appeal of conforming to the en: WP convention for Dab'g suffixes: what precedes the parenthesis would be a suitable title for the article that bears it, but for the competing topics, and what lies between the parentheses suffices to distinguish the topic covered from the other competing topics. The order of the Roman numerals (new scheme first, pre-'61 after) is a subtle factor: it does not so much imply that the new scheme is the more used (as it probably is) as it avoids the vague discomfort of having the less used presented first. The title
 * Pope Stephen (unconsecrated)

is not (in light of this scheme conforming to our predominant Dab'g approach) so much an assertion that he was a pope as a recognition that he's likely to be sought among those who can be called "Pope Stephen".

The proposal
 * Pope Stephen VII (VIII)

(etc.) would work reasonably well, and achieves the same kind of comfort of having the presumably more used version first. The format apparently corresponds to some scholarly usage, but would probably be more mystifying to those unfamiliar with it than the one above that conforms to the en: WP Dab'g guidelines.

I note that the use of vital stats for Dab'n is discouraged.

I dislike both
 * Ephemeral Pope Stephen

(which is not to the point, since this person is treated much differently from Pope John Paul I, and the term is far-fetched rather than common English usage) and
 * Pope-elect Stephen

(which is contrary to the common usage in which "-elect" is of course overwhelmingly applied to people whose installation is still in the future, and who don't die: my first thought, i expect, would be
 * Huh? How could Benedict die and his replacement be chosen before i heard about it?

) but i think any of these would work adequately. --Jerzy•t 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Undetaild refutation of Jerzy's solution
Sir,

Since the 10th century the number of a pope is a part of his name. So, a formulation like Stephen (IX or X) is only an abbreviation of Stephen IX or Stephen X. Then I wonder myself : Does it exist on Wikipedia one exemple of an article with two possible variants in its title? I made some researches. I've found only one exemple in this page. But it was just a proposition, and it was never implemented. The proposed title Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania was replaced by the far simpler Władysław II Jagiełło. I think there can be only one name accepted in the title of an article. Variants are for the article's text, not for the title. Maybe I mistake, but show me then a counterexample.

About the dab in the article itself, I have a good exemple.

Until 1958, Antipope John XXIII was most frequently considered an antipope, but some scholars called him a pope. His immediate predecessor was Antipope Alexander V. The next legitimate pope Alexander chose to be called Pope Alexander VI, not V, and, because of that, a lot of scholars thought this John XXIII did count in the list of popes. During the 1958 conclave, newspapers published a list of possible names. Some of them (for example Le Monde) said John XXIV. But the new pope chose to be Pope John XXIII.

Now, what will happend if you're looking for "Pope John XXIII"? You'll find only the page about the pope who reigned from 1958 to 1963, with a dab line :
 * ''This article deals with the 20th-century pope. For the 14th-century antipope, see Antipope John XXIII.

There is no dab page saying:
 * Pope John XXIII can refer to a pope who reignbed from 1958 to 1963.
 * Pope John XXIII was the name given before 1958 to Antipope John XXIII.

To conclude, I think the solution you propose is really uncommon on Wikipedia, and the solution I propose is common.

Švitrigaila 12:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've launched this discussion again here, hoping to attract other users. Maybe I should have began by this page, but I hadn't thought of it at first. Don't forget to write your opinion. Švitrigaila 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)