Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013/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 promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, 2013

 * Nominator(s):  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A list of cardinals who participated in the papal conclave of 2013 that elected Pope Francis. Overhauled over the last five days or so, partly structurally based on List of living cardinals (a previous featured list of mine), I believe that it now looks slick enough to pass the FLC process. Comments and suggestions welcome, as always.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Cardinals don’t "represent" countries. That’s easily misunderstood. A little rewrite perhaps.
 * One way of looking at the conclave not addressed is curia vs non-curia. I realize the subject/data needs to be handled with care since some people move in and out, but I think the reader deserves to have it addressed.
 * I’m puzzled at the attention given the cardinals from the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’d bury the names in a note and then combine this graf and the one following. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reworded to "originate[d] from".
 * I suppose that's a viable addition to the article; where exactly would you suggest placing it? The section under "Cardinal electors" is currently purely from a geographical point of view, although a sentence about curial/residential cardinal electors could be placed at the top of the section.
 * Names in efn as suggested; paragraphs combined.
 * No. 2. above for your consideration, others responded; thanks for the feedback.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a single sentence in the summary either before or after (probably before) identifying the oldest and youngest. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added as suggested (along with another sentence about creating popes).  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Great job. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support with a note that I would still prefer a secondary source listing all of the cardinals, but I feel this is sufficient for now and is not enough for me to oppose at this time. Everything else looks great, so I'm fine supporting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * There are a number of unreferenced statements. All should be referenced.
 * "nominal prerogative of honour" What does this mean?
 * "By default, the cardinals are sorted by precedence within each table, as denoted by the No. column." This explanation of the order in the tables is out of place in the middle of the paragraph about cardinal electors. It should be in the paragraph starting "The data in the table", which should itself be a separate section explaining the table. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Replies below.
 * Which statements in particular would you like to see referenced?
 * The last sentences in the first and third paragraphs and notes b and c. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Added references to the first two. For the two notes, referencing is provided by the accompanying references in the last column of the table.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This refers to the relative importance of individual cardinals as implied by the precedence; in reality, this is a chiefly ceremonial convention that is not always observed (hence "nominal"). Precedence still governs the conclave, as explained in the same paragraph.
 * You could add a note explaining this. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that the wikilinks to the appropriate articles are sufficient for that. Writing "nominal prerogative of honour" should be a concise-enough description for the list.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Phrase moved into the aforementioned paragraph. I don't think that it's long enough to merit its own section, however.
 *  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 08:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Further replies.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. I think "nominal prerogative of honour" needs explanation, but this is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I have also slightly reworded the "nominal prerogative of honour" point, to simplify the wording.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 11:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, no issues found when I looked through, promoting. -- Pres N  04:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


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