Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605/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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC).

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605

 * Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support.  RAVEN PVFF  &#124; talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

On the previous one in this century I had a participants section with a hatnote in the section. That could also work here (and is something I intended to do when talking above, but RL and other stuff on WP happened.) Currently it’s a see also in the main article, but it can be changed pretty easily and I can incorporate in content. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm truly sorry but I don't see why this isn't simply an expansion of the brief Papal conclave, May 1605 article, and a bid for FA. Once again, TompaDompa's 3b acceptance here seems very peculiar to me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC.  I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article.  I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it.  I hope you understand.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone.  I think  is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial.  Thanks for your approach, by the way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more.  If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either.  I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs.  It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is that it is fine having them as one article or two, but as two cardinal lists have already been promoted to FL it is better to carry on with two rather than have a confusing mixture of styles. I think it would be very helpful to have hatnotes on the articles on each conclave cross-referencing as e.g. . I would like to see a decision on the principle before I review. Views of  and ? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently I was pinged to this FLC before and missed it. Sorry about that. I don't recall seeing it on my notification list, but my apologies nonetheless. I looked at this list and the main article and hate to further muddy the waters, but if I was editing the pages in question I would merge them under the papal conclave page (since I see TRM's point about whether separate articles are needed) and nominate it here, not at FAC. In cases like this where it's borderline whether a page counts as an article or list for FAC/FLC purposes, I like to look at the size of the prose in relation to the table size. On my computer, the list is almost twice the size of the body prose, which tells me that a merged page should probably be treated as a list. Some of our FLs with history sections and the like actually have prose sizes similar to this article. If the main papal conclave article had the table added and was nominated at FAC, I think there's a substantial chance that they would refer it back here. I hate to point such interesting articles away from FAC, but I have to call them like I see them. Of course, if consensus develops for a cross-referencing system, I could live with that. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts, as it seems like we're pretty divided here. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd be happy to see the conent of the GA merged into this list and then taken once again through FLC. The GA is pretty sparse so it wouldn't be a big task. I certainly still have concerns over the way in which TompaDompa is interpreting the 3b rule, as this one, in particular, is a clear-cut case, just whether to merge into FL or FA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My concern is that I think that papal conclave articles should be in a consistent format. If this article should be merged then so should the two articles which have already passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's certainly something to consider after the conclusion of this. We can't, from this FLC, mandate any merge of material.  That would be up to the principal editors and probably need other discussions.  Right now, this is about this FLC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If everyone will let me flesh out the article a bit more tomorrow, I’d appreciate it. It was one of my first major articles, and looking back on it, I agree I could add a lot more, especially when compared to other articles I’ve worked on in this series. →I’ve spent the better part of the last year cleaning up the self-published lists from microstubs and actually having them tell the story of the conclaves. I think merging back in would distract from the narrative, which is in my view more important than the list of participants. I’ve been putting off expanding the GA, but since there seems to be pressure to move along, I’ll make it my top priority tomorrow. I do appreciate everyone’s feedback here, even if we don’t all agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No pressure from here, Tony. I made my position clear about a month ago.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think this article should be considered in isolation from other papal conclave articles which have already passed FLC, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think past performance is no guide to the future. Let's deal with here and now, and if that impacts past endeavours, so be it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with TRM and Giants here. It seems quite unnecessary to have both a relatively brief article on the conclave itself and a relatively brief list on the participants. I would have the same thoughts on the previous nominations; 21st century conclaves may have enough content to warrant a split, but the earlier ones can definitely cover all information in a single article. These are not independent topics - the narrative of the events around the election, even if the most important part, is closely related to the participants and they should be covered in the same article without a content fork unless length really warrants it. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and consider this withdrawn then. I strongly oppose a merge still for the reasons stated, but I’m big enough to realize that consensus on FLC is against me here, so I won’t drag this out. would you mind doing the paperwork here when you have a chance. I also might poke you on other conclaves in this series if you don’t mind it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

-- Pres N  06:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.