Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of popes/archive1

List of popes
Another classic. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine example. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very thorough. Dsmdgold 23:15, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll support now- This is an exceptional list, but I wonder about its activity. It's still getting something like 20-25 edits a week, even major formatting ones, like the latest edit (as of this writing). We might want to wait for it to calm down a bit, right? --Dmcdevit 05:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that much of the recent activity on this list has something to do with a turn of events in the real world. Only one edit so far this week may indicate that it is settling down. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Exemplary. --Theo (Talk) 13:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Paul August &#9742; 12:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Spangineer &#8734; 23:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The English is not up to standard, particularly the Notes on numbering section. Mark1 07:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. What does "shown in the popes tombs in Vatican" mean? It should clarify that it is not referring to the illustration and should be more specific. --Theo (Talk) 10:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support and object, Theo? :) I'll look at the prose when I have time over the next day or so. Please don't remove as a candidate until I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I wriggle away from valid accusations of ineptitude by claiming that I would support if my objection was addressed? I thought not. I would fix the list text myself if I could only work out what was meant. --Theo  (Talk) 16:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the English in the Notes section, and removed the troublesome sentence about PP. I don't see how it is relevant to anything (the engraving at the top of the page doesn't have PP on it, as far as I can tell), so I just took it out.  If someone disagrees with that decision, feel free to put it back in, but explain what it means with a bit more clarity please =).  I'm not sure if that edit sufficiently addresses your objections, Theo and Markalexander.  --Spangineer &#8734; 17:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also copyedited and then sorted out the unfortunate edit conflict with Spangineer - I hope our joint version meets the objections. I took the "PP." explanation to Pope where I think it belongs (it already mentioned "PP." but did not explain it). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. No, really! I really mean it this time! --Theo (Talk) 18:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)