Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tombs of antipopes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [1].

List of tombs of antipopes[edit]

Nominator(s): Savidan 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This list is a spin-off from the recently featured List of extant papal tombs (nom). It basically extends the methodology of that list to antipopes, with a few notable changes. First, because likenesses exist for few antipopes and few of the tombs, I have not included those two columns in the list, preferring to place the relevant images to the right of the list. Second, because the chronological density of antipopes is much less than that of popes, it is no longer practical to section the list by century. Instead, I have arbitrarily divided it by qualitative periods. These are of little real importance except to break the list into visually manageable chunks. However, the divisions are significant to the context of antipopes as (1) the fall of the Roman empire, (2) the rise of the papal election, and (3) the rise of the papal conclave have large effects on the method papal selection, and thus the nature of antipopes. Savidan 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Ref 28 is missing an access date
  • Is there a reason why items in the Common English name column are bold?

—Chris! ct 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an access date. My reasoning is as follows: there are many links and several columns; the bold gives more prominence to the antipopes themselves as opposed to the places and people tangentially associated with them. Savidan 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bold has been removed. Savidan 01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These have been corrected. Savidan 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments

Lead
  • Interesting and great written lead...
  • The only thing I have to say is that in the sentence 'However, some antipopes received prominent burials, including one among the papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica (which were destroyed during the sixteenth/seventeenth century demolition).' -- its not the best way to start the sentence with 'However' because this is a new paragraph. Either merge this with the preceding paragraph, or reword to Various antipopes, however, received prominent burials, including one among the papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica (which were destroyed during the sixteenth/seventeenth century demolition). [I changed the word some because its very WP:WEASEL IMO]
List
  • I'm not convinced with your reasoning about the bold, per MOS:BOLD, if you want emphasis use other ways but not bold, especially with links.
  • Are these tables uncapable of being sortable?
References
  • Ref 28 is lacking a publisher.--Truco 503 01:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all of your comments except the sorting. I just don't see anything that would be gained by adding the sort feature. Granted it wouldn't do much damage, but it would somewhat clutter the page, so I'd like to see somewhat more of a rationale before implementing it. Savidan 01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re to sorting: Well it wouldn't literally clutter the list, but I do see it benefiting sorting by the name of the pope and the dates. 1 more comment: do not link in the section headers per WP:HEAD.--Truco 503 01:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I have done as you suggest. Savidan 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, make the last 3 columns unsortable. For help on this, see Help:Sorting.--Truco 503 02:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Savidan 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An excellent list; I have only two comments:

  • "An antipope is a historical papal claimant not currently recognized as legitimate by the Roman Catholic Church." "currently" is a dated word, and is probably not necessary.
  • File:VIIKelemen.jpg probably needs an OTRS ticket. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is not an immediate issue because there are plenty of other informative images in the list. I'm satisfied with its being commented out. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OTRS permission has been received and the image readded. Savidan 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Dabomb87. I have sent a message to the image uploader on Commons and emailed the the address listed on the image page. If I do not receive a prompt response from one of them, I will remove the image from the article until permission is confirmed. As for the word currently, I believe it is justified in this context, although I generally agree with the policy you have linked. Perhaps some explanation is in order. The term "antipope" is by its very nature a retroactive term; the only objective definition of an antipope is one whom the Roman Catholic Church currently regards as an antipope. Several popes currently regarded as legitimate by the RCC were regarded as illegitimate contemporaneously and for varying periods thereafter; the converse is also sometimes true (for example, Antipope Christopher was regarded as legitimate during his 10th century rule, and continued to be so regarded by the Church for a millennium, until he was removed from the official list due to a retroactive rule change regarding the nature of licit election. Therefore, in theory, this article's inclusion criteria are entirely at the whims of Benedict XVI and his successors. Perhaps Tomorrow they will add other previously legitimate popes to the list or legitimize certain historical claimants. The only thing that provides a healthy amount of stability to the list is the church's well-known tendency toward inertia. With this in mind, I would be happy to accept an alternate wording that preserves the features I have outlined above. Savidan 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on "currently"; this seems like a case where we can make an exception. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I have decided to comment out the image immediately pending OTRS permission. Savidan 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all issues resolved. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - I'm sure most of them can be dismissed but things that struck me on my first viewing...
  • Worth linking Pope into "papal" of "papal claimant"?
  • Unlink "Unlike" in your "Unlike papal tombs" link.
  • "his own burial on the spot" I read this (admittedly quickly) as "immediately" rather than "on the position". Perhaps a minor reword?
  • "the first true antipope" perhaps this isn't the venue, but what do you mean by "true"? Were there previous not-true antipopes?
  • Is Saint capitalised when used generally? Our own Saint article doesn't cap it...
  • Any reason why you've split the tables up into these particular genres? Because of the sectioning, I get a lot of whitespace at the top of the Early Middle Ages section as a result of the images from the previous section leaking over.
  • Isn't the image of Santa Maria in Trastevere in the wrong section?
  • Forgive my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "no documentation of funeral of monument exist" - do monuments have funerals?
  • Another issue with the subdivision of the table is that the average reader will not know what is meant by "In Nomine Domini" or "From the conclave".
  • Refs 25 and 26 need to be moved to the other side of the full stops, per WP:MOS - could you check others please?
  • "head of the effigy (pictured) remains" - don't think you've done "(pictured)" for all images you've used - I'd remove this one.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented your comments. In answer to your question, a certain "Natalius" has been included in the antipope article (which, sadly, is quite poorly written at the moment), but no good historian counts him among the true antipopes because there is no evidence he ever claimed to be "bishop of Rome"; being a schismatic bishop is not sufficient to be considered an antipope, there must be a claim to being pope. This definition has already been made clear in the list so I have removed the word "true". Savidan 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I removed a couple of rogue spaces but I'm fully satisfied that the list now meets our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tombs_of_antipopes/archive1&oldid=1143881232"