Talk:List of 10 shortest-reigning popes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-03. The result of the discussion was merge into List of popes by length of reign.

These dates (day/month) do not quite agree with the dates in the articles and I can't say I known which are correct. ²¹² 11:29 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

These dates all seem to have been off-by-one according to the dates given, except for Benedict, whose dates and reignal length didn't match at all. Some have no dates, so I'm going to assume they also were off-by-one and recalculate, and make it clear that these are the # of calendar days they reigned (to avoid the off-by-one calculations in the future). Noted that if Benedict V's dates given here are correct, John Paul I was the 10th shortest reigning, not him. -- Someone else 06:33, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Note that this page has the title "Pope" in the link text; the other has only the name and ordinal. Is this a problem? Pakaran 06:35, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can we go ahead and remove Benedict? He seems to be "behind" enough to be beyond question. On another note - how did John Paul I get omitted in the first place? He was elected and died in an age of mass media, with the world following both elections. Pakaran 06:39, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Checked on Benedict V, and I see what happened: someone assumed that the day he died (July 4) was the same as the day he stopped reigning, which is wrong: he died on July 4, but in 965, not 964, almost a year after he was deposed. He was elected pope 14 May 964, deposed 23 June 964 and died 4 July 965. Altogether a problematic listing! Dunno how the list got made, so can't say how JP got left off (for that matter, I can't swear there's not a missing one that shouldn't be above him: it would be good to find another list somewhere not derived from this one to check against. -- Someone else 06:46, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Boniface will be difficult to get info on. From the sounds of it, he reigned at a time in history when nobody was too interested in recording anything about him; there's speculation he may have been put to death by his successor, and he had been excommunicated before being elected, among other things. See http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=918 or google on his name. Note that that site is pro-Catholic and would be, if anything, biased towards not discussing any irregularities that have occured. Pakaran 06:49, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And I note that Stephen II is missing from this list: he reigned 3 days, but is sometimes not counted as a pope. Clearly this list needs further verification or explanation! (e.g. are we dating from election or coronation where those dates differ...) -- Someone else 06:53, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a royal headache. Added this page (though not the other) to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention as "needing complex attention," which I think is justified. The problem is the lack of documentation, and the sheer number of Popes. Creating a similiar page for monarchs of England, for example, would be fairly easy. -- Pakaran 07:05, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

JP I (like the current one) eschewed a formal coronation as a move towards liberalism. I really hope he wasn't deliberately left out due to that. -- Pakaran 07:09, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

could be: it's the same reason Stephen II was probably left off. (And has been forcing subsequent Stephens to be II/III, III/IV, etc...) Altogether, putting this on Pages needing attention seems like a good thing<G>.. -- Someone else 07:19, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do we want the word "Pope" in the links, or not? The two pages are inconsistent with each other. I'd just as soon wait for a day or two as move around huge amounts of markup myself. Maybe decide on that after North America wakes up? --Pakaran 07:21, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No urgency I think. Pope-in-the-links is the current naming convention here; it used to be the other way, but then we went on a put-the-title-in-the-name binge. As long as they are consistent on a single page, it looks ok either way, but if you're editing anyway, I would opt for Pope-in-the-link. -- Someone else 07:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Cool thanks. The other page lists several who are also saints, and I'd have to look up the correct way of referring to them. Pakaran 07:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is the policy specific to Popes? e.g. George W. Bush and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom do not have their titles in their article titles.
No, it's not particularly consistent. At first, the rule was "use the name use by most people, except for Kings and Queens, just use firstname/of countryname for them." Then it was decided that since some people are known by their titles of nobility (e.g. Earl of Grafton) that Wikipedia articles would include their names and their titles (a way they would never ever ever be addressed!) e.g. "John Finsworthy Clotsblud-Barkington, 4th Marquess of Cholmondely" and in the process somewhere it was decided that "Pope John Paul I" looked better than "John Paul I of the Vatican". (Further reading pleasure at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)). Basically, when you create an article for someone with multiple names like this, it doesn't really matter which one the article is at, but the redirects should be created at the same time so that we don't wind up with multiple articles all about one person. -- Someone else 01:30, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Note that if we don't include Stephen and JP I due to not being formally coronated, then we also need to leave JP II off the other list, which would be Stupid (tm). How to resolve this is an interesting question... Pakaran 19:18, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Combine lists?

Why not combine list of longest reigning popes and list of shortest reigning popes to be List of Popes by length of reign? Intrigue 22:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Separate lists make it easier to figure out which list a Pope is on. -- User:Docu
Oops - I combined them! On the new one, all Popes will be on one list, in order of the length they reign - it will be real easy to know which list any given Pope is on - there will be only one! If I've messed up I hope someone can help me fix it! Intrigue 23:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I mean, one of the shortest-reigning or the longest-reigning. ... BTW are you going to complete all of the ones missing between the first and last on List of Popes by length of reign? In its current form its hard to read. -- User:Docu

I'm going to try to complete the other Popes, unless there is some reason not to leave the list in one combined form - can you help? Thanks! Intrigue 14:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if there is much interest in the ones between the longest and shortest-reigning. Besides changes are likely to be more rare.
Anyways, I don't want to discourage you. Possibly one of the other language versions of List of popes has start and end dates (or at least years on the same line) which makes a sort by length easier. The data from different centuries isn't necessarily comparable. -- User:Docu

Erm - was in the process, but got sidetracked - did you just think it was a mess, or are you opposed to combining the list if it were done properly? Thanks! Intrigue 06:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The version you left had a list from 1-22 which didn't make much sense, this is why I restored the previous version. I haven't much to add then my comment above, except that it should probably read "changes are now likely to be more rare". -- User:Docu
If the available data allows it, you might want to try to compile something like the Statistics/trivia section of another list. -- User:Docu

No, I understand the version you reverted was a mess - I'm asking whether, if I compiled the whole list of Popes, in order of length of reign, would you object to that, or would it be an issue. That is to say did you revert it because it was a mess, or because you opose the complete list in principle? Intrigue 23:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with combining them. --Menchi 10:22, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Listing Benedict XVI

I'm not going to go into an edit war over this - after all, the problem will resolve itself in 33 days - but I think it's completely nonsensical to add the current reigning Pope to this list. Everyone looking at a list like this one will expect it to contain finished papal reigns, not an ongoing one that is going to constantly move downwards through the list. This makes about as much sense as adding the current year to a hypothetical List of Driest Years in Recorded History in January, then removing it somewhere around May because by then, enough rain will have fallen -- Ferkelparade π 18:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The analogy is a good one. It needs to go. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not nonsensical at all. The current Pope belongs on the list until he serves beyond 33 days. Kingturtle 22:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ferkelparade. Benedict XVI is not needed on the list. This is supposed to be based on current records and Benedict XVI would not be in the official records yet. Please remove it and replace Benedict V as #10. --207.65.99.223 22:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It's not comparable to JP2 included in List_of_10_longest-reigning_popes. -- User:Docu

As long as Benedict XVI is under 33 days, he belongs on the list. i see no logical argument against it. Kingturtle 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no argument with him on the page but as a side note to let visitors know that this is where his papacy stands at the moment. You don't see the news networks saying he is the shortest-reigning pope right now. Is it more worth note to put Benedict XVI's 2 day ongoing reign over showing Benedict V's 33 day reign? I don't think so. --207.65.99.223 05:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news network. it is an encyclopedia. Kingturtle 17:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make with that statement, but to me it seems that would rather speak against including the current pope on this list -- Ferkelparade π 17:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see one person who thinks this belongs, and a whole bunch who realize otherwise. Kingturtle, why not just let this go? Moreover, an argument can be made that the reign has not yet begun; see Pope-elect Stephen. GeeZee 17:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see a scant handful of people discussing this, certainly no "whole bunch" who "realize otherwise," and hardly a number that merits attempting to shut someone up simply because he wants to dissent, in a coherent and polite manner.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 2:57am, 21 April 2005 (USCT)
In part, I have let the issue go. I have not changed the article again. However, in part, I refuse to stop discussing it in the TALK page. The bottomline is that Benedict XVI should be placed in the top-ten of this list. Kingturtle 17:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Come on, Kingturtle, this is not an answer. What you basically just said is "You're all wrong, I'm right, and I refuse to discuss any further". Not a very productive attitude, I'm afraid... Ferkelparade π 17:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oy. An unproductive attitude would be to take this issue into a edit war - which i am not doing. I have no idea how you are misreading my tone, but I in no way said I refuse to discuss this any further. I have stated my opinion, which is that Benedict XVI should be placed in the top-ten of this list. Indeed, he has only served for a few days, therefore he should be listed as such. Others disagree, and the article reflects that. What are the arguments against me? That Benedict XVI's reign isn't over yet? Kingturtle 19:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, my bad. "I refuse to stop discussing it". A perfectly clear sentence, yet I somehow managed to read that as "I refuse to continue discussing it" :P Aanyway, yes, that's the main point against inclusion - his reign is not yet over (strictly speaking, it has not even begun), and I think that the list should limit itself to completed papal reigns - then the list can serve as the basis for an interesting comparison because we can see which pope actually died in office after a couple of days, but the inclusion of Benedict tells us nothing about relative durations of papal reigns. I'll grant you that you're technically correct, but I just don't see how that technicality adds anything to the article. -- Ferkelparade π 19:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem about the misread. Kingturtle 01:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Kingturtle. Until Benedict XVI passes 33 days, he belongs in this list. Frankly, Ferkel's analogy with dry months is a terribly false one: one is a regular, seasonal phenomenon, in which case it is illogical to include continuously fluctuating data in a list of historical extremes; the other is the reign of a Pope, which is FAR from a regular and predictable event that occures so frequently as to make the outcome obvious and the data irrelevant. The fact that Benedict's reign has not finished is utterly irrelevant, as we do not know when it will end, if today, tomorrow, or in 10 years. With a predictable, short-term, cyclical, physical phenomenon, like rainfall, or any similar example, we can simply ignore the short-term statistic and refrain from contemplating a historical extreme until it actually becomes manifest over time, but with something as unique and historically significant on a personal scale as the reign of Popes, the opposite logic applies, and we should take the current facts for what they are until the Pope proves, with time, that his reign is longer than those listed. To say that this information won't add anything to the article is to negate its entire purpose, which is not an exposition or detailed exploration of a theme, but is an Almanac-style list that focusses on a very specific of facts, and aims to document them accurately. So long as someone interested is willing to modify the order of the list in accordance with Benedicts increasing reign, then this should be allowed for the sake of accuracy, and to fulfill the very purpose of this list.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 8:54pm, 20 April 2005 (USCT)

Also, Ferkel, since you yourself concede that Turtle is "technically correct," as you put it, then I think it is best to err on the side of information rather than on the side of lack of information, since the entire point of this site is to inform. And, in a scenario such as this, where the data in question is NOT factually disputed, inflammatory, or controversial per se, but at the very worst is considered superfluous by some, and given the fact that it is merely an entry on a list (as opposed to a lengthy and combersome addition to an article) then the only logical conclusion is that the data is ultimately harmless, and it is best to tolerate its presence, without so much fuss, than to tolerate the absence of a possibly useful bit of knowledge.-- Supersexyspacemonkey 3:16am, 21 April 2005 (USCT)

Nonsense. We're not losing anything relevant by excluding Benedict XVI - at least, nothing that anybody who isn't living under several feet of rock will not know already. On the other hand, by including Benedict XVI, we're losing information Benedict V (or, as the article stands now, we're turning a "list of 10 popes" into a list of 11 popes, which in my opinion is the lamest compromise possible). I had no problem with the way the article looked yesterday - leave the list of 10 popes alone and add a note on Benedict XVI at the bottom - but if it's so important to you guys, I guess I can just wait a couple of days until Benedict XVI moves off the list.
By the way, you do not quite seem to understand my usage of "technically" - it's about as technically correct as placing Gary Gabelich on the top of a list of fastest land animals :P -- Ferkelparade π 12:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"On the other hand, by including Benedict XVI, we're losing information Benedict V (or, as the article stands now, we're turning a "list of 10 popes" into a list of 11 popes, which in my opinion is the lamest compromise possible)."
To use your words, nonsense. ;) An 11th Pope compromise is perfectly logical given the varying condition of the one contemporary entry, that being Benedict XVI. Also, this has been a list of 11 as long as I can remember, with innumerable varieties including or excluding numerous contentious entries, but including either Benedict V or John Paul I as a memorable 11th. I don't see the big deal, because in the end, it will naturally either become a 10-pope list with Benedict V, or a 10-pope list with Benedict XVI, and it goes on until a new pope reigns for longer than all the people on the list, in which case the issue becomes moot.--Supersexyspacemonkey 9:25pm, 21 April 2005 (USCT)
"I had no problem with the way the article looked yesterday - leave the list of 10 popes alone and add a note on Benedict XVI at the bottom - but if it's so important to you guys, I guess I can just wait a couple of days until Benedict XVI moves off the list."
That's the whole bloody point you can't seem to grasp, if it's so important for some to include the information, then allow the issue to resolve itself naturally and factually as Benedict's reign lengthens, and if interested parties are willing to update the information, then let them. Jesus, it's not as if changing the data every couple of weeks or days is such a horrible and objectionable thing, because if it is, I guess we have to stop all of those "inconvenient" articles that deal with current and ongoing events, as was the case with JPII's death and Conclave 2005, and then we won't have any up-to-the-minute accuracy because articles won't be written until everything is over, heck, why not wait till the end of the world before we update anthing, otherwise we'll be condemnd to *gasp* updating things! ;).--Supersexyspacemonkey 9:25pm, 21 April 2005 (USCT)

Someone reverted with the following comment:

"Removed unnecessary inclusion of Benedict XVI which would have to be updated daily. He need only be listed in the unlikely event he serves less than 33 days)"

To begin with, it won't have to be updated daily, only a handful of times, with many days, sometimes many week, between edits until the last few positions. And if people are updating it, then one's own personal disinterest in updating the information is irrelevant and is by itself not grounds to remove or protest the inclusion of Benedict XVI.--Supersexyspacemonkey 9:25pm, 21 April 2005 (USCT)

Final Note: I have presented my case. I'll let popular opinion prevail, and will make no more revisions to the article. The majority will do as it pleases, and I am not going to participate in a revision war. ;) But all I say is this, as I have said before, why not just err on the side of inclusion, rather than on the side of censorship, and tolerate a little extra info provided by enthusiastic members who would like to see current events reflected in the article, and in the end, the argument will become moot depending on what actually happens to Benedict over the course of approximately a month. Cheers all!.--Supersexyspacemonkey 10:50pm, 21 April 2005 (USCT)

I'd just like to mention that I believe Ferkelparade's argument to be compelling, and I've therefore removed Benedict XVI from the list proper and moved him to the notes section. Regarding Supersexyspacemonkey's statement that:

Frankly, Ferkel's analogy with dry months is a terribly false one: one is a regular, seasonal phenomenon, in which case it is illogical to include continuously fluctuating data in a list of historical extremes; the other is the reign of a Pope, which is FAR from a regular and predictable event that occures so frequently as to make the outcome obvious and the data irrelevant. The fact that Benedict's reign has not finished is utterly irrelevant, as we do not know when it will end, if today, tomorrow, or in 10 years.

I respond that we don't know how long it will continue to rain, either. On January 4, for all we know, it will only drizzle a few times for the rest of the year. Degree of rainfall is not predictable, any more than the reign of a pope is. As of January 4, we'd be just as uncertain that the year would be one of the driest on record as we are uncertain that Benedict XVI will be one of the shortest-reigning popes. The situations are entirely analogous. —Simetrical (talk) 05:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that the new note that's been inserted is very reasonable: "Benedict XVI reigns since 19 April 2005, but arguably not appropriate for inclusion in this list due to his ongoing papacy."--Supersexyspacemonkey 6:25pm, 28 April 2005 (USCT)

Finally, the question is moot. Kingturtle 14:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine let's wait for 2025 to list him in the List of 10 longest-reigning popes.194.183.196.141 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen II and coronation

The article about Pope-elect Stephen, formerly called Stephen II has been rewrote with more explanations. Švitrigaila 16:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consecration as a starting point?

The preface to the article implies that the length of term is counted from the date of consecration, but two popes listed "died before consecration". It's rather confusing. Carecrow 15:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)