|
|
→Listing Popes as Cardinals: new section
|
||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
The Automated "As of" date toward the top of the article is rather absurd since the rest of the article does not auto update - meaning the date is often flat wrong.--[[User:Dcheney|Dcheney]] ([[User talk:Dcheney|talk]]) 09:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
The Automated "As of" date toward the top of the article is rather absurd since the rest of the article does not auto update - meaning the date is often flat wrong.--[[User:Dcheney|Dcheney]] ([[User talk:Dcheney|talk]]) 09:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:That´s right. We should only update it when a cardinal turn 80 or died or when the Pope is creating new cardinals. --[[User:Nixus Minimax|Nixus Minimax]] ([[User talk:Nixus Minimax|talk]]) 10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
:That´s right. We should only update it when a cardinal turn 80 or died or when the Pope is creating new cardinals. --[[User:Nixus Minimax|Nixus Minimax]] ([[User talk:Nixus Minimax|talk]]) 10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Listing Popes as Cardinals == |
|||
Some editor added the following to the intro: |
|||
:"''In addition, there are two living former cardinals: both Joseph Ratzingerand Jorge Mario Bergoglio were cardinals prior to their elections as Popes Benedict XVI and Francis in 2005 and 2013, respectively.''" |
|||
"Cardinal" is just a title, and once elevated to the papacy, there is no reason to name them "Former Cardinals." Whay say you?--[[User:Coquidragon|Coquidragon]] ([[User talk:Coquidragon|talk]]) 09:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
 | Indexes | |||
| ||||
Should the "C" be capitalized? Tuf-Kat 07:21, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
I suggest that this listing might be more helpful if broken up between living and deceased Cardinals. --Mark Delano
I would like to see the listing have the dob/dod of the Cardinals so that we know if they are still living or have passed. It might also be helpful to include what title they carried to elevate them to 'notable'.
--Jon Cates 13:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This list needs to be less inclusive than Category:Cardinals to be independently useful.It should include only cardinals who (while never Pope) held important offices or were particularly famous.Let's not see it grow haphazardly...L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since this is the list of cardinals, I really don't see the point in using the form "First name Cardinal Last name" in every single entry. They should all be pipe-linked out. --Joy [shallot] 23:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Bender235 changed this on April 6th to a list of cardinals living now. Where are the others? Michael Hardy 00:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop (whoever is behind this) with this ludicrous nonsense of "NAME Cardinal SURNAME". This is a style nobody has used since the middle ages. The Vatican itself is not using it, just run a search on vatican.va. It's frankly irritating. --Orzetto 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong in every single way. Firstly it is WP policy. Secondly it is still official Vatican Policy. Thirdly it was the only way cardinals were ever referred to until 1965, not the middle ages. Fourthly the reason WP uses that form is because it is the only way WP can list all cardinals, as many mediaeval cardinals' first names have long since been forgotten. We couldn't just list them as surname alone. Fifthly it keeps the words cardinal and <surname> together and so eases google searches. Sixthly, many cardinals until relatively recent times used different cardinalate names to their personal names. Their personal names are obscure. They are only known as Cardinal x. So again, to enable google searches and titling WP has to use the word that is associated with their surname, which is cardinal. That is policy. That is necessity. The issue is workability, not whether you are irritated. Your irritation is of no relevance. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 20:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Orzetto is right in every single way. Firstly, "NAME SURNAME" is now WP policy. Secondly, as Orzetto rightly said, the "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" style is not (and never was) official Vatican policy for referring to cardinals, but only for signatures. Thirdly, cardinals were referred to as "Cardinal NAME SURNAME" long before 1965 - at least as far back as 1848 - and this style may very well have preceded the appearance in English of the "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" style, which has won no foothold whatever in Italian, the present day-by-day language in the Vatican. Fourthly, a reason for WP to use "NAME SURNAME" and not "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" is that mediaeval cardinals had no surname, and if their place of origin is used in place of a surname (e.g. Humbert of Mourmoutiers), you can say "NAME of PLACE" (or, for that matter, "Cardinal NAME of PLACE", but you cannot say "NAME Cardinal of PLACE". Fifthly, "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" separates NAME from SURNAME, and is less useful as a search string for Googling, especially since the form "Cardinal NAME SURNAME" is the usual order in news items. Most important, since the relative correctness of "NAME Cardinal SURNAME" and "Cardinal NAME SURNAME" is in dispute, Wikipedia's basic NPOV policy does not allow either to be imposed, when the neutral "NAME SURNAME" is available. "NAME SURNAME" is policy. That is necessity. The issue is workability and simplicity, not primarily whether anyone is irritated. Anyone's irritation is of some, but insufficient, relevance. Lima 18:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, as to whether or not this is a practice the Vatican uses, when the new Pope is announced by the Cardinal Proto-Deacon after his election, the text of the announcement names the man who has been elected as "Dominum NAME Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem SURNAME," which puts the whole phrase "Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church" between the name and surname. And Latin is the Vatican's actual official language, not Italian. 67.239.64.253 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start creating lists of Cardinals by original Papal appointment, so as we have a full list, and not just Cardinals in disparate categories. Gareth E Kegg 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a list of all cardinals who've ever lived who have an article in Wikipedia, then it is identical to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals, though that category is split into many subcategories. If this list is restricted to living cardinals, then it is identical to the list in College of Cardinals#Members of the College of Cardinals. Category:Italian cardinals alone has 598 entries. Taken together, there are probably nearly 1000 articles on individual cardinals. So, what exactly is the criteria for inclusion in this list? Should it include both living and dead cardinals, and if so, should it give dates of birth and death to indicate which are still living? Would it be worthwhile to include cardinals who do not have articles? Redlinked redhats? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac_Murphy-O%27Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.150.101 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very nice if there could be a full chronological list of cardinals somewhere on wikipedia, and not just current living cardinals. I imagine it would have to be split up, but it would be quite useful, I think. john k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis has not his own article. Can someone create it? If there is lack of information i link you to: www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/cardinals.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.58.110 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 77.49.58.110 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, that it is correct to list them here before the consitory. They became cardinals during this ceremony on February 18th but not by the announcement of January 6th. --Heraklitcnl (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that neither the previous text or the new revision is accurate on this point.--Dcheney (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
---Coquidragon (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a number of changes, including ones that address a point raised in the prior section (listing which order each belongs to). With respect to that, I used the {{sort}} template to allow the column to list them in order of precedence. The Cardinal Dean is sorted as 100, the Vice Dean as 101, and the rest of the Cardinal-Bishops continue from there. The same holds true for the other orders. Cardinal-Priests are numbered from 2000, and Cardinal-Deacons are numbered from 300. The use of 1, 2, and 3 as the leading digits ensures that Bishops come before Priests and Priests come before Deacons. As of today, 16 March 2013, the last numbers used are as follows: CB 109, CP 2151, and CD 343. In practice this means that it will not be necessary to renumber as cardinals come and go. Fully 90 Bishops can be added before renumbering is necessary (i.e., reaching 199); similarly, 848 Priests and 56 Deacons can be added before renumbering.
I have also added colour shading for over-80s. There are two reasons. First, it is an important enough distinction that it makes sense to highlight it. Also, it will allow for easy separation when creating a list of cardinal-electors the next time there is a conclave. The editor doing so can simply copy over the table and then search for the style= text and delete each row preceded by it. This makes culling the older cardinals out easier than it would be at present.
I have made the names properly sortable using {{sortname}}, meaning the names no longer have to be listed SURNAME, FORENAME. The dates appointed now also use {{dts}}, so they are properly sorted as well.
Finally, I have taken steps to truncate the table by using initials instead of names for popes and removing the ", [Country]" as the country is usually obvious from the city involved and is redundant in any event because of the given cardinal's country of origin. If a cardinal were a bishop in one country and from another, it would make sense to mark the country of the diocese involved, but that is not the case with any currently listed. I have also tucked the ages beneath the birth dates of the cardinals; it is not necessary to have two columns that contain essentially the same information and sort identically. -Rrius (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could have used yellow instead of this eyesore pink.Just sayin--Killuminator (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Francis has announced 19 new cardinals for February!We need an addenda and some of those named need Wikipedia pages in English.--Killuminator (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Automated "As of" date toward the top of the article is rather absurd since the rest of the article does not auto update - meaning the date is often flat wrong.--Dcheney (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some editor added the following to the intro:
"Cardinal" is just a title, and once elevated to the papacy, there is no reason to name them "Former Cardinals." Whay say you?--Coquidragon (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
