Template talk:Popes

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity This template is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Template:History of the papacy was copied or moved into Template:Popes with this edit on 19 October 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Template:Popes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. llywrch 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice idea, but such a huge mass of uncategorised links listed in chronological order is a bit overwhelming. Some ideas:

• Break them into periods (eg, 250 years, or something logical), and only list the popes within that period, with a link to all popes. How likely is it that someone reading up on Pope John Paul II is suddenly going to want to jump to Pope Eugene I?
• Order them by pope name rather than chronologically, making a kind of table. That's if you really want to include all the popes on every page, you at least give people a chance to find the one they want.
• Combination of both: Have one infobox for all the popes of a given name (all the Benedicts, for example), and another infobox for all the popes within a given period (eg, 1800 onwards, or some natural divide). Each pope article would then have two infoboxes.

Hope this helps. Stevage 08:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is big, perhaps another option is to make the hide option the default setting like other template of this size, I don't know how to do that. On your earlier suggestion, if you did break it into 250, 500 or 1000 years periods, what do you do with Benedict XVI? Wouldn't he be on his own? Does this seem right? Philip Stevens 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that he would be the only one in the 21st century? Just group them into meaningful ways (eg, 20th century and beyond could be one), that provide nice numbers in each group. I don't know anything about popes, but maybe there were defined periods? Styles of papacies? Ideally you probably want around 20 per box, but with divisions as meaningful as possible. Stevage 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] Actually List of popes already has a subdivison going, you could work off that. Stevage 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] Honestly, with List of popes, & the nav box at the bottom of each article about one of the Popes, is there a sound defense for keeping this template -- beyond the assertion "Well, it's a good idea"? I'm providing fair warning here because I'm trying hard not to throw this to the wolves at WP:TFD. -- llywrch 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means, put it up for deletion if your feel you have to; that is your right. Philip Stevens 06:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, WP:TFD can be a den of wolves: if there is a good reason to keep it, it would have a more receptive audience here & not there. I'm just trying to go an extra step before I (as you put it) exercise my right. -- llywrch 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] There's every good reason to have a navigational box for navigating between different popes. Whether this template as it stands is perfect is debatable. But taking it to TfD now is kind of like noticing a horse with a bleeding ear and pulling out the shotgun to put it out of its misery... Stevage 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • As someone who votes regularly on TfD, I'm not sure how to take some these comments about wolf and the like. All I can say is, I'm usually fair. On how it might be spilt up, perhaps the example of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate template can be used. Philip Stevens 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, exactly what I meant in my original comment. Stevage 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] Don't split it. That negates its usefulness entirely. As for ordering them by papal name, would it be possible to have a button on the template that switches between organizing them chronologically and by papal name? I would support this feature but I think making a second template to organize them by papal name would be too much. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] I imagine a box that divides the list by centuries. In a pope from the 17th century, it might list every pope by name from the 16th-18th centuries, with links to lists for other centuries. The Benedict XVI article would list by name all from the 20th century on. This would cut the list down to (3/20+overhead) of the current size. Would that negate its usefulness entirely? Gimmetrow 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] This seems a reasonable solution; it would also leave room for an ((tl|other popes of this name}} template, which could be as small as a list of numerals. Septentrionalis 14:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it might be better to use a mid-dot as the separation character here, rather than the vertical bar. The problem is that (as with lists of monarchs) the bar can easily be confused with the roman numerals which have frequently to be suffixed to the names.—Ian Spackman 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A public thank you to Philip Stevens for making just that change so quickly! —Ian Spackman 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This just makes the template even larger. There really is no need for such a button as the template always appears at the bottom of articles and really doesn't take up that much space. Sometimes large templates are necessarey and useful. At the very least, make the default show, although I think the show/hide feature should be removed. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't happy with it, so it's been reverted. Philip Stevens 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for reverting something. A valid reason is if it benefits the project. Numerous others, but why "you don't like it"? Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] Note that Philip Stevens was the one who added it. Self-reverts generally don't need detailed reasoning beyond "I didn't like the result of my own edit." Gimmetrow 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I misunderstood him. My apologies. Aaрон Кинни (t) 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you added organization it would be really good.--67.183.136.132 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)КΕЙТΛИН[reply]

This template takes large part of articles and is overlapping with succession box present in every article. If it /really/ needs to be kept that it should be hidden by default. Contents of articles is text, not a colorful, hard to read and distracting semi-graphics. A reference to list of popes would provide the same information in much less annoying way. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TFD suggested splitting this into pieces. Would "to 500", "500 to 1000", "1000 to 1500" and "after 1500" work:

<noinclude>
[[Category:Pope templates|Popes]]
[[Category:European navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

<noinclude>
[[Category:Pope templates|Popes]]
[[Category:European navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

<noinclude>
[[Category:Pope templates|Popes]]
[[Category:European navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

<noinclude>
[[Category:Pope templates|Popes]]
[[Category:European navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are suggesting four separate templates, like the Template:Nobel Peace Prize Laureates 1926-1950. I personally don't like that design, because the links to each template take the user away from the main article, and it treats each template as if it were an article. I would really like the entire list to stay in one template, but better organization of that list would definitely be a good thing. I would prefer to organize that by content toggling, but just having four collapsible groups in one navbox might be a start. Gimmetrow 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me, great job ALoan. Though I have to say, I wouldn't like to have to change all 265 pope pages. Philip Stevens 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people want 4 separate templates (like the Laureate example), I think it is possible to implement this without changing any of the articles. Gimmetrow 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think these new templates look great. You might also want to include a link to the main (current) template, so that it can be used on articles such as Pope. —Mira 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Gosh, that is a good idea - we could keep the ginormous template for a few selected articles (Pope, List of Popes) as a handy shortcut, and use the cut down versions on the articles for individual Popes. Yes, I was thinking of four separate templates, Template:Popes1 through Template:Popes4. I am wary of fancy content toggling / collapsing tricks because they don't tend to work well across different combinations of browsers and skins. I guess the point is, does every single Pope article need to be linked to every other Pope, or can we split them into four broad chunks like this? How often does a reader of Pope Leo XIII want to read Pope Sixtus III? I appreciate the concern at treating templates like articles: perhaps we need to turn the full template into a List of Popes (simple)? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Note that there is a list of popes (graphical). In practice, I think it is key for any such nav template to have direct links to the popes plus or minus at least 100 years . More is fine if you want, but at some point I agree they don't need to be direct (one-click) links anymore, for if there was any direct relevance they would be linked in the article. Any range of years could be implemented with the appropriate number of templates if that's what people want, and we do not need to change any transcluded templates in 265 articles to do it. Gimmetrow 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] By the 100 year remark, I mean that on Pope Julius II (1503-1513), I think it is important to have one-click access to (say) Pope Paul II (1464-1471). Any division by time periods must have a certain amount of overlap. If we did divisons of (0-600) (400-1100) (900-1600) and (1400-pres), that would allow enough overlap for me. Gimmetrow 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the split style if only because the original template is cut off at the right side of many screen in an aesthetically unpleasing manner, but to back that up, I say: If it's good enough for the Nobel winners, it's good enough for the Popes. We may split the job between us. I can take 78 popes. Any takers for the other 187? Or perhaps a better split would be for four brave souls to take one era each . . . Yes, it is necessary to link every pope to every other pope on Wiki. That is not questionable. Thank you ALoan for the work.

Well, I was thinking rather then an 'arbitrary' divide, you could have popes before the fall of Rome in 478, Popes prior to the split with the orthdox, popes prior to Luther, and then popes now up to Benedict XVI, because each represents a very different period in Catholicism.

Protestants do not recognize many of these figures to be legitimate Catholic popes, starting with Saint Peter and including other early "popes". I suggest that a separate section be created to accommodate both points of view, with a brief footnote. Colin MacLaurin 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC). This is merely a comment, not a call to action.[reply]

No, because how would you like us claiming that your bishops, or if in the case your pastors are not really bishops pastors? Protestants, unless they recognise the Roman pontiff, don't get to decide who was considered to be Pope, just as we cannot declare any of your pastors illegitimate. The documents we have decide, and they give lists of Popes before Emperor Constatine. Benkenobi18 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] That is very well said, Benkenobi18, but I should point out that Emperor Constantine I himself was never Pope, only Emperor, and therefore the very phrase "Popes before Constantine" is a little misleading. Perhaps it would help our argument to refer to Popes who reigned before the Imperial reign of Constantine I. As for you, Colin MacLaurin, it is true that local churches before AD 314 were independent organizations, but this fact does not change the other fact that the church within Rome was founded by Saint Peter, who is therefore the first Bishop of Rome. (Sidenote: Rome was made primary when the church was consolidated, both because the City of Rome was the capital of the Empire and because the diocese had been founded by Saint Peter.) Do not forget that the Pope is Archbishop of Rome. It's not like the Papacy is some aloof non-Bishop head office. Because it's a See (Bishop's office), it is not a contradiction for what is now the head office of the Roman Catholic Church to predate the Roman Catholic Church proper. To both of you, this explains away the alleged conflicting views. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I organized this into columns, which leaves whitespace at the sides, but makes it much easier to skim the list and find a specific pope, or read them in sequence. Whitespace on the sides is not inherently bad, and I think the easier reading more than makes up for it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The column version has rendering problems. In one browser, three columns end up outside the template. Gimmetrow 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I agree with gimmetrow. The cure is worse than the disease. Columns in templates is not a good idea, due to browser rendering. I don't see what the big problem is with the old version. Night Gyr, perhaps you could discuss what you feel the main problem to be and seek feedback before implementing any major changes. Savidan 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely to read through the list or find any single pope from the big mass of text, without any alignment cues or regularity to the text. As posted above, "a huge mass of uncategorised links listed in chronological order is a bit overwhelming." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I prefer the "old" presentation, in lines rather in columns. I find it's more logical to read lines than columns. And I see no reason to separate Benedict XVI from the common list: his name should be just after John Paul II. It's sure the list is difficult to read, because it's very long and the names are written very small. But the amelioraton of the "new" presentation is not very great. It's a pity, because it seems Night Gyr worked hard on it. :o| Švitrigaila 11:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's only separated because the columns divide evenly without him. It renders fine for me using firefox, what browser is causing issues? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use Safari. The aspect is better with Safari than Firefox on my Mac, but it doesn't depend of the "old" presentation or the "new" one. Švitrigaila 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason he's listed twice? --Maxamegalon2000 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice??... No! Thrice! The explaination is in the Pope Benedict IX article itself. Švitrigaila 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ehm okay, but why is Benedict X not listed? ;-) --213.46.1.82 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hum, never mind. Apparently there's something called an "antipope". --213.46.1.82 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papal Coat of Arms

-I Think we can also add their papal coat of arms...Jus suggesting Deo Gratias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humus soil (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently "Popes of the Catholic Church". Changing it to "Catholic Popes" because it is shorter and sounds better.

Certainly, Antipopes should normally not be on this list, but the 5 who counted in the numerals of later lawful Popes could be shown to explain away the numbering issues, as long as we somehow acknowledge their illegality, perhaps by Italicizing them or placing them in parentheses. (Either way, the most logical points on the list would be immediately after the lawful Popes whom they claimed to depose.)

In chronological order, they are:

1. Felix II

2. Boniface VII

3. John XVI

4. Benedict X

5. Alexander V.

We should also somehow acknowledge that Marinus I was also Martin II, and likewise Marinus II was Martin III. This could be accomplished with perhaps an "AKA" in parentheses.

1. Marinus I (AKA Martin II)

2. Marinus II (AKA Martin III)

Frankly, the name "Marinus" should be declared retired over this, so that no Marinus III would ever also count as Martin VI, but I digress.

Finally, there is the issue of how John XX declared himself John XXI over the alleged problem of 2 Popes John XIV. Perhaps an unlinked "John XX (Declared himself John XXI, see his Article)" could be followed by a linked "John XXI (Same person)" so as to clarify that issue.

I know the Articles explain things, but it would be nice if the template could explain away what would otherwise constitute numbering anomalies. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template is too large in terms of entries to have an image. There are too many names and it's difficult to read on the screen with the image. I personally find the color hard on the eyes as its so bright, and I don't see why it matters that those are the official colors of the papacy. Reader experience is what's most important, and the color and image make the template harder to use, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the color. it's almost blinding... worse than white webpage backgrounds. image is wholly unneeded, and takes up too much space. Aunva6 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I agree as well. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] theis wasn't the only one. I went through, and defaulted all the bright yellow templates. WP:IAR Aunva6 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regardless of whether it is 'official', is the current color of the template too bright? Aunva6 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it to be very bright at all, or at least any brighter than the color yellow usually is compared to other colors.Joshbunk (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it to be nearly blinding. at 300cd/m^2, my monitor is a little bit brighter than some, but not that much more, nor is it an obscure model. ASUS VH242H if it matters to anyone. beyond the eye strain, I think the color looks gaudy, and distracts from the article content. Aunva6 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, it's too bright, and we should use the default for the alternating colours for the lists. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find the original discussions for changing the template to have yellow instead of the default colors, or the user who made the original changes? I think we need to see the opinions behind the current color scheme and understand why they thought yellow was acceptable even though some users find it too bright.Joshbunk (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] The Mysterious El Willstro was defending the colors earlier, saying "Because Gold and White are the official Vatican colors, that's why. It wasn't just for fun." however, it was snappy who initially changed it, but that was to match other navboxes. I would like to add that Wikipedia does not have to use the official style for anything. heck, if consensus was that it should be hot pink, then we would make it hot pink. Aunva6 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] still digging. the history navbox has always bee that horrendus yellow, it appears... Aunva6 (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not blinding at all if we distinctly alternate with a white background in every other section (as we currently do). Compare with Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria, which is similar in number of entries and has an image of the exact same size. No one has uttered a single peep about it over there. In terms of color scheme, we can compare with Template:Canadian monarchs, Template:Pittsburgh Steelers, Template:Philadelphia Phillies, Template:Pittsburgh Penguins, Template:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Template:Soviet Union topics, Template:Canada topics, and Template:Coca-Cola brands, all of which use the "official" colors of the respective topics without complaint. Some of them are pretty vividly colored, too! So, why should the Papacy be any different from all those other topics (which have official colors, unlike, say Template:HIV and AIDS, Template:Health care, and Template:Fuel cells, which do not concern specific organizations and therefore have no official colors to speak of, so naturally they're defaulted; an exception is Template:Botany, but that's because botany and green are intuitive). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the alternating BG isn't bad, but the surrounding box looks like someone picked out the brightest yellow they could find. if the shade of yellow were changed to a darker, non fluorescent one, it would be alot better. the other templates don't have this problem because colors close to yellow in the color spectrum are particularly offensive to the eyes. perhaps some of you are using smaller screens (or even CRT), but mine isn't that big. all I ask is that it be a more... eye-friendly shade. example, how do you like staring at a wall of florescent yellow, on a white background. it's hard for me to show what I mean, but you need to keep in mind that monitors are getting larger and larger. a larger monitor is going to be naturally brighter, and brightness density is increasing as well. the age of CRT monitors has passed.

Aunva6 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you would be fine with allowing the template(s) to stay yellow as long as the shade is darker? I think that is an agreeable compromise. Do you have a replacement color in mind?Joshbunk (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] well, i was thinking that more golden color used for the tilde sign in the context shader option, if you know what I am talking about. the current yellow isn't really golden anyways. Aunva6 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] here, i pasted the template into my sandbox so we can test colors and see which is best. User:Aunva6/sandbox Aunva6 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Of course the age of CRT monitors has passed! It passed in the 1990s. Did you guys assume I was using a CRT? I'm not using a CRT; I assure you. I'm actually using a laptop (a white MacBook from 2008). It's a flat screen as laptops kind of have to be, and it displays living color, entirely uncompromised. Perhaps my eyes are just not easily offended. I don't find that frame painful to look at in the least, but then again I'm a rare case (one of the few males in the world who actually sees color perfectly; even males who don't have X-linked red-green colorblindness generally still don't see quite the color scheme females do, but I do). That being said, the shade of yellow on the Vatican flag (which I'm pretty sure was the original reason/excuse for this color selection) is somewhat dimmer than the one I've seen here lately. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I was kinda mad at that time, but I was exaggerating. they used straight-up yellow... you can go ahead and play around with the templates I posted in my sandbox. i currently have one in there using gold, but feel free to change it if you find a better color. Aunva6 (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done! I've implemented this compromise not only here but also at Template:Patriarchs of Alexandria, which concerns a similar office. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] how about the other templates? many of the WP:Catholicism navboxes use that yellow Aunva6 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] I updated a couple of them accordingly, but you can always copy and paste the appropriate format codes if you find one that I missed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] yep. I got the ones that were listed on the wikiproject page... glad we could come to a reasonable agreement. Aunva6 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] surely this is not the final colour choice? remove the evenodd colour override, and everything will be fine. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Well, it is a non-flourescent golden yellow, and it is based on Aunva6's original suggestion in his or her (I usually have no way of knowing whether another user is a boy or a girl, and don't really care) User Sandbox. As for the alternating colors, they make the lines between sections (and each sections represents a range of several centuries when the listed Popes reigned) easier to see. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] if there is a problem with the default values for the even and odd colours not being visible, then why not suggest a change at MediaWiki talk:Common.css? we should use the default values unless there is a reason to deviate from them. if the defaults are not good enough, then we should change the defaults. Frietjes (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contents or division of the left column could probably be more harmonised with that of Template:History of the Roman Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old template, Template:Periods of papal history, might as well persist. However, regarding the proposed merged version, more opinions would be welcome as we are now only two users with differing opinion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I think it is long and not necessary also. For example, from the merged template, how can people know whether Pope Severinus was in the period of Ostrogothic Papacy, Byzantine Papacy, or Frankish Papacy? It's kind of unhelpful. Greenknight dv (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE: Its Unhelpful Idea Because the Template Popes is Helpful and Important Too so Stop it Please! Attention! Simple Lang Ako (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @Randy Kryn: there are more search boxes added by User:Epiphyllumlover between "19:21, 5 July 2019" and "23:19, 5 July 2019". Not sure where discussion of this should happen. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He left a message on my talk page earlier, which I responded to, see User_talk:Epiphyllumlover#Search_boxes_on_templates if you want details. The main options are 1. no search box 2. search box within the template 3. Search box at top.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, and my apologies, I did miss your reply on your talk page. Have now answered it, with a suggestion of taking it to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for the input of a wider editor base. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]