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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of living cardinals[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of living cardinals/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a comprehensive list of living cardinals of the Catholic Church, including current statistical information. I feel that it merits the FL distinction, containing useful content and meeting the required criteria. Any and all input welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ The merge proposal with College of Cardinals needs to be closed first; you should not nominate an article with any sort of tags. If this list is to be kept separate, the corresponding material must be removed from the article. While the list seems to fit in the main article fine and I prefer such consolidation, I vehemently oppose the current duplication of content if a separate page is preferred by the contributors. Otherwise why have it??? Furthermore, I would not want to promote a list that is primarily a transcluded template. Pick one page or the other to keep the source table and remove it and whatever other duplicated content from the other, which was suggested on the talk page. I will be glad to positively review this interesting topic when this issue is resolved. Reywas92^Talk 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While otherwise positive, I agree with the conclusion immediately above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: The merge proposal has now been closed; the pertinent content is now present only in the nominated article (List of living cardinals). Further comments welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Did the pope really "create five cardinals", or did he appoint or elevate them?

That's actually standard Vatican terminology – see for example here.

Etchegaray has not been the longest serving since 1979, he's served since 1979.

Thus clarified.

A bit more background info in the lead or list intro would be nice, like what the difference between the three orders is.

There are already wikilinks on the three orders to the relevant sections in the article on cardinals, which users may read if they choose; should we be reiterating content here?

Yes, it can be a very short summary but FLs should be able to stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I've added some additional background information. That said, I don't think the article should be overly verbose; links and the list itself should be sufficient for clarification. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There need not be a separate Template:Living cardinals, just put the whole table in the list so an editor doesn't have to attempt to get to another page.

Fair point; done.

"Sorting the list by order will sort by precedence, including within each order." -> Is it not sorted by precedence by default? This should be made clear. Anyway, why shouldn't it be sorted by name? That seems a bit more logical to me for the topic but it doesn't have to be if the section explains why precedence is important.

Clarified, through the word ‘official’ (cardinals are ordered in this manner in the Church, e.g. in papal conclaves)

The name column should be to the left of the pope; as the primary topic of the list it should go first, as the consistory is a subsequent fact of the person. (I think it should be the first column if name is to be the default sort, otherwise second is best if order is the default)

I'm inclined to disagree. Even though the ‘Order’ column carries all the necessary data to sort by precedence, it only displays the actual order itself (CB/CP/CD). Sorting by precedence is actually represented visually in the table by both the ‘Order’ and ‘Consistory/Pope’ columns together – in effect, sorting firstly by ‘Order’ and secondly by ‘Consistory/Pope’.

A number of cardinals have an abbreviation by their name (SDB, CMF, OMM, etc). The purpose/meaning of these should be in the lead or table section intro.

Done (those denote religious orders/institutes).

Most importantly, the table needs citations! I know it comes from the external links at the bottom, but that needs to be explicit with ref tags and all.

Done as suggested. I've only included one of the sources, though – it's the ‘main’ and most useful one.

A few of those are also marked as self-published - they can still be used but without the tag and cited correctly. Catholic-hierarchy looks pretty amateurish, maybe leave it out. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left the tags, as not all of them are cited. I'm keeping Catholic-Hierarchy anyway; it seems to be rather useful in any case.

@Reywas92: Many thanks for your constructive remarks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment; too many issues for me:

The lead is quite short for a list of this length, and includes bullet points. I would rather see it all in prose form with a greater summary of the information provided in the tables. Harrias ^talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the tables need row scopes to meet MOS:DTT
A few terms, like "sui iuris" are presented with little to no explanation.
The See also section is bloated, and includes articles already linked to in the article, which is a bit of a no no.
The referencing needs accessdates.
What makes GCatholic.org, upon which most of this list relies a reliable source? Harrias ^talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Responded to. Regarding GCatholic.org, even though it's self-published, it is a neutral and comprehensive source that documents the current state of the Church (see here). In addition, I've added a reference to an official Vatican webpage to the list. Further sources may be identified and added soon. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been stalled out for 1.5 months; @Harrias: does your oppose still stand? --Pres N 16:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose, as I can see significant work has been done on the article. Unfortunately, home-life places me in a situation where I am unable to commit further time to this right now to be able to re-review the nomination. Harrias ^talk 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

"Although they are themselves created in consistories by the pope," I would leave out the word "although" as it has a POV implication that there is something odd about the system.
"Therefore, any cardinals born on or after 10 January 1938 would be eligible to vote if the Apostolic See were to fall vacant today and are thus known as cardinal electors, whereas any cardinals born before that date would be ineligible to vote." I would delete. It duplicates the previous sentence.
"The most recent consistory for the creation of cardinals was held on 28 June 2017, when Pope Francis created five cardinals.[4] Lluís Martínez Sistach was the most recent cardinal to turn 80, on 29 April 2017, whereas Antonio Maria Vegliò will be the next to do so, on 3 February 2018. Bernard Francis Law was the most recent cardinal to die, on 20 December 2017, at the age of 86.[5]" This should have an "As of" date. I would add the youngest and oldest cardinals.
A link or explanation is needed for "consistory". (I see you link "consistories", but this does not help if you do a Ctrl-F on "consistory".)
The list section should have an "As of" date.
You say that there are 3 orders, cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, and then that Eastern Catholic patriarchs, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons are claseses of cardinal bishop. This does not make sense. I would suggest explaining the different classes and move the paragraph to the lead.
Order. I assume that this column is order of precedence, but this should be explained. Does precendence confer any rights or is it just their order of walking in procession?
This is a useful list but it still needs some work. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Done; reworded.

2. This gives an explanation of the term cardinal elector and also a threshold date on which the current determination of voting status is based. So, I would prefer to keep this sentence.

3. This paragraph was a continuation of the previous one, which was already prefaced by an ((As of)) template; the template would also reflect updates in this paragraph. I have merged both in this regard. There has also been consensus on the talk page that this sort of material be limited to a minimum, as the sortable table already can determine the oldest and the youngest cardinals.

4. Done.

5. I'm confused – do you mean as of when they were cardinals, as of assuming their roles (in the Office column) or something else? I would feel that such information may not be entirely relevant in this case and could be quite unnecessary.

I mean the whole list. Readers need to know how up to date it is. If it is "As of" 10 January, then a cardinal who dies on 11 January will still be listed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's already achieved by the ‘As of’ at the beginning of the third paragraph. It is updated after any change in the numbers of cardinals and of cardinal electors, also noted in that paragraph (see also no. 3 here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not specifically say in the third paragraph that the list itself is as of the same date. Some readers will go straight to the list, and they should not have to go back to search for the as of date in the lead, and then have to assume that the list is as of the same date. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I think it's reasonably safe to assume that the table is meant to be up to date – it is a list of living cardinals, after all; any changes (e.g. deaths, new appointments, turning 80) will be and have always been promptly incorporated into the list. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the date in the third paragraph could be construed into meaning anything else but the most current situation: the list is the main section; anything in the lead should obviously reflect it, no? The only solution to your problem may be to move the paragraph into the list section, though I'm not entirely keen on that. What do you think? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that it it is safe to assume that the table will always be kept up to date. You may retire or cease editing due to illness, and there may be periods when the table is not kept up to date, or someone updates the lead and fails to update the table. There needs to be a specific statement that the table is as of a date, and for the convenience of readers who go straight to the table, a single sentence "This table is as of 11 January 2018" immediately after "post-nominal" will tell them that they only need to check for changes after that date. The lead would not be changed. You will probably want to make the date in the lead the same, but that is not crucial. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Very well; done. Thanks once again for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6. The passage was meant to be read as i. ‘cardinal bishops who are Eastern Catholic patriarchs’, ii. ‘cardinal priests’ and iii. ‘cardinal deacons’. I have reworded the passage to clear ambiguity but am keeping it in the List section, as it gives the reader some idea on how precedence works, which is part of how the table is sorted.

I would like an explanation of the different classes. I see that some of the archbishops are cardinal priests, not cardinal bishops, but no archbishop is a cardinal deacon. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done as suggested. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7. Clarified and responded.

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your feedback; I look forward to your reply. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Further improvements done or commented on, as suggested; thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I've always found List headings to be plain and redundant, as it's obvious something like this is a list. How about titling it "Living cardinals", which is descriptive and to the point? ~~In the table headings, the second word of "Birth Age" shouldn't be capitalized, as that is not a proper noun that would normally be capitalized.~~ Important one here: All rows with colored cells should have a matching symbol per accessibility guidelines. The symbol should also appear in the table key, where the color is explained. All of your external links but the first one are tagged as self-published sources. Unless they're really vital for understanding of the topic, I'd suggest removing them. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Done as suggested. That's actually formatted on a separate line (as ‘Birth<br>Age’), as that column contains both the date of birth and, below it, the current age of the cardinal. Done as suggested. Removed; I have kept one that is particularly useful (especially for data regarding offices). @Giants2008: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 09:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, but it seems that my first comment wasn't understood as I intended. I didn't mean for you to change the article title; my comment was referring to the List heading before the table itself. No issue with the response to the second comment. Good job adding the symbols, but would it be possible to put them after the names instead of before? That would make them stand out more than they do now. I was almost ready to post a complaint about how the symbols weren't added before spotting where they were. As it's not being used as a source for anything, you could probably get away with removing that tag now, as it is meant for references. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Giants2008: Got you now. All comments resolved. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

I've always found List headings to be plain and redundant, as it's obvious something like this is a list. How about titling it "Living cardinals", which is descriptive and to the point?
~~In the table headings, the second word of "Birth Age" shouldn't be capitalized, as that is not a proper noun that would normally be capitalized.~~
Important one here: All rows with colored cells should have a matching symbol per accessibility guidelines. The symbol should also appear in the table key, where the color is explained.
All of your external links but the first one are tagged as self-published sources. Unless they're really vital for understanding of the topic, I'd suggest removing them. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done as suggested.
That's actually formatted on a separate line (as ‘Birth<br>Age’), as that column contains both the date of birth and, below it, the current age of the cardinal.
Done as suggested.
Removed; I have kept one that is particularly useful (especially for data regarding offices).

@Giants2008: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it seems that my first comment wasn't understood as I intended. I didn't mean for you to change the article title; my comment was referring to the List heading before the table itself.
No issue with the response to the second comment.
Good job adding the symbols, but would it be possible to put them after the names instead of before? That would make them stand out more than they do now. I was almost ready to post a complaint about how the symbols weren't added before spotting where they were.
As it's not being used as a source for anything, you could probably get away with removing that tag now, as it is meant for references. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Got you now. All comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns have all been adequately addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thank you for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

I'll give some input as well.

Is there any chance you could add pictures to the article? Maybe of the Popes the list mentions, like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis?
The office col doesn't need to be sortable
"Ref." → "Ref(s)" (multiple cardinals have more than one ref)
Is there any chance the list could be updated? It's been almost a month since it specifies ("As of 20 December 2017)

That's all I got. Great job with this! Hope it gets promoted soon. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a generic depiction of a cardinal's vestments; hopefully this is fine.
Done.
Done.
The ‘As of’ date gives the date of the last time there was a change to the numbers of the College of Cardinals. Since nothing has changed in the meantime, there isn't really anything to update now.

@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Ah I gotcha. Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: Thank you for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Lead needs referencing. Opening para makes many claims which are never revisited in the rest of the article, so they need sources. "since 1378 always" linking 1378 that way is Easter egg-like, so don't do it. " on 19 April 2005 " (etc) another easter egg. Instead of the cardinal uniform, why not an image of the oldest living cardinal, or something more ... human? The Living cardinals section introduction has no referencing at all, suggest more inline citations are added here. Do we need such a dark pink colour? I can barely read the text behind it, suggest a far more pastel shade is used. Birth age, we have a template for that don't we? If the lead into the table is supposed to be a key, make it so, and tell us that CB means cardinal bishop etc. Could include nationalities of most living cardinals in the lead. "Demographics of the College of Cardinals" first section has no references. When sorting in descending order "Total cardinals", I'm not clear why then "Cardinal electors" sorts the reverse order... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Addressed; included a source. Done. Also done. I would prefer to have a neutral image that would apply to all cardinals; I think that using an image of the vestments is a suitable choice for the article. References added. Changed to a lighter shade. If you mean ((Birth date and age)), yes. However, I don't think the format and the layout of the template is best for this table, as it currently stands. Why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] ((Birth date and age)) presents the data as, for example, "23 November 1927 (age 90)", instead of the current format used in the table, where the date and the age are presented on separate lines, which I would argue is a better choice for the article, whereas the template, as I see it, is mainly for use in infoboxes. Furthermore, the template embeds microformat metadata, which is probably neither suitable nor required here. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I'm sold on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Done. Done, in the Cardinals by country section. That first section is simply the collation of data found in the list table, so I don't believe it requires further references. I'm not entirely sure what you mean – the table (Cardinals by country) seems to sort perfectly fine for me. It sorts, I'm talking about the secondary sorting, of the electors column, which looks completely random. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] By default, it's arranged by alphabetical order of country, so this is retained in part when sorting by the other two columns. I presume that certain configurations may give the "Cardinal electors" column the semblance of being randomly sorted. As far as I can see, though, the current sorting of the table is how it's meant to be. Perhaps you could clarify how exactly you sorted the table to end up with your configuration? RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Well normally you'd sort by one and then sort by the secondary column using the same criteria, so you get the most cardinals, followed by the most electors when the cardinals are tied. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: According to WP:SORT, "sorting based on a primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. key can be done by sorting the least-significant key first". Thus, your scenario can be achieved by sorting "Cardinal electors" (the secondary key) in descending order, then followed by "Total cardinals" (the primary key) in descending order. Under this rule, the table sorts as it should. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that works. How our readers are supposed to know that, I know not. I tend to make all tables sort logically on their behalf, like Olympic medal tables do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: I think that it isn't necessarily a difficult rule for readers to grasp: it feels rather logical to me. In addition, there are merits to allow each column to sort independently of the other and not to incorporate the secondary column sorting into the primary one; so, I would probably still choose to keep it as is. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Concerns addressed or commented on. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 04:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Replies responded to. RAVENPVFF \| talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead needs referencing. Opening para makes many claims which are never revisited in the rest of the article, so they need sources.
"since 1378 always" linking 1378 that way is Easter egg-like, so don't do it.
" on 19 April 2005 " (etc) another easter egg.
Instead of the cardinal uniform, why not an image of the oldest living cardinal, or something more ... human?
The Living cardinals section introduction has no referencing at all, suggest more inline citations are added here.
Do we need such a dark pink colour? I can barely read the text behind it, suggest a far more pastel shade is used.
Birth age, we have a template for that don't we?
If the lead into the table is supposed to be a key, make it so, and tell us that CB means cardinal bishop etc.
Could include nationalities of most living cardinals in the lead.
"Demographics of the College of Cardinals" first section has no references.
When sorting in descending order "Total cardinals", I'm not clear why then "Cardinal electors" sorts the reverse order...

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed; included a source.
Done.
Also done.
I would prefer to have a neutral image that would apply to all cardinals; I think that using an image of the vestments is a suitable choice for the article.
References added.
Changed to a lighter shade.
If you mean ((Birth date and age)), yes. However, I don't think the format and the layout of the template is best for this table, as it currently stands.
Why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
((Birth date and age)) presents the data as, for example, "23 November 1927 (age 90)", instead of the current format used in the table, where the date and the age are presented on separate lines, which I would argue is a better choice for the article, whereas the template, as I see it, is mainly for use in infoboxes. Furthermore, the template embeds microformat metadata, which is probably neither suitable nor required here. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm sold on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done, in the Cardinals by country section.
That first section is simply the collation of data found in the list table, so I don't believe it requires further references.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean – the table (Cardinals by country) seems to sort perfectly fine for me.
It sorts, I'm talking about the secondary sorting, of the electors column, which looks completely random. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By default, it's arranged by alphabetical order of country, so this is retained in part when sorting by the other two columns. I presume that certain configurations may give the "Cardinal electors" column the semblance of being randomly sorted. As far as I can see, though, the current sorting of the table is how it's meant to be. Perhaps you could clarify how exactly you sorted the table to end up with your configuration? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well normally you'd sort by one and then sort by the secondary column using the same criteria, so you get the most cardinals, followed by the most electors when the cardinals are tied. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: According to WP:SORT, "sorting based on a primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. key can be done by sorting the least-significant key first". Thus, your scenario can be achieved by sorting "Cardinal electors" (the secondary key) in descending order, then followed by "Total cardinals" (the primary key) in descending order. Under this rule, the table sorts as it should. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works. How our readers are supposed to know that, I know not. I tend to make all tables sort logically on their behalf, like Olympic medal tables do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I think that it isn't necessarily a difficult rule for readers to grasp: it feels rather logical to me. In addition, there are merits to allow each column to sort independently of the other and not to incorporate the secondary column sorting into the primary one; so, I would probably still choose to keep it as is. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Concerns addressed or commented on. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Replies responded to. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --Pres N 18:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.