Template talk:Popes

message: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Popes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually List of popes already has a subdivison going, you could work off that. Stevage 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks great, exactly what I meant in my original comment. Stevage 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Too big

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separation character 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I misunderstood him. My apologies. Aaрон Кинни (t) 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Show/hide 

message: 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)
replies: text: The column version has rendering problems. In one browser, three columns end up outside the template. Gimmetrow 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Completely unreadable/unusable 

message: Is there a reason he's listed twice? --Maxamegalon2000 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twice??... No! Thrice! The explaination is in the Pope Benedict IX article itself. Švitrigaila 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm okay, but why is Benedict X not listed? ;-) --213.46.1.82 01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hum, never mind. Apparently there's something called an "antipope". --213.46.1.82 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedict IX 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explaining away irregularities in numeral scheme 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree as well. Frietjes (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Color and image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion of improvement of the left column 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed template merge 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Read My Opinion Please ! 

message: FYI  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Search box on Templates, more