Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Potential Solutions)

message: As a working title format above, titles like e.g. 
: Pope Stephen (VII or VIII) 
and
: Pope Stephen (unconsecrated)
have the appeal of conforming to the en: WP convention for Dab'g suffixes: what precedes the parenthesis would be a suitable title for the article that bears it, but for the competing topics, and what lies between the parentheses suffices to distinguish the topic covered from the other competing topics. The order of the Roman numerals (new scheme first, pre-'61 after) is a subtle factor: it does not so much imply that the new scheme is the more used (as it probably is) as it avoids the vague discomfort of having the less used presented first.  The title 
: Pope Stephen (unconsecrated)
is not (in light of this scheme conforming to our predominant Dab'g approach) so much an assertion that he was a pope as a recognition that he's likely to be sought among those who can be called "Pope Stephen".
The proposal  
: Pope Stephen VII (VIII) 
(etc.) would work reasonably well, and achieves the same kind of comfort of having the presumably more used version first. The format apparently corresponds to some scholarly usage, but would probably be more mystifying to those unfamiliar with it than the one above that conforms to the en: WP Dab'g guidelines.
I note that the use of vital stats for Dab'n is discouraged.
I dislike both
: Ephemeral Pope Stephen
(which is not to the point, since this person is treated much differently from Pope John Paul I, and the term is far-fetched rather than common English usage) and
: Pope-elect Stephen
(which is contrary to the common usage in which "-elect" is of course overwhelmingly applied to people whose installation is still in the future, and who don't die: my first thought, i expect, would be 
: Huh? How could Benedict die and his replacement be chosen before i heard about it?
) but i think any of these would work adequately.
--Jerzy•t 07:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope-Stephen Bio Title options 

message: Sir,
Since the 10th century the number of a pope is a part of his name. So, a formulation like Stephen (IX or X) is only an abbreviation of Stephen IX or Stephen X. Then I wonder myself : Does it exist on Wikipedia one exemple of an article with two possible variants in its title? I made some researches. I've found only one exemple in this page. But it was just a proposition, and it was never implemented. The proposed title Wladyslaw II/V of Poland, Jogaila of Lithuania was replaced by the far simpler Władysław II Jagiełło. I think there can be only one name accepted in the title of an article. Variants are for the article's text, not for the title. Maybe I mistake, but show me then a counterexample.
About the dab in the article itself, I have a good exemple.
Until 1958, Antipope John XXIII was most frequently considered an antipope, but some scholars called him a pope. His immediate predecessor was Antipope Alexander V. The next legitimate pope Alexander chose to be called Pope Alexander VI, not V, and, because of that, a lot of scholars thought this John XXIII did count in the list of popes. During the 1958 conclave, newspapers published a list of possible names. Some of them (for example Le Monde) said John XXIV. But the new pope chose to be Pope John XXIII.
Now, what will happend if you're looking for "Pope John XXIII"? You'll find only the page about the pope who reigned from 1958 to 1963, with a dab line :
:This article deals with the 20th-century pope. For the 14th-century antipope, see Antipope John XXIII.
There is no dab page saying:
*Pope John XXIII can refer to a pope who reignbed from 1958 to 1963.
*Pope John XXIII was the name given before 1958 to Antipope John XXIII.
To conclude, I think the solution you propose is really uncommon on Wikipedia, and the solution I propose is common.
Švitrigaila 12:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've launched this discussion again here, hoping to attract other users. Maybe I should have began by this page, but I hadn't thought of it at first. Don't forget to write your opinion. Švitrigaila 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undetaild refutation of Jerzy's solution