Talk:2005 papal conclave

message: Can we try to fix some of the formatting here? I'm seeing Wiki-code all over the place and it kinda ruins the article. --Saint-Paddy 15:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad formatting 

message: Should we have a table outlining the # of the vote, the time and day, and the color of the smoke? I think it would be much easier for people who have come here to see how the voting has gone so far.
ex.
1st Vote: 18:00 UTC April 18th
Black Smoke - No Pope Elected
--207.65.99.223 18:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold! Add it. --Oldak Quill 21:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a good idea where it is (in the place properly reserved for the total number of ballots).Better to just keep updating the day-by-day section.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 23:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting Table 

message: There are a couple of differences between this conclave and previos ones that I think are worthy of a mention, but I can't see where to insert them into the current structure:
* the thing about cardinals at previous conclaves sleeping on humble cots, and the 6'6" Basil Cardinal Hume complaining bitterly he couldn't sleep in a teeny bed, and now sleeping in the nice rooms JP2 built for the purpose.  And I believe they get shipped from there back to the chapel in a bus.
* the thing about the Sistine Chapel being fitted with cellphone jamming equipment (CNN).
-- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences in this conclave

message: "For the first time in centuries during a conclave Michelangelo's Last Judgement and ceiling appeared in their full glory." This is an opinion, not shared by the many people who think the ceiling has been vandalised by its so-called restoration and now looks like a Disney cartoon. I won't remove the sentence but someone might like to have another go at it. Adam 23:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty hard to argue with since this is how it looked to M-angelo from the start, no? JDG 03:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sistine Chapel

message: There was a news commentator at the vatican who said he was given an indicative range of the votes by someone (assume it is either one of the cardinals who voted or someone close to them). Apparently this was done by them guessing a number and the person waving them to go up higher.  Anyway it was much more than 77.  Then now I read an aritcle where either the reporter is making it up or someone broke their oath. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1582550_1,00.html
It says "In the first vote on Monday, Ratzinger received about 40 votes, while Carlo Maria Martini, an Italian, got more than 30. Others including Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, Claudio Hummes of Brazil, and Dionigi Tettamanzi, another Italian, each received a handful." "Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio’s share of the vote increased in the two ballots held the next morning. Ratzinger reportedly won more than 50, with Bergoglio on 40." "In the ballot on Tuesday afternoon, however, Ratzinger obtained far more than the required two-thirds majority of 77 — although “under 100 votes”, according to another cardinal who broke his vow of silence over the conclave."  Doesn't solve the problem of how many ballots there were but wonder if something published on the times online is sufficient to be added to the wiki page.
:Very interesting, but statements like these would need all sorts of verification to even be mentioned responsibly in the article. The Times Online piece just rolls this stuff out, not even commenting on requests for anonymity or offering other witnesses to any of these statements. It's too purely hearsay at the moment for our article, unless you want to put it into a section called "Unsubstantiated Hearsay". JDG 22:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Linnah. Your links show that this info wasn't just cooked up by the Times Online alone. It could still be a case of jump journalism, but I think you have enough to incorporate it into the article, with appropriate qualifiers. JDG 03:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes Cast 

message: "Tens of thousands of people, waiting in St Peter's Square for the result, were quiet at the result and the reaction was very different from the first day."  What was the reaction the first day?  Doesn't seem to be present in the article. - user:defunkt 23:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When it first came out, it wasn't very dark so people thought there was a Pope elected already and started rejoicing. Same goes for the morning of the second day, except this time actually made worse by the fact that the bell rang for noon I think. -- KTC 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per eyewitness account of a priest interviewed on PBS, the first bells to ring after the smoke signal in question were the standard time-of-day bells, which are not the same as the "big bells" that did eventually ring to signify election. This happened (the ringing of the big bells, that is) no earlier than ten minutes after the smoke, even though officials had promised these signals would be "almost simultaneous". It's pretty safe to say the Vatican will be looking to further refine its performance next time...As for Defunkt's question above, the crowd in the Square was basically murmuring during the smoke, due to uncertainty. You would be wrong to attribute this to any sort of popular coolness to Ratzinger because 1) they didn't know at that point that Ratzinger was the choice, and 2) the crowd response when the new pope did appear at the balcony was quite deafening. JDG 05:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Dat's pretty funny. They should consider starting a Swiss Mime and Mime Response adjunct to the Swiss Knights. You have Italians doing these things and this is what you get. Guy was probably checking out babes with binoculars in the Square. JDG 14:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction? 

message: Assuming that Angelo Cardinal Sodano (then vice-dean of the College of Cardinals), performed the duty of asking Cardinal/Pope-elect Ratzinger (dean of the College of Cardinals), if he'd accepted his election as Pope (Cardinal-Dean Ratzinger as Pope-elect couldn't perform this duty). I wunder, should this be mention in the Article? I've got a similar question in Talk: Pope Benedict XVI. GoodDay 02:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Angelo Sodano

message: I've moved the speculation article to Talk:Papal conclave, 2005/Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005. Most of the content has been moved into this or other articles. Perhaps some more of the information could be useful to editors wishing to work on this topic, but very little (if any) of the remaining information is suitable to be moved directly into this article without appropriate sourcing and rewriting. Savidan 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation article mostly dealt with 

message: Even after several tries the link http://conclaaf.blogspot.com/ doesn't work. Maybe removing it should be considered. 80.130.88.40 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link broken? 

message: first this article is utter rubbish and needs a megaimprovement with soruces (foreign lagunages (ie- Finnish) are fine too)
Secondly, propose a page move to be consistent tih the country ie Holy See general election, 2005 or Holy See presidential election, 2005 or Holy See papal election, 2005(Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Papal conclave, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403035135/http://slate.msn.com/id/2089815/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2089815/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified