Talk:Pope John Paul II/Archive 4

message: The introduction states:  "He spoke out against communism, imperialism, materialism, Nazism, racism, oppression, secularism, feminism, poverty, and unrestrained capitalism. While he was on friendly terms with many industrialized heads of state, he reserved a special opprobrium for consumerism attributing it to hedonism."  Is there any reason why the second sentence should stand alone rather than be incorporated into the first (i.e. "He spoke out against communism, consumerism, hedonism, imperialism, materialism, Nazism, racism, oppression, secularism, feminism, poverty, and unrestrained capitalism.")? Edwardian 15:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You happened to land on the article when somebody was trying to strip that 2nd sentence of most its meaning. It's now restored and I think you can see it deserves its place. JPII really thought of this secular consumerism as one of the greatest threats to Western psychological/spiritual well being going forward, second only to unbelief itself. JDG 07:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on various issues

message: We seem to have 2 biographies now, plus a seperate page ? Andycjp
:Yes, there was a major duplication of sections of the article, and at least one section got lost. This would almost certainly be because of a software problem, and not a vandalism. I think it's all fixed now. I suspect this is happening more often in this article than in most, because of the large number of changes made and because the article is longer than our normally recommended maximum length.-gadfium 03:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: I think that each section should be short with a longer version in separate articles, the same way we do it with countries' articles, because this one is becomming way too long and with too many sections.  What do you think?Cjrs 79 17:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
:I would support this, however don't have time to participate actively to such a degree. --Eleassar777 20:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, I agree, but I personally would wait until the frequency of edits drops somewhere much below the current ~500 edits/week, especially given the section edit/page duplication bug. Niteowlneils 01:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with breaking up articles of this size, but I seem to be distinctly in the minority on this question. When a unified topic (like one guy's life) is sliced up I always get the feeling I may have missed something essential because perhaps I didn't click every single link. If it's all in one big article I know everything is right in front of me... I don't think we should worry about length until about 75k. Oh well if I have the energy maybe I'll try to kick off a definitive debate about this, with vote (unless it's been done?). JDG 04:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article too long

message: This is generally a fine article, but I wonder if the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, if left unbalanced, are the best way to represent JPII's overall approach to the world through his papacy. These paragraphs have long lists of the things opposed or criticized by JPII and no mention of any positive impulses or motivations. I suppose it is more difficult to express these in a standard expository way, as it is awkward to write something like "he was in favor of love between people and nations". But an attempt should be made... I would also include a section on his writings beyond the existing list of his publications. In particular, his activity as a philosopher and as a poet would merit notice quite apart from his involvement with the church (the publication list itself needs work-- for instance it gives the impression his first book of verse came out in 1994 while there was a worldwide printing in all major languages of his early poems well before 1980). JDG 16:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A concern about opening paragraphs 

message: Is there any reason why JPIIs official title, 'His Holiness' has been removed? DJ Clayworth 18:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that at all. I think it's usual to retain a title on death. George VI is formally known as His Late Majesty, and his queen Her Late Majesty. Where do you get the idea that a style ceases on death? It seems a strange idea to me, to respect someone when they're alive and then reverse that term of respect on death, jguk 09:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't forget about John Paul II Pope. ;) --Eleassar777 09:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't those be honorifics or titles rather than styles? No deceased monarchs/popes used to have them, but they all have Pope/Prince/whatever. There's a difference. Titanium Dragon 11:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Correction.  The process started, as declared by Pope Benedict XVI, and that is the reason why he is called Servant of God now.  (The Church used to give the title of Venerable when they started the process; now they don't.  It's a totally separate phase of canonization apart from being called Servant of God, these days.)  When a declaration of heroicity is promulgated (a legal document of the Church), then he will receive the title of Venerable.  After a few miracles attributed to him are made official, he will be beatified and receive the title of Blessed.  After more miracles are made official he will then be canonized.  It's all set in canon law.  --Gerald Farinas 04:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: His Holiness

message: Commons has some new free pictures of John Paul II. Wouldn't it be good to replace some of the fair use images here with some free ones from Commons? I know that fair use is ok at en:, but free pics should in my opinion be used where available. Ausir 08:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Do you think this image can be used here somewhere? Zscout370 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Ring of the Fisherman? Pmadrid 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Roman Catholic Church includes the Eastern Rite churches.  The Pope is Patriarch of the Latin Church, which with the Eastern Rite churches makes up the Roman Catholic Church. Pmadrid 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hey. Ought we to put the name in Latin as Ioannes Paulus P.P. II (or something like that)? That's how it is in his signature, right? Just checking, not sure so I'm not going to change it. --User:Jenmoa 04:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Name 

message: The article was 65K when I entered it. That is ludicrously large. Articles where possible should try to be below 32K, but certainly not double it. (Some browsers cannot enter articles over 32K. That is why a warning shows up on pages over 32K.) I've reduced it from 65K to 51K by moving chucks of sections to separate articles and leaving shorter summaries behind. I've also created a template at the bottom of all of the articles moved, and the main one, so people can move to each, as well as adding in Main article links at the start of the moved sections. But 51K is still way too big. Up to 20K is still going to have to be moved to make this article of manageable (and universal browser-friendly size). FearÉIREANN(talk) 23:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. The overall debate on article size is far from resolved. Many, like myself, believe longer articles are much better than chopped-up articles. All info should be in front of the reader. I don't want to worry about chasing down every last link to be informed on something. This is an Encyclopedia, not a video game in which one must find all the keys on all the levels. 32K is nothing. Enc. Brit. articles on major subjects are easily 90k, and we aim to be even more exhaustive... Worry about people with browsers that choke on 32k edit fields? It's like Nokia worrying about the frequency used by 1996 GE cordless phones that weighed 2 lbs. Come on, now. I haven't been deeply involved with this article, but I encourage anyone who has to put it back together. JDG 08:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is attempted it will simply be reverted on sight, as Wikipedia explicitly requests articles to be below 32K. All articles over that size are being broken up. Articles over 32K are inaccessible to many browser users, are problematic to those using dial-up modems (and many people on the net are still on dial-up) because they can freeze and force people shut their systems. They also are unworkable because the longer they are, the greater the likelihood that a number of people may try to edit it simultaneously and so have multiple edit conflicts. Where that happens, chunks of the article can become lost. Also a technical glitch means that sometimes if a save fails and a second one is done, the page saves two or more versions together. Where that happens the entire article has to be edited again to remove all duplicated text. The larger the article, the greater the problems involved in trying to restore the article, and the greater the danger whoever is trying to do that will then end up in an edit conflict. One article recently ended up trebbled, becoming 120K. It could not be rolled back for technical reasons so it had to have 80K manually removed. But even the duplicated text was not identically duplicated, as some bits had an old version, others had a new version. So each paragraph had to be compared to the two other versions and have the two older versions removed. It was a nightmare. So articles at 65K are not on. Any attempt to turn the article back into one tangled block will be reverted on sight and any user trying it will be reported for vandalism. FearÉIREANN(talk) 23:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this explicit request you mention (plz give link)? I'm ready to do major battle over this so that a clearcut policy emerges. Once there is a policy I will urge others to follow it, aside from following it myself. Until then this "revert on sight" stuff doesn't wash. I'll revert you back on sight. The quality and readability of the encyclopedia easily trump all the issues you mention. JDG 01:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of article 

message: I heard on NPR soon after his death that Pope John Paul II had refused kidney dialysis treatment prior to his death.  Did I hear/remember correctly, or did I mishear about his refusal to go to the hospital on March 31 for the fever?  
--zandperl 06:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusing treatment 

message: I've removed the Media Coverage section, after responding to a request on the FAC. Here are the links, in case anyone's interested. Flcelloguy | Give me a  note! | Desk  16:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Coverage