Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Areas of Consensus)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[I have freely reformatted signed contribs, as to indentation and paragraphing only. Where i've removed part of a single contribution, i've retained the formal signature but marked the point of deletion with "[omission]" --- without otherwise interrupting the text if the omission is within a paragraph, and as a separate paragraph if one or more paragraphs are omitted. I have removed the formal sig in any other cases, and used strikethru of original material and bolding of its replacement, where it seemed worth giving my considered interpretation of the author's intent. --Jerzy•t 04:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[This refactored portion of the discussion is intended to include undisputed conclusions about what WP (specifically en:) should do about

  • the titles of the bio articles on the ten people who were elected to the office of pope and chose the papal name "Stephen", and
  • the contents of the ten pages "Pope Stephen n", where n is any of the Roman numerals from I to X.

By that i mean to include conclusions about the actions we should take, and those about the principles that we agree should take us from facts to actions. And by the same wording i also mean to exclude conclusions about what the facts are, even though this is an important matter. I am suggesting that the facts we can agree on are many, and worth collecting, in at least two categories: facts that bear on Relative Prevalence of the Two Numberings, and the objective history of the numbering and naming schemes, which i don't expect we will have any disputes about, and which IMO are helpful in informing our reasoning about the relative-prevalence question.
--Jerzy•t 04:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]


(not necessarily embodied in specific paragraphs:)

  • Pope Stephen I needs no changes that are relevant here.
  • The 1961 numbering is not yet adequately reflected in en:.
  • Part of the remedy is renaming all of the articles (whose titles in some cases now are, but any case were, in 2006 Jan.) Pope Stephen II through Pope Stephen X.
[A restatement of Sv's original plan, still not the object of consensus, moved from here to Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Potential Solutions). --Jerzy•t 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • There is no need for "II" to appear in the title of the article on the unconsecrated Pope Stephen. -- Self-paraphrase of Jerzy•t 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A phrase reading roughly "sometimes called Pope Stephen II, especially from the 16th century until 1961" should be part of the lead paragraph of the article on the unconsecrated Pope Stephen. -- Self-paraphrase of Jerzy•t 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Stephen/Naming_(Areas_of_Consensus)&oldid=44306910"