Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the August and October 1978 papal conclaves/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was successful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 07:57:10 6 May 2019 (UTC) [1].

Cardinal electors for the August and October 1978 papal conclaves[edit]

Featured list candidates/Cardinal electors for the August and October 1978 papal conclaves/archive1

Nominator(s): — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something slightly different than my previous two nominations – one list for two conclaves only two months apart (the John Paul conclaves) and the most recent ones before the advent of the information age. The style and referencing is naturally a bit dissimilar to the other lists. Comments welcome. [PS: Due to personal commitments, I probably won't be nominating any more lists after this one for the time being.] — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z

Comments from Lirim.Z

Romano Pontifici eligendo Give a translation in () behind the term.
who took the papal name John Paul II I'm not quite sure how the naming of popes works, but shouldn't it be "who was appointed the name John Paul II"?
a gigantic part of the article relies on one book by Lentz. It's mentioned 101 times. Are there no other sources usable?

*–'''[[User:Lirim.Z|Lirim]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|Talk]]''' 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Romano Pontifici eligendo is the title (incipit) of a document, not a term. Per convention, these aren't typically translated, except in their corresponding articles.
Popes do choose their own papal names, so no.
Lentz is generally a reliable secondary source for 20th-century cardinals. While there are certainly other sources out there, I found this one to be accessible and adequate for the purposes of the list. The AAS, a primary source, does provide lists of cardinal electors for each conclave (refs 4 and 7), making Lentz by no means the only (or even the main) source on which the list depends, but these do not pertain to the individual cardinals.

@Lirim.Z: See my replies above. Thanks for your comments. — '''[[User:Ravenpuff|RAVENPVFF]]''' · ''[[User talk:Ravenpuff|talk]]'' · 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to mention that Puerto Rico is a Insular area. Just say Puerto Rico or US.
West Germany should just be Germany. Officialy it was and still is Germany.
Maurice Michael Otunga article says he was born 31 January. Is this wrong? These sources claim the same: [2] [3] [4]. This needs to be checked.
align="left" is old syntax, it should be style="text-align:left"
All tables should have scopes.
I don't see a reason for the * in the legend. The coloured background is enough
Cardinal electors by continent table: The percentages do not add up to 100 %. Both are 99,1 %.

:: —'''[[User:Lirim.Z|Lirim]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|Talk]]''' 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's still useful to point out that Puerto Rico is part of the US, while denoting that it's not a core part of the country. Simply indicating Puerto Rico would not fit the column header of "Country".
In 1978, there were indeed two Germanys, which are referred to on Wikipedia as West Germany and East Germany (see also List of sovereign states in 1978); this list follows that convention, regardless of the fact that West Germany was the predecessor to the present-day Germany.
Lentz simply states "January 1923" for when Otunga was born, which is confirmed by the Vatican's biography. This may have been converted to 31 January by mistake (perhaps by following the table here). In any case, his actual birth date is probably unknown.
Syntax fixed.
Scopes added (seem to have only been missing from the continent total rows).
See MOS:COLOUR. This is essential for blind or colour-blind users, who have to rely on text-based means to make use of information otherwise conveyed only by colour.
Fixed.

@Lirim.Z: — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion about the political situation of Germany in the Cold War, even though it should be discussed since the West/East is formally wrong, but different topic.....

Support—I don't see any other issues.—Lirim | Talk 16:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

As I have commented previously, I think you should say that the election is by secret ballot. This is far more important than some of the details you do include, such as precedence.
Having a separate section for sources is standard Wikipedia practice. In my view it is better than putting them at the top of the references section as you have done.
Support. Neither of these criticisms are deal breakers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. Regarding your comments, after some thought, I've added a brief note about the election process into the lead. The sources have also been moved into a separate sub-section underneath the main references, per MOS:NOTES. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I got nothing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.