Talk:2025 conclave/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2025 conclave. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Limit of 120
I was alerted by a friend to this analysis of the limit of 120: Is there really a limit on the number of cardinals in a conclave?
Essentially the writer argues that the limit of 120 has no actual meaning. -101090ABC (talk)
- I had the same inquiry. Which sources are editors preferring? I think this Pillar article’s viewpoint should be included. 207.96.47.51 (talk)
- Agree, this should be in the article, very important context 2A02:8012:281F:0:E087:69DE:B1C7:DA94 (talk)
Editors keep adding content stating that the 120-limit has been exceeded many times. While it is true that from time to time during the last 50 years, there have been more than 120 cardinals younger than 80, the 20225 conclave is the the first time since the 120-limit was introduced in 1975, that there are more than 120 eligible cardinals as of the date of papal vacancy. The two 1978 conclaves both had only 111 eligible cardinals, while the 2005 and 2013 conclaves both had only 117 eligible cardinals. This 2025 conclave is the first time that that College of Cardinals will need to determine if the 120-limit must be applied (and if so, how to select from the 135) or if they will instead allow all 135 eligible cardinals to participate.Rillian (talk)
- @Rillian And the analysis linked makes the argument that all cardinals have a right to vote in a conclave, not just 120. -101090ABC (talk)
Let's just wait until we get word on the exact number. There's no hurry. GoodDay (talk)
"If elected...the oldest pope"
WRT this note, there are older Cardinals in the running, outside of that list. If they are chosen then this note is irrelevant, even misleading. Should it be retained? doktorb wordsdeeds
- I agree with @Ravenpuff. The Papabile section is WP:Speculation. Wait until after the conclave similar to 2013 papal conclave207.96.47.51 (talk)
- Look, until a pope is elected, it’s ALL speculation and analysis. We can finish the editing then.
Flag use needs fixing (or removal)
Per MOS:FLAG, specifically this section, The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details.
Please adjust the flag usage in this article, or remove the flags. – Jonesey95 (talk)
- I'd convert the list into a table so the flags can be placed next to the nations' names doktorb wordsdeeds
Counterespionage and other formalities
A few technical questions. Sixty cardinals had an organizational meeting 22 April for Francis' funeral. Ultimately ~350 cardinal electors shall be getting to know each other—literally— and they'll be much logistics and prayer. Formally, when do those 350 become the electoral body? At the mass beforehand, or what? We have several days after all. Secondly, which Italian security service or services sweep Domus Santae Marthae & the Sistine Chapel for bugs? (Must be a plum of an assignment.) And last, but not least... When is the chimney installed? kencf0618 (talk)
- To clarify, there are only 135 cardinal-electors. The remaining cardinals, who will participate in the general congregations surrounding the conclave, will not vote due to their age. The moment of them "becoming the electoral body" as you say likely is when all the electors along with support staff take the oath of secrecy before the Camerlengo.
- In the 2013 conclave, the Sistine Chapel was closed on 5 March (7 days after Benedict's resignation, before the date for conclave was even set). The installation of a Faraday Cage in the area of the chapel was reported on 10 March. On 7 March, the installed chimney was demonstrated to reporters. (All of this is pulled from the 2013 Conclave article, and there are direct citations for the above.
- As to the broader security sweep, I'm not sure who does it. The Vatican does have some of the capacities of a modern security apparatus, so that could be done using primarily internal resources. However, Italian national bureaus do assist in other security areas.
- Maximilian775 (talk)
- Thanks. I was a bit rushed, but a dumb mistake nonetheless. This might be a distinction without a difference, but either the cardinal franchise is always extant, the number varying with ordinations, age, and death, or there's a formal ecclesiastical psephological moment with a Latin phrase attached. And it makes sense that more than one security agency would be involved. kencf0618 (talk)
- You may be interested in the fact that the Sistine Chapel is closed from April 28 onward, per a notice on the Vatican Museum's website. That probably marks the beginning of the sweep you're interested in. I've made note of it in "pre-conclave events". Maximilian775 (talk)
- You may be interested in the fact that the Sistine Chapel is closed from April 28 onward, per a notice on the Vatican Museum's website. That probably marks the beginning of the sweep you're interested in. I've made note of it in "pre-conclave events". Maximilian775 (talk)
- Thanks. I was a bit rushed, but a dumb mistake nonetheless. This might be a distinction without a difference, but either the cardinal franchise is always extant, the number varying with ordinations, age, and death, or there's a formal ecclesiastical psephological moment with a Latin phrase attached. And it makes sense that more than one security agency would be involved. kencf0618 (talk)
pre-conclave events
User:Kencf0618, please stop reversing my edit in "pre-conclave events". "school of cardinals" is not proper phrasing for the College of Cardinals, and there is no need to continually insert the parenthetical "(and cardinal-electors)" following the mention of cardinals, it's redudant and repetitive. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Yeah, I was just thinking school vis-à-vis college. Good catch. And I see that the distinction between the College and the Conclave Cardinals (to coin a phrase) has settled into the text, so the issue is moot. Regards. kencf0618 (talk)
Eligible electors?
Re (91 years) and Sandri (81) are not electors. The observation "among eligbile electors" is wrong 2804:D41:F852:3E00:8DA3:E7F2:7295:A5F (talk)
Cardinal Vinko Puljić's role
The article currently states that Puljić's role as senior cardinal-priest will be taken over by the next in line. As I understand it, the protopriest delivers the prayer at the inauguration of the new pope. But surely that is AFTER conclave? So I'm not sure what his role is *during* conclave? 101090ABC (talk)
- Puljić will attend the conclave and therefore will serve as the cardinal protopriest. Governor Sheng (talk)
The infobox is WRONG
I dont know how to edit infobox, but somenone could take a look. It states "Key officials (among eligible electors)", but both Dean Re and Subdean Sandri are over 80 and are NOT electors. We should remove the line "among electors" 2804:D41:F852:3E00:8DA3:E7F2:7295:A5F (talk)
- Same situation in the 2013 papal conclave, but the dean & vice dean are added to that infobox, too. GoodDay (talk)
Cardinal protopriest
@Governor Sheng: Who should we include as the cardinal protopriest in the infobox, Kitbunchu or Puljić? Kitbunchu is the protopriest overall, but he is already over 80 years old. Thus, Puljić is technically the protopriest among the cardinal electors. However, both Re and Sandri (the dean and vice-dean) are also over 80 years old. Therefore, I think Kitbunchu also deserves to be included as the incumbent protopriest. RyanW1995 (talk)
- Identifying the cardinals with specific roles before and during the conclave only makes sense if we specify what the role entails so it's clear if the role is performed within the conclave or not. Rutsq (talk)
- You are absolutely right. I checked the Wiki articles for the conclaves of 1978 (two conclaves), 2005 and 2013, when there was already an age limit for cardinals to vote, instituted by Saint Paul VI. In all of them, the protopriests (Vasconcellos Mota, Sou-hwan, Arns) were not electors and were mentioned in the infobox for their functions. 2804:D41:F852:3E00:8DA3:E7F2:7295:A5F (talk)
- You are absolutely right. I checked the Wiki articles for the conclaves of 1978 (two conclaves), 2005 and 2013, when there was already an age limit for cardinals to vote, instituted by Saint Paul VI. In all of them, the protopriests (Vasconcellos Mota, Sou-hwan, Arns) were not electors and were mentioned in the infobox for their functions. 2804:D41:F852:3E00:8DA3:E7F2:7295:A5F (talk)
- The colleagues have answered for me. :) Governor Sheng (talk)
Unusual font at the top of this page
Is anyone else noticing that the title of this talk page, when viewed on desktop, has a different font than usual? Here's a comparison - the 2013 one is using the normal font but the 2025 one is using something different that I haven't seen on any other page. What's going on? – numbermaniac
- I'm viewing it from my desktop and to me the font is the same as it always was. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
- I'm seeing it too. Very strange! TheSavageNorwegian
- Font is normal for me on Safari for desktop. Maximilian775 (talk)
- I'd venture a guess it's from a tool you and I have in common numbermaniac. Are you on the vector legacy skin? TheSavageNorwegian
- I am, yes. I guess that explains why others aren't seeing it - if I view this page logged out, where it uses the new Wikipedia default skin, then the font is normal. – numbermaniac
- I am, yes. I guess that explains why others aren't seeing it - if I view this page logged out, where it uses the new Wikipedia default skin, then the font is normal. – numbermaniac
- Font is normal for me on Safari for desktop. Maximilian775 (talk)
Inclusion of Magic: The Gathering Image
Kencf0618 has included an image featuring papabili in a Magic: The Gathering card format. This strikes me as unencyclopedic, does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter" (per WP:IMGCONTENT), seems to downplay the seriousness of the election by comparing it to a fantasy card game, and will likely face a copyright challenge as I doubt all the individual elements that make up the image are actually free for use.
Therefore, I seek consensus to Remove the image. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- This a presentation of information from The Cardinal Report (none other than Edward Pentin is involved) in an unusual format which Jeff Nascimento (@jnascim.info) created using Artificer and posted to Bluesky. It speaks to the interest across several media in the papal conclave. If we cannot use it in whole, we can certainly use it in part. Besengu, for one. Too, chess (and poker!) is often used as a metaphor in editorial cartoons; the same is being done here. kencf0618 (talk)
- Totally inappropriate. Clashes with encyclopedic tone. TarkusABtalk/contrib
- I agree with User:Darth Stabro that it's inappropriate for the papabile section. Maybe if there is a "social media reaction" subsection it can be included there, but its inclusion in papabile is unencyclopedic. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Remove per OP and TarkusAB. The tone is not encyclopedic, to say the least. -Ad Orientem (talk)
- Definitely not appropriate for this article. Also doesn't seem to have received substantial media coverage that would warrant using it to illustrate social media content regarding the event. Gust Justice (talk)
- We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's voice to call the cardinals "creatures". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) - Remove per OP. Gommeh (t/c)
- Don't remove/ bring back chart.
- We should bring back the chart not the cards. The cards are just unprofessional. But the chart is very helpful and encyclopedic. Everything is to some degree speculative at this point, given the historical Fat pope, thin pope trend. And these were all sourced.
- Specfically I am referring to Darth Stabro'a Revision as of 17:35, 29 April 2025 and similar modifications to that section.
- And at the very least there should be a chart for the most likely contenders. Historyguy1138 (talk)
Hors de la révision. kencf0618 (talk)
Too many images?
I feel that this article is amassing too many images. None of the articles about the previous conclaves have this many images. This article, so far, already has images of Cardinal Becciu (who won't participate in the conclave), the New Synod Hall (one of the venues for the general congregations), the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the location of the Sistine Chapel (the location of the conclave) and the Domus Sanctae Marthae (where the cardinals would stay), and a Vatican Gendarmerie. The articles about the previous conclaves generally only have images of the newly-elected pope giving his first Urbi et Orbi blessing from St. Peter's Basilica. RyanW1995 (talk)
Polymarket
This is strictly to discuss the technical details of one possible solution. Download the Polymarket data from the the death of Pope Francis to "Habeus papam!" Gin up an interactive grid of six papabili, UTC 00:00 to UTC 00:00, day by day, using a slider. kencf0618 (talk)
- Any sort of chart like this would be giving undue weight to Polymarket, which is just one of many betting sites, which is just one of many ways of guessing Papabili. The fact that people are making bets is noteworthy and should be included, but there's no need to have documented precise percentages leading up to the conclave. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- I did not mention percentages. And this discussion is only about the technicalities of an ordinal ranking which changes over time. kencf0618 (talk)
Removal of Becciu Photo
User:Kencf0618, is there a reason why you removed the Becciu photo I added? That subsection doesn't have any visual media in it, and I thought the picture of him would be a good addition, considering the media coverage he's gotten thus far. Maximilian775 (talk)
- I'm inclined to agree with User:RyanW1995 that the article is getting to have too many images. We don't need photos of every location or major person. Per WP:IMGCONTENT, images should "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter", and I don't think some of these do. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- @Darth Stabro and Maximilian775: I just couldn't see any compelling reasons why an image of Cardinal Becciu could be more important in this article compared to, say, an image of the newly-elected pope himself giving his first Urbi et Orbi blessing from St. Peter's Basilica or, perhaps, an image of people gathering in St. Peter's Square, waiting for the result of the conclave. RyanW1995 (talk)
- I guess I'm taking a more "both-and" approach, and adding appropriate images to subsections as they develop -- Certainly a picture of whomever is elected will take center stage. I added a picture of Becciu to the subsection concerning him in line with WP:IMGCONTENT, "..usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." // MOS:IMG "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context" Becciu is described in the article, and is a significant and relevant person for this conclave, so I added his picture. Maximilian775 (talk)
- To elaborate: While JPII and Carlo Acutis are mentioned in the article, of course one shouldn't add pictures of them to their respective sections. Becciu (Or Farrel, or any other major conclave player) are different -- they, in my opinion, fill the criteria I cited above for WP:IMGCONTENT and MOS:IMG, and neither of those policies set out a "too many images for an article" limit. Maximilian775 (talk)
- To elaborate: While JPII and Carlo Acutis are mentioned in the article, of course one shouldn't add pictures of them to their respective sections. Becciu (Or Farrel, or any other major conclave player) are different -- they, in my opinion, fill the criteria I cited above for WP:IMGCONTENT and MOS:IMG, and neither of those policies set out a "too many images for an article" limit. Maximilian775 (talk)
- I guess I'm taking a more "both-and" approach, and adding appropriate images to subsections as they develop -- Certainly a picture of whomever is elected will take center stage. I added a picture of Becciu to the subsection concerning him in line with WP:IMGCONTENT, "..usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." // MOS:IMG "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context" Becciu is described in the article, and is a significant and relevant person for this conclave, so I added his picture. Maximilian775 (talk)
- A possible compromise: We could put the image of Cardinal Becciu in the list of cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave instead. RyanW1995 (talk)
- @Darth Stabro and Maximilian775: I just couldn't see any compelling reasons why an image of Cardinal Becciu could be more important in this article compared to, say, an image of the newly-elected pope himself giving his first Urbi et Orbi blessing from St. Peter's Basilica or, perhaps, an image of people gathering in St. Peter's Square, waiting for the result of the conclave. RyanW1995 (talk)
Second Ill Cardinal-Elector
According to Vatican News, there is not one but two cardinals not attending to health. I assume one of these is Llovera, but is it known who the other is? Knowing Vatican News, there is a chance they're just repeating old talking points about Puljiç and are incorrect? Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk)
Cardinal Robert Sarah
He should be added to the list because many conservative consider him as strong candidat. Miloradovan (talk)
- Pony up the citations, then. kencf0618 (talk)
- Please don't add him unless you can find 6+ good citations for his papabile status. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Please don't add him unless you can find 6+ good citations for his papabile status. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Many conservatives want his as a Pope. That doesn't mean he has an ice cube's chance in hell. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- I've found quite a few sources that mention his name. But most do not promote him as a strong candidate. He seems to be listed almost in passing, as a dark horse candidate. The few that do treat him as a serious contender are weak in terms of their status as RS. Plenty of hopeful discussion on blogs and very conservative/traditionalist websites.[1] But IMO not enough discussion from serious sources to put him on the list. FWIW, I was the one who originally added his name. Given the length of the list and the growing consensus to cull the weaker names, I agree he doesn't really belong on it. -Ad Orientem (talk)
- I've found quite a few sources that mention his name. But most do not promote him as a strong candidate. He seems to be listed almost in passing, as a dark horse candidate. The few that do treat him as a serious contender are weak in terms of their status as RS. Plenty of hopeful discussion on blogs and very conservative/traditionalist websites.[1] But IMO not enough discussion from serious sources to put him on the list. FWIW, I was the one who originally added his name. Given the length of the list and the growing consensus to cull the weaker names, I agree he doesn't really belong on it. -Ad Orientem (talk)
Bring back the Papabili section/Chart removed by Darth Stabro or create a new page
I just want to make sure did Darth Stabro remove the Papabili section without consulting the talk page? 'a Revision as of 17:35, 29 April 2025
I 100% agree with to him get rid of the ridiculous Magic: The Gathering card format as that just seems unprofessional. And I would be willing to compromise to some degree on removing certain sections, but getting rid of the whole thing and saying that the consensus was to get rid of it seems a bit presumptuous especially without consulting people, or at least only consulting them on the trading cards. Upon looking at this first glance it seems at least 4 editors wanted it.
I suggest we bring it back. Darth Strabro suggested it was too long, and I believe that it should be as inclusive as possible. Or perhaps alternatively a compromise could be made in that an article entitled (Papabili of the 2025 conclave) could be create which would include the chart. And then we can just hyperlink it to this article.
What say you all? Historyguy1138 (talk)
- The consensus from the discussion above (#RfC: Papabili sections and lists in papal conclave articles) seemed to be removal or greatly curtailing the list, and having them in a prose paragraph. None of the other conclave articles that have happened in Wikipedia's existence have contained such an unwieldy list, which is incredibly out of place. As stated by many in the RFC above, they should be in prose and should be severely limited in who is added. There is no need for an article that will not be useful in three weeks after the conclave has finished. WP:NOTNEWS. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- The Consensus seemed to me removing the magic cards not inherently the whole papabili section. And there are several in other sections who mention wanting to modify the section, which implies they did not want to get rid of it.
- "None of the other conclave articles that have happened in Wikipedia's existence have contained such an unwieldy list, which is incredibly out of place." How so? The papabili article itself has several lists, albeit none of them uniform, but that only says there is a lack of uniformity in charting the papabali not that there is any one way to write such a list, unless you wish to set a new precedent for future conclave coverage on Wikipedia.
- "There is no need for an article that will not be useful in three weeks after the conclave has finished." Then we should bring it back here, better to have half a load of bread than none at all. Historyguy1138 (talk)
- Wikipedia is not news, not gossip and is not a collection of indiscriminate information. A massive table gives undue weight and space to what is honestly not terribly important. After all, enter a conclave a pope, leave a cardinal. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- If there is a desire to add such data, wouldn't it find a better home on the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page? The old citations could be re-integrated as another column, and the number of citations / media mentions of a cardinal as papabile could be ranked as well. I attempted to integrate something like this there a few edits ago but just don't have the expertise. Maximilian775 (talk)
- I would be 100% ok with that. But that also makes Darth Stabro’s overreach in his interpretation of the Magic card decision all the more disconcerting as we would have had an easier time moving the section if dialogue could have been pursued and a compromise reached ahead of time.
- I am sure there’s a joke in here somewhere about the overreach of the Sith. X) Historyguy1138 (talk)
- "we would have had an easier time moving the section if dialogue could have been pursued and a compromise reached ahead of time" -- the prior revision of the article is here. The wikitext can be easily pulled out and added to the cardinal-electors article. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Oooooh wow thanks Maximilian775 , very very helpful. I will add this either later tonight or sometime tomorrow. (￣^￣ )ゞ Historyguy1138 (talk)
- Ofc! This revision f the cardinal-electors page also has the format I was thinking of that might achieve the goal you have in mind. Feel free to take what works and discard what doesn't. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Much appreciated Maximilian775 (: Historyguy1138 (talk)
- Much appreciated Maximilian775 (: Historyguy1138 (talk)
- Ofc! This revision f the cardinal-electors page also has the format I was thinking of that might achieve the goal you have in mind. Feel free to take what works and discard what doesn't. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Oooooh wow thanks Maximilian775 , very very helpful. I will add this either later tonight or sometime tomorrow. (￣^￣ )ゞ Historyguy1138 (talk)
- "we would have had an easier time moving the section if dialogue could have been pursued and a compromise reached ahead of time" -- the prior revision of the article is here. The wikitext can be easily pulled out and added to the cardinal-electors article. Maximilian775 (talk)
- “ Wikipedia is not news, not gossip and is not a collection of indiscriminate information.” Agreed on all accounts, but that is not what we are talking about.
- ” A massive table gives undue weight and space to what is honestly not terribly important.” You don’t think Papabali are important? Fair enough, but the concept itself is relevant for Wikipedia as it is a widely discussed concept/phenomenon and saying you do not find Papabali important reveals your own bias.
- For that matter how was the information taken as a whole indiscriminate. I agree 100% that people should take a look at the sources and determine relevancy. But many of the sources were 100% indeed relevance. And no one to my knowledge established a key for relevancy for the Papabali which may be different even among vaticanologists. So people are just talking past each other on this talk page.
- Moreover, removing some of the Papabali instead of others seems arbitrary as how do we unless we are vationolgists. How do we establish criteria for who is Papabali or who is not? For example some of the sources were from vaticanologists while others were from news sites that may be more or less accurate.
- So it seems to me you if an understanding you correctly, you have a bias with the inclusion of Papabali as a whole, it’s relevance to a conclave, and even if we were to include a list you have a bias in that you have a somewhat undefined criteria for how to include the Papabali.
- So the questions would be these then. Is the concept of Papabali relevant at all on Wikipedia and if not should we delete the Papabali article in your opinion? Is the concept of Papabali relevant to the 2025 conclave at all and if so to what degree? If it is relevant to the 2025 article why not include a list of the Papabali, or more specifically why do you specifically find a list/chart irrelevant in the including of the Papabli? What is the source criteria for including someone on the list of pababali if we were to have one? How would you define the criteria for the Papabali? Historyguy1138 (talk)
- First of all, going out of your way to accuse me of "bias" (towards what?) multiple times and "disconcerting" behavior is not WP:AGF.
- Secondly, the article itself says that predictions are "pure speculation". History, and the papabile article itself, shows that papabile are not necessarily elected more often than non-papabile. Devoting a massive table to them is absolutely granting undue to the importance of the concept. They are important, but not *that* important. The 2013 papal conclave lists seven cardinals who were considered papabile in prose, not an unwieldy table. This was also the case prior to Francis's election (see Special:Diff/543803922). That is what we should be aiming for. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- "First of all, going out of your way to accuse me of "bias" (towards what?) multiple times and "disconcerting" behavior is not WP:AGF."
- Not all.
- Assuming good faith implies "assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful."
- I do not assume any malice in your bias. I see passion and a desire to make wikipedia a better place. Your 15 years of experience and list of articles that you created or improved on the Catholic Eucharist and Catholic cemeteries prove that you clearly love wikipedia in my opinion and I can only assume good faith.
- 10th National Eucharistic Congress (United States)
- Calvary Cemetery (St. Paul, Minnesota)
- Ironically, I wonder if perhaps in your assertion that I was assuming bad faith on your part, that you were in fact assuming that I assumed you have bad faith, which would be assuming bad faith. (But being that your assuming my faith in you was malicious, you would have had a correct response in calling out my assuming bad faith in you. However, being as that was not the case I forgive you.)
- Assuming Bad faith in bad faith inception. X)
- "First of all, going out of your way to accuse me of "bias" (towards what?)"
- And yes your own words do indicate a bias. Not a malicious bias, but a bias none the less.
- As I have written "you have a bias with the inclusion of Papabali as a whole, it’s relevance to a conclave, and even if we were to include a list you have a bias in that you have a somewhat undefined criteria for how to include the Papabali." In fact your last response proves my point in some instances.
- ""disconcerting"" I do find overreach disconcerting yes. Not malicious, but disconcerting.
- Secondly, the article itself says that predictions are "pure speculation".
- True, but all Papabali are "pure speculation" At least we can have sources that explain why they are speculative.
- "History, and the papabile article itself, shows that papabile are not necessarily elected more often than non-papabile." That may be true, but that does not necessarily mean that the Papabali of any given conclave should not be included.
- "Devoting a massive table to them is absolutely granting undue to the importance of the concept." That is a historiographic opinion and possibly a religious one given that according to your user page you are a Roman Catholic. Which is 100% fine in both cases your historiographic opinion and Roman or Latin Rite Catholicsm of mixed Québécois ancestry this likely gives you an incite that other Wikipedians simply do not possess.
- I will give you my historiographic opinion. I am a completionism and I believe that generally speaking that so long as a source may be deemed credible we should include it and (in this case) if necessary and helpful put it on a list of all relevant people who may be Papabali. It is still relevant for historical reasons even if nothing else
- For example Doug Burgum was one of the most unlikely people to have won the 2024 United States presidential election, and yet we still include him in relevant wikipedia articles related to the subject.
- "Devoting a massive table to them is absolutely granting undue to the importance of the concept"
- I think at the most there was only 20 Papabali. The argument could be made that some of them could be weeded out, but that is hardly a massive table. And even if it was at its lowest which I believe was 7, the chart was useful for fast glance information.
- "They are important, but not *that* important." According to what criteria on notability?
- "The 2013 papal conclave lists seven cardinals who were considered papabile in prose, not an unwieldy table. This was also the case prior to Francis's election (see Special:Diff/543803922). That is what we should be aiming for."
- Actually it lists 13. Again 13 compared to 20 or even 30 I would not consider unwieldy. Now if you are arguing that a formal criteria should be discussed. Sure I would agree with you. According to wiki guidelines there actually should be criteria as to why lists are set up the way they are. This helps both editors to make decisions on whether or not they should add stuff to the list (or in this case lists) and helps the readers know the scope of the article.
- Historyguy1138 (talk)
- When you begin to say 10% of the conclave are papabile when papabili are only elected half the time, it's simply ridiculous to devote that much space and effort to them. It's an interesting concept that deserved some coverage but not coverage that takes up a quarter of the total surface area of the article with a massive table. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- "When you begin to say 10% of the conclave are papabile when papabili are only elected half the time, it's simply ridiculous to devote that much space and effort to them. It's an interesting concept that deserved some coverage but not coverage that takes up a quarter of the total surface area of the article with a massive table."
- There are way bigger lists than this on other articles and our article to my knowledge is not is not at capacity. And if it is? Split it up into subtopics and include a link. If you do not find that specific chart helpful personally, then do not click on the link. I and a group of other editors once split a list article into 4 and I believe the article was better off for it, as we were able to actually include more information in some ways, while not making any one article too overwhelming.
- Again I do not think such a chart is so big for this article and we could actually include it, but as Maximilian775 has suggested at this point it seems he and I are going to work on moving the chart to the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. Historyguy1138 (talk)
- When you begin to say 10% of the conclave are papabile when papabili are only elected half the time, it's simply ridiculous to devote that much space and effort to them. It's an interesting concept that deserved some coverage but not coverage that takes up a quarter of the total surface area of the article with a massive table. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- If there is a desire to add such data, wouldn't it find a better home on the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page? The old citations could be re-integrated as another column, and the number of citations / media mentions of a cardinal as papabile could be ranked as well. I attempted to integrate something like this there a few edits ago but just don't have the expertise. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Wikipedia is not news, not gossip and is not a collection of indiscriminate information. A massive table gives undue weight and space to what is honestly not terribly important. After all, enter a conclave a pope, leave a cardinal. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
"Unwieldy" and "massive" are shibboleths. I'm surprised that ours wasn't just copied to the Papabile article, which has... A one paragraph list for 2013, and... (checks notes) one table for Edward Pentin's 2020 book. No one in 2013 has more than two citations. 12 papaili in the first list, 19 in the second. Such was the state of play, of media coverage. We, we have to deal with papabili inflation. So what‽ WP:IDONTLIKEIT? That. Is. The. Reality.
In the immortal words of Nell Gwynn, "Fight about something else." kencf0618 (talk)
- If a future conclave has 37 cardinals listed as papabili with 15 different citations each, does that mean we should have a table with a quarter of the electors? No. It's simply not useful or what Wikipedia is for. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- "If a future conclave has 37 cardinals listed as papabili with 15 different citations each, does that mean we should have a table with a quarter of the electors? No. It's simply not useful or what Wikipedia is for."
- Well that is not that case necessarily here. But even if it is yes. If a specific article needs to be made just on that then so be it. It is useful to some people, or else why have the citations.
- My good Dark Lord simply saying that something is not useful does not mean it is so. Citations at least provide substance to suggest that it is useful to someone, and if it is useful it should be included to some capacity. Even if we do not personally find it useful. Historyguy1138 (talk)
- WP:CrystalBall & mensaphobia aside (Latin for "table"), there has simply never been such a volatile conclave with such a deep bench in modern times; we have an embarrassment of citations. Would a graphic of six papabili suffice? kencf0618 (talk)
- The question is raised, then, as it was here, how to assemble such a list without violating WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. Unless a media body does this for us, there's no way to do it, unless we were to give priority treatment to a specific outlet like The Pillar and disregard the NYT, WaPo, eetc. I suppose a graphic could be made based off the betting subsection, but others may dislike that. Maximilian775 (talk)
- For the WP:SYNTH it says. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
- The chart was just a collection of Cardinals considered Papabali by those sources. The goal was to illustrate that there are at least some who are considered Papabali some sources might debate the likelihood or unlikelihood of the degree of being Papabali, but again that was not the scope of the charts, only to list them as Papabali. If people wished to look up the degree that anyone Cardinal was Papabali they could click on the sources to do so. Historyguy1138 (talk)
- Sure, but unless there were more rigorous standards for inclusion in the chart, the high of 23 included papabile would certainly rise. Given the sheer scope of meda coverage concerning the conclave, a dedicated editor likely could find a RS supporting the candidacy of basically any of the 135 cardinal-electors, and if everyone is a papabile then no one is. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Fair.
- Specifically the guideline says "Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."
- A criteria for inclusion should be made and peacefully debated.
- Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Always include criteria Historyguy1138 (talk)
- I've proposed one here in the ongoing RfC regarding this. Would be open to being given feedback as a comment on that proposal in that section, just to keep everything together. Maximilian775 (talk)
- The link takes me back the beginning of the page. If you give me a brief quote of it, I can always just command/control f your quote to find the original. (: Historyguy1138 (talk)
- The link takes me back the beginning of the page. If you give me a brief quote of it, I can always just command/control f your quote to find the original. (: Historyguy1138 (talk)
- I've proposed one here in the ongoing RfC regarding this. Would be open to being given feedback as a comment on that proposal in that section, just to keep everything together. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Sure, but unless there were more rigorous standards for inclusion in the chart, the high of 23 included papabile would certainly rise. Given the sheer scope of meda coverage concerning the conclave, a dedicated editor likely could find a RS supporting the candidacy of basically any of the 135 cardinal-electors, and if everyone is a papabile then no one is. Maximilian775 (talk)
- I also don't see why a graphic is needed, per Wiki policy on images. It doesn't provide any greater degree of understanding than prose. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- "I also don't see why a graphic is needed, per Wiki policy on images." Which one? Accompany flags with country names?
- "It doesn't provide any greater degree of understanding than prose. " I mean that's kind of like asking why have excel sheets or graphs if you can just give people the information. Because charts, graphs, etc. present information in a way that is succinct, easy to follow, friendly, and efficient. (: Historyguy1138 (talk)
- Embarrassment of citations how? As long as they are sourced and accounting for the uniqueness of the very concept of the Papabali, and the Fat pope, thin pope trend I see no reason to be afraid of multiple Papabali or sources. I am also not sure if this such a volatile conclave with such a deep bench in modern times. John Paul II's conclave was pretty dramatic especially after the death of John Paul I. I think it is more a matter of the rise of the internet and media that is the case here. Historyguy1138 (talk)
- The question is raised, then, as it was here, how to assemble such a list without violating WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. Unless a media body does this for us, there's no way to do it, unless we were to give priority treatment to a specific outlet like The Pillar and disregard the NYT, WaPo, eetc. I suppose a graphic could be made based off the betting subsection, but others may dislike that. Maximilian775 (talk)
- WP:CrystalBall & mensaphobia aside (Latin for "table"), there has simply never been such a volatile conclave with such a deep bench in modern times; we have an embarrassment of citations. Would a graphic of six papabili suffice? kencf0618 (talk)
I think that we ought to take a step back and consider whether we should even be curating this sort of list, rather than how we could do it. Just because it could be useful to someone doesn't mean that it's necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia (WP:USEFUL). Lots of news sources are listing papabili because their readers want to read about it, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper; this sort of list is most relevant only at this point in time, and we should write with a focus on what would be relevant years into the future (WP:20YEARTEST). Fundamentally, we need to avoid doing original research and turning this into a popularity contest judged on our own terms – that's not the point of an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk ·
- I support the restoration of some kind of list of names of the more prominent papabili. Removing content that has become the subject of extremely high levels of discussion within the press/media as well as likely something our readers would be looking for when coming here, was ill-considered. That said, the ref-bombing that exists as of this comment, looks like overkill. I think it sufficient to list two or three and append the remainder somewhere on the talk page in case there are challenges. -Ad Orientem (talk)
- Right now there are six listed in prose in the papabili section, though admittedly more in the context of betting. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Right now there are six listed in prose in the papabili section, though admittedly more in the context of betting. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- @Ravenpuff: Please vote in the #RfC: Papabili sections and lists in papal conclave articles where you can actually decide on this exact topic. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
- This as well. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
I see that the article 2025 Papal conclave papabili has been created with the table of papabili. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk
... that any baptized Catholic man may be elected pope in the ongoing conclave?- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Furhat (robot)
- Source: Almond, Kyle; O'Key, Sean (7 March 2013). "The Papal Conclave". CNN. Archived from the original on 13 March 2013. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
Surtsicna (talk)
- Not a review as I'm involved in the article, but I added a source. It would be nice to run this in the next week or so if possible. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Also not a review, but strictly speaking isn't this true for every papal conclave, like, ever? Juxlos (talk)
- What?! There's another conclave already? Don't we have enough papadam? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥
- Need some new hooks proposed here for obvious reasons. @Surtsicna: ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
This is a review on the content side and a proposition of new hooks on the hook side.
- It was new enough with sufficient QPQ provided at the time of nomination.
- There are two uncited passages,
He conducted his first public and private audiences during the week before his inauguration, which included the press, the diplomatic corps, Eastern Churches, and heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia.
and a Reactions item that leads to a listing article. I'd be fine with the latter. The former needs attention (and I understand this is a new part of the article comparatively). - Proposing two new hooks and pinging the nominator and previous contributors @SashiRolls, Darth Stabro, Juxlos, Bremps, and Surtsicna: to comment on them: Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c)
- ALT1: ... that the 2025 papal conclave was the largest ever?
- ALT2: ... that between the time that white smoke was seen at the 2025 papal conclave and the announcement of a new pope, the crowd in St. Peter's Square swelled from 40,000 to approximately 150,000 people?
- @Surtsicna: Please address the uncited passages. When you've done that, I'll review the hooks.--Launchballer
- Sorted. Thanks, Launchballer. Surtsicna (talk)
- That's fine. The hooks aren't. ALT1 fails WP:DYKHOOK, which demands that "Superlative hooks such as first/biggest/most [...] require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail; a throwaway comment in an article about the subject is not sufficient." and ALT2 puts the claim in wikivoice, while the article attributes to the Italian law enforcement.--Launchballer
- That's fine. The hooks aren't. ALT1 fails WP:DYKHOOK, which demands that "Superlative hooks such as first/biggest/most [...] require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail; a throwaway comment in an article about the subject is not sufficient." and ALT2 puts the claim in wikivoice, while the article attributes to the Italian law enforcement.--Launchballer
- Sorted. Thanks, Launchballer. Surtsicna (talk)
- @Surtsicna: Please address the uncited passages. When you've done that, I'll review the hooks.--Launchballer
Frankly, I do not like the alt hooks anyway. I would prefer:
ALT3: ... that although Robert Prevost was considered too young–and too American–to become pope, he was elected anyway?
ALT4: ... an American was elected pope because African and Asian cardinals reportedly refused to vote for the Italian frontrunner?
But before we dwell further into this, I should note that the article may have been rendered ineligible by its appearance in the news section after the nomination. Surtsicna (talk)
- That's a good point. Surprised @Sammi Brie: didn't pick up on that. Oh well, I'm closing this.--Launchballer
Faction
Can we add a faction (Conservative-Moderate) section in the Papabili section box.Muaza Husni (talk)
- No. The Papabili box is overcrowded already and probably should be removed. Adding so-called factions would be a bit much and also inappropriate because while some outlets attempt to put cardinals on a left/right spectrum, others rightly point out that this is silly. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Good God, no. Just take a look at Political compass and take your pick... If and when reputable pundits gin up something like this, we could cite it, but we're not going to WP:OR. kencf0618 (talk)
Is Giovanni Angelo Becciu a potential elector?
As far as I understand, Becciu resigned of all privileges and as cardinal. However this article calls him Cardinal. Depending on the point of view there are 135 or 136 potential electors but since sources (and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_electors_in_the_2025_papal_conclave) cite the number 135, I think it is justified to change 136 to 135 accordingly here. Kafka Is An Ok Writer (talk)
- He will not be an elector, which brings the number from 136 to 135 before the two cardinals who will not be attending due to health, leaving the presumed final number of voting cardinals at 133. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
Papal Conclave official international endorsement section
Hello, I previously added a section detailing various nations' endorsement of numerous different candidates within this conclave, or discouraging cardinals to vote for a certain candidate.
I think this section is pretty important as it shows national interests outside and within the conclave, that could even be DECISIVE in the election of a new Pope (for example Macron telling the French cardinals to oppose Sarah as a candidate).
It shows the geopolitical importance of the conclave, and saying that "such a section is not needed" is underestimating the importance of international backing of papal candidates, such as in the case of Andorra and France, but even simple statements such as the ones of Donald J. Trump.
So I kindly ask for permission to add once again the section, as its importance should not be underestimated.VitoxxMass (talk)
- Strong oppose. It doesn't pass the WP:10YEARTEST, and the endorsement of other political figures doesn't matter in the slightest to a papal election. Perhaps some brief comment can be made in a prose section about the more notable remarks, but we certainly don't need a list. It is excommunicable for cardinals to take into account the influence of a civil leader in the election, so perhaps Trump and Macron's comments can be touched on briefly in that context. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Strong oppose. What was posted was a grab bag of offhand opinions and not always reliable sources, full of "whilst not" qualifications. Insubstantial at best. Consider how FSSPX "reports" what Erdo is rumored to have said about what Macron said, but can't verify that rumor. Best line: Plusieurs sources se sont fait l’écho de certains faits qui se seraient produits – ou pas., that is, Several sources have reported certain facts that may have occurred – or not. Rutsq (talk)
- Move. Like with other extraneous items for the conclave, these endorsements could be catologued at the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page, as there is already a precedent for that WRT the papabile list. They shouldn't be on this page, though. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Move. Like with other extraneous items for the conclave, these endorsements could be catologued at the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page, as there is already a precedent for that WRT the papabile list. They shouldn't be on this page, though. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Strong oppose. What was posted was a grab bag of offhand opinions and not always reliable sources, full of "whilst not" qualifications. Insubstantial at best. Consider how FSSPX "reports" what Erdo is rumored to have said about what Macron said, but can't verify that rumor. Best line: Plusieurs sources se sont fait l’écho de certains faits qui se seraient produits – ou pas., that is, Several sources have reported certain facts that may have occurred – or not. Rutsq (talk)
Why the sudden renaming?
@Darth Stabro and Maximilian775: Why this article was suddenly renamed by Cornishrom20 to "2025 Papal conclave"? This only makes the title inconsistent with the previous conclaves. RyanW1995 (talk)
- Someone thinks it's the Catholic World Cup! Rutsq (talk)
- Per WP:SENTENCECASE, I think the capitalization is not needed. RyanW1995 (talk)
- While personally I agree with the stylistic choice, precedence set by the titling of prior conclave articles is clear. This should be reverted. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Already listed in this page to revert the move. RyanW1995 (talk)
- Already listed in this page to revert the move. RyanW1995 (talk)
- While personally I agree with the stylistic choice, precedence set by the titling of prior conclave articles is clear. This should be reverted. Maximilian775 (talk)
Please make proper, full citations
There are a lot of citations being added that don't include the author's names. Be sure to check the article for the author and fill in that info rather than rely on the autofill. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Isn't this was ReFill does? kencf0618 (talk)
- ReFill and other tools rely on site metadata being correct and accessible, which is not always the case. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- ReFill and other tools rely on site metadata being correct and accessible, which is not always the case. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
I think such a level of detail is likely unnecessary; Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and so we do not need to aggregate summaries of each of the congregations. One solid paragraph showing overall discussion topics and trends should suffice, I would think. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- FWIW, there is some precedent. While poorly-cited, the 2013 article does have a similar day-by-day breakdown. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk)
“2025 Papal conclave” or “2025 papal conclave”?
Ok so I moved the page earlier today to include capital letters in a title, because all previous articles for past Papal conclaves feature capital letters, whereas this one doesn’t. It got reverted back to the lowercase title. Apparently this “disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems.”
Someone please explain this, because I don’t see how adding capital letters to a title that needs capital letters due to reference to titles such as “Pope”(or “pope” if you’re one of them Wikipedia admins) should be spelt with lowercase letters. Cornishrom20 (talk)
- Which previous articles? Every article in Category:Papal conclaves is lowercase. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Wait what? That’s informal though. Pope is a title? Titles are spelt with capital letters. Cornishrom20 (talk)
- Titles are spelt in lowercase when referring generically, and are only capital when specifically with that person, e.g. Pope Francis was the pope from 2013 to 2025. cf. MOS:PEOPLETITLES ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Ah ok I get you. My apologies, I genuinely thought whoever named this article had forgot capital letters. Cornishrom20 (talk)
- No worries! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- No worries! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Ah ok I get you. My apologies, I genuinely thought whoever named this article had forgot capital letters. Cornishrom20 (talk)
- Titles are spelt in lowercase when referring generically, and are only capital when specifically with that person, e.g. Pope Francis was the pope from 2013 to 2025. cf. MOS:PEOPLETITLES ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- Wait what? That’s informal though. Pope is a title? Titles are spelt with capital letters. Cornishrom20 (talk)
Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili?
The one of the fundamental problems with listing papabili, whether in a table or in prose, is determining who should be listed. Some things to consider:
- There will always be speculation and judgement on the part of editors on who should be included, especially in a media environment where everyone's favorite candidate probably is going to have some number of sources claiming them.
- Simply having a number of sources required means that as we get closer, more and more outlets are going to talk about more candidates.
- So, are we either continually increasing the required sources, or allowing a quarter of the college of cardinals to be listed as papabile?
- Seven sources is already becoming WP:REFCLUTTER. Could papabili to be included be decided upon on the talk page, and then included with more minimal citations on the page itself?
And, if the list produced would be culled a month or a year after the election as being too much, then that list isn't the one that should be in the article in the first place. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in the 2013 papal conclave article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
- There are no secondary sources after 12 years? Shocking. kencf0618 (talk)
- I don't think anybody on Wikipedia has been looking for secondary sources in the 12 years since primary sources were treated as perfectly fine for referencing the list of media papabili, judging by both the section in the 2013 papal conclave and the newly created 2025 papal conclave papabili article. Ideally one would want references talking about the media's papabile speculation similar to how Thomas Reese's 1998 book Inside the Vatican is used in the August 1978 papal conclave article to source the claims of Aloísio Lorscheider and Albino Luciani thinking that the other cardinal is a likely candidate for being the next pope. Find some well-researched and well-documented reliable book, academic research paper, article, etc on the 2013 papal conclave that makes a claim about the media believing cardinal X being papabili and cite it in the article. Media papabile lists themselves are insufficient since papabili are a matter of media speculation according to the 2013 papal conclave article itself. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
- Just to make it clear: from how I understand it, the point of papabili sections and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. The section's primary topic is about the media's opinions about the cardinals, not necessarily about the cardinals themselves. If this isn't the case, then the clause "Since the set of papabili is a matter of speculation from the press" in the papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article should be modified or removed. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
- If, as you say, the point of papabile lists is to
document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates
, then I suggest that is the wrong focus. This article is primarily about the conclave (definitely notable), not about the media's opinions on it. The media's job is to report and speculate, and their reporting is probably not in and of itself notable. I should say that I wouldn't object to including a short section on who the media considered to be frontrunners, but this should only be done through a secondary/tertiary source like Reese's book for the 1978 conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk ·
- If, as you say, the point of papabile lists is to
- I don't think anybody on Wikipedia has been looking for secondary sources in the 12 years since primary sources were treated as perfectly fine for referencing the list of media papabili, judging by both the section in the 2013 papal conclave and the newly created 2025 papal conclave papabili article. Ideally one would want references talking about the media's papabile speculation similar to how Thomas Reese's 1998 book Inside the Vatican is used in the August 1978 papal conclave article to source the claims of Aloísio Lorscheider and Albino Luciani thinking that the other cardinal is a likely candidate for being the next pope. Find some well-researched and well-documented reliable book, academic research paper, article, etc on the 2013 papal conclave that makes a claim about the media believing cardinal X being papabili and cite it in the article. Media papabile lists themselves are insufficient since papabili are a matter of media speculation according to the 2013 papal conclave article itself. 73.8.239.215 (talk)
- There are no secondary sources after 12 years? Shocking. kencf0618 (talk)
First vote failed
Please update this. Exrecenrt! (talk)
The conclave will soon begin
@Darth Stabro and Maximilian775: The 2025 conclave will begin soon with the Mass Pro Eligendo Pontifice. I think we could now update this article to provide a live coverage of the event as it unfolds. Of course, we should maintain the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia, not turning it into news coverage. RyanW1995 (talk)
@Bacon Noodles, Foghe, and HueMan1: The total number of European cardinal electors is 52 (not 53), 17 Italians and 35 non-Italians. RyanW1995 (talk)
The 2025 conclave begins.
yall guys
the 2025 conclave has started in the vatican
u know what to do. 2A02:85F:E8C5:4200:64:7670:4AF1:AA81 (talk)
- Yeah, put day one in the PAST tense 24.193.54.193 (talk)
- What? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs
- when this conclave's over, when there's a new pope, add the name of an pope-elect so that people would know
- thank you 2A02:85F:E848:E500:7DBB:DF38:F89:DFD (talk)
Media
This is the first conclave in the age of social media (or at least at a vastly larger scale than 2013), so I think a media section should be included as articles about it are starting to appear. We are already seeing social media campaigns for certain cardinals (mostly Tagle [2][3], but also Sarah [4][5]), including a Wahl-O-Mat version ([6], sources [7] [8]). — jonas (talk)
Prediction markets? Odds?
Hi everyone, I almost never edit pages that are both controversial and rapidly updated, so I wanted to raise this on the talk page first. At present, the Papabili section does not name any leading contenders (“favourites”), which is common practice for other election‐related pages (see other discussion). It also omits any mention of prediction markets on the conclave, even though such markets often provide insight into who is perceived to be in front.
I would like to propose adding the following:
1. Market favourites – a short paragraph (with reliable secondary sources) summarising which cardinals are currently trading as favourites across major prediction or betting markets. Since the beginning of the year, for example, Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle have been leading in the markets.
2. Betting and prediction markets – a brief paragraph noting that betting on papal elections is commonplace, and is again this time, with a link to the relevant article: Gambling on papal conclaves.
I hope there is consensus for including one or both of these additions. IsengrimProudmead (talk)
- I see no reason why this couldn't be added into the "papabili" section, so long as it's a limited amout -- say, the top 5 cardinals -- and integrated into the text as prose, and not a list or chart. Maximilian775 (talk)
Synod Halls Old & New
Assemblée du Synode des évêques sur la famille en 2014.jpg & Conclave_Map.svg need to be labeled properly: Paul VI Audience Hall (Italian: Aula Paolo VI) & Paul II Audience Hall. The former was built in 1971, so I doubt it's the "New Synod Hall".
https://communications.amecea.org/index.php/2023/10/06/vatican-synod-what-is-unique-to-the-lay-out-of-synod-hall/ is a good start. kencf0618 (talk)
- These are two separate spaces. Paul VI audience hall is much larger than the New Synod Hall shown in Vatican press releases, that matches this photo (which is of the 2014 Synod on the Family.) Maximilian775 (talk)
- Many thanks. I've been clicking around for citations, and I needed the context. So John Paul II Audience Hall is the New Synod Hall, right? Makes sense given the space constraints. kencf0618 (talk)
- I've never seen the "JPII audience hall" label before. Then again I didn't know of New Synod Hall before seeing it mentioned in Vatican News coverage. I just know that the two pictures seem to be of the same space, and the Vatican press office calls said space "New Synod Hall". Maximilian775 (talk)
- Mystery solved, thanks to a librarian. (I should read more closely.) As per Paul VI Audience Hall, "A smaller meeting hall, known as Synod Hall (Aula del Sinodo), is located in the building as well. This hall sits at the east end on a second floor." Which is... incorrect. Paul VI Audience Hall is the large, modern building; the much smaller New Synod Hall is located in the Palace of the Holy Office, a much older building, immediately to its east. I've made the necessary corrections –sorry for the confusion! kencf0618 (talk)
- Do you have a source for this assertion? Maximilian775 (talk)
- Following up on this! Would love to use this in an addition to the article. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Following up on this! Would love to use this in an addition to the article. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Do you have a source for this assertion? Maximilian775 (talk)
- Mystery solved, thanks to a librarian. (I should read more closely.) As per Paul VI Audience Hall, "A smaller meeting hall, known as Synod Hall (Aula del Sinodo), is located in the building as well. This hall sits at the east end on a second floor." Which is... incorrect. Paul VI Audience Hall is the large, modern building; the much smaller New Synod Hall is located in the Palace of the Holy Office, a much older building, immediately to its east. I've made the necessary corrections –sorry for the confusion! kencf0618 (talk)
- I've never seen the "JPII audience hall" label before. Then again I didn't know of New Synod Hall before seeing it mentioned in Vatican News coverage. I just know that the two pictures seem to be of the same space, and the Vatican press office calls said space "New Synod Hall". Maximilian775 (talk)
- Many thanks. I've been clicking around for citations, and I needed the context. So John Paul II Audience Hall is the New Synod Hall, right? Makes sense given the space constraints. kencf0618 (talk)
Paul VI Audience Hall
It plays a role in the conclave, specifically in the general congregations.[1][2][3][4] kencf0618 (talk)
- Hm, that's confusing. Almost all the Vatican News daily summaries cited in Daily summary only mention New Synod Hall. I stand corrected and have reversed my edits to the contrary. Apologies! Thanks fo catching this. Maximilian775 (talk)
- Thanks. It was a bit confusing for me too. kencf0618 (talk)
- Yeah, verily, it's still confusing. The New Synod Hall is in the Palace of the Holy Office. The New Synod Hall is not the Palace of the Holy Office. There is a semi-detached unnamed building comprising the southwest corner of the Palace of the Holy Office. Etc.
- New Synod Hall: Piazza del Sant'uffizio, 00120 Roma RM, Italy
- Palace of the Holy Office: Piazza del Sant'uffizio, 00120 Roma RM, Italy
- Paul VI Hall: Piazza del Sant'uffizio, 00165 Roma RM, Italy
- Same address, same building? kencf0618 (talk)
- Thanks. It was a bit confusing for me too. kencf0618 (talk)
References
- ^ https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/conclave-elect-next-pope-will-begin-may-7
- ^ https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2025/04/cardinals-face-litmus-test-on-abuse-ahead-of-conclave
- ^ https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250430-cardinals-lay-groundwork-for-conclave-hope-for-quick-vote
- ^ https://www.facebook.com/TimothyCardinalDolan/videos/a-word-from-cardinal-dolan-meeting-of-cardinals/8276703892454527/
8th general congregation
Guys, I edited the subtopic about the 8th general congregation, to include the themes debated by the cardinals today, as informed by Vatican News.
I'd appreciate it if someone could better edit the paragraph I wrote, as I fear it contains some formatting errors. I am new to Wikipedia. Thank you very much. 2804:14D:B489:8193:8D78:78AC:1836:E5F7 (talk)
How many electors participating?
Two cardinal electors have chosen not (per health reasons) to participate. Doesn't that reduce the # to 133? GoodDay (talk)
- Yes, we said two weren't participating but didn't say 133 out loud. Now we do. Rutsq (talk)
- But the map & table itself needs to be updated, to reflect this fact. See 2005 papal conclave & 2013 papal conclave, for examples. GoodDay (talk)
- But the map & table itself needs to be updated, to reflect this fact. See 2005 papal conclave & 2013 papal conclave, for examples. GoodDay (talk)
"136 eligible cardinals electors"
Becciu is not an elector since 2020. He relinquished his rights and privileges as a cardinal.
- From Vatican official site, 2020:
"Today, Thursday, 24 September, the Holy Father accepted the resignation from the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints AND FROM THE RIGHTS CONNECTED WITH THE CARDINALATE, presented by His Eminence Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu." https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-09/pope-cardinal-becciu-resignation-prefect-causes-saints.html
- And, as we know, his most important "right" was "the right to elect the Roman Pontiff" (n. 33, Universi Dominici Gregis)
2804:D41:F852:3E00:8D78:78AC:1836:E5F7 (talk)
- It seems cardinal Becciu disagree, and that the College of Cardinals notes his voluntary withdrawal as elector, as communicated this 30 April:
- 2) Regarding His Eminence Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, it was noted that the latter, having the good of the Church at heart, and to contribute to the communion and serenity of the Conclave, has communicated his decision not to take part in it. In this regard, the Congregation of Cardinals expresses its appreciation for the gesture he has made, and hopes that the competent judicial bodies will be able to definitively ascertain the facts.
- This, of course, can be interpreted in several ways, but given that the sources largely note Becciu's withdrawal (or abstention), Wikipedia should probably stick to the 136 total. OJH (talk)
Map showing number of eligible electors by region has math error
The map showing the number of eligible electors by region has a math error. It has 7 Italian electors plus 36 other European electors adding to 53 when they actually add to 43. 2600:1015:B15C:2CE4:69FA:E158:6432:BC1D (talk)
- Italy is 17, not 7. Rutsq (talk)
- The map does need correcting, but it's in the 'Rest of Europe' & 'Africa' bits. GoodDay (talk)
- Kindly be specific. What's wrong? Rutsq (talk)
- Specific: Look at the numbers in the table. Compare to numbers in the chart. Sundayclose (talk)
- Personally, I wasn't in a rush to have the chart updated with the expected absences, because there may be additional absences we learn about in a couple days. I don't know how easy it is for other people to adjust the fractions in the pie chart, but I've learned is beyond my svg editing capabilities. 135 is still the number of eligible electors, and the chart can be labeled as such till it is updated. TheSavageNorwegian
- Personally, I wasn't in a rush to have the chart updated with the expected absences, because there may be additional absences we learn about in a couple days. I don't know how easy it is for other people to adjust the fractions in the pie chart, but I've learned is beyond my svg editing capabilities. 135 is still the number of eligible electors, and the chart can be labeled as such till it is updated. TheSavageNorwegian
- Specific: Look at the numbers in the table. Compare to numbers in the chart. Sundayclose (talk)
- Kindly be specific. What's wrong? Rutsq (talk)