Jump to content

Talk:List of papal conclaves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of papal conclaves is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on March 18, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2012Featured list candidatePromoted

Untitled

[edit]

No reason only post-1800 conclaves are notable. This list should be aspirational. Savidan 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've started to work:) CarlosPn (talk) January 9, 2008 12:30 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 11:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is going to move into table form eventually, I recommend not only the pope's name, but also the location of the conclave, the number of cardinal electors, and the number of absentee cardinals. Details such as length, outsider interference (e.g. veto's), etc. should be considered but I am at present uncertain. Savidan 01:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentences

[edit]

The first two sentences are evidently, and massively, false. The Catholic Church recognizes way more popes than 111, and thus also their election. These elections in turn were subject to canon law long before 1059. For reference, see any decent book on the history of the papacy; a classic study specifically on the legal aspects is Stephan Kuttner, Cardinalis in: Traditio 3 (1945) pp. 129–214 doi:10.1017/S0362152900016883. The article could be improved by deleting both sentences. atb CRolker (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

Does Baumgartner also include the length of each conclave and the number of rounds of ballots cast? A lot of the articles already mention this in the lead, and some conclaves are notable for their length, so I think those should be included in this list. — jonas (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

one hundred percent 204.167.95.25 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually checked Baumgartners book, for the 1061 and 1073 papal election he does not give a number of electors at all, though there are sources in the respective election articles (with the 1073 election very blatantly not following the rules and the election taking place by acclamation, which is not reflected here). For the 1799–1800 papal conclave he gives a count of actual electors that differs from the number stated here (34 instead of 35). Maybe I'll starting going through the entire book and double check. — jonas (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]