Talk:Papal conclave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Papal conclave is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Papal conclave has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 20, 2004.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Someone needs to update the papal conclave page ( before JPII kicks and the next conclave starts, and that's going to happen very, very soon. I think the Pope page ( is up to date.

The conclave page is wrong about the methods of choosing a pope ("The election may come:..."). Current law dictates that a secret vote be taken; this is the only way to elect a pope, as dictated by John Paul II.

Also, the cardinals don't remain in the Sistine Chapel anymore. They vote there (twice a day) but they will ride a shuttle bus back and forth to dormitory housing, which is much cushier than the old regime. Remember, these are the days of the Popemobile. You should also get in something about a ban on cell phones and so on. Anyone who leaks about what goes on inside is immediately excommunicated.

And the current pope has changed the voting rules: "[I]f no cardinal has been elected by a two-thirds majority after a certain number of ballots, the cardinals may agree by absolute majority (half + 1) to elect the Pope by an absolute majority instead of a two-thirds majority" (see first link below). This change will make it much easier to get a hardline conservative into the position: the hardliners just have to wait out the two-thirds majority votes, then get their guy in with just an absolute majority, no compromise required.,12272,1051840,00.html

May a Roman-Catholic cardinal be a woman?

"If any cardinal elector is by reason of infirmity confined to his or her room, the..."


"... each cardinal wrote only his or her own name on the ballot..."

Maybe this is a result of some automatic political-corectness tool?


No, a woman cannot be a cardinal in the Catholic Church. Since the apostles were all men, church tradition has only allowed men to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. (This would include being a deacon, priest, or bishop. FYI, you must be a bishop to be a cardinal.) It is possible for a married man to be a cardinal, but this is quite unlikely. Kenj0418 02:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is incorrect that one need to be a bishop to be a cardinal. (For example, Avery Dulles, a priest, is a cardinal, but too old to vote.) Cardinalates are often tied to specific ecclesiastical offices, especially the main dioceses in most countries and 18 "cardinal deaconates" around Rome (see Britannica). This is the reason that all current cardinals are priests, so far as I know. A cardinal could in theory be a woman, but it has never happened. Zagloba
    • No, as the rule stands. One need to be at least ordained a Priest (so yes, Monk could as well) to become a Cardinal. Since the Catholic church currently doesn't allow a woman to be ordain a Priest, woman can't become a Cardinal. -- KTC 01:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't Basil Hume a monk/abbot on his elevation to the Cardinalate (and went through a quick promotion up the ranks thereafter)? Jackiespeel 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For those of us without the benefit of having had latinum in school, could somebody translate "habemus papam: eccellentissimus ac reverendissimus cardinal..." from the last paragraph? Thx :-) Greetz Hexren

It means: "we have a pope: the most excellent and most reverend cardinal...". I don't think the word "eccelentissimus" is used - I believe it is "eminentissimus" in the accusative form (v.i.). Aloysius Patacsil 06:53, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Lord Emsworth: Wikipedia style mandates the Oxford comma, for all the obvious reasons; see the style guide. The good guys won this time, and you may as well recognize it. :)

AlexKepler 22:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The manual does not mandate anything. In fact, it provides that "Rules ... must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity." I prefer to write in British English (as is, definitely, permitted by Wikipedia on non-American topics), in which the Oxford comma is not always used. Therefore, I would hope my preferences would be in this case respected. -- Emsworth 22:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't revert it myself; you're doing a lot of work and weeders like me respect that.

That said, (1) you elide the "[the rules] are meant for the average case" part of your quote, and this is the _textbook_ average case, (2) the style guide notes that pages will gradually be made to conform to the guide, which is the sense of 'mandate' I intended, and to which end I put the comma in, and (3) the Oxford comma is not always used in American or Canadian English either, but for exactly the reasons listed in the style guide is Wikipreferred in nonambiguous cases. Given (2) I suggest learning to love it; come on in, the water's fine.

I'll submit the matter for your reconsideration and leave it at that, with the reminder that it'll probably happen eventually, at least if the autoedit scripts ever take off.

AlexKepler 23:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where it says in the opening section "little more than half", and if referring Conclaves to Lyons II, just when are we starting the count for the Church? It only seems to make sense if measuring from the Toleration of Constantine I or the imperial reign of Theodosius I. The Catholic Church, however, demonstrably dates to about the year 30, and the Roman See to some time before the year 55. (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Habemus Papam[edit]

Various sites differ on the appropriate form of the Latin sequence. Unanimously, they begin "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: habemus Papam." Thereafter, however, they continue differently. gives "Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum ... Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalam ... qui sibi nomen imposuit ..."; the WAV file referring to John Paul I's election confirms it. But for John Paul II, I've found "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam, Carolum Wojtyla qui sibi nomen imposuit ..." more often (see [1], [2], [3], [4]) but I've also noted the alternative (see [5]). I would be much obliged if informed of which is correct. -- Emsworth (Talk)

After JPII's election, the formula was the same as always. "... Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum Karlum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalam Wojtyla..." (See: Str1977 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured on Yahoo![edit]

This page is currently one of the top links from Yahoo!'s Full coverage of Pope John Paul II page. Just thought I'd share. Gentgeen 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's good that we have this as a featured article already. A lot of people will be looking this up in the next few days. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal election, 2005[edit]

I've removed the link in the "see also" section on two grounds:

  1. We shouldn't be talking about this yet. See Talk:Papal election, 2005.
  2. Why this election in the "see also" and not, say, links to potential articles on all others? A more structural approach is called for. List of papal elections?

JRM 02:03, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I see people keep inserting links to that article; although it's now named Papal election of 2005 speculations. I'd prefer the courtesy of explaining to me why I'm wrong in arguing it should not be linked to, but I have no intention of making this a lame edit war. I'll leave it more talkative people to others to sort out the issue. JRM 11:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

The Cardinal Camerlengo[edit]

The death of the Pope is verified by the Cardinal Camerlengo, or Chamberlain, who traditionally performed the task by gently striking the Pope's head with a small silver hammer and calling out his Christian (not papal) name thrice. The ceremony has not been observed during the twentieth century; under Universi Dominici Gregis, the Camerlengo must merely declare the Pope's death in the presence of the Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations, and of the Cleric Prelates, Secretary and Chancellor of the Apostolic Camera.

Well, unless I'm terribly mistaken, the ceremony with the silver hammer happened most recently on April 2nd when the Pope John Paul II passed away. Would someone more knowledgeable please confirm this?--Conwiktion 04:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church is Chancellor of the Apostolic Camera, so how could he declare the Pope's death in the presence of himself? CanonLawJunkie (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if I doing this properly, but to respond to this question, according to the media, both of those traditions were abolished by Pope John Paul. Presumably, the Cardinal Chamberlain acts upon medical advice, and declares the Holy Father to be dead. It is his declaration, though, not the doctor's, which makes the death official. (David the Monk)

Media reports said this ceremony was performed. It wasn't. In fact it has not been performed for many decades. Pope John Paul finally abolished this long abandoned ceremony in 1996. FearÉIREANN 23:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Short Outline[edit]

Can someone tell me why we need a short outline as the exact same content is in the rest of the article. -- KTC 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biased wording?[edit]

John Paul II is described as "was an intellectual heavyweight unprecedented since Pope Pius XII" with no citation. This seems to be opinion, not fact. Additionally, many feel he was NOT an "intellectual heavyweight" simply because he spoke a number of languages. Additionally, the present pope is described as "extremely intelligent" once again without any cite. These sentences seem more like Vatican propaganda than fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to majority requirement[edit]

Just to clarify as it seems to be a confusing issue. According to Universi Dominici Gregis, the afternoon ballot on the first day of the conclave might not actually happen, but if it does, there's only 1. Then there's 3 days of 2 ballots in the morning, and 2 ballots in the afternoon. Then "voting is to be suspended for a maximum of one day in order to allow a pause for prayer, informal discussion among the voters, and a brief spiritual exhortation given by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Deacons." After that, there's 7 ballots, then similar suspension and address by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Priests. Next is 7 ballots again and then suspension and address by the senior Cardinal in the Order of Bishops. Again 7 ballots, and if it's still deadlocked, then the electors can change the majority requirement.

It's not 13 days, 28 days, or 30 ballots. It's difficult to count the days from the start, so if one do want to do it and insert something about how many ballots from the start, it's either 33 ballots from the start or 34 if there was a ballot taking place in the afternoon of the first day. -- KTC 18:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election question[edit]

What would happen if all the cardinals were either over 80, or were, through health and other reasons, unable to take on the role of Pope?

Well, not sure about having no eligible Cardinal-electors but as to becoming Pope, it is not a requirement that a Pope be elected from within the College of Cardinals. Any practising male Catholic are technically eligible. -- KTC 14:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The possibility of "no voters" could theoretically occur - might make an interesting alternative universe story.

This could happen in this universe, in the following ways:
  1. A terorrist or other attack at a time like right now when all the cardinals are gathered together
  2. (less likely) A pope with an extended period of incapacity -- long enough that the cardinals (who start off pretty old anyway) all pass the 80 year mark.
There is no current provision for what would happen in this case:
see Universi Dominici Gregis
The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded.

Could the Uniate Churches provide somebody perhaps? An interesting hypothetical question anyway.

Not according to Universi Dominici Gregis. This could be changed by the next pope. I'm sure if something like this did happen, all of the bishops would go someplace and figure something out. They are considered part of the Apostolic succession, so that would still lend the eventual result legitimacy. Kenj0418 22:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to offer the suggestion to the relevant authorities? Or develop a story on the subject?

The occasion of all cardinals being over 80 and a papal election occurring is extremely unlikely - and under normal circumstances if the situation could be foreseen something could be developed for the occasion.

Next question:

Under what circumstances could the "no incoming information" rule be breached? That is: there is a change of circumstances that might materially affect what happens inside the conclave and for which arrangements have not been made for breaching the secrecy. (There might be an ongoing situation where it can be arranged that a message "x has happened" is transmitted.)

Approval voting[edit]

The approval voting page says that it is the system used for papal elections, but the wording on this page doesn't quite match it (and there isn't a link from here to there). Can I ask someone knowledgable to clarify both pages? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal Conclave[edit]

Why not change the name of this article to Papal Conclave, any votes?

vote now formally proposed on WP:RM.


  1. Coojah 20:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. i agree BANi 20:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. SO DO I LESTER 22:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. CuBiXcRaYfIsH 06:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


  • The conclave (the body of cardinals meeting for the election) and the election itself are not the same thing, as the intro and first section on historical development makes clear. The article is about the election and its history, not just the conclave. Rd232 talk 11:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Conclave" is more regularly used than "election" when talking about the congress, although they are different concepts. Ashibaka tock 21:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)



Moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The word Conclave[edit]

The word "Conclave" came from the Latin "cum clave" wich means literally "with a key", or just "Locked". --DunkelMeister 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The german wikipedia has another translation of the word "conclave", I dont know which one is right, maybe we have some latin speaking readers here who could clarify this. Citation from the german wiki: "Das Wort „Konklave“ ist lateinischen Ursprungs (conclave) und bedeutet „Gemach, Zimmer“, wird aber fälschlicherweise meist „mit Schlüsseln“ (cum clave) übersetzt" : "The word conclave is of latin origin (conclave) and means "room, chamber". It is often mistakenly translated by "with keys" (cum clave)."

The latin prefix "con" often means "with", but sometimes also just expresses reinforcement. For example, English "to conceal" comes from Latin con + celare (to hide). Meanwhile, "council" can be traced to con + calare (to call). The root "clav" can mean many things from "key" to "lock". Taken together, several translations of "conclave" are possible. In my feeling, the best choice is "well locked". The meaning "room, chamber" is derived from this. The translation "with a key" is not incorrect, but somewhat childish.

Imjoking (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you finally fix that nonsense? "Conclave" is an ordinary Latin word, which means "a (locked) room (in a house)". There is no need to fall back to amateurish etymologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Importing from Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005[edit]

With a view possibly to deleting the article Speculation about the papal conclave, 2005 I have begun exporting what little information of value it contains. Hence my edits to get the other conclave saying in "he who enters a Pope leaves a cardinal". I reckon it might be easier to succeed at AfD if such edits have been made. Stop me if you think this process is a non-starter. Stroika 22:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom Comments[edit]

I'm impressed by the depth of the article and its general readability. For it to pass GA, however, inline citations need to be supplied for sections where they are missing. I look for at least one per section and prefer at least one per paragraph. Such citation helps a reader to find more about a particular facet of an essay. It also quiets charges of original research.

Although it is not necessary for GA, more attention to the writing of the article would make the article even easier to read. Modern readers of English find texts easier to understand if: you would avoid using passives, shorten the sentences, avoid semi-colons (almost never used in contemporary writing).

I'll put it on hold to let you all work on it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The amount of references have massively improved, so since CTSW says that's what it needed, I will pass this article. (Plus, it's been on hold way over the week-limit) Oh, but try to fit more refs into the voting section, that one place had very sparse reference coverageHomestarmy 18:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! I concur. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul VI in 1970[edit]

Sorry, but can anybody give me the reference for this year? I've always thought (and still do), the changes had been done by his Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifici eligendo - which dates October 1, 1975. FloK 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Favorites likely to fail"[edit]

A dissertation on the view of a few conspiracy theorists that Siri was actually truly Pope has no place in an article such as this - perhaps a separate entry on a belief held by a tiny group of ultra-conservatives, but not a general artcicle on the papal election process. Further, the premise of this section is not true. Pacelli/PiusXII, Montini/PaulVI and Ratzinger/BenedictXVI, for instance, were all the "favorites" and were elected in a remarkably short time. Yes, there is an old saying that "he who enters a conclave as pope comes out a cardinal," and while it is often true it is by no means always true or even true a majority of the time. The whole section is unencylopedic and filled with overblown, overlong diatribes about minute matters. Major rework is needed.HarvardOxon 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal's Churches[edit]

Do you all think that we should mention that the Cardinals are still the clergy of Rome? I thought that was the reason they each are in charge of a church in Rome- so that the Roman clergy still elect the Pope, although not in the same sense as in the Early Church. poopsix 09:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting age[edit]

The likelihood of "all cardinals being over 80" is remote: papal incapacity can be got around by selecting at least some persons in their 50s (or younger) as cardinals.

This leaves "massive (possibly) disaster" (something happening at a conference/conclave).

What would happen next?

Given that there has been a reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox Church after the East-West Schism, and there are occasional Cardinals chosen from among the Uniate and other churches, would an ad-hoc solution be achieved? Jackiespeel 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Propsed split[edit]

This article should be split so that there are separate articles for papal election and papal conclave. The conclave is a specific type of election that was first held in 1276 and has been the sole type of papal election since 1294 (see Papal election, 1268-1271, some papal elections between 1276 and 1294 were not conclaves). The current layout makes it seem like the election of the pope has always been called a conclave; it hasn't. I don't think we'll be able to get this article back up to FA quality by the time Benedict XVI croaks unless we make clear that a conclave is a specific form of papal election that has only been used since the late 13th-early 14th century, and that the term "conclave" refers only to those elections undertaken under the rules of Ubi Periculum (Pope Gregory X) as incorporated into canon law and modified by later popes.

Previous methods of papal elections can still briefly be discussed in this article but only in a "Background"-type section with a {main} link to Papal election. Savidan 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Banana 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see no one has objected, but it might be months to a year before I'm ready to take on a project like this. Hope Benedict can live that long. Savidan 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Zbigniew Brzezinski[edit]

Some historians, and I don't have a source on hand, have mentioned that someone like Zbigniew Brzezinski, a native Pole, played a decisive role in the selection of John Paul II in the conclave of 1978. This is interesting since it hints at a continued secular influence in modern papal politics. If anything, this contemporary secular influence should be researched even more, since it is rather curious to notice high ranking officials in the US State Department having anything to do at all in papal conclaves. ADM (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of papal elections and conclaves[edit]

I have completed this list in the hopes that those interested in improving the main article will be able to draw perspective from it in structuring and improving this article. The key is to avoid anachronism, either implicit or explicit, when describing the development of the conclave procedures. Savidan 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Papal conclave/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine and I will keep it as GA, there are three dead links in the reference section: 29, 34, and 41. Please see that they are repaired. Otherwise the writing is good, the information is comprehensive the images are solid, MOS compliance is good enough for GA. H1nkles (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Current one in Alexandria...[edit]

There's actually a Papal Conclave going on right now, although not a Roman Catholic one: a Coptic one. Ever since Pope Shenouda III died on March 17 (Saint Patrick's Day, although I'm not sure if they or any other Eastern Orthodox celebrate it) of this year, there is currently a Papal Conclave of some sort, albeit one in a different denomination with slightly different rules, to elect Shenouda III's successor. I agree that the Article should be mostly Roman Catholic, if nothing else since the Pope of Rome is better known to most people than the Pope of Alexandria (especially to English-speakers come to think of it), but perhaps there should be a brief Section of the Article on the fact that the Conclave for Shenouda III's successor is currently underway, with a local Metropolitan Bishop temporally serving the Diocese of Alexandria itself (but not the Coptic Orthodox Catholic Church as a whole denomination). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is regarding the procedure for election of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Coptic Pope selection AFAIK is not known as a conclave, and even if it were, the usual way of doing it would probably be a hatnote at the top of this page to a page on the other one and vice versa. KTC (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Short Section, Hatnote, either way. Hatnotes have basically the same effect on a reader's search as a 2-or-3-sentence Section, except of course a Hatnote usually has a link. To what would this link? Something more detailed than simply the Article on that Locum Tenans Metropolitan Bishop, I would hope. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
[6] ? KTC (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that does the trick. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


"The pope is considered by Roman Catholics to be the apostolic successor of Saint Peter and earthly head of the Roman Catholic Church." I am not complaining about the content of that sentence. However, shouldn't this info be on the relevant article, rather than here where the method of his election (rather than who he is) is being discussed? (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a one sentence quick summary to give context to the article. Papal conclave is where they choose the new pope etc. only make sense if the reader know who or what is the pope. KTC (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Conclave in March[edit]

On FoxNews I saw the next conclave date may be decided on March 4th (or so) and the date could be March 8th and 10th, if I heard and understood correctly. What can you document? Can we talk here on TALK? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think those specifics have been decided, although Benedict gave the OK for it to begin earlier than has been tradition if circumstances allow. But since this is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, we can wait to see how things turn out before putting much detail in an article. Probably best to discuss this at Talk:Papal conclave, 2013. Cresix (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Language(s) used[edit]

I couldn't find in the article what languages are used in the conclave. Clearly Latin is used at some points, but what language is used for general discussions. Nigej 15:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I gather, silence is mandatory within the Sistine Chapel itself during the conclave, thus the cardinal-electors effectively communicate by the successive results of their balloting. As for the general discussions, I'd say Italian and/or Latin. kencf0618 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The conclave is the entire process, not just the voting. I'm not sure if silence is required during voting (but in practical terms there is no need for discussion at that time anyway), but talking at other times not only is allowed, it's necessary. The official language used is Latin, although I'm sure other languages are used since some of the cardinals are not fluent in Latin. Cresix (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Section content confusion[edit]

If I understand the organization of the article correctly, the Historical Development provides encapsulations of the history of conclaves by subtopic, and then the Modern Practice section describes today's conclave. But under Modern Practice / Voting there are two paragraphs almost completely dedicated to history ("The oath when casting one's vote" and "Prior to 1621"). These should be moved to the appropriate Historical Development subsection, no?Echevalier (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


interesting, the word chimney does NOT appear anywhere in this article! (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What's your point? Cresix (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed about announcement of ballot results[edit]

The article doesn't make it clear to what extent the result of a ballot (without a 2/3 majority) is announced to the members of the conclave, and exactly how that's done. Do they get to see a full list of names and the votes each received via something like a whiteboard?

It's also not stated how the discussion is usually organised between ordinary ballots. Is it more like a parliament or a party?

Majesty of the Commons (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the cardinal-electors see the results of each ballot, although not who voted for whom. Correct me if I'm wrong! kencf0618 (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Counting of votes occurs in the presence of the electors. With the checking and re-checking process, there should be no doubt among electors about the vote tallies. Cresix (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about content[edit]

I see the text " In 1562, Pius IV issued a papal bull that introduced regulations" ... is that really supposed to be the word "bull" or perhaps it was a typo for "bill" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bull is correct. See Papal bull. Cresix (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

section Historical voting patterns[edit]

The section Historical voting patterns, in addition to be tagged as OR, seems more a history of modern popes than a history of voting patterns (although the first paragraph seems to be about voting the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs seem to just describe popes.) IS there opinion on removing the section? (If kept we need references so we can remove the OR tag.) RJFJR (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the section if the actual concept of voting patterns was sourced (i.e., reliable sources that discuss the idea that cardinals vote for a pope radically different than the pope who appointed them). In that context, the description of the popes that you mention would serve to illustrate the voting patterns. The one source cited in the section largely discusses the difference between John Paul II and Benedict XVI, with some mention of other popes. As the section is right now, it is mostly someone's essay of their personal point of view of voting patterns (original research). That alone is enough to remove the section in my opinion. I tagged it about a month ago. If others feel that is sufficient time to delete, I favor deleting. Cresix (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for semi-protection of the article[edit]

I think it would be to everybody's benefit that the editing of this page was restricted to autoconfirmed users as there has been an increase in vandalism of the page by unregistered editors. The threat of vandalism of this page is obviously high given current events, and I think semi-protecting it would decrease this threat level considerably. Aw16 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

cum clave[edit]

the cardinal electors should be locked in seclusion cum clave (Latin for "with a key")

Latin "with a key" is not "cum clave" but "clave" or "per clavem". The alleged "cum clave" is pseudo-Latin, probably a back translation from English or German, where an instrumental expression requires the preposition "with" or "mit" respectively (unlike in Latin), which makes the etymology highly unlikely. Moreover, "conclave" is not a contorted Latin expression, it is an ordinary Latin noun which means "a chamber" or "a room". Therefore conclave, taken literally, means nothing else than the place where the council of cardinals is being held; and figuratively it means the council itself. - (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Contact with the external world[edit]

Out of curiosity: how would contact be made with the external world if it became imperative to do so: the two most likely possibilities being 'assorted emergencies' that cannot wait out the conclave however short it is, or a non-present person being elected? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Papal conclave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)