Template:Popes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. llywrch 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice idea, but such a huge mass of uncategorised links listed in chronological order is a bit overwhelming. Some ideas:
Hope this helps. Stevage 08:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether it might be better to use a mid-dot as the separation character here, rather than the vertical bar. The problem is that (as with lists of monarchs) the bar can easily be confused with the roman numerals which have frequently to be suffixed to the names.—Ian Spackman 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A public thank you to Philip Stevens for making just that change so quickly! —Ian Spackman 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This just makes the template even larger. There really is no need for such a button as the template always appears at the bottom of articles and really doesn't take up that much space. Sometimes large templates are necessarey and useful. At the very least, make the default show, although I think the show/hide feature should be removed. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if you added organization it would be really good.--67.183.136.132 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)КΕЙТΛИН[reply]
The TFD suggested splitting this into pieces. Would "to 500", "500 to 1000", "1000 to 1500" and "after 1500" work:
<noinclude> [[Category:Pope templates|Popes]] [[Category:European navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]] </noinclude>
Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protestants do not recognize many of these figures to be legitimate Catholic popes, starting with Saint Peter and including other early "popes". I suggest that a separate section be created to accommodate both points of view, with a brief footnote. Colin MacLaurin 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC). This is merely a comment, not a call to action.[reply]
I organized this into columns, which leaves whitespace at the sides, but makes it much easier to skim the list and find a specific pope, or read them in sequence. Whitespace on the sides is not inherently bad, and I think the easier reading more than makes up for it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely to read through the list or find any single pope from the big mass of text, without any alignment cues or regularity to the text. As posted above, "a huge mass of uncategorised links listed in chronological order is a bit overwhelming." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's only separated because the columns divide evenly without him. It renders fine for me using firefox, what browser is causing issues? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason he's listed twice? --Maxamegalon2000 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Papal Coat of Arms
-I Think we can also add their papal coat of arms...Jus suggesting Deo Gratias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humus soil (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently "Popes of the Catholic Church". Changing it to "Catholic Popes" because it is shorter and sounds better.
Certainly, Antipopes should normally not be on this list, but the 5 who counted in the numerals of later lawful Popes could be shown to explain away the numbering issues, as long as we somehow acknowledge their illegality, perhaps by Italicizing them or placing them in parentheses. (Either way, the most logical points on the list would be immediately after the lawful Popes whom they claimed to depose.)
In chronological order, they are:
1. Felix II
2. Boniface VII
3. John XVI
4. Benedict X
5. Alexander V.
We should also somehow acknowledge that Marinus I was also Martin II, and likewise Marinus II was Martin III. This could be accomplished with perhaps an "AKA" in parentheses.
1. Marinus I (AKA Martin II)
2. Marinus II (AKA Martin III)
Frankly, the name "Marinus" should be declared retired over this, so that no Marinus III would ever also count as Martin VI, but I digress.
Finally, there is the issue of how John XX declared himself John XXI over the alleged problem of 2 Popes John XIV. Perhaps an unlinked "John XX (Declared himself John XXI, see his Article)" could be followed by a linked "John XXI (Same person)" so as to clarify that issue.
I know the Articles explain things, but it would be nice if the template could explain away what would otherwise constitute numbering anomalies. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template is too large in terms of entries to have an image. There are too many names and it's difficult to read on the screen with the image. I personally find the color hard on the eyes as its so bright, and I don't see why it matters that those are the official colors of the papacy. Reader experience is what's most important, and the color and image make the template harder to use, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of whether it is 'official', is the current color of the template too bright? Aunva6 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it to be very bright at all, or at least any brighter than the color yellow usually is compared to other colors.Joshbunk (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aunva6 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The contents or division of the left column could probably be more harmonised with that of Template:History of the Roman Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The old template, Template:Periods of papal history, might as well persist. However, regarding the proposed merged version, more opinions would be welcome as we are now only two users with differing opinion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Randy Kryn: there are more search boxes added by User:Epiphyllumlover between "19:21, 5 July 2019" and "23:19, 5 July 2019". Not sure where discussion of this should happen. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]