Talk:2025 papal conclave

Papabili

Lists of papabili are generally discouraged, in line with WP:SPECULATION – Wikipedia cannot give preference to any one person's speculative list of frontrunners. This was also agreed last time in 2013. Only if reliable news sources begin to mention some names of frontrunners in the coming days, this may be worth mentioning in an encyclopedic way. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There are already many articles listing papabili. How do you propose determining which articles/cardinals should be used? Perhaps something like, the papabile must be listed by 3 reputable sources? LoganP25 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree on needing more sources. If just one reliable source is enough to be listed, the list will VERY quickly get overly long. At this point I would even say two sources should be needed at least, since a lot of people are publishing lists. Gust Justice (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Go and quote WP:Speculation at the 2028 United States presidential election article. Scuba 19:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

What's more, the Papabili list contains some real knee-slappers. Just because some people want Burke, doesn't mean he has a chance at all. He's not really papabili. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The papabili sections of the articles of previous conclaves are a bit of a mess as well. The 1958 papal conclave article gives preference to the New York Times's speculative list of frontrunners in its Papabili section, with only one sentence dedicated to Life magazine's papabili, and zero to anybody else. The October 1978 papal conclave article has zero references in its Papabili section, and so it gives preference to some Wikipedia editor's original research. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Cardinal Mario Grech of Malta appears worthy of addition to the list, being regarded as a papabile by the Irish Times , Radio France International , and Reuters . Culloty82 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The list is already at almost 20% of the cardinals, and certiantly isn't those that are frequent. I WP:Boldly removed the list but left in the cites that were used. meamemg (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The media speculation should only be taken note of here; not only is it all already prepared, as with VIP obits, Papabile is its natural ambit and domain. Not that anyone going to draw a Venn diagram (WP:OR). kencf0618 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I think two sources at least is a fair rule, maybe three. Should be easy enough to cross-reference what are currently used as refs in the table and the article cites to whittle the list to something most manageable. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the two sources rule, but I would also add that any Cardinal who's 80 or older shouldn't be added to the list, considering they won't be present in the Conclave and have no chance of getting elected because of that. Rpryor03 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

A list is one thing--a big fat table with flags and dates of birth and whatnot is completely excessive. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't really agree. I think the offices section is a bit unwieldy and hard to put guardrails on what to in/exclude. Minus that, their nationality, age and tenure/appointer as cardinal are fairly key indicators. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No, that's what they have Wikipedia articles for, Therequiembellishere. I don't know what nationality has to do with anything here, and the flags are in violation--there is no "national representation" among the cardinals of the Catholic Church. I suppose age could be called relevant but what's it matter: they're all old. And as you suggested, their resumes--those are arbitrarily shortened because Fridolin Ambongo Besungu for instance has held more than two positions. What's the rationale? The last two? And one might also argue that in his case Order of Friars Minor Capuchin is relevant. Surely it's relevant to the papacy of Francis that he was a Franciscan. The more you leave in, the more it can be argued that there should be even more in. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Once the actual conclave gets going we can trim down the table to just the front-runners. But as per the 2028 United States presidential election article there is going to be a big list of potential candidates. Scuba 00:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The conclave is realistically going to last a few days to a few weeks at the very most. I think the inclusion guide for the 2028 US presidential (two sources--from the past six months, but they'll all be) is fair. I do not really think waiting until the conclave starts next month is necessary to wait for. It's fundamentally different in that this is not a popular election with declared candidates waging multibillion dollar public campaigns in contested primaries. We can (and probably should) winnow the list using the existing sources now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Not the point, Scu ba. That article doesn't have a table like this one. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

no but it has them as bullet points with a blurb and their picture at the top of the section. it's essentially the same speculation as here. Scuba 02:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The set of papabili is all speculation, and the table belongs in the article on that subject. It's just bloat here. kencf0618 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Can we add their ideological leanings, just like conservative, moderate, modernist/liberal? Don’t think it’d be too hard to find sources for, and it’d be useful for the reader. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't sound like a great idea to me, as sources are often contradictory; for example, I've seen credible sources describing Tagle and Turkson as liberals, but others describe them as moderates. LoganP25 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I understand, a lot of cardinals aren't easily categorized simply as "liberal", "moderate", or "conservative". For that reason alone it wouldn't really be viable to include it in a table on Wikipedia as it would, at best, be a matter of interpretation done by the various sources covering the conclave. A discussion on ideological leaning would be better suited for the individual pages of the cardinals, or in a prose section. Gust Justice (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  There's no objective way of determining this, so it shouldn't be done. It's not like where secular politicians are ascribed party labels. Maximilian775 (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the "Offices" column, for reasons stated by Drmies and Therequiembellishere—it's hard to decide what offices to include, and as the Papabili section already takes up a significant portion of the article. I also think a shorter list, with a bullet point list instead of a table, would be ideal. LoganP25 (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. These are all speculations from various sources, each having their own criteria and ideas for inclusion. Should not be a part of the article. Varro (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I have been editing it in place (because you dance with thems that brungs ya), mostly adding citations to those papabili with a sole "The College of Cardinals Report" citation, and I've noticed several dark horses "Inside the Vatican". What should we do with those, if anything? And besides... I'm terrible with tables! kencf0618 (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Needs to be cut. If some record of papabile should be kept, it should be a paragraph comparable to the one in the 2013 conclave article, and not a bloated megalist. I'd say 10 minumum papabile media mentions to even qualify, to pare down the list to the truly leading contenders. Maximilian775 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Also be careful of sources that are just republications of the Reuters or Associated Press papabile articles on their website. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I've no objection to paring down the list. But I think at the end of the day, we are going to end up with a longer than normal list. That said, some are almost certainly not serious contenders. I listed four I thought were legitimate papabile in a comment below. Is it permissible to discuss why some of those on the list are non-starters? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

user:Ad Orientem While other conclave articles do have papabile sections, none of them are as bloated and overly WP:SPECULATION as this one is. The 2013 article lists six, the 2005 article lists one, and the 1978 article lists two -- and all of these are listed in prose paragraphs as opposed to excessive, distended lists. I would propose an average between the prior articles of five listed papabile, ten maximum, and that they are integrated into the paragraph like prior papabile articles. The summative, definitive list compliled here could maybe become a part of the cardinal-elector list article? The current list of 20 on this page is just absurd. Maximilian775 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the list is too long. The reason for the length is that Francis appointed a massive number of cardinals, often from places that have never had a cardinal before. They are spread all over the world and most don't know many of the others. In times past the College was like a small private club where most knew most of the others, at least in passing. That meant they knew each other's personalities, theological and political inclinations. It also made it possible in the past to identify one or maybe a handful of leading contenders for election. Sometimes the next pope was identified early (1939, 1962, 2005) with a fair degree of certainty. And while there were some surprise elections, (1958, both of the 1978 conclaves and 2013), even then the men who eventually emerged on the balcony were at least mentioned as 2nd tier papabile. This time is different. I don't think there has been a conclave in modern times where the outcome is less certain than the one we are about to see. As a matter of private opinion I believe that the majority of those on the list are (and I'm being charitable here) dark horse candidates. But that really is getting into crystalballing and WP:OR territory. I suspect that some of those being named by the press and media fall into one of two groups. The first being wishful thinking by people with strong ideological preferences, and the second being the press/media trying to cover every possible scenario so whoever emerges they can at least say they had that person on their list. In the back corners of my mind, I've already crossed about of these names off the list for being too old, too young, or having too much ideological baggage. I see someone took Angelo Scola off the list. Given he is in his 80s and not even allowed to participate, I'd say that anyone who thinks he will be the next pope should buy a lottery ticket. Their odds are better. But absent doing a lot of OR and crystalballing, I'm not really sure how to cull this list and am open to suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

How about a cap of 7, and we just include the 7 on the current list with the most citations? Maximilian775 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should arbitrarily cap the list at a certain number. I do think that we could put a minimum number of citations as a criteria. I'd suggest at least three, and maybe raise it to four. But I'd also suggest we do an actual google before removing anyone from the list. There may be more sources than are listed on the table. On a certain level I fear this is going to become somewhat subjective based on what sources are saying about each of them. Warning: Crystalballing ahead... IMO the four top tier papabile are Tagle (likely the hope of the progressive wing), and the three Italians. Parolin is moderately conservative and the other two are progressives but not as hardcore as Francis or Tagle. If the conclave lasts more than 3 days, that could signal none of the leading contenders have enough support for election and they may start looking for a compromise farther down our list or maybe not even on it at all. But FWIW those are the four I would be most reluctant to remove. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

There are 13 cardinals in the table with at least four sources, and 9 cardinals in the table with at least five sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. There really isn't a short list of obvious front runners. Let's say five sources minimum with a Google search before removing. I think we are still going to have a long list. But that might trim off a few. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. Adding citations I've been struck that the superior journalism has been not only about the sheer depth of the backbench (papabili), but that the sheer number of Pope Francis cardinals made for new power centers. The general congregations shall cull the volatility and establish the dynamics –those formal rooms are where the action is at. And we'll be citing at least some of those decisions. kencf0618 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair statement. Once there are leaks from inside the general conclaves, and the media speculation becomes a bit more informed and less "throwing spaghetti at the wall", things will clarify. Maximilian775 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David would agree. kencf0618 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that it would be desirable to trim down the list to just THE most discussed candidated, by the very nature of how Papal conclaves work – with all the secrecy and whatnot – there is simply no way to have an "ideal" number of persons listed. I agree that only electors below age 80 should be listed given the reality of things, but beyond this, the best we can do is make a decent list of articles to use, and then use a minimum threshold of mentions from those, which is reasonable. I wouldn't mind increasing the threshold from 3 to 5, but this necessitates that a broad number of sources are used, and that we have tallied the number of mentions for all cardinals. Gust Justice (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maximilian775: @Gust Justice: I think that the Papabili section, especially the large table, is in dire need of simplification and de-bloating. Once the speculation dies down and starts to settle, I think we should convert this large table to a few paragraphs. RyanW1995 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@RyanW1995 Personally I wouldn't mind converting it to a simple list. Perhaps even something similar to what is done for 2028 United States presidential election. Although without the portraits of course, which would be distracting in the context of this article. Gust Justice (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

In looking at the prior conclave articles, those lists were in-paragraph prose-style -- I think that formatting works the best for the conclave article. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, text would be the best solution. Rutsq (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that part of the whole problem with listing papabili lies in the fact that we have to establish a minimum number of mentions in reliable news articles, and make a selection of which of the hundreds of news sources out there to use. There are probably enough reliable sources out there to make a case for including a substantial proportion of the cardinal electors, and shortening the list necessarily requires us to make subjective decisions on whether to include a particular source for consideration. Inclusion criteria for encyclopedic lists should be more clear-cut than this.

I think the question we should ask ourselves is: is it really encyclopedic to be listing papabili here? Newspapers like to make lists of frontrunners because there is popular demand for it, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Will people twenty years from now still be interested in how [insert cardinal's name here] received speculation in the media even though he wasn't elected? I highly doubt it (see WP:20YEARTEST). Besides Ratzinger (and possibly Bergoglio), no one remembers any other papabili from 2005 anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I am inclined to agree. Maximilian775 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

References

RfC: Papabili sections and lists in papal conclave articles

In light of the above discussion, I've decided to start a RfC on papabili sections and lists. Should there be papabili sections in papal conclave articles, and should there be lists of papabili in said sections? 73.8.239.215 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The current status quo here, which seems to be that the prose mention of papabile is based off a media analysis done well before the conclave, is good with me. Only specialized / Catholic-focused media is producing such lists, and they are different than the immediately-produced lists that get churned out immediately following a papal death. ~~ Maximilian775 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Include Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Papabili sections and lists in papal conclave articles)

• To note: the articles on every papal conclave beginning from the 1939 papal conclave has a papabili section containing such a list, while the articles on every papal conclave before the 1939 papal conclave do not have a papabili section. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A critical distinction is to be made: The 2025 article lists 20 papabili in a bloated, overlong chart complete with flags (!) The 1939 article lists 6 primary papabili, the 1958 article 7, the 1963 article lists 4, August '78 lists 7, October '78 lists 3, 2005 lists 2, 2013 lists 7. (I may be off by a count of one on some of these, but the data generally stands) All of these are between a half and a third of the size of the current papabile list, which includes candidates that any serious commentator would tell you are non-starters. Also, all the articles since '39 include papabile in prose paragraph form, not grotesque megacharts complete with flags and time-as-cardinal and birth date. A listing of 7 or less cardinals, in a reasonable prose format, is completely within line of precedent. The current state of the papabile section here is not. Maximilian775 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

To condense my lengthy comment: The precedent in prior conclave articles is a prose paragraph recounting of 7-8 papabili, maximum. Over the coming days, word of clear front-runners will emerge from Rome. That should be the basis of this delineation of possible papal candidates. Maximilian775 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Include Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) If there is going to be such a section its entries should be on the basis of coverage in a WP:WEIGHT of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 01:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many of the papabili sections suffer from WP:Synthesis and WP:Primary. We need reliable secondary sources that state that "the media have listed Cardinals X, Y, and Z as papabili". Many of the references in the papabile sections are primary sources of the media actually presenting their list of preferred papabili, and the selection of papabili lists from primary media sources for the justification of their inclusion in the Wikipedia-provided list of papabili is synthesis. For example, in 2013 papal conclave, the papabili section states:

Cardinals Christoph Schönborn of Austria, Odilo Scherer of Brazil, Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines, Peter Turkson of Ghana, Marc Ouellet of Canada, Péter Erdő of Hungary, and Angelo Scola of Italy were among the cardinals most often identified in press reports as those most likely to be elected.

However, none of the sources in that sentence actually claim that the cardinals listed "were among the cardinals most often identified in press reports as those most likely to be elected". The Guardian reference, for instance, simply states that "Among those who have been mentioned as potential successors" but never mentions anything about the media or press reports being the ones who mentioned them as potential successors. This phenomenon renders this particular sentence synthesis and original research. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• One way to try to avoid the WP:Synthesis problem described above is to not claim that "the media claims that cardinals X, Y, and Z are papabili" in these sections and instead start writing that "B newspaper claims that cardinals X and Y are papabili", "C magazine claims that cardinals Y and Z are papabili", and "D media source claims that cardinals X and Z are papabili". This occurs in the papabili sections of the articles about older papal conclaves, such as the 1939 papal conclave and the 1958 papal conclave. However, this approach runs into the issue that @Ravenpuff: mentioned in the discussion above:

"Wikipedia cannot give preference to any one person's speculative list of frontrunners. This was also agreed last time in 2013."

Attempting to list individual newspapers' preferred lists of papabili would end up boiling to a debate on which media sources to include and which media sources to exclude; in essence, Wikipedia giving preference to specific journalists' / media sources' speculative list of frontrunners. For example, the 1958 papal conclave article gives preference to the New York Times and Life magazine over all other reliable media sources in the world for their lists of papabili. Similarly, with the exception of the future Pope Pius XII being papabili, the 1939 papal conclave article gives preference to Time magazine and the New York Times over all other reliable media sources in the world for their lists of papabili. This is a major reason why reliable secondary sources are preferred over primary sources in Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia editors do not have to make a subjective judgment as to which lists of papabili to include in the section and which lists to exclude. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Leave out - until after conclave. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• @Maximilian775: @GoodDay: By the way, I feel that the Papabili section might be getting too overreferenced. One clause ("Media worldwide released papabili analyses on the day of Pope Francis's death,") even has six references next to it! WP:OVERCITE suggests that three references are enough. RyanW1995 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Leave out - seems inappropriate and against policy before, during, or after a conclave.Dcheney (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would include include a section for it, but leave it as a prose or simple list, rather than a table. A table might be more suitable for the dedicated article. There should be a section of some kind, since this is something that has received significant coverage, and is directly relevant to understanding the election itself. Gust Justice (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Include - cards on the table, this is a bit of an WP:IAR !vote. However, I think it's justified in this case. Interest in the conclave is, I think, very much identified with interest in the identity of the next Pope. Readers are likely to want to receive this material, and I don't think there's a problem with giving it to them, as long as we specify in advance that the list is not complete and that unexpected candidates are sometimes elected, and as long as we have some criterion for inclusion that we try and hold to consistently. I would say something like at least 3 gold-standard RS mentions of an eligible cardinal as papabile. I'm fine with the above suggestion to pare it down from a table to a list or prose. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'd agree with the concept above, but would raise the citation standard significantly, or ask that they be from papers of record, or another heightened criterion. There needs to be a higher bar than just "an RS said they were papabile", otherwise we get the 20+ currently listed papabile. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree - a single mention in a reliable source is not sufficient. I don't have a problem with limiting it to papers of record, or a higher number of citations, or both. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• In an update, last night I trimmed all papabile with less than 5 cited mentions, culling the list to 8, which is the maximum number a prior article mentions. Hopefully this is a step towards de-bloating the article and can begin to form the nucleus of a consensus.

  The table was removed from the papabili section. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have the know-how to do this efficiently, but could some portion of that table be merged with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave, with a ranking/sorting feature based on number of media mentions as papabile? Maximilian775 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Include per WP:COMMONSENSE. Our first consideration should be serving our readers. The vast majority of those coming to this page will be expecting some kind of review of the leading contenders for the papacy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose table, include in prose A large table doesn't pass the WP:10YEARTEST, as we can see from previous relatively recent conclave articles, and constantly keeping it up to date violates WP:NOTNEWS. A discussion can happen on the talk page about who to include, but we shouldn't have a table with twenty people and ten citations after each name. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit warring by SNDRV27

User:SNDRV27 is trying to add a huge list of papabile candidates to the article despite being told not to do so in the article itself and by other editors, with his edits having to be constantly reverted. 157.178.2.1 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Christoph Schönborn (Austria) is mentioned as "papabile" too ... and should be included in the list.

See here:

https://apnews.com/article/next-pope-contenders-list-101d68d61be2401a85310e34b45371a9

https://kurier.at/chronik/welt/schoenborn-kardinal-papst-franziskus/403035475

Schönborn is already 80 and cannot vote in the Conclave himself, but he can still be elected as Pope by the cardinals. He didn't rule it out, but said it's a very "hypothetical scenario". Glasperlenspieler (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see the above RfC on the status of the papabile list, and do not add or expand to that list until a consensus has been reached. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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.

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 221 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC).

• 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 Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Also not a review, but strictly speaking isn't this true for every papal conclave, like, ever? Juxlos (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • But most people wouldn't know it. Bremps... 04:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• What?! There's another conclave already? Don't we have enough papadam? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Need some new hooks proposed here for obvious reasons. @Surtsicna: ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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) 09:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of arms of Leone XIV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Protect this page

I have been here for a few days, and noticed there is quite a bit of vandalism. The main pope's page is protected, this one should be as well. Some IP users were changing the lead section. DankPedia (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Requests like this should generally be made at WP:RPP. meamemg (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did that DankPedia (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any request there other than the one from last week (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/05#2025_papal_conclave) meamemg (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC). Oops. I see it now. Nevermind. meamemg (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)