Talk:College of Cardinals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia's list of notable cardinals does exist[edit]

Why is someone putting this extensive list of links to articles about cardinals without adding them to the list of notable cardinals? "Notable" in this context seems to be construed as meaning "the subject of a Wikipedia article". I've found within the last few minutes that some of the cardinals listed here who do have Wikipedia articles about them are not on that list. Michael Hardy 20:21, 11 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal in pectore[edit]

pope died, but In 2003 the Pope announced he was also creating one cardinal secretly (in pectore), which would have taken effect if the appointment had been announced before the Pope's death. This prelate is believed to reside in the People's Republic of China.The Pope turned 80 yester day. who is him? --????Pope Benidict the 16th.

The point of "in pectore" is that it's secret. No one apart from the pope who named him and himself knows who it was. Cardinal in pectore means cardinal in the pope's heart, don't enjoy the privileges etc. of a normal cardinal. The only thing is if a cardinal in pectore were later to become a full cardinal, his seniority (time as a cardinal) would start counting from when he was named as a cardinal in pectore. On a related note, the rumour about being in China's was I think referring to the Archbishop of Hong Kong. -- KTC 21:35, 3 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of living cardinals[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging List of living cardinals with this article. Essentially the same content, a merge would bring about an easier overview for readers (less scattered for no obvious reasons), as well as a more convenient maintainance of the table(s), including demographics section (that would otherwise also need a duplicate maintainance). Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The two lists are organized differently, and I see merit to keeping both organizations. The one here is organized by order, and the one at List of living cardinals isn't, but is fully sortable. Both have their utility. These lists have existed side by side on Wikipedia for a long time. You've already moved some of the content from one article into the other without first asking anyone else's input . . . Duplicate maintenance, at least for the demographics section, can be solved by creating a template which is used in both articles. If it is merely the presentation of the information in two places that is problematic, then it seems to me that deleting the massive table in this long article and referring readers to the List article is a better solution. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the template for the Demographic information and replaced the tables in each article with it. I also deleted the bottom row (the red shaded one) which was a key to information in a different table and recalculated the percentages of voting age cardinals to be out of the total number of voting age cardinals. (I assume people are more likely to be interested in what percentage of all voting age cardinals were created by a particular pope, than in what percentage of the total number of cardinals are voting age cardinals created by a certain pope. The former is relevant to electoral dynamics in a consistory; the latter is difficult to interpret.) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we agreed on a common format for the list of living cardinals as a whole (which a successful merger presumes), then the entire list could be made into a template which would relieve the burden of duplicate maintenance, which would in turn obviate at least some of the need for merging the articles to begin with. Personally, I like having the list in a separate article. If the objection to this is merely (or mostly) that it duplicates maintenance, then let's create a template. On the other hand, if the objection is that the material itself is duplicated, then I think the College of Cardinals article is already long enough, and the material should be deleted from here and left in the list article. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, there are other ways to transclude WP:TRANS whole pages or sections of pages onto another page, which could also eliminate the duplicated maintenance. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Would you please go ahead with a such merged template of a list, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining both lists makes little sense. The objection that one list is organized by order can be met by making the template version sortable by order. Apparently Patriarchs require special treatment. The unsortable version organized by order as it is now privileges that sequencing over all others, while a sortable list serves a wider readership more efficiently. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm working on creating a template. Might take a few days. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template is done. Can we close the merge proposal now? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. This seems problematic. Sort on any field, e.g., country, and the bold subheads for Cardinals of the Order of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and for Patriarchs and Titular Bishops are either inaccurately at the top or oddly placed. Since we can sort on Order, we don't need any of those headings. We may want to note *outside the table* that there are two kinds of cardinal bishops.
2. What should the default display be? I'd suggest alpha as the one least surprising and most quickly grasped by the reader.
3. This is great work, but you should be asking editors to look at your work in the template space before deploying the template in these two entries, no?
4. Finally, please add notes in the entries telling editors where they can find the templates. Few will know. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[re: 1.] I was worried about that, but wondered what other people would think. I'll just delete those rows, since they aren't necessary. Feel free to add a note outside the table. [re: 2.] Totally disagree. Readers can sort by name if that's what they want. The order is by order of precedence and it's defaulted to the order of the first column, but we can add a note making this clear. This was also the order already being used in this article (although not in the List of living cardinals article, which was mostly alphabetical but with a bunch of mistakes which apparently had gone unnoticed for a long time). Also, honestly, it's much easier to get this order right. Plus the alphabetical thing is complicated and non-obvious for a bunch of bishops with non-English-stye last names. [re: 3] I've never done this before, so I don't know. No one objected when I did the first much smaller template yesterday and deployed it immediately, but it's a good thought for the future. Thanks. [re: 4] I'm not sure where you want the notes to be. Like hidden notes within the source code? The source code already indicates clearly what template is being used. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re 4. If a new editor comes along and wants to modify the content of the list, how is he supposed to know where to find it if s/he is not as expert as you? The source code names the template, but a url would be helpful. Yes, a hidden note.
I notice the alphabetical sort placed Lozano ahead of López. Is there a way to use traditional alphabetical sorting that sees o and ó as equivalents? (both = canonical o).
Re 2. I continue to disagree. You've opted to follow the order used in one of the two WP entries over the other without waiting for discussion. The fact that the table is sorted by rank is not obvious and any field that has unique or mostly unique values would make more sense. You've sorted a list of 222 based on just 3 values. You've sorta sorted them, but really you've just grouped them into 3 large buckets. There are 9 with Order=CB. How are those 9 sorted when the table first displays or when I sort on Order? I can't tell. Not by alpha or consistory or country... Yes alpha order can be complicated. It's still more intuitive than Order, I think. (It would be nice to know what alpha mistakes you found BTW. I've always paid more attention to birth dates than anything else.)Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll put in a hidden note. Re: Lozano v. Lopez, I don't know of a way to fix this without changing the spelling that displays, but I will do that since I already did it for someone else; Wikipedia's alphabetization function in tables treats vowels with special characters as distinct from the plain vowels and alphabetizes them at the end of the alphabet, and I don't know of a work around that gets the display text to be different from the one what is used for the alphabetization feature. Re: the default display order, which is the same as the order when sorted by the Order column. The order is by precedence (which is complicated). This is actually explained in the text above the list in this article. Obviously, I had to choose one of the two orders in order to merge the lists and have one template that could work in both places: I followed the same order that was already present in this article. I'm not sure why I need to defend preserving the order that was already in this article. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the alphabetical problems I found were with the default display order in the sortable table that appeared in the other article (List of living cardinals). I remember four examples specifically: Geraldo Majella Agnelo (according to Brazilian custom, even though he has a dual last name, he should be referred to and thus alphabetized by the second one), Alexandre do Nascimento was filed under N rather than D, and Osoro Sierra and Porras Cardozo, who were just in the wrong part of the alphabet (both under R, I believe). But there may have been others. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be strictly accurate, the situation with Brazilian names is more complicated than this, and you kind of have to check for each person. (I verify my intuitions by looking at how Portuguese Wikipedia refers to these people and by looking at outside sources.) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Portuguese Cardinal Manuel Clemente was incorrectly alphabetized under D (for "do Nascimento") rather than C (for "Clemente"). LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your hidden notes are perfect. I have minimal internet access for the next ten days so I'll have to hold my other comments, which are more about what is said before the table(s) in the two entries we've been discussing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be helpful. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the table used to have their Cardinal titular title as well? (or am I thinking of yet another table of cardinals) --Dcheney (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The table in this article used to have the suburbicarian titular sees for the Cardinal Bishops, but not the titles for any of the Cardinal Priests or Deacons. I didn't see any point in including the former unless the latter were going to be included as well. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revive discussion/oppose merge After taking some time for discernment I'd like to revive this discussion. I'll note as well the contribution of an IP user who flagged certain sections of College of Cardinals as "slanted towards recent events". One of those flags has been removed (I think without explanation or comment). I'd suggest that the IP user makes a good point in opposition to the proposed merge. The article on the College should cover history and functions, and I'd include trends over time, like historical domination of the College by Europeans and/or Italians. The List entry should include the list itself, oldest and youngest and similar data bits, and demographic data derived from it, like distribution by country. A "List of living" is by definition biased toward the present. Having the list appear in too places just invites the reader -- not experienced editors, but readers -- to wonder if the two lists are identical. We can remove any concern on that score by presenting the list only once. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose merging the pages, and I think you make a good point about how they ought to be different. Demographic statistics on the current college should probably be restricted to "List of living cardinals", while any discussion of demographics on this page should have a historical context (like the proportion of the college that has been Italian or European over time). I don't have a problem with keeping the table of current members of the college on this page, but I wouldn't make a fuss if others feel differently. (I believe I removed one of the recentism flags, and I did explain the removal, which I did while changing the name of the section to clearly indicate that it was only dealing with the present membership of the college.) LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the same data appearing in two separate locations doesn't seem ideal; I concur with the above to keep living cardinals in their own page. Personally, I think we should excise the ‘Current members of the College of Cardinals’ and (most of) the ‘Demographics’ sections from here, linking them towards the article that's meant for current data. This also ultimately removes the need for transcluded templates in that article. Shall we declare WP:SILENCE and close this discussion? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the discussion is over. The original call for a merger was answered in some way I think by the creation of the template version of the list. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. The template makes updating easier, but that was never the issue. The replication of content does not serve the user. The level of detail in the List does not belong in the far more generic College of Cardinals article--it's excessive detail for an entry that should focus on history and function. And replicating the table only leads the reader to wonder what might be different about what appears to be two lists. Better to leave the detail just a click away. For comparison see United States Senate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree; this should ideally be the way we organise both articles. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that all issues were resolved but rather that (1) there didn't seem to be anyone actually still supporting merging the two articles together and (2) there was no active discussion ongoing since the last post prior to Ravenpuff asking about it was in July. Close this discussion. If you want to edit the articles, edit the articles. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I add that it seems disingenuous to have a template at the top of the page saying that the merger discussion has ended, when the conversation has been reopened down here. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we be removing the duplicate templates from this article and keeping them solely on the other article? Because there doesn't really seem to be a need for two copies of the same content to exist and it seems better to present it only in List of living cardinals, which is obviously more geared towards current events. As mentioned above, we could link that article to here, perhaps by way of {{Main}}. This also stands to reduce potential concern (as noted by Bmclaughlin9). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My position has not changed and is the same as stated above: demographics of the current college should not appear on this page; any discussion of demographics on this page should cover demographics over time; keep the table of current members of the college on this page. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted accordingly. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on College of Cardinals. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis and the 120 limit[edit]

In 2015, Francis added 15 electors, bringing the number of electors to 125. Their number fell to 123 two months later (April 19). That’s based on the old version of the list of living cardinals HERE and matches the comment of Lombardi HERE: "With respect to the number of 120 electors, there were 12 places 'open' in the College today or in the coming months. The Pope has slightly exceeded this number, but remained very close to it, such that it is substantially respected". Based on the table, the count (without deaths) was due to return to 120 on 27 February 2016, a year after the 2015 consistory. Rewriting our characterization of his approach to the 120 limit — using better sources than old WP entries — will take some care. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And since a certain anticipation that a death or two is likely, that’s part of the story too. Jean-Claude Turcotte died on 8 April 2015 at 78 and Francis George on 17 April at 78 so the count (absent other deaths) was down to 121 by 19 April.
BUT back on 20 March Keith O'Brien was out as an elector. So the count went from 125 to 120 between 14 February and 19 April. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Cardinals created by Francis#Cardinal electors. Thus far, the longest periods with more than 120 are 2 months and a few days in 2015 and 2017. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that section with all the references! I've copied the 121 number and source for 2016 to this article. Since the "13 slots" quote did not refer to a strict 120 limit after all, I think we could remove it completely for lack of relevance.
FWIW, the "longest period with more than 120" will almost certainly surpass 2 or 3 months this time, since it's very unlikely that four more cardinal electors die within 2 months. (Are there statistics on the average number of cardinal elector deaths per year, so we have a guideline for what to expect?)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The quote isn’t needed, nor a lot of detail. The point is simply that the 120 figure is exceeded regularly and sometimes by quite a few. Highlights, not a lot of data.
I don’t quite understand what you say about the “longest period”. We don’t talk about that anymore and there’s no reason to bring it back just for Francis. If we wanted to look at the larger picture, the longest period over 120 would follow one of the increases to 135, no? There are ways to figure that out by checking dates of death (use the death years on all the “Cardinals created by XXX” files) and if you’re lucky there will be an obituary that ends with “this brings the number of cardinal electors to 120”. But that takes luck. Second thought: Use the events tab at http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/events/ for cardinal deaths following the consistories of 2001 and 2003, checking for age at death, along with the history of modifications to List of living cardinals. But that’s a lot of work when we’ve already shown how popes treat the 120 as more of a guide than a limit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the quote then. The time period is still mentioned in Cardinals created by Francis, but I support the way you just amended that with "poised to exceed". Probably John Paul II exceeded the limit for longer in 2001 and 2003, but I'm not totally certain since the mortality rate seemed to be much higher back then; we only know that it took less than 2 years each, since both directly before the 2003 consistory and at the time of the 2005 conclave there were less than 120 electors. List of living cardinals was only created in 2003, and the elector count in the lede was only added in 2013, so it's indeed hopeless to find out the older time periods from it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t suggest you could just look at old versions of the List of living cardinals and find your answer. You need to be more creative. Go back to when the List had sortable birthdates, like this from July 2009. Find people who turned 80 between the 2001 and 2003 consistories. I see 14. Check to be sure they were cardinals as of the 2001 consistory, which requires lookups because the table doesn’t have that info. That gives you at least a partial list of the birthdays and death dates you need. It’s a research project. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need to run some calculations on my databases (takes about 12 hours) and then I can give you some firm numbers on when/how long the 120 limit has been exceeded. I'll try to post that later this week. --Dcheney (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, on 23 May 2001, page 12 says that there were 134 Cardinals "under 80 and eligible to vote in a papal conclave". So beginning with that information, the calculation would go like this:
So, it took about one year and five months from Consistory until the number of electors fell to 120. Varro (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! How did you compile this? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article for Cardinal elector might be useful. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the calculations and the results for 2001 to now are below. (For technical reasons, I'm excluding the 3 times before 1996 that the number was above 120.)
Start - End - Highest - Days - Pope
21-Feb-2001 - 1-Aug-2002 - 136 - 526 - JP2
21-Oct-2003 - 12-Dec-2004 - 134 - 418 - JP2 (in reality)
24-Mar-2006 - 25-Mar-2006 - 121 - 1 - B16
20-Nov-2010 - 27-Jan-2011 - 121 - 68 - B16
18-Feb-2012 - 27-Jul-2012 - 125 - 160 - B16
22-Feb-2014 - 12-Mar-2014 - 122 - 18 - F
14-Feb-2015 - 20-Apr-2015 - 125 - 65 - F
19-Nov-2016 - 29-Nov-2016 - 121 - 10 - F
28-Jun-2017 - 6-Sep-2017 - 121 - 70 - F
28-Jun-2018 - 28-Apr-2019 - 125 - 304 - F
Obviously the last entry assumes no cardinal elector dies and no new ones are created before the end date.--Dcheney (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we have (sort of) agreement on the important date: 31 July or 1 August 2002. But I’m troubled but the two maxima 136 and 134. We’ve been citing the NY Times for 135 for both of these consistories. Any ideas? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most commentators and those in the media understand that a cardinal loses their vote upon turning 80. Technically they do not lose it until the following day. In 2001, a cardinal turned 80 on the day of the consistory. No clue on 2003, except that a cardinal turned 80 three days before the consistory.--Dcheney (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see: "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." And in case anyone is following this, the cardinal who turn 80 on the day on the 2001 consistory was Antonio María Javierre Ortas. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the answer. The cardinal who turned 80 just before the 2003 consistory was Henryk Gulbinowicz. But at the time, his birthdate was believed to be 5 years later, 1928 not 1923. So no one thought he was turning 80.
According to Miranda HERE on Gulbinowicz: "His parents altered his birth records, with the help of a local priest, so that he could avoid being enlisted in the Red Army of the Soviet Union, or sent to a labor camp; 1928 was entered as the year of birth; the correct year of birth was not publicly acknowledged until February 2005." (emphasis added) This means the count "on record" as of 21 Oct 2003 would have included Gulbinowicz as an elector. His date of birth was corrected only as JPII approached the end of his life and it looked like 76-year-old Gulbinowicz was eligible to participate in a conclave, but he was in fact 81 plus. Make sense? Here's the date change according to Zenit: "A correction in the birth date of Cardinal Henryk Roman Gulbinowicz, retired archbishop of Wroclaw, Poland, has decreased the number of electors who could vote for a new pope." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent research! So the revised line for 2003 (the only one impacted by the false birthdate) is:
21-Oct-2003 - 10-Jan-2005 - 135 - 447 - JP2 (as perceived at the time)
--Dcheney (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that’s the best way to deal with this anomaly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCarrick[edit]

It was announced this morning that the resignation of Theodore McCarrick from the College of Cardinals was accepted last night by Pope Francis.[1] I'm afraid the new table format of the pages is too complex for me to figure out how to make the appropriate edits. --Dcheney (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One might be inclined to read this in terms of the O'Brien case in 2015[2], although O'Brien resigned from "the rights and privileges of a cardinal", whereas McCarrick seems to have bluntly resigned "from the cardinalate". Cardinals have indeed resigned in the past (e.g. Louis Billot); it remains to be seen whether McCarrick remains and can still be called a cardinal of the Church. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ McCarrick, 2018-07-28
  2. ^ O'Brien, 2015-03-20
The statement from the Vatican was quite clear, he is no longer a Cardinal (unlike O'Brien). To quote "Pope Francis accepted his resignation from the cardinalate ..." --Dcheney (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This seems much more like Louis Billot. That’s the first comparison I’ve seen on Twitter from Massimo Faggioli. Actually he wrote "I think Billot is disgusted to be in the same group of former cardinals with McCarrick." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the USCCB. The interpretation I expect will be less O'Brien vs McCarrick than Francis 2013 vs Francis 2018. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NCR: McCarrick renounces place in College of Cardinals after revelations of sexual abuse Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The List of living cardinals article and other related articles/templates have now been updated to reflect the resignation. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "historical data" subsection - Clarity needed[edit]

Are the figures from the conclaves after Paul VI on in the table about the percentage of the Italians among the cardinals reflective of the college overall or the cardinal electorate? SanctaEcclesiaDomini (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:College_of_Cardinals&oldid=1217255151"