Talk:2025 conclave

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 16:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• 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?

@Surtsicna: Please address the uncited passages. When you've done that, I'll review the hooks.--Launchballer 07:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorted. Thanks, Launchballer. Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. The hooks aren't. ALT1 fails WP:DYKHOOK, which demands that "Superlative hooks such as first/biggest/most [...] require sourcing that discusses the set in some detail; a throwaway comment in an article about the subject is not sufficient." and ALT2 puts the claim in wikivoice, while the article attributes to the Italian law enforcement.--Launchballer 11:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Please address the above.--Launchballer 15:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not like the alt hooks anyway. I would prefer:
ALT3: ... that although Robert Prevost was considered too young–and too American–to become pope, he was elected anyway?
ALT4: ... an American was elected pope because African and Asian cardinals reportedly refused to vote for the Italian frontrunner?
But before we dwell further into this, I should note that the article may have been rendered ineligible by its appearance in the news section after the nomination. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. Surprised @Sammi Brie: didn't pick up on that. Oh well, I'm closing this.--Launchballer 16:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Title Styling - Wording + Capitaliazation

"2025 conclave" seems very blasé a title, would not "2025 Papal Conclave" be better? My focus on the capitalization of conclave is that, yes, in most contexts the word "conclave" itself is an improper noun but in this case, because it's referring to this papal conclave in particular, would it not be better to edit the title to that instead? I personally think "2025 Papal Conclave" is best, but even just capitalizing it into 2025 Conclave would be more fitting as well as more visually appealing.

Just a thought! Pax tibi. SalomeCzapiewski (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Consensus here decided that "papal" was an unnecessary adjective because there is no other type of conclave. Moreover, as not a proper noun, there's no need for capitalization per WP:TITLEFORMAT. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A regretable result, as the conclave titles are no longer in sync with the papal election titles. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. There are no independent "papal election" articlea, they're all redirects to conclaves. "Conclave" and "papal election" are, for all intents and purposes, synonymous. There's no need to specify "papal papal election" by saying "papal conclave". ~Dᴀʀᴛʜ Sᴛᴀʙʀᴏ^{Talk • Contribs} 17:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

For example 1185 papal election. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is it "conclave" on some and "papal election" on others? Grahammydoodle (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

List of papal conclaves has some information though, as it includes both, perhaps it should be List of papal elections and conclaves. Cavrdg (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree, you should propose a move/move it. Grahammydoodle (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I've added a new space on the talk page for discussion. Grahammydoodle (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

New informations about votes

The new book, “The Election of Pope Leo XIV: The Last Surprise of Pope Francis,” by Vatican journalists Gerard O'Connell and Elizabeth Pique, draws on interviews with numerous cardinals and inform how many votes Leo (supposedly, given the secrecy of conclave) got. Could someone update the section of the article about the votes?

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/01/europe/pope-leo-conclave-election-book-intl ~2026-13464-51 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

Is The Election of Pope Leo XIV a valid source? If so, we should treat it that way and include its reporting in our coverage. The book is less important as a post-conclave publishing event, which is how we handle it now, than as a good source of details about what happened inside the conclave. I would include the cell phone incident as part of Day One, and that's just for starters. Note that Joshua McElwee, who has himself a long history as a reliable source and whose Reuters reporting we use now for covering this book, reports on The Election of Pope Leo XIV without reservations as to its veracity. He notes it is typical for journalists to glean details about a conclave over time. (Also, better to cite the book along with Reuters and other reviews.) Or has the reporting of Gerard O'Connell and Elisabetta Pique been called into question? Rutsq (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that it cannot be verified and can only be reported on or cited as rumor. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

yes, I agree.But ultimately, all discussions about the number of votes on the article are speculative. I see no harm in adding (yet another) speculation, but this time coming from famous, respected journalists. ~2026-20840-69 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Ehh, there have been books like this before, and AFAIK, they've been included in previous conclave articles with qualifiers like "According to" or "[book/author] alleges". Inspector Semenych (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)