[I have freely reformatted signed contribs, as to indentation and paragraphing only. Where i've removed part of a single contribution, i've retained the formal signature but marked the point of deletion with "[omission]" --- without otherwise interrupting the text if the omission is within a paragraph, and as a separate paragraph if one or more paragraphs are omitted. I have removed the formal sig in any other cases, and used strikethru of original material and bolding of its replacement, where it seemed worth giving my considered interpretation of the author's intent. --Jerzy•t20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
At 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC), Švitrigaila said in part:
[omission] In fact there are a lot of far more important other converses in the list of popes (for exemple is Pope Silvester III a legitimate pope or an antipope? and Pope Leo VIII? And Pope Benedict V? I explained that in details in the French article fr:Liste détaillée des papes, but it's not translated in English). The lists are allways aribitrary. Benedict XVI is considered to be the 265th according to the Vatican's count. It's false to say he's the 266th by "the other" count because he was elected far after 1961 and there are a lot of other ways to count popes. [omission]
At 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC), 132.205.45.110 said that:
[Bolding in the original converted to italic, in orer to prevent confusion.]
Solution: use the primary name, consisting of "Pope Stephen" and a Roman numeral, as a dab page. Every Stephen from II on will have a dab page at that name, with the actual article on any pope residing at Pope Stephen xx (1961)(with the appropriate value substituted for the "xx").
[The preceding is included to provide context. Discussion of that approach (as opposed to discussion of the following thoughts in response to it) should continue at Potential Solutions.]
At 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC), Švitrigaila said that:
_ _ I'm not sure whether those other popes are different cases or not, but they make no difference to this. If they are the same, why mention it? If they are different, we'd be stupid to apply the same solution, and we won't. They are red herrings in this discussion in either case.
At 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC), addressing Jerzy, Švitrigaila said (tho Jerzy has added bolded info, which prevents anyone from misunderstanding Šv's two sentences in quotes as having been uttered by anyone but Šv) that:
[omission]
Another argument of yours is there are a lot of old encylclopedias calling the Stephens by their old number. I have an old Encyclopedia where Saint Petersburg is called Leningrad. The name Leningrad was used longer than the name Saint Petersburg -- if you condider only the period beginning after the adoption of the name Leningrad! But on Wikipedia, the article's title is Saint Petersburg, and with a disambiguation line! (I might as well assume by analogy that you'd say "The problem that Šv apparently is blind to is that of a user who comes in looking for (to take a handy case) Leningrad to follow up on something they've read. Šv is apparently so intent on telling this user they are wrong as to be happy dumping them into an article that has "Saint Petersburg" at the top.")
[omission]
[other contribs intervene]
[omission]
[Bolding in the original converted to italic, in orer to prevent confusion.]
I have not decided to change the popes Stephen articles by a sudden mania. This moves seems to me as justified as the renaming of Leningrad into Saint Petersburg. It's not for me the occasion of expressing a personal taste for controversies. Be sure I'm waiting for your answer. Švitrigaila13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
