Talk:Pope John Paul II#Criticism section

I am but a wandering non-editor passing through, but it seems ludicrous that there isn't a better picture in the public domain out there. As is the picture is ridiculously fuzzy and has his eyes in shadow. 2601:240:C400:DD30:20A1:DD11:7C1F:D042 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II was not ‘head’ of the Catholic Church, he was ‘vicar’. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the head. Wahwahwebster (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've been trying to standardize saint infoboxes, and I've found that the vast, vast majority of them use hlists, or at least plaintext lists separated by commas. I disagree that the ubl style looks better, especially for long lists of patronage. I changed it back before checking the revisions, which *is* on me, but I do stand by my opinion here. Gelgems (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

:Template:Infobox person#Inline lists provides some good general advice on appropriate list formats for persons. In general, the advice is that {{tl|hlist}} is okay when the terms are short and the list is just a few items and that {{tl|ubl}} is appropriate for longer terms and longer lists. The {{para|patronage}} parameter exhibits both longer terms and a long list.

:As described in the template documentation, {{tl|indented plainlist}} is appropriate when you have items that are long and/or that might more difficult to tell apart. It provides a cleaner layout of the elements and aids in discriminating one from another and it avoids the use of bulleted lists where space is taken by the bullets. See, for example, the use of {{tl|indented plainlist}} in the {{para|previous_post}} and {{para|education}} parameters.

:The use of {{tl|indented plainlist}} in this article for {{para|patronage}} has been there for over a year and so consensus for it has occurred implicitly (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). Consensus can change. However, per WP:STATUSQUO, I will revert back to the status quo ante bellum while the discussion is ongoing.

:I invite other editors to share their opinions on the list format to use to see if there is consensus for a change.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be titled "Pope St. John Paul II"?

Citation refers to a source that no longer exists:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/03/pope.gorbachev/index.html

Reference #112 2A02:A311:43BE:4600:6C9B:A0C0:37E1:F18 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

What allegations haven't been criticized? This is intended to question the validity of the allegations, but provides no rhetorical support, and neither of those non-English links seem to point to legally consequential sources. Nothing wrong with citing media explanations of solid critique-- if those are links to media coverage of judges discussing those allegations, then great-- but if I added everything that my local radio DJs complained about to wikipedia, just about everything would "have been criticized." Legally noteworthy, substantiated criticisms of those allegations should be explained. Can't we get an English language version of that criticism for this English language Wikipedia article when so much of the cited abuse happened in English speaking countries? If there isn't any English language source for the criticism, are we sure that critique is consequential enough to question the validity of these widespread claims without at least an English-language explanation of the criticism in the text? I don't think it makes sense to remove the phrase because I have no idea if it's valid or not-- it may well just need clarification-- but I am adding an inline WP:AWW tag to the sentence.

Andythechef (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)