Talk:Pope Stephen X

According to the article, before becoming pope Stephen X had to take refuge from Henry II. I wonder if it should read Henry III, because Henry II died in 1024. Even Henry III had died before Stephen X became pope.

This article is based on 19th century source. Since 1961 the counting of Popes Stephen has been changed; the second pope Stephen (3 days in 752) is no longer counted as a pope. A more accurate naming convention would be "Pope Stephen IX (X)" as it is used in literature. Besednjak 15:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The most accurate renaming would be simply Pope Stephen IX. There is no need for a paarenthesis with a variant of the name. The article itself is explicit enough. Švitrigaila 22:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Germanic Pope?

Was he really a German? Upper Lorraine was French-speaking - our List of popes refers to him as "Frederic" which is the French version of the name (more or less). He studied in Liège, another French-speaking town. john k 03:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Later came Pope Adrian VI, who came from the Netherlands but is still considered German as that was the language he spoke and the Dutch are a Germanic people anyway. 125.209.153.134 09:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I'm removing the sentence. --Chl 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Note that this will take some time to do. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Pope Stephen X → Pope Stephen IX –

Rationale: Pope Stephen IX was called Stephen IX during all his reign, signed his documents "Stephanus papa nonus", the name "Stephen IX" is written on his tomb and he is called "Stephen IX" on the Vatican's list of popes since the 1960s. I've asked for this move since 19 February 2006, but some think it's better to give two variants of the name into one title: Pope Stephen IX (or X). The discussion is now here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Numbering_popes_called_Stephen. Švitrigaila 22:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support, because I asked for that move! :o) Švitrigaila 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All the history argues for it. KonradWallenrod 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.. Szopen 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Eminently sensible. logologist|Talk 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Aldux 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Radomil talk 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I supported this elsewhere, I support it here. Septentrionalis 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Strong object to anything that would have two or more names in one (ex. Pope Stephen X or IX).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think as rule there can't be more than one variant of a name in the title of an article. If more than one variant is possible, the title must chose only one and the others must be explained in the text itself and redirects must be used from alternative titles. If such alternative titles were admitted in the article's title itself, then we'd have to rename, for examples, Stepanakert into Stepanakert/Xankəndi, Tighina into Tighina/Bender/Bendery or 2003 invasion of Iraq into 2003 invasion/liberation of Iraq... Švitrigaila 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. logologist|Talk 05:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though one person on a mission, unable to secure agreement to his renaming proposition on the naming convention page, has chosen to take it to a more obscure forum - this page. The nomenclature of double-numbered Ppopes Stephen is well-established: personal feelings and official pronouncements about the second Pope Stephen are irrelevant, as the terminology is routinely used in historical literature, and is necessary to avoid ambiguity. Discussion about these matters, which involve more than "Pope Stephen X", belongs at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). - Nunh-huh 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This approaches slander: WP:RM is hardly obscure. Septentrionalis 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. It's my opinion, stated as such and the obscure page is "Talk:Pope Stephen X". - Nunh-huh 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.