Talk:Ludovisi (family)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.


The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved from speedy[edit]

  • Object to speedy rename this is a primary topic dispute, so should have a full move request -- (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - to answer the comment above, a number of "House of..." or simply "<Surname>" articles were recently renamed to "<Surname> family" to make it clear we're talking about a family of people and not one person, such as in the case of Mazarin (which is a redirect anyway). So per the now generally accepted convention, the family should be at Ludovisi family per the consensus naming convention for Italian noble families of the era. That said, most other similar family articles do not have a disambiguation page in place of a redirect - see Barberini and Pamphili for example. All the things on the disambig page are about the one family - family members, family property or artworks from the family estate. Typically the "family" page becomes a form of disambiguation and includes those articles as links. See, for example, Barberini#Patrons of the arts - there would be no point having a separate disambiguation page to list all of their family members (already in the family tree) and all of their property (already in the article) and all of their artwork (as linked earlier from the article). In my opinion, the family should be at Ludovisi family, it should include everything at Ludovisi and that title should redirect to the family page. The title of this page should redirect there too. I appreciate the effort of this proposal but this whole issue has been worked through before and I don't see any need for this particular family to be apart from the rest in terms of naming convention. Of course consensus can change, but I don't think it has since those moves, some earlier this year. Stalwart111 09:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • Summary -
Ludovisi (family) should be moved to Ludovisi family per naming convention.
Ludovisi content should be merged to Ludovisi family and redirected there.
The new Ludovisi family should be expanded to include all family members, property and art.
Cheers, Stalwart111 09:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, a Ludovisi collection article needs to be built instead. While the family members can be merged from the dab page to the family article, the rione should remain there, and a Ludovisi collection article can be used to indicate the various artworks from the demolished villa. -- (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The rione can be disambiguated from the family article once Ludovisi has been redirected there. Otherwise that page would simply disambiguate the family and the rione named after them. There just isn't a need for a page to disambiguate things relating to the same family and that approach would be inconsistent with how we deal with every other similar family. As for the art, I have no objection to the creation of a fork to cover the collection but I don't really think it's justified. Other families of the era had much larger collections, some of which eventually seeded major national galleries. Those galleries obviously have articles but the collections themselves don't. Stalwart111 01:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.