Talk:Papal household

}}

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus^(talk) 00:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Papal court → Papal household — This is the present name: "papal court" was the name only until 1968. See also Pastor bonus, 180. Esoglou (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

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 naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Merger proposal

I propose that Pontificalis Domus be merged into Papal household. The well-written new article Pontificalis Domus gives a clear summary of the present set-up of the papal household and would be very appropriate for inclusion in the article on the papal household itself. Of the document Pontificalis domus that decreed the present structure, abstracting from the arrangement that it decreed, all that need really be said is that it was issued on such-and-such date, by such-and-such a pope, brief items that do not demand an article separate from that on the papal household. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Politely oppose: I'm not convinced, to be frank. What is written in the article for Pontificalis Domus is not a summary of the present set-up of the Papal Household, but rather a summary of the document. It is therefore a reflection of the set-up as of March 28, 1968. Further changes were made by Pope John Paul II with the document Pastor Bonus—for some of these changes, see the section on changes to the Præfectura Pontificalis Domus. (I should also wonder why Pastor Bonus merits its own article when Pontificalis Domus is just as important a document.) There have also been an indeterminate number of smaller subsequent changes since 1968 independent of Pastor Bonus, so while the content of the article Pontificalis Domus provides a nice general map of the current structure of the Papal Household, it would need to be updated to reflect the present set-up. ¶ Also, I am afraid that some aspects of the article would be lost in the merger. While the bits about the structure of the Papal Household would be relevant to the article "Papal Household", the bits about the titles that were suppressed would not be, nor would the overview of Pope Paul's stated reasons for writing the motu proprio. I think this is valuable content. ¶ I would like to propose a compromise: use sections of Pontificalis Domus in Papal Household; create a section there, perhaps, and include a "Main article:" template to redirect to the article Pontificalis Domus which I think should be kept as it is. — AlekJDS ^talk 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the bits about the titles that were suppressed (and the image that you provided of the dress that went with some of the titles) are very valuable for the Papal Household article, precisely because they give a picture of the situation before the Pontificalis domus reform. Your "compromise" proposal would indeed be a major part of the now missing history section that the Papal Household article badly needs to grow. Would you please insert the "compromise" section on that reform? Or is it too much to ask? Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Not a problem. I'll get around to that as soon as time permits. — AlekJDS ^talk 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, did it. Let me know what you think of that. There is a fair amount of overlap in the articles at present, and maybe that would justify a merger, but I should mention that I am planning to add a section to the article for Pontificalis Domus about reactions to the reforms (I am doing research on that currently). It doesn't seem to me that such a section could belong in an article about the Papal Household in general, but maybe I'm just being obstinate about this. — AlekJDS ^talk 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As far as I am concerned, you may, if you wish, remove the merge tags from the two articles. I think the matter is in good hands. Esoglou (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do so wish. It was a good conversation to have; thank you for bringing it to the table. — AlekJDS ^talk 21:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)