Jump to content

Talk:Basilica/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Oriental

I rewrote the material on the oriental basilica. Unfortunately I don't have the book I originally read this in. I do remember that the term had been coined by the time Josef Strzygowski (who used a different term but I don't remember what) was writing. That would date it to the early 20th or late 19th century. A google search turned up several pages using "oriental basilica" to describe basilicas with no clerestory, even outside the context of Armenia and Georgia. One web page even used the term to describe a church in Macedonia that lacked a clerestory. Since it seems to be in general use, I think it's safe to use the term without putting an explanation of its origins into the article. Isomorphic 17:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Oriental" in this sense has a quaint ring to it now, which dated the term, to my ear. I wish we had Strzygowski's term for a sub-section title. --Wetman 22:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you're sufficiently interested, you can find the term along with some historiography in Christina Maranci's book Medieval Armenian Architecture: Constructions of Race and Nation. However, my impression was that Strzygowki's terminology hasn't gained general acceptance, and it would have been a German word anyway. This is a relatively specialized subject, and I'm not sure there is a single accepted term in English.
Most of the literature just calls them basilicas, distinguishing them from other church types in Armenia and Georgia, not from basilicas elsewhere. You could call them "Eastern basilicas", which would modernize the sound a bit, but I've never actually seen that term. Isomorphic 19:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Basiilica Bell. This bell is from the Saint Louis Cathedral in Saint Louis, Missouri. All Basilicas either have an actual bell similar to this or a painted version of the bell that is normally used in Papal processions.

This image isn't germane to the entry, and the caption is misleading. Even parish churches have such bells.

That particular bell, though, is one of the distinct privileges of a minor basilica. Every minor basilica has one. The other privliege is the presence of the ombrellino in the church. An image like that would be useful, but maybe a more generic image? Pmadrid 12:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A basilica floorplan would be more useful than snapshots of everybody's favorite local minor basilica. They do multiply like John-Paul saints.--Wetman 06:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World's Largest Church

Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro, Yamoussoukro, Ivory Cost. Constructed in 1989 and has seating for 18,000 parishioners. [1] Rklawton 03:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Patriarchal basilicas

The vatican only mentions the four major basilicas as patriarchal. See vatican homepage --83.248.105.91 04:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are only four major basilicas (our article previously said five) which are all patriarchal as well, but a page of 'usefull information' can hardly be meant as a full listing, and probably limits itself to Rome (it's the Vatican site, not Universal or Italian church). Fastifex 10:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of St Lawrence outside the Walls, in Rome. --83.248.107.64 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

More proof that St Lawrence outside the Walls is not a patriarchal basilica. Note that the link is to the vatican. [2] --83.248.105.167 07:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But see the link here: [3]. Scroll down aways. Rwflammang 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Parish Church?

The article says that St. Peter's is a parish church. I think this is incorrect. The Parish church of Vatican City is St. Anne's. St. Peter's is a shrine, not a parish church. Can someone give me a reference to St. Peter's as a parish?

St. Anne's is the Vatican parish. See the link here: [4]. Rwflammang 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia?

Doesn't this belong in here somewhere since it was the largest church in the world from the 530 AD until it was turned into mosque in 1453 (and would still have been the largest church 100 years after). At its time is was one of the most advanced achievements in engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.185.97 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No a Basilica is nominated by the Pope so must be a Roman Catholic church, while Hagia Sophia is Orthodox (and remarkable) Hugo999 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Basilica category

As a Basilica is a Roman Catholic church, Basilicas in Austria (say) should go to Roman Catholic churches in Austria (and to Basilicas in Europe) as the next category up, not to Churches in Austria Hugo999 (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-catholic basilicas

Many of the comments on this article seem to take it for granted that every basillca must be a catholic church.This ignores the statement in the article that it also has an architectural meaning. This can include churches of other denominations and also non-religious buildings in that form. It would seem more satisfactory to distinguish the Catholic variety as 'Catholic Basilicas'. Waysider1925 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about St Lawrence

I have made some minor copy editing changes and tidied up some (not all) of the links. More work is needed. But I have a question: in the second-last paragraph under the heading "Major or papal basilicas (in Rome)", it says:

St John Lateran was associated with Rome, St Peter's with Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), St Paul's with Alexandria (in Egypt), St Mary Major with Antioch (the Levant) and St Lawrence with the junior, Jerusalem.

What is meant by "St Lawrence with the junior, Jerusalem"? Ondewelle (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Section title: "Major or papal basilicas (in Rome)"

This section title is awkward. Where is the other section: "Major or papal basilicas (outside Rome)"? (See the point?) What's more, it has broken a couple of redirects from other pages. To correct, we may change one section title or many redirects. So, I'm changing it to "Major or papal basilicas". Please discuss before changing this section title further. Thanks. Kace7 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What about taking this part and outsourcing it by creating an article "Basilica maior" like: de:Basilica maior ? --JWBE (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I admit the title is not clear but tries to reflect a simple fact. All the 4 papal basilicas are located in Rome. The title was correct.
I would suggest to outsource most of the article to a new article about classifications of catholic churches.
All the rest are de facto minor basilicas. However, some ancient churches are named basilicas since immemorial times and are often classified as "Immemorial basilicas", without the attributes of minor basilica. The term "Major" is no longer used during Benedict XVI papacy but things could change in the future. Patriarchal basilicas (all 5 in Rome) and 2 in Italy (Venice St Mark's) are now called Pontifical basilicas since the election of Benedict XVI. Reasons are unclear to me as no official statement was issued to my knowledge. One sentence missing in the Annuario Pontificio changed everything.
Confusion arises from the fact that a lot people thinks that the title "Basilica" refers to the "ranking" which is not the case. Catholic churches or buildings are simply classified: cathedral churches, (parish) churches, churches, oratories (or private chapels). In principle, there is no real ranking, churches are .... churches. Sometimes, the name of "temple" is used (cfr Sagrada Familia) for catholic worships places. In the case of Gaudi's building it was the only denomination acceptable as the building was not consecrated yet and therefore could not be called church.
Besides that, some churches (or other sacred places like cemeteries) are known as shrines by reason of special devotion frequented by the faithful as pilgrims.
That's it for the Canon Law (vatican.va: TITLE I: SACRED PLACES (Cann. 1205 - 1243)).
The qualification "minor basilica" is a title received by a church from the Pope (cfr its attributes). The term "patriarchal" basilicas refers to ancient basilicas. Technically, you could have churches which are at the same cathedral churches, minor basilica and shrines (national or not). For example, the Pontifical Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary of Pompeii is cathedral church, pontifical minor basilica, shrine at the same time.
Papal basilica is the new name of Major basilicas. Contrary to what is stated in the article, the basilicas in Padova, Loreto,... are all "Pontifical minor basilicas" and not Papal IMHO.
But I am a bit lost with the wording "Pontifical basilicas". The change of the name for the Basilica of San Francesco d'Assisi went together with a reorganization done by Pope Benedict XVI who took over the management of the church from the Fransiscan order, if I remember well (exact details to be confirmed and proper sources to be mentioned)
Suggestions to improve the article
# Suppress the gallery. There are 1580+ minor basilicas outside Italy and 530+ in Italy. The article should stricly refer to List of basilicas and List of basilicas in Italy instead.
# Create a new page: classification of catholic churches. Ranking is not the most appropriate term because, if you ask people which church is the most important, usually it comes down to defending is own local (Basilica, cathedral, shrine, parish) church ;-)
Remarks, suggestions will be appreciated. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As regards the section title: it may have been factual, but some facts are better left to the text. ... I think a short, new page may be warranted. The ranking and classification of churches is confusing. Then several articles could all refer to this new page, rather than clutter themselves up with trying to distinguish between this and that. ... I don't think the gallery is a problem. It's a nice touch. Better to respect that work. Kace7 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The gallery will be outsourced by creating the article "Basilica minor", so the work will be completely kept. --JWBE (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The gallery is now in Basilica minor. --JWBE (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Three articles

It might be better, so separate this article in three articles. "Basilica minor" and "Basilica maior" should be outsourced (watch de:Basilika (the building) and de:Basilica minor / de:Basilica maior (the title)). --JWBE (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The work is done: Basilica minor and Basilica maior --JWBE (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Basilica: how to outsource Major and minor basilica

Copied from User_talk:Afernand74#Basilica

Hello, I have just created a page in my working space User:JWBE/Basilica minor to create the articles "Basilica minor" and "Basilica maior". :The germen an even some other-language articles will be used to separate the facts. If it will be finished, the part "Ecclesiastical basilicas" :will be very shortened. With kind regards --JWBE (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I have been looking for while into this classification. The problem is how to handle the confusion in nomenclature. Specially when it comes to Papal vs Pontifical because you have at the same pontifical prelatures getting into the picture.
The best systematic classification and structure have found until now is
Basilicas. Historical and Canonical Development. GABRIEL CHOW HOI-YAN http://www.gcatholic.com/basilicas/bas001-excerpts.pdf www.gcatholic.com/basilicas/bas001-excerpts.pdf
The table of contents is IMHO the best canvas possible.
  1. Patriarchal --> Papal (during BXVI papacy at least)
  2. Major
  3. Minor
  4. Special Categories Of Basilicas
This classification is chronological as the first minor basilica was proclaimed in the 19th century.
This systematic classification will help expanding the article.
What do you think?
--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWBE (talk • contribs)
Basilica maior had just been created. --JWBE (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thank you for creating the page. The main problem I have is that is not 100% correct IMHO to say, as stated in German wikipedia, that Major Basilica = Patriarchal Basilica because not all the Patriarchal basilicas are major basilicas. A counter-example is St Mark in Venice. The statement in the German article is contradicted by one of his source:
Kardinal Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo kündigte an, dass die vier „Basilicae Maiores“ (St. Johannes im Lateran, St. Peter, St. Paul vor den Mauern und St. Maria Maggiore) von „Patriarchalbasiliken“ in „Päpstliche Basiliken“ umbenannt werden. Darüber hinaus berichtete der Kardinal vom Programm der Neuordnung der Anlage der Basilika St. Paul vor den Mauern.
There are only 4 major basilicas (see Cathency http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02325a.htm). They happen to also have the title of Patriarchal basilicas together with the (Minor) Basilica of St Laurent outside the walls in Rome, the two churches from the Franciscans.
Your comments are welcome --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think, that the outsourcing in "Basilica minor" and "Basilica maior" will help to short the article "Basilica" to its main architectual intention. If both articles exist, then they could be developed. I agree to the problem Patriarchal Basilica/Papal Basilica/Basilica maior, so your suggestion of the four chapters looks good. If the article "Basilica minor" exist, even the gallery will be then automatically outsourced. This help the main arcticle "Basilica" to appear better. I would be pleased, if you could do some edits in User:JWBE/Basilica minor. With kind regards --JWBE (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Basilica minor (including the gallery) had also been outsourced, but there is still work to do. Feel free to improve or rearrange the article. With kind regards and many thanks --JWBE (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that having a separate article that can be linked to the architectural basilica is a good way to go. However:
My opinion is that the article {{Basilica major]] and the article Basilica minor ought to be combined under the single heading Basilica (Ecclesiastical) or some such.
Having two articles is overkill and leads to confusion rather than clarity. The fact is that all those "minor" basilicas are just known as "basilica", with the notion of "minor" being a technicality that is only relevant to the notion of "major" and then not essential,
I'm not suggesting that you scrap the term "minor" which is a proper designation, but rather than for the purpose of finding out what a basilica is, "Basilica minor" is not a useful main heading.
Amandajm (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It may seem to be overkill. You could have a single article with the following structure
*Patriarchal --> Papal (during BXVI papacy at least)
*Major
*Minor (after 1783) + Immemorial (before 1783)
*Special Categories Of minor Basilicas (Pontifical)
The main limitations of this structure is that is biased IMHO. It is a catholic classification/hierarchy/ranking. If you want to discuss the recognition (or not) of the Major/patriarchal/ancient basilicas by the rest of the christian churches, separating both articles would make sense.
What do you think?--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

@Afernand74: As this discussion affects the article "Basilica" itself it should be copied to Talk:Basilica. What do You think? --JWBE (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking backwards

The article overall seems to be stuck in the Middle ages somehow. I added a section on modern basilicas, but the section on the minor basilicas in Italy seems to be giving them undue attention, given that more people (say 6 million) visit the Basilica of Guadalupe on a single weekend in December each year than those minor Italian sites all year, combined. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

List of basilicas - Basilicas in Portugal

The article states that there are only 6 basilicas in Portugal, but i know several more which are known as basilicas in this region alone (Braga, Guimaraes and Póvoa), the listed basilicas is because they have been granted that title by the Holly See? --Pedro (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First basilica in the United States

Listing the Basilica of Saint Mary in Minneapolis, Minnesota as the first basilica in the United States of America is incorrect as it was proclaimed on 1926-01-18 by by Pope Pius XI in 1926, while St. Adalbert's in Buffalo NY was proclaimed in 1907 by Pius X, his predecessor. This is embarassingly shown on the basilica list on the bottom of the external links page at: http://www.gcatholic.com/churches/data/basUS.htm. The website for St. Mary's also mirros this error.

St. Adalbert's in Buffalo does not appear to be equipped with a conopaeum and tintinnabulum. Is this correct? (Are there better pictures?) Group29 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, according to what is on St. Adalbert's web site, it says that Pope Pius X, "by an authenticated document, had adjoined the Church of St. Adalbert to St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, thereby granting "in perpetuo" the privilege of enjoying all the indulgences and spiritual favors which the Vatican Basilica enjoys." There are a number of articles on the Save St. Adalbert's web site which outline that even between the experts, there is confusion on what the basilica status of the church is. Group29 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I had a conversation with a sister at the Diocese of Buffalo office today that put me on the right track. Please see here (keep in mind it's from 1959). It turns out St. Adalbert's is affiliated with a major basilica - St. Peter's - which does not make it a basilica. In particular, "Of course, a church need not be a minor basilica in order to ask and receive affiliation; but in no case does this indulgence — affiliation with a major basilica endow the recipient church — as some have thought — with the title or rank of minor basilica" and "At times the title basilica has been applied to other American churches in addition to the twelve we list. If they merit the title, the papal document conferring the rank has at least never been published in the A.S.S. (1865-1908) or in the A.A.S. (1909- ). More likely the claim has been based on their obtaining indulgence-affiliation with one of the major basilicas. This is the case with St. John the Apostle and Evangelist in St. Louis and Old St. John's in Chicago, both affiliated with St. John Lateran; and St. Adalbert, Buffalo, affiliated with St. Peter's. As we have already pointed out, affiliation does not confer the rank or prerogatives of a minor basilica." So, St. Adalbert's is not a basilica, making St. Mary's in Minneapolis the first in the US. From what I hear, there has been some loss in the distinction between being affiliated with a major basilica and being conferred the title of minor basilica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic star (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I note that Adalbert's web site appears to lack a coat of arms in any prominent place, which is one of the stated perogatives of a minor basilica. Also, their decree of 1907 predates the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which changed some things. Also, if you follow the link at GCatholic.com, you will see that it says "basilica status uncertain." At any rate, our speculation here is original research and is not permitted in the article. Our best bet is to find a reliable secondary source that explains the status of these basilicas. I am not sure if the GCatholic site qualifies as reliable, based on my observation above. Second best bet is to explain the conflict in the article and cite the primary sources, the basilica websites, that both make the claim to first basilica. Alternatively, we could just remove the line from the article and leave a comment in the wikitext to see the talk page about why it's silent on that point. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance of the rankings?

Based on the discussion above about first basilica, I thought that the article does not explain the importance of the rankings. A reader ma ask: So, what is the big deal there? Is a minor Basilica less holy or sanct than a basilica? Is a basilica just a pretty church? Are masses said in a non-basilica not good enough? Do prayer petitions in a basilica receive more favorable responses from God? So what is the big deal here? I think that type of straight forward question needs to have a straightforward answer in the article. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence in"Christianization of the Roman basilica"

I removed the following sentence from the section "Christianization of the Roman basilica":

Famous existing examples of churches constructed in the ancient basilica style include the church at Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai and the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna.

San Vitale is quite definitely not a basilica in the architectural sense, about the church at Saint Catherine's Monastery I don't know, but the term is not used in the article. Besides, there are already a few examples higher up in the section.—Austriacus (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Antiquity of St. John Lateran's

St. John Lateran's is erroneously indicated as being later than others. Instead the palace itself was built in the second century A.D., and was given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine at least by the Edict of Peace (313), because in 313 a synod of bishops was held there. It was consecrated as a christian basilica in 324, so beginning 4th century not end! Lwangaman (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Non religious baslica's?

Why are there no mention of non religious basilica's? This article seems to be bias towards the catholic church and it's use of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.49.133 (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basilica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Link works and seems useful, although images are missing. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basilica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basilica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

@GPinkerton: & @Elizium23: - At this point, after going through the edits and conversations still happening, I think it may be best to take this to WP:DRN and start it there. I can see based on all of the headers and projects listed at this top this is causing a lot of confusion about what this page should be about. As I stated in my third opinion there are other pages in which these are covered. I sincerely and honestly think this would be the best next step for you to help resolve this. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Thanks, I think the dispute is more or less over now. Thanks for the giant template on my talkpage ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: you can remove that. I did it by accident! Sowwy! (Lol) Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 02:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We renamed the article

The article is named Basilicas in the Catholic Church because that is WP:CONSISTENT with the naming scheme used throughout Wikipedia. (I am not sure why it is plural, but that is beside the point right now.) The only thing named "Roman Catholicism" is a redirect. And yes, Eastern Catholic Churches have minor basilicas: Basilica and National Shrine of Our Lady of Lebanon (North Jackson, Ohio) is of the Maronite Catholic Church; St. Mary's Syro-Malabar Cathedral Basilica, Ernakulam is what it says on the tin. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong page? Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, Regarding this Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Main temple" claim

Johnbod Can you point to some sentence in the source you've adduced to point to where your claim about "usually adjacent to the main forum, in newly-planned towns typically facing the main temple across this"? Then maybe you can explain to me what you believe a "main temple" might mean in Graeco-Roman paganism or if you can think of some examples of this arrangement you've proposed? It does not seem creditable to me and I cannot find any evidence of this in the cited source. GPinkerton (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It was normally very plain what the "main temple" of a town or city was in the Graeco-Roman world. Under the empire, especially in new towns, it was normally that of the Imperial cult. Which of the two cited sources have you actually looked at? What seems "creditable" to you is not of much interest. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the one to which the footnote you added led. It says nothing about "main temples" (the imperial cult? lol!) It doesn't say anything about newly planned cities either. Please, quote something that supports this idea or will remove this claim again as not supported by the sources. (Certainly Vitruvius states precisely the opposite of what you claim in his detailed treatment of the subject, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary citations.) GPinkerton (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There are 2 refs there - which do you say you looked at (as I asked above)? What exactly does Vitruvius say? Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Columnae sunt in latitudine testudinis cum angularibus dextra ac sinistra quaternae, in longitudine, quae est foro proxima, cum isdem angularibus octo, ex altera parte cum angularibus VI, ideo quod mediae duae in ea parte non sunt positae, ne inpediant aspectus pronai aedis Augusti, quae est in medio latere parietis basilicae conlocata spectans medium forum et aedem Iovis. From which it is clear that one or both of your claims are false. Now, answer the question; produce the part you say backs your claims! GPinkerton (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
From Henig (this section actually Thomas Blagg), the whole passage is too long to type, but "...Such newly-planned North Italian cities as Velleia .... placing the basilica broadside to the forum, opposite the temple. This type of forum was introduced to Gaul, as at Augst and ... Severan Forum at Lepcis ... the basilica opposite [the temple] was placed at a marked angle..." Vitruvius is describing the specific arrangement he designed and built at Fano - perhaps you would find it easy to follow the passage in English. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No thanks, my translation's much better than that old one! I'll go ahead and reword the claim to fit the source. Of course, Fano is just one such newly-planned North Italian city and as you can see from the English, the Temple of Augustus, which you claimed should be the "main temple" because "under the empire, especially in new towns, it was normally that of the Imperial cult", was in fact on the same side of the forum as the basilica. Elsewhere is his discussion of the ideal forum, Vitruvius makes no mention of a temple. Thanks for your acknowledgement that there is no claim that any Roman city had a "main" temple, still less regularly did so opposite a basilica in a forum. GPinkerton (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Pity you didn't use it then. You don't have the full source, & so should resist the itch to tinker. I make no such "acknowledgement", and you should stop twisting people's words in such a ridiculous way. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The claim is an interpolation not in the source, which in any case is not a good one for making such a sweeping and unlikely statement. GPinkerton (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Query

History 4th paragraph, last sentence: "The central aisle tended to be wide and was higher than the flanking aisles, so that light could penetrate through the clerestory windows." Is this referring to the aisle or the roof above it? Manannan67 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) P.S. The History section is long, a bit redundant, and tedious to wade through. Moving "Basilicas in the Roman Forum" up to about the fifth paragraph where the Basilica Porcia is brought up would break up the wall of text a bit. Manannan67 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Manannan67: I agree that it needs breaking up, and it could certainly use some pictures of the buildings mentioned. I'm planning on adding quite a bit more to this section so it will get some sub-headings and illustrations when the material is a bit more rounded out - we don't yet say anything about the many civil basilicas in Constantinople for instance, but these went on being built for centuries after Rome stopped building more. Some more on the early basilica churches of Constantine and Constantius wouldn't go amiss, and a treatment of the history of the word in Latin is another desideratum. The list of basilicas in the Roman Forum is a bit weak in itself; it could be broadened out to include all the other famous basilicas in the other fora of Rome. GPinkerton (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh and in answer to your question, I think it means the the roof itself was higher over the nave ("central aisle") than over the aisles, which I suppose is really the same thing in one-story space with a wooden roof. GPinkerton (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I was suggesting that the word "aisle" needed to be changed as it implies the side aisles are somehow lower, like some kind of trench or sunken living room. Manannan67 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
How's it now? GPinkerton (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The "aisle" isn't taller, the roof is. Manannan67 (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, the nave itself is taller. The roof above the nave is higher than over the aisles. Feel free to change it though. GPinkerton (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The nave is taller because the roof is higher; you don't step down into the side aisles. The floor is all one level. Manannan67 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
yes I know, I just don't think the wording you objected to implies a step in the floor, especially not with the word "taller". If a building is tall it's usually because its structure is high, not because it's built on foundations that are higher above sea-level! Anyway it doesn't matter; go ahead and change it to something you prefer if you think it's unclear; I didn't choose the words. GPinkerton (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Shortdesc

NOTE: Please do not edit or summarize the conversation, it should be left as is. If it gets to far to the right, please use {{Outdent|4}} return to left margin to move back to the left margin. Thanks Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Building used as a place of Christian worship, or a type of large building in classical architecture - a basilica is a style of architecture, but this style of architecture is not necessary for the declaration of a building as a basilica for Christian worship. These are two alternative definitions that have some overlap. Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The architectural meaning is clearly primary, both chronologically and in terms of notability and usage. All the original Christian basilicae were basilica-formed; the recent Roman Catholic usage is really quite niche and pedantic and is anyway just a misapplication of the idea. No-one outside the Curia looks at Sagrada Familia and says: "a basilica"! GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
{{citation needed}}. "Minor basilica" is a common honor among cathedrals and other important churches, and nobody who attends one of them forgets that it is a designated basilica. This is widespread throughout the world. Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hundreds and hundreds of WP:RS covering "minor basilica" designations, so in comparison, the architectural basilica is the niche topic. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elizium23: You say "throughout the world" and "common honour" but what you really mean is "exclusively within the Roman Catholic religion" and "never more than one . See the Roman-type basilicae massively predominate the results in this search of academic literature: [5]. See also that Wikipedia already has articles for both Minor basilica and Major basilica, so the niche post 18th century canon-law category hardly merits consideration in the main article. GPinkerton (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, all you have proven is that "basilica" has at least two complementary meanings. Of course there is ample scholarly literature on the architecture. Could you walk up to someone on the street and ask them to describe a basilica? Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Certainly, the answer is much more likely to be related to the Graeco-Roman town hall (of which there are many thousands) or the basilica form than a semantic bauble bestowed by the papacy, which means little to most. People are more interested in the Basilica Nova, the Basilica Aemilia or the Basilica of Pompeii or the basilica churches than they are in canonical niceties of one particular religion of which most users are not a part of and have no interest in. As I say, there is already plenty of coverage of this niche usage at Major basilica and Minor basilica without taking over as a major meaning in the short description of the main page. GPinkerton (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elizium23 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elizium23: I've moved the Catholic-specific stuff to a new article, Basilicas in Roman Catholicism, since it obviously has little to do with basilicas per se. GPinkerton (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, good, then I'll move the architecture stuff to "Basilicas in architecture" and we'll reduce this here to a disambiguation page. Elizium23 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elizium23: No, this page is not merely about the architectural form. It's a type of public building in archaeology, the type of building called a basilica and from which all other uses are derived, however distantly. GPinkerton (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Laurel Lodged and I have agreed to withdraw our proposals in order to start a broader discussion on the number and scope of basilica articles. Elizium23 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How to represent the various usages of the word basilica. Originally posted by Laurel Lodged. Guy (help!) 20:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  1. Should the "Basilica" article continue to treat three aspects of basilicas: archaelogical/historical, architectural, and as used by the Catholic Church?
  2. If no, which aspects should be split to new articles? Elizium23 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as 3 aspects since the 3 are so interwoven that it would be quite specious to separate them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all three. As Laurel Lodged says, the three concepts are all closely connected; if any one section becomes unwieldy due to its size and level of detail, it can of course be split off into a separate article, keeping a shorter version of the contents here. P Aculeius (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all three, though I'm not that strongly opposed to "as used by the Catholic Church" being split off - we already have Major basilica and Minor basilica. I see Pinkerton has (all too typically) pre-empted matters by setting-up Basilicas in the Catholic Church. At the end of this, that may need to be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There are only two aspects: 1.) Buildings and 2.) 18th century title bestowed by the pope on Latin churches Obviously these are separate things and have next to no relation to one another. I don't know why we are going through this again. There is plenty more that can be said about actual basilicas in this article, and that will leave no room for the quaint honorific of the Roman Catholic Church, which as I say has no relationship with actual basilicas. Encylopaedia Britannica had two entries under "basilica" and neither was about the 18th century Roman Catholic title. This is true of nearly all reliable sources, since the primary meaning of "basilica" is a building and not religious titulature. GPinkerton (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Not true. Old St. Peter's was a basilica long before Papal basilicas were created. It was never a cathedral; that was always St John Lateran. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: What is not true? No-one is disputing that Old Saint Peter's was a basilica - it was undoubtedly a Roman basilica. It was however, never known by the title "major basilica" or "papal basilica" because these honorifics were not used until the 18th century, long after it had been demolished. Obviously, St Peter's belongs in both categories, but that cannot be used to prove both categories should be discussed on the same page exclusively. GPinkerton (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The binary presentation of the matter is what's not true. We ought not to be debating something that does not exist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: It is binary. Some papal basilicas are actual basilicas, many (possibly most) are not. One is a type of building, the other is a title, a word, and one applied without regard for the type of building. GPinkerton (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Not all domes are domes. Some are hemi-spheres, some conical, some rather squat, some roofed cylinders; in popular parlance, all are still domes. All Christian basilicas started off as copies / types of the secular basilica. Today, many rather stretch the boundaries of architectural credibility to say that they still respect the basic basilica forms and ratios. Have you seen some Eastern Orthodox cathedrals that carry the name of basilica? All Catholic basilicas would, I assume, have originally conformed to the secular model. So some have diverged. Do we really want to sweat over a metaphorical basilica as opposed to a literal basilica? It's best to make peace with a convenient ambiguity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: All domes are domes; they are vaults with radial symmetry. There are of course countless orthodox churches (many are cathedrals) that are basilicas in the proper sense. It is obviously impossible for these to be given the title "basilica" by the Pope. This in itself shows they are two very different meanings of the word basilica and should not be treated together. Constantine built many basilicas, sacred and profane, but they are all the same kind of basilica and can all appear here. The first Hagia Sophia would be an example of an Orthodox basilica that was a cathedral, for example, and the present church on the site is also, more distantly, a basilica and a cathedral. The other use is not a "metaphorical basilica" it is a titular one that has nothing to do with architecture at all. GPinkerton (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The point about the Eastern Orthodox cathedrals that are called basilicas is that many bear only a passing nod to the basic secular form. There have so many side chapels, cupolas, and multiple screened off areas that only with a generous eye could the form be said to be truly present. Kings Cross Station is more of a basilica than many EO basilicas. Yet in common parlance they are basilicas. This is more out of shared remembrance of their origins than out of respect for architectural nicities. By the way, the wiki definition of 'dome' differs from the definition that you supplied. It allows more latitude for things that are not really domes, which is exactly what is needed here also.Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: Whether or not the mainstream of architectural and archaeological investigation seems to have a "generous eye" to you is irrelevant; this is how the reliable sources work. Why are two wholly separate concepts necessary to treat of in the same article when next to no reliable source mentions them on the same page? Your claims about domes are surely irrelevant; what kind of dome is not a vault with radial symmetry? There is no way to consider KGX a basilica and even if there were, it would not be worthy of Wikipedia unless described as such in reliable sources, and even then, it would still obviously be a completely different meaning of the word than the title bestowed by the pope. The fact is that they are different concepts with no relation to one another. GPinkerton (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment This RfC should have been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Elizium23 can you rectify this oversight please? GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it's done by a bot, but it requires the inital summary of the quesiton to be signed. Guy (help!) 20:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: The bot does as the human wills; you have to choose where to list when listing from my experience. This is a deliberate omission. GPinkerton (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, WP:AGF. Guy (help!) 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly is this going? Is this a discussion, a third opinion, a survey or what ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Monkey wrench

Laurel Lodged has filed for deletion of minor basilica and major basilica all at once, on the grounds that we can flesh out Basilicas in the Catholic Church and also on the grounds that the 3 senses of "Basilica" were still contained in this main article. Those are, however, some faulty rationalizations, since given the direction of this RFC, we will soon delete Basilicas in the Catholic Church having merged it back into this main article. So what to do with minor basilica and major basilica? Well, we might need to expand/modify/withdraw/repost this RFC in order that it has a wider scope so that we can hash out how these four interrelated articles will be scoped. Your guess is as good as mine, at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

checkY Galendalia (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. I am asking for this information as there is a lot to go through with other items on the talk page and trying to decipher what you two are asking. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Elizium23)
The term "basilica" has three primary, interrelated meanings, and this article should reflect that, as it always has. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (GPinkerton)
The term basilica has one primary meaning and one almost entirely unrelated meaning. The primary topic is clearly basilicas themselves, not the title lately bestowed on non-basilicas by some religious organization. For years there have been objections on the talk page to the long-standing bias towards Catholicism's appropriation of the word, which is unnecessary since articles exist to cover that already. GPinkerton (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(The word basilica has, to most, for millennia, meant a large rectangular public building with a nave and aisles which was the indoor version of the Roman forum (usually immediately outside). This is the primary meaning of the word and the article ought to be about this subject. Entirely separately, the Roman Catholic Church, (and no other denomination) has taken it upon itself from the 17th century to designate certain of its churches (at papal whim) as "basilicas". Wikipedia already has an article on Major Basilicas and Minor Basilicas. This peculiar usage, has nothing at all to do with most basilicas or the basilica form (notwithstanding that a few of the oldest Catholic "basilicas" actually are Roman-era basilica churches), or really with anything at all except the obscure niceties of canon law. Elizium risibly tried to argue that the Vatican's designation of any church the pope fancies as "minor basilica" somehow makes it the primary topic, not only of Major Basilicas and Minor basilica, which is plenty, but of the actual Basilica article itself. The short description of the Basilica article read, merely and quite wrongly: "Building used as a place of Christian worship". I changed it, and Elizium has been trying to defend the over-preponderance of Catholic jargon ever since, while I attempted to hive off the niche Catholic use of the term to its own page with links to Major Basilicas and Minor Basilicas. Elizium decided this was unacceptable, or else decided that if the Roman Catholic minor basilicas were not the primary focus of the article as Elizium desired, then the whole thing should simply be a redirect to Basilicas in Roman Catholicism and Basilicas in architecture which obviously and seriously misleads; where is the actual history of actual basilicas going to go? The discussion of their function and place in Roman society, late antiquity, and the middle ages belongs in the article that should discuss those things, and that article should be called Basilica. Basilica has only two meanings: a building that is actually a basilica (whether Roman covered market, audience-hall, or basilica-church) and a building that the Vatican has decided to call a basilica sometime in the past 300 years or so, irrespective of whether or not the building is an actual basilica. This article ought, with a note on the vagaries of papal semantics, to cover the primary meaning: actual basilicas. I will continue to improve and expand this article. GPinkerton (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC))

Third opinion by Galendalia
@Elizium23: and @GPinkerton: - The very first sentence on the article states This article is about a form of building. - To that end, the article should only be about the architecture and such of Basilicas. There are separate pages (as mentioned previously) of where to place religious basilicas and whatnot. In a nutshell, I agree with GPinkerton. This finalizes my opinion and I will archive this part of the discussion.

Thanks, Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Next step?

Well, minor basilica and major basilica have been deleted redirected to Basilicas in the Catholic Church due to @Laurel Lodged: being unable to withdraw the AFD. I have withdrawn the RFC but that begs the question of implementation: consensus was headed in the direction of restoring integrity to this main article and reducing "Basilicas in the Catholic Church" via redirection or deletion. But now three articles are fully integrated into it. So what to do with these interlinked concepts of "Basilica"? Elizium23 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a need for a next step @Elizium23: ? What's broken that needs to be fixed? Perhaps to restore a few galleries so that users ca see what the things look like. Perhaps a few directions to Commons. Am open to good will suggestions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Split

Despite this article having no information on Catholic Basilicas, it is 86K readable prose size, and so it's time to prune it down or split into multiple articles. Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason for this page to discuss Catholic "basilicas". An entire page exists for that niche subject already, as you know. GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
If a split is to take place, I would suggest Basilica plan as a potential solution, to which can be relegated those subjects not related to actual basilicas (most of the medieval churches, numerous other churches of various styles) and are only connected by a ground plan with a vaguely basilican form and entirely un-Roman from the ground up. In the mean time I have removed the discussion of Basilicas in the Catholic Church as duplicating its own article needlessly. GPinkerton (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added some headings and sub-headings to make the article easier to navigate. About half of the relevant history is missing though, particularly as regards the Middle Byzantine period and related examples. There should be no rush to split as there is more yet to add and at that stage it will be easier to streamline the text. In addition, Elizium23 I make the article only around readable prose 7,000 words. This is far short of the recommended maximum of 10,000. No need for WP:HASTE. GPinkerton (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is indeed too long. Excising a key section is not the solution though. Internal pruning within bloated sub-sections is the way forward. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Removing irrelevant and duplicated sections is the best solution. It's not a key section. It's a section of limited use and interest which is moreover duplicated word for word on the page to which it is pertinent, namely: Basilicas in the Catholic Church. There is no call for such duplication on Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nicene

Laurel Lodged I have changed the text of the lead for a good reason, please stop changing it back. The Council of Nicaea was in 324. Nicene Christianity was not made compulsory until the 380s. Putting "in the post-Nicene period" misdates the statement by half a century. GPinkerton (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Four things: (1) Who says that Nicene Christianity was compulsory on either Christians or non Christians? (2) What is the relevance of the supposed compulsory nature of Nicene Christianity to the construction of basilicas? (3) Ante-Nicene / Post-Nicene is just a convenient, widely accepted dating form. (4) There is no need to introduce POV statements into the construction of buildings. @Elizium23: do you agree ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged:
1.) The emperor Theodosius I in his Edict of Thessalonica.
2.) The establishment of Nicene Christianity as a state church is obviously relevant to the construction of imperially sponsored basilicas and it is after that that non-Christian buildings cease to receive imperial sponsorship. The Council of Nicaea has nothing to do with it.
3.) It might be an acceptable in the history of ("orthodox") Christianity to use post- and ante-Nicene to mean pre- and post-Council of Nicaea. But this is not what is intended here. Nicene Christianity was established in 380.
4.) Of course I agree but I don't know what you're talking about - what POV terms?
GPinkerton (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1. The Edict made nothing compulsory. It just defined catholicity. If it was compulsory, then how can the Empire have contained non Catholics ("Theodosius forbade heretics to reside within Constantinople, and in 392 and 394 confiscated their places of worship"). 2. Christians were free to build basilicas before the establishment of a state church. After the Edict of Milan, the activity greatly increased. 3. The dating convention precisely refers to the First Council of Nicea, not to some date in the reign of Theodosius. By the way, "Ante" is synonymous with "pre". 4. "Compulsory" is POV and irrelevant to the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged:
1.) It made Nicene Christianity compulsory in the state church and compulsory for the emperors, as I have said. Saying the empire contained non-Nicene Christians is like denying the Holocaust on the basis of the existence of Jewish survivors. You yourself have admitted it made worship outdoors compulsory for all deemed heretical by the emperor.
2.) You have missed the point entirely. After 380 emperors were no longer free to finance the construction or refurbishment of pagan places of worship or endow churches for non-Nicene Christians, as had previously been the case.
3.) That is why I think the "ante- and post-Nicene" dating system that you have interpolated into the lead is not suitable for the facts under discussion, which is why I removed it.
4.) The word compulsory does not appear in the article and I don't know why you think it would. I don't know why you think it's POV, it simply describes the facts.
GPinkerton (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I also think it is not appropriate to persist in removing links to the Christainity article and other relevant articles. Please leave them alone. GPinkerton (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that most of the above can be summarised by "This page is about buildings, not about the history of early Christianity". You are cluttering the page with stuff that has little to do with the buildings. It is sufficient to say that there was a growth in the construction of Christian basilicas from the 4th century onwards (or post-Nicene if you like). A single link to the history of early Christianity covers all the rest. By the way, it's probable that Constantine himself was semi-Arian, along with a large proportion of his Christian subjects. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Constantine was an Arian, like most of his family and like most Christians both then and now (search for "Our favourite heresies" - some three-quarters will answer "yes" to the question "is Jesus the first creation of God"), which is why "post-Nicene period" means nothing in real history and only makes sense when it refers to the retrospective history of orthodox church doctrine as always Trinitarian after Trinitarianism was made official under Theodosius. And I disagree that this has nothing to do with the buildings. Doctrinal disputes were highly important in influencing the construction and decoration of basilicas and basilica churches. The very first use of "basilica" in a sense meaning "church" is in a Donatist context. I think it's pretty silly to say I'm "cluttering the page with stuff that has little to do with the buildings". Have you seen the page history? It used to be full of stuff about the Catholic Church and its peculiar use of the word for something wholly different .... GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Ante/Post-Nicene is a somewhat arbitrary, Euro-centric dating convention. It takes a significant event and dates everything before/after it. The same is true for any other era definition: the fall of the Western Empire divides the Classical from the Medieval era; the fall of Constantinople divides the Medieval from the Early Modern era, the fall of the Bastille divides the Early Modern from the Late Modern. Do you have any problem with these other seminal dating conventions? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: How is it Eurocentric? Nicaea is in Asia. The termini you give for these periods is not at all standard or universal. The Crisis of the Third Century divides the classical period from Late Antiquity. The fall of Constantinople the end of the Middle Ages? That's funny, because I have also heard the end of the Middle Ages was the Renaissance, which had began fully 150 years earlier. Or the end of the Wars of the Roses. Or the end of the Reconquista in 1492, or the discovery of the New World the same year, or the invention of the printing press. At school, my mediaeval history exams covered the period until 1500. Wikipedia's treatment of Late modernity is different to what you suggest, while Late modern period gives the American Revolution, the French Revolution (doesn't specify 1789, probably intends 1792), the Industrial Revolution, the Great Divergence, and the Russian Revolution as definitions of the end of the early modern period. The timeline on that article suggests an end to the Early Modern Period in the second quarter of the 19th century. GPinkerton (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that you've come around to accepting my point no. 3 above: " Ante-Nicene / Post-Nicene is just a convenient, widely accepted dating form". There are others as you've listed. For the purposes of this article, only the events at the first council seem to be relevant. I would accept the Edict of Milan as a cut point too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: Why are the events of the Council relevant? How did basilicas differ before and after 324? I don't anything to do with the Council of Nicaea in the lead. It has nothing to do with anything. The fact that decades later Nicene Christianity became the state religion by imperial command is significant. A convention of prelates in Nicaea is not. GPinkerton (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The process by which Christian became the dominant religion of the Empire was gradual, halting and evolutionary. No one decree established it. By the time of Theodosius's decree, it was already, de facto if not indeed de jure, the religion of the majority of people in the Empire. In any case, it's being the established religion or not is irrelevant to the flourishing in the construction of Christian basilicas. It sufficed that Christianity was in large measure tolerated and free from state persecution for basilicas to be constructed in large numbers. So the question then becomes, "What event could be said to mark this upsurge in construction activity?" By the time of the Edict of Theodosius, the trend was already well underway, so that cannot be used as the ante/post cut point. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: You say: "It sufficed that Christianity was in large measure tolerated and free from state persecution" but this only applies if you're speaking about Nicene Christianity. All the other Christians in the empire were subjected to persecution thereafter, that's the purpose of the edict. The point is that after 380 within the empire, Nicene Christians were the only religion allowed to construct basilicas. That's the important point, not wild speculation about the possible proportions of Nicene or non-Nicene adherents in the population (which as I have pointed out was and largely remains, Arian by default). Outside the empire this was very often not the case, and Arians and others were able to build basilicas just as they were before 380.
In your last statement you say, "Arians and others were able to build basilicas just as they were before 380". This is true; Christians (or heretics depending on your viewpoint) of all descriptions were building basilicas before, during and after 380. Their adherence or otherwise to Nicene Christianity was irrelevant to their construction of basilicas. Before there was such a thing as "Nicene Christianity", Christian basilicas were being built. No test of orthodoxy is needed to describe the building of basilicas; we just need a simple dating convention, like "4th-century". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Please read my last comment and its context more carefully. You have missed the point. After 380, non-Nicene (your use of the word "heretics" reveals your POV on this) Christians were not allowed to construct basilicas in the Roman Empire. The required adherence of the Roman Empire's state religion to Nicene Christianity is highly important, and only outside the empire (notably in Iran) were Christians allowed to build and practice as they pleased. The Edict of Thessalonica is thus highly relevant to the history and nature of basilicas in the Roman Empire and I really wish you would simply recognize that instead of flying in the face of all evidence, reason, and reliable sources. GPinkerton (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

British English

Large additions have been made to the article by an editor who, while reasonably competent in English, does not appear to fluent British English. The article would benefit by the pruning of some Germanic idioms. Assistance in this regard would be welcome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am the only editor to have made large additions to the article recently. What "Germanic idioms" are you talking about? British English is a Germanic language and no other languages' idioms appear in any part of the text I have added. Explain, please. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It is common in German or Dutch to cram many facts into a single sentence. In British English, it would be more common to confine a single thought to a single sentence. for example, the article currently reads,
"Earlier basilicas had mostly had wooden roofs, but the 4th century Basilica of Maxentius, begun by Maxentius between 306 and 312 and according to Aurelius Victor's De Caesaribus completed by Constantine I, was an innovation that dispensed with timber trusses and used instead cross-vaults made from Roman bricks and Roman concrete to create one of the ancient world's largest covered spaces: 80 m long, 25 m wide, and 35 m high."
This could be split into 3 sentences.
"Earlier basilicas mostly had wooden roofs. By the 4th century, technical innovations saw the use of Roman bricks and Roman concrete to make wider, stronger roofs. The Basilica of Maxentius, for example, that was begun by Maxentius between 306 and 312,[1]dispensed with timber trusses; instead, cross-vaults made from bricks and concrete were used to create one of the ancient world's largest covered spaces that was 80m long, 25m wide, and 35m high."
This reads much more fluidly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that is could be split into different sentences but I don't agree that text you've prepared reads more fluidly; just the opposite. I'm also struggling to see how German or Dutch idioms come into it; the idea that in my language "it would be more common to confine a single thought to a single sentence" is really laughable. I will split up the sentence in a more suitable way. GPinkerton (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"I don't agree that text you've prepared reads more fluidly". That might be because you are not a native user of British English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
As I have explained, that explanation of yours is laughable and could not be further from the truth. GPinkerton (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ According to Aurelius Victor in De Caesaribus xl:26, the Basilica of Maxentius was completed by Constantine I.

RfC - scope of the article

Should the article "Basilica" also discuss Basilicas in the Catholic Church? There is already a separate article covering this subject exclusively. 12:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that a certain editor is getting too close to this article. Rather than asserting quasi-ownership of the article, it might be best for him/her to distance him/herself from the article for a while to permit more disinterested voices to be heard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope that editor, Laurel Lodged, will listen to their own advice GPinkerton (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyone care to compare the counts of my edits versus the edits of others on this article? Prepare to be astonished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Less about the number of edits, more about their quality and particular direction. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Support elimination of duplication - summoned by bot (for the first time in over a year). Wherever possible, I try to eliminate duplicate content due to content forks, since not only does it bloat the encyclopedia, but it doubles the efforts required to keep the info up to to date. A simple concise summary of the info with a {{main}} template pointing interested readers to the more detailed main article is the best way to go. That being said, I haven't read this entire article nor the wall of discussion related to this subject, but as a newcomer, the single paragraph that sits there now seems sufficient. I went to the Basilicas in the Catholic Church article and expanded the distinction in that article's lead section. I would suggest also putting in a single sentence at the end of the lead to this article, summarizing the significance to the Catholic Church. example: 

A basilica also has special significance in the Catholic Church, as a large and important church building designated by the Pope and used for distinct ceremonial purposes.

TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basilica/Archive_1&oldid=1095207722"