Talk:Titular church

Untitled

No, this is not a disambiguation page, though it is capable of being pared down to become an expanded dictionary definition. A first passing editor casually applied the disambiguation tag. Then a second passing editor would discard all information that does not fit the prescribed disambiguation format. Not useful to the Wikipedia reader. Since it appears that the disambiguation category cannot be applied with thoughtfulness and flexibilioty, it must be applied very cautiously, and only to the strictly-regulated subtype of "disambiguation pages". Think before you apply any tag. This is not a disambiguation page. --Wetman 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of tituli

Statement is made: "Originally,[when?] these were basilicas in Rome[dubious – discuss] under the direction of a permanently appointed presbyter and corresponding to what would now be called parish churches." Originally, San Clemente was an apartment house in which Clement's Christian followers met; originally SS. Giovanni and Paolo was the family house. Santa Croce in Gerusalemme was an audience hall in the palace of Constantine's daughter. Basilicas did not become available to the Christians (they were not allowed to own land corporately until Constantine's time) until the fourth century. Obviously more thought and a lot more care needs to be put into this section. Vicedomino (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal with List of titular churches in Rome

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

---

I think that this page is sufficiently brief that it would benefit by incorporating the List of titular churches in Rome article into this one, under a separate section. There's probably also an advantage of having information consolidated on one page for the reader. A separate list article serves little purpose, in my opinion. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The article is short because it it just a 'Start', not because there is nothing more to be said on the topic. "Sufficiently brief" is not a valid reason for consolidation. Quite the contrary. There are numbers of corrections and additions to be made to the article, if only people would read the bibliography on the subject (assuming they have abilities beyond the English language). The list of titular churches has a different and separate and valid purpose. This looks to me like 'change for the sake of change', which I do not support. --Vicedomino (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Editor Vicedomino has nailed the reasoning (though I wish I knew the meaning of "the bibliography on the subject"). The distinction is much like that between College of Cardinals and List of living cardinals. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2017 (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.

Origin of tituli (again)

Efforts to repair the first couple of sentences in the History section, based on my observations, have not been successful. Firstly, the opening sentence has become too clotted with one follow-on observation after another. It needs to be subdivided into manageable statements. Secondly, Mythology (or 'tradition' if you wish) needs to be distinguished from established fact. And I repeat that the Church could not have public, identifiable, places of worship until after Constantine legalized Christianity. Before that, they were an illegal assembly and had no corporate rights in terms of Roman property law. --Vicedomino (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Titular (Catholicism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Should that page content be merged here? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

More change for the sake of change?? No reason is given for a change. In fact, it isn't even a proposal. It's just a question. And the answer to the question is NO, not unless some reason is give, a good reason.

--Vicedomino (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the not-so-distant past, see here. There was no consensus to merge at that time; this discussion is no different. Also, considering that List of titular churches is going to appear on the Main Page tomorrow, I don't think that a maintenance template on a featured list is the best thing for readers to see. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:10, 11 August 2019 (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.