This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Please keep the list. It is useful for expanding the entries. The notability goes without saying. This is Wikipedia approaching silliness. While I agree that at some point the list and the category may become equal, if that point is reached, then it may be valid to reapeal the list. Baroque1700 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree about the rule of using common names, but just "Scalzi (Venice)" or "Gesuiti (Venice)" could suggest articles about those religious orders in Venice. People do use these names in speech, and literature to shorten up descriptions, or talking about their areas. Very few books, however, begin their description of the churches calling them so. I think "Chiesa degli Scalzi (Venice)" and "Chiesa dei Gesuiti (Venice)" are maybe better titles.
--Stefano Remo (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently work going on to develop this list of churches by adding sestiere and co-ordinates for each church. I don't feel that having the sestiere in the list is that useful given that the churches are already listed by sestiere (unless the overall plan is to have one big list?). I do think that co-ordinates are useful, but in addition I'm thinking we should add a field for significance/notability (i.e. what famous art work the church contains, or whether it is historically significant or linked with a famous Venetian personality) and also denomination (though granted many will be Roman Catholic...). Are there any other fields people would like to see added in here? Nick Ottery (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to ask for opinion on the article naming convention used for Venetian churches. I've noticed that whereas for something like the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, the French name is retained in the article, in the Venetian church articles many of them are being translated into English with the Italian shown in brackets. This is contrary to the article title which is in Italian. For example see Santa Maria della Salute, San Sebastiano and Il Redentore.
Looking at WP:EN it says to use the "Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" and I would therefore argue in many cases, the Italian name would be retained and the English translation should be included only for information and in brackets. This is particularly applicable to Salute and Redentore, neither of which are commonly called Basilica of St Mary of Health and Church of the Most Holy Redeemer.
I would propose in the example of Salute having the opening line be:
The Basilica di Santa Maria della Salute (English: Basilica of St Mary of Health), commonly known as Salute, is a 17th century Roman Catholic church and minor basilica located in the Dorsodurosestiere of the Italian city of Venice.
In the case of Il Redentore it would be:
The Chiesa del Santissimo Redentore (English: Church of the Most Holy Redeemer), commonly known as Il Redentore, is a 16th century Roman Catholic church located in the Dorsodurosestiere of the Italian city of Venice.
I am basically looking to ensure we have consistency across these Venetian church articles, and that we are following established Wikipedia naming conventions. Nick Ottery (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO I woud have name the Redentore Church. A church as often multiple names: given names, shortened names, multiple dedications and when the building is famous multiple translations. Moreover in countries with several national languages (spain, belgium), you add even more problems to reach consensus. By experience, i would say that English names are the less problematic. So pick up the name you want, the one you are the more easy with.
Wikipedia is not static and naming conventions (will) evolve. At the end of the dat, only the geotag is universal and indisputable. I prefer to spend my energy into adding content to the page.
I have just modified one external link on List of churches in Venice. 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.
