Jump to content

Talk:Minster (church)

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

--Wetman 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minster (cathedral) - Collegiate church - Merger

[edit]

This was proposed over 10 months ago when I am sure everyone who saw it, as I did, also saw that the proposer had not seen fit to start the discussion and in any case no doubt, as I did, wondered why. Why merge? Is there any case for merger? Why did not the proposer say?

Now some mindless robot has set a clock running on the issue, and one wonders why. Why the clock? What will happen now it is being timed? Probably nothing.

Some thoughts on the proposal.

1. Relatively few Minsters are or were cathedrals and relatively few Minsters were collegiate. 2. Most Minsters were originally monastic and in Britain none are today. 3. Most monastic churches were called Abbeys not Minsters. 4. Relatively few Collegiate churches were called Minsters. 5. Collegiate churches were not monastic and today none, in the UK at least, have colleges. 6. Both Minsters and Collegiate churches were generally rather grand churches but that is not the meaning of the names.

The question remains. Why merge? Why indeed? The proposal does not have my support NoelWalley 13:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are now being collected on the Talk:Collegiate church page. NoelWalley 20:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of minsters?

[edit]

The list of UK minsters seems to be getting a bit ungainly, now. Should there be a separate List of minsters? Jamesfcarter 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My simple answer - yes! Nortonius (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parish vs City

[edit]

What distinction is being made between those minsters listed as Parish Churches and those listed as City Churches? The city churches are parishes churches, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodgerjammy (talkcontribs) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source

[edit]

User:Midnightblueowl you have added citations for your edits but not bibliographical details of your source 'Foot 2006'. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dudley, I shall correct this omission. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minster (church). 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) 16:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please reduce the modern bias on this topic?

[edit]

Part of the fun of editing Wikipedia (for me anyway) is to make plenty of inline links to other Wikipedia articles that the reader can follow up. I have already made a few such links from my work to 'Minster (church)', but I am now very unhappy with the way this article starts. Minsters have a long (truncated) history, but (so far) a short present life. Can we not start with a mention of their history before talking about their current 'honorific' role? I shall go away now, but come back shortly and post some concrete proposals. Then hopefully anyone interested will see what I mean. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a minster as stated in the lead? It's a Royal Peculiar, and has the name Abbey, but Minster? PamD 05:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a minster. The name means the minster in the west and one definition in OED is "a church having its origin in a monastic establishment". Dudley Miles (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the lead says "Minster is an honorific title given to particular churches", which is much more specific. PamD 08:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is another definition which also applies to Westminster Abbey, which was probably called the west minster to distinguish it from the east minster, St Paul's Cathedral. See [1] and [2].