Talk:Minster (church)

message: --Wetman 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text:  Comments are now being collected on the Talk:Collegiate church page. NoelWalley 20:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minster (cathedral) - Collegiate church - Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: My simple answer - yes! Nortonius (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of minsters? 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parish vs City 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks Dudley, I shall correct this omission. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing source 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224084315/http://www.southwark.anglican.org/news/pr/pr.php?id=1522 to http://www.southwark.anglican.org/news/pr/pr.php?id=1522
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can we please reduce the modern bias on this topic?