Talk:San Clemente al Laterano

---

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Basilica di San Clemente → San Clemente – per consistency among Roman churches, and because currently San Clemente is a redirect FoxyProxy 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support per nomination.--FoxyProxy 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The redirect is to the town of San Clemente, California. Most of the other users have San Clemente as the begining of the article name and not at the end. Leaving this as is seems to make the most sense. Vegaswikian 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  "Most of the other users have San Clemente as the beginingof the article name" I don't get it.--FoxyProxy 10:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  The point I was trying to make is that those articles start with San Clemente and would be more likely articles to be moved to the main name space. An article that has it at the end would be less likely. In any case, there are too many of these so I don't believe that your suggested move should be allowed. The current redirect appears to be the major use given its ties to the US President. Vegaswikian 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. San Clemente is too generic. It should be a disambiguation page.--E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If San Clemente is the most common name for this subject, not Basilica di San Clemente, then it should be moved to San Clemente (disambiguation information), perhaps San Clemente (basilica). --Serge 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  That sounds like a sensible idea. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invisible note

There's a paragraph that says: There is evidence of pagan worship on the site. In the second century members of a Mithraic cult built a small temple dedicated to Mithras in an insula, or apartment complex, on the site. This temple, used for initiation rituals, lasted until about the third century. Somebody has added, in a way that cannot be seen on the article: "not true:by which time Christianity had largely supplanted pagan worship in Rome." What can't be true is what that hidden note says. If you consider that Diocletian died on 305, and that Christianism was tolerated only after the Edict of Milan (313), this is, at the beginning of the fourth century, you cannot possibly think that Christianity had largely supplanted pagan worship in the third century in Rome. So it should disappear even as an hidden text as now is, unless somebody cites the origin of that sentence. --Joanenglish (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Top importance

I have raised the importance of this, architecturally, because of the site's rarity in revealing all the layers of building, still accessible to the public, including a Mithraic tomb, and a very rare example of an atrium. Amandajm (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)