Talk:Chapel of Saint Helena, Jerusalem

Merger proposal
This should be merged to Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It won't add excessive weight to that page. --Sreifa (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think that the chapel has enough historic importance to be worthy of an article in its own right. JASpencer (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should definitely be merged for both of the above reasons. the place is so very special and is almost ignored by visitors who do not understand its importance. merging would allow users to explore the church more thoroughly and understand why the chapel is there. -- User:pilgrim 08:40 28 November 2010 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.45.195 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. You can simply edit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher if that's the aim.  You don't need to lose an article on an historically important chapel. JASpencer (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think as an encyclopedia, it is better to have distinct entries for distinct locations. And anyway, it makes no huge difference to anything. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * this chapel is IN the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.--Sreifa (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The church of the Holy Sepulcher is IN Jerusalem, but it makes no sense to merge those two articles. JASpencer (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – same location, same building. There don't need to be two small articles. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Holy Sepulchre article is already too large according to Wikipedia guidelines. JASpencer (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Support"--You can't get into the chapel of St. Helena unless you go into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It's part of the same complex and should be part of the same entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianacavins (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, article Church of the Holy Sepulchre is already enough long (49 kB). WP:LENGTH suggests a maximum length of 30 to 50 kB, so I don't see the reason of merging. On the contrary we should move something out from the long Article. By the way, this chapel has his own separate history (see True Cross), that fully justifies the separate Article.A ntv (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose no real need. Time to close this now. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Floor mosaic
This is a modern creation, from the 20th century (very obviously so), not the 12th century (which idiot tourist photos found on the web seem to label it as from). I wonder what, if anything, was destroyed to make way for it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)