Talk:Double church

Few if any simultaneous churches were ever actually built
As I was saying in the summary line before I was so rudely cut off by a keyboarding mistake, this whole article was garbage. Few if any simultaneous churches were ever actually built. Most were existing buildings that wound up having to be shared to maintain religious peace.

The article Simultaneum covers the concept a bit more fully, anyway.Kelisi (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Query
Excuse my ignorance, but is "naoi" a word that means something, or is it a spelling mistake (were you trying to write "naves")? Just looking through a few articles before their links hit the homepage.  Schwede 66  00:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thank you for your query. From the Marina Mihaljevic source (page 728) in the article:
 * Mihaljevic uses "naoi", Greek plural of "naos", meaning "church". Also please see Naos and Cella. But in the end, I think "nave" and "naos" mean the same thing. Dr.   K.  03:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nave usually implies an elongated space. However, the Üçayak church has twin square central spaces ("sort of naves" to use Byzantine architecture's wording) each (originally) under a dome - essentially the interior volumes of two domed, miniature centrally-planned churches located side by side. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Article expansion
or others, you might want to look through the article history and see whether there's anything to retrieve that's worth using again. I just had a look at the version just before it got all turned into a redirect, and it mentions a double church in Bonn. By now, the English article covering that church is quite substantial, and it deserves a mention here.  Schwede 66  18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Schwede66. That's a good suggestion. I'll check into it as soon as possible. Best regards. Dr.   K.  18:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So are we accepting two-level churches as "double churches"? At the moment there is a ludicrous over-emphasis on a single example, the Üçayak church, and DrK seems insistent on having the article worded as if it were the only example (so its form is the only acceptable description of what a double church looks like). Obviously, if it were the only example, this article should be deleted. An architectural typology cannot be based on there being just a single extant example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)