Talk:Pisa Baptistery

[Untitled]
The link for the Rory Carroll article cited is a dead link. I believe the article may have been moved here: http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/NNJ/Guardian.html

Also consult Christine Smith: The Baptistery of Pisa. Garland Publishing 1978. (There are other sources telling about the first baptistery (fra 5ht century maybe) in the same place, it was octagonal. Now it is "only" the font itself, that's octagonal.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.196.106 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pisa Baptistry.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pisa Baptistry.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 5, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-04-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Baptistry" or "Baptistery"?
Elio1 (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Can we get consensus on the proper spelling? Both versions seem to be used indiscriminately in various articles. I incline towards "baptistery"... for no particular reason other than it "seems right" to me.
 * While I think Baptistry has the better sound and look.MidlandLinda (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Pisa Baptistry → Pisa Baptistery – the consensus I find from sites is that baptisteries are free standing, baptistries are parts of a church building. But some definitions are do not force distinction. Baptistery is more akin to battistero in Italian, and I think more apt, at least for this structure, cataloged already under baptisteries. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Oxford English Dictionary gives both spellings equal weight and the same definition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Oppose - For the above reason. Nor is the spelling of the equivalent word in Italian isn't of any relevance. Eustachiusz (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support if for the spelling they are both ok, than I guess that the most common form should be used in the title. I lived in Pisa, it is usually called "Baptistery" on the English translation because of the influence of Italian language. that's probably why if you perform the web search engine test, despite the influence of enwikipedia (which is not small), the form with "e" is preferred. For example, Bing: "Pisa Baptistery" 7500 vs "Pisa Baptistry" 5000. And if I search "baptistry of pisa" it includes and shows automatically results for "baptistery of pisa" (and not the other way). I don't know what google does, I live in China. It is used also on tripadvisor on the webpage of the local office of the Operae (Fabbriceria or fabrica). Check also google books.
 * In any case I think that if they're both equivalent, than there is no point in denying using one or the other, and I feel that the "tourist" or "local" form is the best one. not urgent to change, but it is proposed I don't see the point in opposing. it's just a redirect...

--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I opposed because the nom gave no good reasons for the move and if there is no real difference between the two spellings the article may as well stay where it is.
 * Also I was wondering if there were an ENGVAR issue. But I see that the main article is Baptistery and the cat is Cat:Baptisteries so I suppose for consistency's sake... Eustachiusz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I write in it a "simplified" way: the fact that "Baptistery"="Baptistry" does not imply that "Pisa Baptistery"="Pisa Baptistry". The latter one is mainly written with an "e". Consistency with a category (whichever spelling it uses) should be a second-order prerequisite compared to the most common spelling in the "reliable sources". That's why I've suggest at least a test on google books, which I can't do from China myself.
 * Of course, it is just a simple "e". Not so important to raise the problem sooner (that's why we waited years before noticing it, I guess) but also not so important to oppose the change for whatever formal or wiki-centric reason you can find if the form in this case is the most common.
 * I think I even talked too much on the issue, I just came here because I find a discussion with a redirect at wikiproject Italy. The first time I ignored it, second time I said, ok let's point out some aspects that has not emerged yet. So, good luck :) --Alexmar983 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with you (admittedly, without great enthusiasm) by a different route! Eustachiusz (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, but only as a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. "Pisa Baptistery" returns 2020 Google Books hits, compared to 949 for "Pisa Baptistry".--Cúchullain t/ c 13:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


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