Talk:Santa Maria in Brera

On Corrections for Santa Maria in Brera

 * 1) I think the exact dates for the suppression of the Humiliati and Jesuits while correct has little bearing on this church, that level of detail is best left for the articles on the Humiliati and Jesuits. I still disagree with their insertion.
 * 2) I still am uncomfortable with the text After the suppression of the Humiliati by Pius V on 7 February 1571, the monastery became – at the request of Carlo Borromeo and with the approval of Gregory XIII – a Jesuit college.  One could say the monastery was no more, so did not become, perhaps a better wording would be the site was appropriated for use as a Jesuit college. Also the names and the dates confuse the point, the initial phrase while true, becomes peripheral to the main thrust of the sentence. Perhaps it should be split into two ideas. The monastery was closed. Borromeo with papal approval installed a Jesuit college at the site.
 * 3) Finally, a lot of churches in Milan have ancient, sometimes paleochristian origins, but the church building, what we see today, derives from a later date. All the architectural elements cited in the pictures and in the façade appear to derive from a later gothic period. I have re-added the category of Category:14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings, since that is what we have to best remember the building by. If you can justify the meaningful present existence of the elements of the 12th and 13th century building, even as a structural model, then by all means, also add that as a category, a church building can have parts from different centuries. In addition, the pictures show that the elements of the 14th century building still exist.
 * 4) In retrospect, I do not know if it appropriate to call this a former deconsecrated church, since in general, it is no longer extant. I was hoping to focus the introduction, on fewer ideas.

In conclusion, I re-added the category, and leave the rest as recommendations. Best of luck.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comments. I can't see any of this as very important, nor that any of the changes that you made were much of an improvement. The exact dates of suppression of the orders are not essential to the article, but they are well-attested, so they might just as well be included. "Monastery" describes both the institution and the structure – a monastery does not instantly cease to be when the monks leave; the Abbaye de Fontevraud did not cease to exist when it was suppressed in 1792. That became a prison; this one became a Jesuit college. Yes, it was later destroyed to make space for Palazzo Brera, so did cease to exist at some time in the seventeenth century (possibly between 1627 and 1630, otherwise after 1651 – see that article). So that sentence seems to me fine as it stands, but I'm completely open to suggestions on how it could be improved.
 * The only point where we really disagree is on the categorisation. I simply cannot see why you would want to put a late twelfth-/early thirteenth-century church in a category for 14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings. If there were a Category:Churches with fourteenth-century façades then it would be totally appropriate to add it there. We do not categorise the age of a church by the date of its façade: the Duomo di Firenze is not, for very good reason, in Category:19th-century churches even though that is when the façade was added; it is in Category:15th-century churches because that is when main construction was completed. The sources I've been able to find are unequivocal that Santa Maria in Brera was constructed around the turn of the thirteenth century, not in the fourteenth. I invite you to remove that inappropriate category. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Again regarding the dates, while the dates are true, that still does not mean, as you state, that they are directly relevant to Brera. That the order was suppressed on that specific day does not mean that something happened in the building that day. I would be open to leaving it as a month.
 * 2) Your monastery sentence seems a nosologic debate, again a functioning monastery essentially is as a building with monks; the monastic building is something separate. Again the paragraph is muddled, my suggestions are to separate the ideas into different sentences.
 * 3) On category: on this, I do not budge, I guess in part I have been trying to organize this for Italian and Spanish churches.

A façade is part of a church building. Santa Maria in Brera has a 14th-century façade, that still exists in drawings and actual architectural elements. therefore, Santa Maria is (for me) a 14th-century building.

If you can say this for any other centuries, then please add those dates.

What some other authors have elected to do with regards to your wish is to also add a category:date of establishment Although that is vague, since some have wanted it to refer sometimes to the establishment of the congregation, not necessarily the church building.

Others just insert all the centuries that form part of the present building or focus on the layout or façade. A church building is an architectural unit.

I focus again on the following: a substantial, memorable change was made of the church in that century. The article contains a design, and photographs of elements, and recalls the architect from that time. Ultimately, I think the category should help someone find an example of what is included. If someone looks at this article for 14th-century gothic architecture, he will find it.

There was a recent debate on how to categorize churches. This is a complex debate. For example, I have not meddled into the question of whether a former 12th-century Roman Catholic cathedral now used as a Lutheran church should be categorized as Roman Catholic or Lutheran. I have however kept the designation when the religious affiliation of the church has remained from its inception. Rococo1700 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)