Talk:Eggenberg Palace, Graz

Wiki projects

This should certainly be within the scope of the Wikiproject Austria and the Holy Roman Empire shouldn't it? Smf77 (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added WikiProjects 'Austria' and 'Architecture', but I don't think there is a specific project for the Holy Roman Empire. Hayden120 (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

{{movereq}}

Eggenberg Castle → Eggenberg Palace — please revert improper move to Eggenberg Castle from Eggenberg Palace as it was designed as a residence display of power and wealth not a defensible fortress. German for castle is a Burg a Schloss is more properly translated as palace. See Schloss Schoenbrunn for example. Smf77 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on.. what is the common name in English? The rationale for the move, given above, and for calling the previous move improper, appears to have no relationship to official Wikipedia policy on article names. Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Eggenberg Palace is the common name in English for the residence in Graz. Eggenberg Castle is the English name often used for the castle in Český Krumlov which was is in fact a castle, i.e. originally designed as a defensible position to protect the local territory. Palace also conforms with the aspects of the wiki policy as well as helps to distinguish between the castle in Krumlov (which needs expansion in the English wiki) and the residence in Graz. Schoenbrunn and Belvedere are better examples of proper translations of German Schloss while castle fits better with Burg, e.g. the castle in Salzburg from which the region and city get their name. Smf77 (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of the claim that Eggenberg Palace is the common name in English for the residence in Graz, please? The question of proper translation is not terribly relevant in terms of article naming policy. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If proper translation isn't relevant then the resource isn't useful. As for the appropriate translation, as indicated look at the proper translation of similar structures previously mentioned. Also if you google Eggenberg Castle you'll arrive at the official site for the castle in Krumlov and Eggenberg Palace takes you to the official site for the Graz residence. The best option would be to leave it as listed in the official UNESCO document as Schloss Eggenberg as originally listed in the Wiki entry as well. You can also refer to the only English translation (that I am aware of) of the book, 'Schloss Eggenberg' by Dr. Kaiser on the palace and family which translates the term consistently as a palace when not using the official name of Schloss Eggenberg. While it is true that 'Schloss' is a difficult word to translate into English it is quite clear in this case that, as a residence rather than a defensible structure, palace is the most appropriate term in English as well as the least confusing as there is also a castle called Eggenberg in the Czech Republic, both originally belonging to the Austrian noble house. One of the most frustrating things about Wiki is the editing done by people who are neither familiar with the subject matter of the article in question nor familiar with resources in the native language of the region dealt with in the article, in this case, German as the native language of the resource base and English as the target language. Castle is a thoroughly misleading term for the Graz structure while entirely appropriate for the Český Krumlov structure. My recommendation however would be leave it as 'Schloss Eggenberg' and to move the brewery to some other name if that is what the rename was about as the brewery article refers to the brewery as a "castle" and that establishment has nothing whatsoever to do with either the castle in Krumlov or the palace in Graz and needs most definitely to be distinguished from them. Smf77 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the official English Wikipedia policy on article names. Unless your proposal is supported by this policy, it probably shouldn't happen. Sorry. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Under the policy articles are to be moved when inaccurate, uncommon, or ambiguous. Referring to Schloss Eggenberg as a castle is all three. A) inaccurate as it was a residence intended to display the opulence and power of the family and not a defense for the local territory. B) uncommon as castle already refers to at least two other facilities with the name Eggenberg (the Austrian brewery which has nothing to do with the Eggenberg family, and the properly named castle in Krumlov). C) as castle is already used in a wiki to refer to the brewery it is confusing to also call the residence in Graz a castle when it is not. Smf77 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One of us must be misunderstanding the policy... can you be specific about where exactly you think the policy says that articles are to be moved when the name is inaccurate in the sense you mean here? Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[for moving a page]. The palace in Graz is the [topic] but because the unaffiliated brewery in Upper Austria likely has the name trademarked there would be some sort of legal challenge on that. Palace as an adjective is applicable to the Graz structure. Castle is not, though it does apply to another UNESCO World Heritage site, namely the castle in Krumlov, that is also linked to the princely Styrian dynasty. However, Schloss Eggenberg is the officially recognized name of the structure in Graz, not Eggenberg Palace and certainly not Eggenberg Castle. The English registry in the UNESCO World Heritage list is enough to attest to that, though documents from the State of Styria and the Styrian and Graz city archives can also be produced (though I think that's going a bit far for a wiki :-). Smf77 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The link you have given is to a how-to guide in the help namespace. It is not a policy, or even a guideline. When it says Pages may be moved to a new title if the previous name is inaccurate... this must be seen in the context of the policy, and it cannot override the policy. Perhaps it needs clarification, if you've been led to believe it does.

I see you have made the move [1] [2]. Isn't this contrary to policy, as well as a bit rude? Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the discussion going on here, since I thought this should be a pretty simple case, sorry about that. My thoughts on this: rules require us to use the English term whenever possible. I would go for "Eggenberg Castle", similar to "Windsor Castle". I am not convinced that this can be called a palace, even if it functioned as a residence, but the history of the building goes back into the medieval age (no palaces there, just castles). On top of that architecturally it does not fit the criteria of a typical palace. The layout and exterior appearance are that of a castle. Gryffindor (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposals

In among all the irrelevance above, there are a couple of good points against what was the current name when the move was proposed. The question is, can we do better?

Schloss Eggenberg seems a possibility, perhaps disambiguated. This was a previous name, moved without discussion.

But there seems some confusion as to what the brewery is called. Eggenberg Castle might still be the best name for this article.

Eggenberg Palace seems unlikely to be the best choice.

Other suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The original title of the article I wrote was Schloss Eggenberg (Graz) which mirrors the German article title. The rude move was moving it to Eggenberg Castle in the first place. I requested the return to Schloss Eggenberg after the original article was moved by a Harry Potter fan, judging from the user name. I did that in order to avoid any sort of moving war and give the original offender to opportunity to undue the double error of an inaccurate translation as well as an improper move. I thought things were reasonably fine with the original title and the disambiguation lines at the beginning of the three, possibly four articles if the Krumlov castle article is expanded from a stub. Looking through the histories both the Czech and the Austrian breweries had articles before Schloss Eggenberg or the Krumlov Castle so I didn't want mess with them as they are not my work. This article is and suggestions on the talk page can be made but major changes to the article itself, like moving it, push the limits of politeness. Eggenberg Palace is a reasonable enough compromise but far from ideal. Smf77 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it's a question of WP:OWN. That explains a lot.

Please move it back. Moving an article under an RM that you yourself raised while ou are heavily involved in the discussion and no consensus exists defeats the whole purpose of RM.

I don't disagree with all the points you make above, but the first thing to settle is the way forward. This preemptive move is not it. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The move seems perfectly in order, as it was (kind of) undoing a unilateral move made recently by a user who is notorious for doing this sort of thing. Eggenberg Palace also seems a good title to me - it seems to come up in Google books and scholar at least as often as the equivalent with Castle, and is more accurate than Castle, so it seems it should be left there unless someone's got some compelling reason to move it somewhere else.--Kotniski (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While I respect your support for the move, I'm astonished at your support for the way it was done. Raise RM, fail to gain consensus, so move page anyway. Sorta defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Yes, a unilateral move reversing the previous unilateral move, would have been in order. This was not. It's laughable.

But no big deal. We keep our sense of humour, and anyway I may be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well in a way it was reversing the previous move, at least partially - it restored the original meaning, while attempting to compromise with the unliateralist on the question of using English rather than German words. If you have reasons for wanting it back at the exact original title, then I guess you're free to insist on it being moved back there until consensus for a different title is reached.--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be back to the exact original title Schloss Eggenberg (Graz) which is what the place is called. To take a random example from wiki I found by accident see sconce (light fixture), which disambiguates it from other possible articles. There are at least 5 potential articles that could in someway have the name "Schloss Eggenberg", "Eggneberg Palace" or "Eggenberg Castle": the residence in Graz, the castle in Krumlov, Czech Republic, the city palace in Sopron, Hungary, the brewery in Upper Austria and the brewery in Krumlov (given the one-time vast holdings of the princes of Eggenberg, perhaps also in Germany, Slovenia and Italy there are structures that would bare that name and most importantly be associated with the princely Styrian dynasty). However, the residence associated with the power and majesty of the dynasty is Schloss Eggenberg in Graz. It is like Coca-Cola. While people will know what is being talked about when you name an article "Coke Soda-pop", the official name is Coca-Cola. The same is true here. The brewery article should probably be moved to "Schloss Eggenberg Stöhr & Co Brewery" (the company name), this article should be the original name as mentioned above, and the castle in Krumlov should have a section on the Eggenberg additions to the original fortifications. As mentioned in all of my previous posts, the original move was wrong on multiple levels for multiple reasons and required immediate correction. The "palace" compromise is far from ideal but it is descriptive and the building itself should be described within the article body as a palace but only as a descriptor, not as the name of the structure nor the article. Smf77 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

The repeated unilateral anti-consensus page moves of this article have been notified at WP:ANI#Unilateral page moving against consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Obviously nothing can be done about vandal Gryffindor; I suppose the only fortunate thing about his/her misinformation is that wiki isn't taken seriously as a reliable source of information. Smf77 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Eggenberg Castle, Graz → Schloss Eggenberg, Graz — Schloss Eggenberg is a name and is not to be translated anymore than one would translate a street name or a brand name. Schloss Eggenberg is also not a castle it is a palace both its construction history as well as its intended use by the original builder-owner and the accepted definition of palace today confirm this as has already been indicated. Wikipedia's own article on the definition of Schloss also indicates that the word means palace. --Smf77 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note the extensive previous discussion of this above. —  AjaxSmack  15:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have always been uncomfortable with translating "schloss" as "castle". WP:COMMONNAME only applies if that is its common name in English. With most of these "castles" I very much doubt that it is. Direct translation does not always equal common name, particularly when "schloss" does not really translate into English. What we'd normally call a castle - i.e. a medieval fortress - is usually rendered "burg" in German, not "schloss", which is usually more a mansion or palace. Since the Germans also have a separate word for "palace", this is not a satisactory translation either, and "mansion" sounds wrong, so keeping "schloss" is the best rendering. Translating into English is not always the best solution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The preceding argument shows the perils of naming articles by Original Research; the assumption that English Castle must be a medieval pile is simply wrong. Windsor Castle is a Schloss; so is this. They are both castles in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Not true. A few non-fortresses are indeed called "castle" in English, but not many. The vast majority are actually "house", "place" or something similar. Whereas "schloss" is the common word for such buildings in German. Your suggestion that my argument is OR is somewhat insulting, since it implies I don't know what I'm talking about. I can assure you that I do. Your response only serves to point out the perils of accusing others of OR (an acusation that flies far too freely on Wikipedia) simply to advance your own opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The usual translation into English for Schloss is "castle", and all of the arguments I've read above remain un-persuasive that "castle" isn't and can't be used to refer to this building. Moreover, while "castle" may not be the prevalent term for large, old mansions in Britain (where the terms used overlap confusingly, e.g. stately home, great house, manor house, country house), "castle" is much more frequently used to describe equivalent buildings when located on the Continent. German uses Burg, Palais and Residenz, as well as Schloss just as confusingly to refer to buildings of overlapping types and histories. If this building were named "Palais Eggenberg" in German, or if the Krumlov one were called "Burg Eggenberg" in German, I'd find the rationale presented here more persuasive. As it is, "castle" remains a term used in English to describe or name buildings some of which were designed to serve as fortresses, some of which were not, some of which were designed to look like medieval keeps with turrets, and some of which were once-upon-a-time used as fortifications but gradually evolved architecturally from martial headquarters into grand houses. FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In fact the Schloss is more commonly refers to palaces, not castles, which are Burg or sometimes Festung, though that applies more to smaller installations that would be fortresses in English. A Palais refers to a city palace, or what in English would be a manor or mansion. As per all of my previous arguments Eggenberg is a palace and in no way a castle by any stretch of the imagination. One of the biggest problems with wikipedia is editors who don't know the subject matter of articles in which the involve themselves as well as the lack of uniformity which leads to gross inaccuracies. Smf77 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I know,why don't we call it "Lock Eggenberg" since a Schloss can also be translated as padlock in English! A "Burg" is a castle. A "Schloss" is a palace. The name of the location is "Schloss Eggenberg" in the official UNESCO WHS entry the Graz Tourism site and the official page in English at the Joanneum site. Here in Austria, it is taught that "Bürgen" (castles) were built in the Middle Ages and "Schlösser" (palaces) were built from the end of the 15th century onwards. So can we move this now back to "Schloss Eggenberg, Graz" where it was originally and remove the references to castle in the description? Smf77 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The present name is how the building is most likely to be referred to by English native speakers, if it were referred to at all. Schloss hasn't been adopted into English in the same way as as "château", and is entirely translateable: cf Colditz Castle and Neuschwanstein Castle, not Schloss Colditz and Schloss Neuschwanstein. What Austrians may think the English name ought to be is entirely irrelevant, and please NB: there is no exact correspondence between the available German words and the available English ones: both Burg and Schloss can translate as "castle". The other arguments here reduce to IDONTLIKEIT (or possibly IKNOWBETTERTHANYOU, which is even more irritating). HeartofaDog (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - "Its builder-owner, Hans Ulrich von Eggenberg, a remarkable man who knew how to use the possibilities of the dramatic time of upheaval at the beginning of the 17^th century to climb the social ladder on his own merits from a provincial patrician's son to one of the mightiest statesmen of his epoch, is an exemplary representative for the self-assertion of "homo novus" typical for the time....As a residence of the imperial governor, Eggenberg Palace should be a clear symbol of this. Its architecture is political, demanding the legitimization of the rule of the family...it is a mirror of a political ideal - the virtuous, learned regent - and reflects the entire universe of humanistic education...The palace is constructed as a gigantic simile, a symbolic effigy of the universe in which the learned builder-owner formulates his image of an ordered world...Two generations later with the decoration in the high Baroque style, the princely Planetary Room definitely raised the the House of Eggenberg to the role of divinely pre-ordained regents in the heavens." "Giovanni Pietro de Pomis...had come from Innsbruck to Graz....As architect, medialleur and painter he had risen to become the most imporant artist and spokesman for the Counter-Reformation policies in Graz....Together with Hans Ulrich von Eggenberg, the artist accompanied Archduke Ferdinand...and were members of the wedding procession, which took Ferdinand's sister, Margert, to Spain and thereby both got to know the Escorial, the most important residence in Europe." "...Ferdinand II had decided to relieve Eggenberg from his duties as Obersthofmeister and instead appoint him to a more important administrative post, the office of Governor of Inner Austria. Now Hans Ulrich governed 'in the name of the Emperor' in the Inner Austrian Patrimonial Lands (Styria, Carinthia and Carniola) with complete power in all political, legal and military affiars. In 1628 finally, Emperor Ferdinand II elevated the dominion of Krumau to a Principality and bestowed Eggenberg with the hereditary title of Duke...What was now needed to demonstrate the Duke's new honours was a residence that reflected his status." The entire English edition, the most recent and only official book in print in English on the palace, always refers to the building as a palace and makes it clear that it was inspired in design by El Escorial, also a palace. The book as well as the previously cited UNESCO WHS English inscription also make it clear that its proper name is Schloss Eggenberg. Smf77 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Use English whenever possible, and in this case it is. Gryffindor (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

References

Moved it now

I have now moved it. The building always was a palace and never had any military purpose whatsoever. Therefore the transaltion with "castle" was plain and simply wrong. -- Maclemo (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)