Talk:Marienlyst Castle

Castle or Palace?

I moved this back to "Marienlyst Castle" based on the note below, copied from my talk page. In Germany many "palaces" are called "castles" in English, so it seems OK to me. I am npt an expert and do not speak Danish. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on an article Marienlyst Castle. It was recently changed to Marienlyst Palace but a palace is a property of the sovereign only and since Marienlyst is not owned by the Queen or the State it can not be called a palace. Could you please change it back to Marienlyst Castle. Sincerily (Ice Explorer (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

Moved from Ramblersen's talk page: Moved from Ramblersen's talk page: I had a very clear conversation with you about Marienlyst Castle. A palace is a property of the sovereign only and since Marienlyst is not owned by the Queen or the State it can not be called a palace. Why you would go behind my back on this when you clearly know I've been working on this article is very disappointing. (Ice Explorer (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

I have by no means "gone behind your back" &ndash: and you would really do yourself a favour if you stopped seeing everything as some kind of conspiracy against you. I actually refrained from correcting this obvious error (as I have refrained from commenting on several other issues regarding your wikipedia activities) since I did not want to make an issue out of it prior to your self-proclaimed departure. Nor did I want to offend you, eventhough you seem to think otherwise, and Marienlyst Palace was obviously "your" project. However, you rather dramatically proclaimed that you would no longer write here (because of a conflict with someone else) and you have to realize that wikipedia is by nature a collective work and not personal property. If you had not proclaimed that you had left here I would not just have moved it though but either taken the discussion (again) or let it go (and I had gone for the latter).

Now as for what to call Marienlyst: I have two driteria which I find relevant, though I have not checked what Wikipedia says on the matter: !)What is the name officially used by the place itself? 2) What is correct? The first one is easy ndash: the Marienlyst is called Marienlyst Palace in official pamflets and on websides. Now what is correct? A "castle" is a defensice structure and since this building obviously isn't it is not a castle. As for your definition of "palace" I think it is too restractive (though I may of course be wrong). I think the word can correctly be used to refer to any major building originating as a residence of a sovereigh – which this does. Furthermore "palace" seems frequently to be used for "larger mansion". But this is an interesting question since I often think it is unclear how to translate generic term's like this since the words often cover different things in different languages. Since this building came into existance due to the garde, maybe "Pavilion" would be the most correct translation? Still I think it has a lot to say whata place (or anything else) is officially called in English and that is in this case Marienlyst Palace. Still that is just my opinion and I suggest you ask someone else to get a third opinion on this matter instead of taking everything as a personal insult. Now I will move this to Marienlyst's talk page where I think the discussion belongs and I suggest the discussion continues there.Ramblersen (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I see you have already taken action so no I guess the third opinion doesn't matter - thouigh that doesn't make it any more correct.:-) Happy trails.Ramblersen (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the move as requested - I did not see any discussion on the talk page and did not realize it was this disputed. I did a quick search on the web and found that the Green Michelin Guide in English calls it Marienlyst Castle. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry about all this. I had put a lot of research into it, but sadly anyone can just change it without regard at all. I have moved the article from my Sandbox. It's not complete but I would appreciate it greatly if you could give it a quality scale rating. Sincerily, (Ice Explorer (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

I did a quick Google search on "Marienlyst Castle", which got 6,540 hits, and "Marienlyst Palace", which got 3,250 hits. I would make note of the Palace name in the lead per WP:LEAD - I assume that there are reliable sources to use to back up the incorrect name claim, and so I would add mention of that too (very brief in the lead, could be more detail in the body). I really don't rate articles, sorry Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The origin of the problem is the Danish word Slot which has no reliable English equivalent. Wikipedia (together with many other English-language sites) has tried to select either Castle or Palace as a translation but in fact, Slot can often mean a country house, a mansion, a stately home or even an estate. Although I know that Ice Explorer does not like to refer to Danish buildings by their generic name alone, a simple way out of this rather academic dispute might well be to call the article something like Marienlyst (residence) and describe it in the lead as:

Marienlyst (Danish Marienlyst Slot) is a large residence located in Helsingør, Denmark. It was named after King Frederik V of Denmark's second wife, Juliana Maria, the Queen consort of Denmark and Norway.

If the building had been in England, it would no doubt have been called something like Marienlyst House - but I'm certainly not suggesting this as a title for the English Wikipedia article.

I would also suggest that there should be a disambiguation page to avoid confusion with Marienlyst in Norway and with the Hotel Marienlyst, an aristocratic bathing residence also in Helsingør.

And BTW, for the Google fans who have compared the hits on Marienlyst Castle (only 6,500) with those on Marienlyst Palace (only 3,200), I would point out that for Marienlyst Slot - the building's real name - there are 113,000! So a redirect from Marienlyst Slot would seem to be in order too - and it now exists. Ipigott (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going by WP:NAME. Since this is the English Wikipedia, the most common name in English should be the title of the article. It also discusses using Google hits as a rough measure of use for a given name (and I reran them excluding Wikipedia and got the same basic result). As I have said before, I think that the lead should give the Danish name and the palace name. There could be a brief discussion in the body of the article about the uncertainty in translating Slot (which seems to me to be close to the German word Schloss, which can also be translated as both castle and palace in English). I think it would also be fine to have a brief discussion that in Denmark a palace has to belong to the sovereign (as has been mentioned above). Both of these would need to be sourced. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to sound too pedantic about this but as you are German and, quite correctly, cite Schoss in German as having similar problems to Slot in Danish, perhaps you would like to take a look at the titles of a few German articles with Schloss. Of particular interest in this context are Schloss Burg , Schloss Esterházy, Schloss Eichtersheim and Schloss Benrath. As you can see, the English-language articles about the German Schlösse use Schloss rather than Castle, Palace, Manor or whatever. You can find references to Esterhazy Palace in Eisenstadt on Google English (some 60,000) but German Schoss Esterhazy (Google hits of 435,000) has nevertheless been chosen for EN Wikipedia. The same argument could (and in my opinion should) be used for Marienlyst Slot. No one in Denmark would know what you were talking about if you said Marienlyst Castle. It simply is not a castle! The castle there is Kronborg (and note the article is indeed called Kronborg and not Kronborg Castle) - obwohl es Schloss Kronborg auf Deutsch heisst! Ipigott (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1.) Why do people want to call it a palace when it's clearly not. It wasn't even called a palace when it was owned by the royal family. So why would we want to change it now ? 2.) This is the English Wikipedia and not the Danish Wikipedia. What matters is how English speaking people would view it. This is why there is a Danish Wikipedia. 3.) Why have we once again allowed Ramblersen to mud sling and create controversy. It's not a palace and we shouldn't have to call it a palace just because one person wants it. Not to mention the fact that it's the opinion of someone who's first language is Danish and not English. I don't go around the Danish Wikipedia and tell them how to spell or title things in Danish. 4.) We should also look at the quality of work (example:Glorup Manor) when deciding on how much credence should be given to their opinion. 5.) If I went to England and bought a castle, then renamed it a palace, I would be laughed at endlessly and the land registry would tell me what I've told you. A palace belongs to the sovereign or the state and since you're neither, please call it something else.(Ice Explorer (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

The "a palace belongs to the sovereign"-rule is interesting. Where does it come from and who uses it? I'm asking because it is different from the Danish naming convention where a slot must have been the property of a member of the royal family at some point in its history.
While I agree that palace is a bit off the mark, castle is equally wrong, so discussing what the building isn't won't get us anywhere. Common usage is the most reasonable way to solve problems, so I think we should leave the article at castle even though, in my mind, the building isn't a castle, since common usage in English seems to lean that way.
Ice E., please don't turn this into a discussion of individual editors. Judge other people's arguments by the quality of their arguments. And as far as I can tell, so far everyone has been editing in accordance with Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. 77.215.191.91 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Answers

I'll make a new section here since all these opinions and comments get rather confusing. My initial response would have been that it was really not worth spending so many people's time on this and that I was fine with either translation. As Ipigott has already pointed out, it's quite an academic discussion – though I actually think academic discussions are quite legitimate in the context of an encyclopedia. Still the problem obviously is that there is no direct translation and that incorrect or inacurate usage both here and elsewhere flourish, various designations are practically used at random. But due to the unpleasant character of Ice Explorer's comments, I guess I will have to respond. Here goes:

Ruhrfisch: I think it would also be fine to have a brief discussion that in Denmark a palace has to belong to the sovereign (as has been mentioned above). Both of these would need to be sourced.

But it's not like that. Actually the Danish equivalent of Palace, Palads, is never used in Danish. They are all called Slot which has a very broad meaning, covering everything from quite small manor houses or pavilions to the main residences of the sovereign Amalienborg Palace, Fredensborg Palace, Bernstorff Palace, Eremitage Palace). borg as a noun/generic term has a similar meaning to castle in English, a defensice structure, confer below. But to make matters a bit confusing, -borg is frequently seen as a suffix in the name of a Slot, though the edifice would never be referred to as a borg (Amalienborg would never be called a borg in Danish, always a slot). In the same time, something which in fact does qualify as a borg , may often be called something with Slot. As for the Google search, that's in my experience not very reliable but I haven't much knowledge about such matters and if that's the criteria it's just fine with me. I just noticed that all official or semi-official sites I came across called it Palace (such as this official Danish tourist site as well as Helsingør Museum's own pamflet's from back when it was still open. Since it is also a more accurate word than Castle I just changed it but did in no wat intend to make an issue out of it since the inaccuracy is extremely common and similar problems are seen in other languages as we have already talked more than enough about.

Ipigott: The same argument could (and in my opinion should) be used for Marienlyst Slot. No one in Denmark would know what you were talking about if you said Marienlyst Castle. It simply is not a castle! The castle there is Kronborg (and note the article is indeed called Kronborg and not Kronborg Castle) - obwohl es Schloss Kronborg

It is true that the suffix -borg has the meaning you refer to, making it somewhat of a pelonasm to put anything behind in the first place. But in all fairness, it is very common to do so in Danish as well, simply to avoid misunderstandings. Examples are Fredensborg which is a town next to Fredensborg Slot, Frederiksborg used to be a county (not to set of a discussion about how to translate the Danish Amt), Rosenborg is a common name both in Denmark and abroad etc. What is important here is to make wikipedia easily read by user and eliminate the risk of misunderstandings. And to this end I think it is instrumental to put something behind these names. This way readers will instantly know what it is in articles while they otherwise may have to click the link to find out. After the first mention it may be be an advantage to use the short form though. And I don't quite think the comparison to German works. For large languages (French, German, Italian), their designations &ndash: like Schloss – are commonly known by English speakers and more or less assimilated into English and toher languages. You can expect people to understand Schloss, Chateaux, Hôtel (like in mansion, not hotel), Palazzo, Villa, Finca even – to the majority of people who bother to read a Wikipedia article on the subject it will in fact evoke a quite accurate image of the nature of the building talked about. Also the terms wil often have designated articles on English wikipedia to describe that particular type of building in that cultural-geographical context. But for small and obscure languages like Danish I think use of local words just makes the text hard to read.

Ice Explorer: 1.) Why do people want to call it a palace when it's clearly not. It wasn't even called a palace when it was owned by the royal family. So why would we want to change it now ? 2.) This is the English Wikipedia and not the Danish Wikipedia. What matters is how English speaking people would view it. This is why there is a Danish Wikipedia.

Couldn't agree more!!! Let's check what English Wikipedia says:

• "A castle Italic text(from Latin castellum) is a defensive structure associated with the Middle Ages, found in Europe and the Middle East. The precise meaning of "castle" is debated by scholars, but it is usually considered to be the "private fortified residence" of a lord or noble."
• "A palace is a grand residence, especially a royal residence or the home of a head of state or some other high-ranking dignitary, such as a bishop or archbishop.[1] The word itself is derived from the Latin name Palātium, for Palatine Hill, one of the seven hills in Rome.[1] In many parts of Europe, the term is also applied to relatively large urban buildings built as the private mansions of the aristocracy."

Now which comes closest? It's certainly not in an urban setting (in Italy, where palace/palazzo comes from, something like this would be called a Villa but that would not make sense to use in a Danish context obviously). Still it is a former (summer) residence and the Wikipedia says "especially of Royal..." anyway. And there is nothing fortified about it. Then you stress that it is no longer ovned by the sovereign. But if its past doesn't count I guess you should call it "Marienlyst Museum" or the not very easily pronounced form "Marienlyst now-closed-due-to-fungal-attack Part-of-Museum" which rather a lot reminds me of how they tend to translate Chinese names of places but wouldn't really work here imo (and no hits on Google, I just checked). When ovned by the Danish sovereign it wasn't called a Palace for the simple reason that "Palace" is an English word. We have to translate the Danish name and what you say about "Palace" may just as well be said about "Castle". As I think is clear from the Wikipedia articles quoted, palace is the generic term that comes closest of the two. As I've already said, I think "Pavilion" would come even closer but would probably sound wrong t some. As for "House" which Ipigott mentioned, I don't think it works very well as a generic term in a non-English context (which I think is what he said as well).

Ice Explorer: 3.) Why have we once again allowed Ramblersen to mud sling and create controversy.

I resent that remark. It's the second very personal attack you make on me and the first time I just ignored it because I really don't want to waste my time on this kind of discussions.

• A) Would you care to point these numerous other occations out the me/us? I almost never participate in talk page discussions (to avoid things like this) and the only place I've been involved in anything close to being a controversity was on the talk page of the Architecture of Denmark article. We had a very productive dialogue on that page (imo) and then you showed up and said that everything was terribly wrong about an article which now, with not very dramatic changes, is a Good Article (and congratulations to Ipigott about that btw, just saw it). You wanted to change everything, lied and were being both rude and unproductive – I simply responded that I didn't agree with your suggestions and that I didn't find your fierce criticism fair. And very strange since it was an article still undergoing quite intense work/changes. And it was in no way "my" article, I had only been involved in a tiny bit of it and made some small suggestions (99,9 % the article is Ipigott's work), I was just very worried that your weird behavior would destroy an article which I thouroughly enjoyed seeing come about. The immediate (and only) response to my reaction was "Good comment" from User:Elekhh and then you attacked me in a personal and very fierce way – which I refrained from responding to. Then you left the page and the productive, friendly and civilized tone returned. Is that the mud sling you refer to or are there other incidents? Now enoguh is enough, could someone tell me if there is some kind of procedure for this? I would really like someone from wikipedia to tell either Ice Explorer or me that they are out of line and should clean up their act. This is the second time Ice Explorer starts to lie and manipulate the truth out of nowhere. Now I really need a third party to look at this behaviour, since the course of events is so easily documented. Otherwise I'm the one whio is out of here. As far as I know Wikipedia has a code of conduct and I assume neither lying nor personal attacks are part of it.
• B) Could you in this specific context explaon to me how my behaviour qualifies as "mud sling"? I have raised a relevant issue (which has gotten much more attension than I think it deserves though) and I have in no way been personal, just put forward sober arguments. This only happened because you had stated that you had left Wikipedia (due to another conflict, for the second time I think, not related to me or this article in any way – doesn't that tell you something?), otherwise I have totally avoided commenting on matters relating to your work not to waste my time on things like this.

Ice Explorer: It's not a palace and we shouldn't have to call it a palace just because one person wants it.

No you certainly shouldn't have to. But as I think I've already documented, it's not just me but wikipedia you disagree with. For an encyclopedia, I think consistensy in terminology is quite important and it was Wikipedia I relied upon when I moved the article. It's not me but Wikipedia you disagree with here if you really think it's a castle. Plus Ipigott (Quote from above: "It simply is not a castle!). Why do you want to make this into a personal vandetta? May I suggest you take up the discussion on the relevant pages if you think Wikipedia is wrong (I will promise you not to take part in the discussions)?

Ice Explorer: Not to mention the fact that it's the opinion of someone who's first language is Danish and not English. I don't go around the Danish Wikipedia and tell them how to spell or title things in Danish.

I certainly make a lots of mistakes to my very poor English (and I will happily abstain from further edits on English wikipedia if someone tells me I make too many) but when you make a mistake I should correct it just like you or anyone else are more than wellcome to correct mine – wheather they are in English, Danish or of a factual nature. That's how Wikipedia works. You shouldn't take everything so personally but stop and listen to what people say sometimes. I have only commented on spelling that was in fact wrong and as for titles, I think I had a valid point. Still, as I already stated, this is a very common mistake and I had no intension of making it this much of a deal. I merely coreected the title issue and was about to correct some factual mistakes in the article, because you had stated that you had left and I didn't think it would make it out of your sandbox, when all this set off.

Ice Explorer: 4.) We should also look at the quality of work (example:Glorup Manor) when deciding on how much credence should be given to their opinion.

Oh you are more than wellcome to look on any article I've wrtiien, that's what they are there for.:-) And do feal free to correct any mistake I've made – due to my poor English or factual – or to start a discussion if it's not a clear case. As my user page has stated ever since I wrote it, I really appreciate it whenever someone bothers to imrpove them. And there are lots of mistakes, no doubt about that, I've made a priority of getting a lot of fairly long and referenced start class articles going since I started here. Wikiproject Denmark has really been dead, even the most important topics have often only had a stub or something copy-pasted from a century old encyclopedia, neither hardly ever referenced. Therefore I think it has been most productive to get a lot of articles going, I think that's the best way to get more people invoklved. It's simply easier and more fun to write articles when there are other articles to link to and something to improve. So I've concentrated on getting articles off to a good start, always factually correct and with references though, and then I return to them once in a while and improve them. I also think it's easier to get a good result and keep your motivation if you don't sit with a topic too long at a time (but that is of course totally a matter of personal taste). So there are without any doubt lots to work on in my articles (in some more than others though). But so there is in yours and you should be more appreciative of imputs from others and not take it as a personal insult. And in this context, what I or anyone else have written elsewhere is totally irrelevant. Only the validity of our arguments and sources count.

Ice Explorer: 5.) If I went to England and bought a castle, then renamed it a palace, I would be laughed at endlessly and the land registry would tell me what I've told you. A palace belongs to the sovereign or the state and since you're neither, please call it something else.

Well I think I've already answered this one. It's not me but wikipedia you disagree with, do take the discussion to the relevant pages if you think you know better than Wikipedia (once again). And it's a historic building, it's name refers to its historic status, otherwise go with the "Marienlyst no-longer-open-due-to-fungal-attack Part-of-Museum" option. As generic terms go, it's simply not a castle, though palace is far from accurate either.

Ramblersen (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

As for the importance rating, I think a lot of articles on historic buildings Wikiproject Denmark should be corrected if this qualifies for mid importance. This building would be unknown to 95 % of all Danes, it only houses a (part of a) local historic museum (when its open, that is) and sees very few visitors. Mid importance is the same importance rating as major Danish tourist attractions like Rundetårn, the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek and the National Gallery which are known to virtually all as many foreigners/visitors. And it's more important than the Church of Our Saviour, Church of Our Lady and Kronborg. Most of these are imo rated too lov but stil I have a hard time seeing that this deserves its mid rating. I haven't much experience with these ratings though. To the ccontent:

The info box lists the construction years of the original building (Steenwinckel), this seems a bad choise with nothing left of its architecture and also goes badly with writing that it is in Neoclassical style.

• I think it needs a section on what is actually to be seen now (architecture, gatden visiting/museum), all the sections are on its history.
• The lead could focus a bit more on giving an overview, to me it seems to provide a lot of not very crucial information while a lot of more relevant info is missing.
• Some rather definitive statements lack references: "including the most renowned romantic landscape garden in Denmark", I can't see a reference, nor anywhere it says so when searching. Not to say it isn't true, just can't find it. Was the Lundehave/Steenwinckel garden also a parterre garden as it states or was that not until the Baroque? Again it may very well be true and maybe i've just missed it but I can't see it in the references listed.
• "Within the castle wall boundaries, these elegant garden grounds remain to a large extent intact, but", really? I thought it was gone and it was the 1919 garden that was there now?
• "Lundhave" should be "Lundehave"

Ramblersen (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)