Talk:Schloss Esterházy

Untitled

could anyone let me know what's wrong with my page? I know it's not perfect, but I don't exactly think it's a piece of garbage that needs a complete re-write, needs links, and has insufficient context. JohnAMo 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering (I couldn't find it in the help section) how to make it so if someone searches "Schloss Esterhazy" instead of "Schloss Esterházy" it would link to the page. Thank you! JohnAMo 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to Schloss Esterhazy to see what I did to handle that. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no link on the side of this article to the Schloss Esterházy article in the german wikipedia [[1]]. How can the two pages be linked? omnijohn 02:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Commemorative coin ... again?

Please check Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven ... they all have references to their respective commemorative coins. Please check Talk:Joseph Haydn, a whole discussion was made there and the conclusion was to let the reference to the coin in the article. Do we have to discuss that again?

Why are you against a reference to a coin that is material and important? I really have no answer ...

I have been very receptive to changes in the wordings, even to remove the whole paragraph as long as the reference to the coin is left. I have made similar contributions to a lot of articles, and people had come with ideas that I have been receptive to. User:Opus33 knows that in the Hydn article, I personally thank him in his talk page for him been receptive. Still he removed my contribution blindly, attributing (and sourcing) "These coin paragraphs are really obtrusive and should not be included" ... well, this should have been discussed before removing the content, particularly when this user participated in a long discussion about the same topic. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am with Opus33 on this one, and I agree also with the sentiment expressed at the A/N thread initiated by this editor, in which other seasoned Wikipedia editors came down against including this in the article: I share the reasons expressed there. I hope that miguel accepts his vews are minoritarian here, especially given the support from the administrator noticeboard for the removal of this stuff. I will go about removing it from those other instances as well until clearer consensus is formed, especially in light of the recent A/N commentary. Eusebeus (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest not to jump into conclusions that fast, it is weekend and not everyone is in front of the computer. Give it a couple of days and let's see. BTW, Eusebeus, in the A/N I am looking for advice about Opus33 behaviour, removing my contributions wihtout talking about it particularly when we have talked about it in the past. I am very open to changes in the contribution I did, I do think is WP:NOTE and WP:REL, it is just a matter of opinion of how to present it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to pitch in here and my two cents worth is that the image of the coin should be there because if the Castle is notable to commemorated by a coin the inclusion of an image of the coin is warranted and it may be mentioned in a brief paragraph. There is ample precedent for this; In British and Irish notes, have often commemorated famous people and an image of the note is usually included on the subjects page, for example: Edward Elgar, Adam Smith, William Butler Yeats, James Joyce and Jonathan Swift. Removing a coin image like what was done in Mozart's becuase one editor didn't like the look of it, is silly. The Mozart article already has 11 images including one rather poor one of his birthplace, if any image should be removed it should be that one, it's so amateurish. Also the Schloss Esterházy main image is poor, dull grey skies, a car parked in front of it, taken through a railing. At least the coin image shows it as it should be.

As a proposed compromise I have add the image of the coin to the gallery. Please don't rush to revert the change without discussing it here first. Snappy56 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also came here to see if a compromise could be arranged and found Snappy had beat me to it. I then discovered the text of the article was rather deplorable and did my best to make it a more literate article. In the process I put a one-sentence section back onto the end of the article with a short mention of the commerative coin, since the text got largely lost in Snappy's change. The coin itself remained in the gallery.

I find the coin image uncomfortably placed. This is not to say that it doesn't belong in the article; more that there currently doesn't seem to be a good place for it. This is more an indictment on the quality of the existing gallery images than of the coin image -- the coin overshadows the other images. Better images of the palace would make the coin image a smaller part of the article.

If people disagree with some or all of my changes, I'd appreciate it if the specific points of annoyance were discussed here before a summary reversion. Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Having been asked to comment here, I will.

In general terms, if there's a decent place to put the image of the coin, I don't see that there's any good reason not to include it. Having said that, I don't think that the fact that a non-circulating commemorative coin has been produced should generally be more than a brief mention. If there doesn't happen to be an appropriate place, then I don't think we should be making one solely to shoehorn a non-circulating commemorative coin in. This is not a parallel case to those British and Irish notes examples because those notes are/were intended to circulate and this coin is not.

A couple of US-based examples of what has been done with coins. Franklin D. Roosevelt has a legacy section, where it is mentioned that he is on the dime (a circulating coin). This is also mentioned where the article discusses the March of Dimes. But there's no image of the dime, nor mention of the $5 gold commemorative made for him. Both the Roosevelt article and the dime article are featured. Also featured is United States Marine Corps, which contains no mention of the commemorative Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Silver Dollar, presumably because there isn't really a relevant section. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima mentions the coin, but again, no image. Presumably someone preferred the lego model - it's certainly a bit more unique.

At Joseph Haydn, the coin image was included after some debate in a part of the article that was a bit sparse on images. The original edit there (as here) included a bit of text which was largely OR regarding the Austrian people's opinion on the Haydn. To be clear, the primary motivation behind the creation of the coin is profit, and thus the existence of the coin cannot be used to demonstrate anything beyond the obvious. To quote commemorative coin, "[t]he events that these coins commemorate are often chosen based on a perceived market, rather than events of significance to the country."

In this case, we have the gallery which we can put the coin in if we want to. There can then be a wikilink in the caption and no further text should be necessary. Based on the current version this means I would get rid of the dedicated section on the coin as my preferred compromise. Pfainuk talk 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for all the discussion. It will mean a lot to me to get the real opinion of Opus33 and Eusebeus in this discussion. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked the composer's project to weigh in on this debate - a group of editors who actively tend to composer and related articles (like this one). I couldn't care less about these images anywhere else, but my personal feeling is that they are not appropriate for our composer pages and should be removed. I will wait, however, for further input from the project. Eusebeus (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my take on all this is as follows:

• The issuing of commemorative coins by national mints in large denominations is essentially a business, conducted by governments for profit. These coins do not circulate and are issued only because there is a community of collectors who are willing buy them. Thus it is particularly unimportant news when Haydn, or Schloss Eszterhazy, appears on such a coin.
• It's clear from Miguel.Mateo's correspondence with me that he harbors an extreme enthusiasm for coins, and possibly for gold itself. This is a distorted perspective, I think. We should write WP articles keeping in mind the interests and priorities of our readers. This means leaving out trivia. A visitor to the Haydn article should learn about Haydn, and not about commemorative coins.
• I am completely positive on the idea that WP should have complete coverage of the field of numismatics. I urge Miguel.Mateo to concentrate on editing in this area rather than loading up articles in other areas with trivia. Opus33 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well expressed; this view is concordant with the sum commentary proffered thus far at the composer project page. All independent editors have thus far weighed in against inclusion, except in instances where no alternative images are to be found; that is clearly not the case. Even those editors canvassed by miguel seem fairly ambivalent. I suggest, therefore, that both image and discussion be excised as essentially trivia per the above. I also note with enthusiasm miguel's excellent contributions on this subject within numismatics, a topic area that is a better resting ground for this material. Eusebeus (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Who lived here when?

Hello, hoping not to seem rude I reverted an edit claiming to know what times of the year the family was in residence. The problem is that the reference source is about Haydn, who was only involved with the family for a fraction (1761-1809) of their centuries-long existence. And even then, different princes were different: Nikolaus I eventually spent rather little time in Eisenstadt, preferring his new palace at Esterhaza.

It would be a fine idea to include this information, but it needs a source that covers the Esterhazy family in general, and not just the Haydn years. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased it. It was definitely one of the summer residences of the family, so even the original wording was acceptable. I didn't claim this was their only summer residence.

Update: moved it to the 18th century and added a more general intro based on the official website. Squash Racket (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Classical Music Festival

This section reads like an advertisment, and is also extremely deceptive. The CMF justs rents room at the Schloss and is in no way connected to the Haydn Festival, which is rightfully better known, and the new concert series that the Privatstiftung Esterházy has been putting on. I think it needs to be cut, but wonder what others say. Emoedison (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)