Talk:Schloss Weimar

A fact from Schloss Weimar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Goethe was commissioned to lead the reconstruction of the Schloss in Weimar (pictured) after a fire in 1774?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schloss Weimar.

Wikipedia

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as High-importance).

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name

City Castle is the name in the WHS, but it is not a good name. Weimar is not a city, and the palace is not a castle. We have an article Stadtschloss, I suggest we call this one Stadtschloss, Weimar or Weimar palace. In any case, a location disambiguation should be by comma. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weimar is a city.

I would suggest to follow the examples of other German Stadtschlösser; i.e. City Palace, Berlin - City Palace, Potsdam - Wiesbaden City Palace. --IIIraute (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to let the others follow this one. We say Kurhaus and don't translate, for example. Some sources call this "Residenzschloss", some "Stadtschloss", - common: "Schloss". The WHS has it wrong, as many others. We say Hildesheim Cathedral, not what the WHS says, which is a wrong translation of the official name , nothing "common" at all. Let's keep in mind that it's not a name, but a generic term. Schloss, Weimar is an option, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the other editors/articles got it wrong - "let the others follow this one" - the WHS/UNESCO has it wrong - so does the Klassik Stiftung Weimar here and of course also the City of Weimar, the Schatzkammer Thüringen, the Museumsverband Thüringen, the Free State of Thuringia, the castle's own website, the German WP and also the official address is wrong:

Stadtschloss

Burgplatz 4

99423 Weimar

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.”

― Confucius ―

--IIIraute (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they are wrong, I said that an original name is better than a doubtful translation. Stadtschloss, Weimar is fine. Unfortunately, many German places or institutions translate their own names to something questionable, look at Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands, which is by no means evangelical, but that's what their website says, and our article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is meaningless to bring multiple examples of people calling it Stadtschloss in German. We know it is called that. What we are trying to find is an English word for it that works, or agree that we should not translate it if the translation is gibberish. For the record, I find that City Palace, though still very awkward, is quite a lot less horrible than City Castle. But on the other hand I do not like the confrontational style of debate here from one editor, so I am retiring from the discussion and wish you all luck with it. DBaK (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2014

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: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Weimar → City Palace, Weimar – Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:ENGLISH New name also per reliable sources. The text describes this place as a stadtschloss which simply translates as “city palace”. It is one of a number of such places in Germany, all of which have articles using the English form. (see here). Sources for the new name include the city of Weimar's official webpage on the place. Relisted -- Calidum 05:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Moonraker12 (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Most people, German or not, call a schloss...a schloss! It's the common name. It is sometimes translated to "castle" where appropriate, but this is not a castle. Most English-language sources call it a schloss. This obsession that some Wikipedia editors have for translating everything into English defies common usage and common sense. It is also not what WP:ENGLISH, if you bother reading it, actually mandates in the absence of an overwhelming number of English-language sources which use the translated form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp: You say schloss is "the common name" for these things in English; do you have any evidence for that? That isn't my experience. And “most English language sources call it (this one?) a schloss”; any evidence for that? A google search for “Weimar City Palace” throws up over 90,000 results, while the only hit for “Schloss Weimar” is this article and a couple of other WP pages.

And yes, I have read WP:Naming conventions (use English); the title says it all, really. And it certainly does not say 'use the local name unless an overwhelming number of sources use English', as you suggest.

As for “this obsession that some editors have”: To describe wanting to follow English usage, and what is found in reliable sources, on the English WP as "obsessive" is a bit steep; though I have certainly encountered an enthusiasm for using non-English forms despite English usage and what sources overwhelmingly say (viz here). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

We have an article Schloss for those who really don't know.
Schloss covers several of the many names of this building: Stadtschloss, Schlossmuseum, Residenzschloss.
By the standards of Wikiproject Germany, Weimar is not a city (would need 100.000 inhabitants), but see discussion above.
Not every Schloss is a palace, see discussion above.
We have Châteaux of the Loire Valley, with respect for the local name (and not every château is a palace). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: IF we would move, it should be Weimar city palace, similar to Hildesheim Cathedral, - another case where the WHS name is not used, for good reasons, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda: As for using chateau but not schloss, we don't generally use castillo for castles in Spain, either (though we sometimes use Alcazar) or castell for Italian ones; such are the vagaries of the English language. But that is what makes writing in English such fun; and (to be clear) we are required to follow English language usage here, just as (I imagine) we are required to follow German usage on the de.WP. (Ahh! So we are!). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Define required. German Wikipedia has Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, Messiah and A Boy was Born, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, because it is normal practice in German to write the full name of a place in that fashion. If I had written a page for the German WP entitled “Schloss Buckingham” it would be moved, wouldn't it, to conform to something more familiar to a German audience. The same applies here; I'm saying we should follow normal practice in English so that the title has a form familiar to an English-speaking audience. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it's "normal practice in English", but where is your proof of this? As a native speaker of British English, my normal practice is to use the German version of the name. I would refer to it as "Schloss Weimar" or, if I was clearly referring to this specific one, as "the schloss". I wouldn't render it as "palace", "castle" or any other approximation of its English equivalent. This is also the style used in most English-language guidebooks I read. WP:UE most certainly does not say "translate everything into English" as you seem to think it does. To be clear, we are not required to render everything into English no matter what common usage may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to my response to you (above), or my response to Gerda, here? I have already given you the evidence that the term I have used is in common use in English, and that usage of the term you favour is vanishingly small. Do you wish to see it again? And if your normal practice is to use German terms when writing in English you appear from that to be in something of a minority. You state that guidebooks use the term "Schloss Weimar" for this place (would you care to mention any of them here?); but it would hardly be surprising if a guidebook did give the local name for a place, as they are written for the benefit of visitors there: They are therefore hardly indicative of general English usage. And as far as I can see guidebooks are more likely to refer to this place as a Stadtschloss, or Residenzschloss (as in fact the German WP does). Are you really insisting on rejecting an English term here to use a German term not even used in German?

As for WP:UE, rather than argue about what you think I think it says, how about looking at what it does say: "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language" (here) and goes on: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" and "In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." (here). And we are required to use the English if that is the common form of the name.

So, do you have any proof that the name you recommend is anything more than your personal reference, or that you aren't opposing the suggested name because you just don't like it? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.