Talk:Konstanz Minster

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Cathedral of Constance → Konstanz Cathedral — "Konstanz Minster" is an English name, just like York Minster etc. The German is "Konstanzer Münster". If moved, it should be to the usual English format of Konstanz Cathedral, using Konstanz as the article does, although it hasn't been one for nearly 200 years. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Usual English format? You mean like Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels? I don't object to the change, but with any change, but let's be consistent within the artilce and have the right redirects in place. Philly jawn (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would certainly move that to Los Angeles Cathedral; you will see most European cathedral categories have been standardized to this format - perhaps in the US, with no really historic cathedrals, it should be different. European capital cities are also often exceptions. "Cathedral of Foo" has its partisans but is never right imo - see talk at Florence Cathedral for lengthy discussions. Who would look for Cathedral of Canterbury? Konstanz Cathedral has more ghits than "minster", so would be best in this case. Using the French "Constance" is now pretty outdated; the article text is not great - seems based on some old source. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Constance is not outdated; what then do we call Lake Constance? Minster is not a productive word in English; it is meaningful where tradition retains it, but cannot be used elsewhere without archaism. Constance Cathedral, like Cologne Cathedral, would be a minor improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article called Konstanz then? We call Lake Constance the Bodensee, or I do anyway, and increasingly most English users. Article titles are not decided by whether they are "meaningful" but by current English usage; in this case Konstanz Cathedral gets it. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In this case, it would appear to be that the German nationalists got there first, which is regrettable; we may expect to see either Genf or Genève shortly in place of English Geneva, both of which would be equally regrettable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the name of the city and the name used for its main church the same is not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; it is more like keeping article and category names the same. I'm all for using Kiev and actual English names, but using French names for German cities, with the exception of Cologne and perhaps Berne (we use "Cologne" and "Bern"), is manifestly fading away - Basel being the prime example. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And that is WP:CRYSTAL; it also omits Vienna and Nuremberg, and ignores the parallel case of Prague (and Venice and Rome, all gallicizing). We are not the "Wave of the Future", and a good thing too: that's a sure road to obsolescence. Constance and Basle (the second now only English, of course; the French is fr:Bâle) should be moved, if only as a service to other Wikipedias - but there's no rush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd be very puzzled at the airport trying to get a flight to "Basle", nor is this ever seen in the English-speaking press now, any more than Ratisbon, Mayence or Aix-La-Chapelle. As far as I'm concerned the others are now as anglicized as Moscow or Naples, though I admit this is a subjective view. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Berne should never have been moved; there was no consensus to move it. Leave English usage alone, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the epic battles between you & the Deacon when I expressed myself in 2 minds over Bern/e above. I doubt a review would have overturned the move debate close. Unfortunately it is English-speakers who won't leave English usage alone; bring back Leghorn I say :) Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a case for that; at least it would help foreign readers find out what we mean by it...;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any evidence of how the cathedral is referred to in English-language publications? According to our policies, that should be the guiding principle. Knepflerle (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Konstanz+Cathedral" book ghits] is used by fewer than "Constance Cathedral", but the first few hits include major reference works like Grove Music, the Penguin/Yale History of Art, The dictionary of art‎, The Harvard biographical dictionary of music‎, The Cambridge companion to grand opera‎, & so on. Many of the other set are old. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Attractive as ‘Minster’ is, I don’t see any strong reason in this case to go against the Place-name Cathedral convention, so I would go for that. As to which form of the place-name to use, given that both are used in modern English I think we should just follow what is agreed for the city: otherwise we cause a small but distracting confusion for our readers. (And if the city is moved then let this be moved along with it.) Ian Spackman (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konstanz Minster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719085858/http://www.strudel.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58 to http://www.strudel.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)