Talk:Moritzburg Castle

Name

The German name makes sense, Schloss Moritzburg, saying that the former Burg (castle) developed to a Schloss (palace). The English name Moritzburg Castle is redundant. I suggest to use the German name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I support using Schloss Moritzburg. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Moritzburg Castle is (historically) connected with Dresden Castle and Pillnitz Castle, and I think the latter names are correct. Hence, in order to keep the naming consistent, we should stick to Moritzburg Castle. (Please don't suggest to change the others as well. This could become endless...)--Linear77 (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to change the others also ;) - Unfortunately many German sites and also World Heritage use Castle for Schloss, as they use Evangelical for evangelisch. We could improve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, this is not funny, I have seen enough damage to WP by (strong-minded) individuals... "Castle" is used by all printed material (guide books etc.) for these sites, we should keep this consistent. Furthermore, the initial "redundancy argument" make no sense because even in German, no one connects "Moritzburg" with "Burg" (castle), "Moritzburg" is simply a name in itself. And finally, others (Versailles, Sanssouci) use "palace" -- do you want to change them as well? Again, please keep the names as they are of these three palaces ;) --Linear77 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what I said: Germans don't know the meaning and write Castle if they mean Schloss. They write Evangelical when they mean Evangelisch. You are right, it's not funny, the Protestant Church is far from Evangelical. "Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie tun." We don't have to repeat the mistakes of those sources, we could say Schloss Moritzburg, as we say Schloss Weimar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Support to rename this to "Schloss Moritzburg" or "Moritzburg Palace". "Castle" indicates a fortified structure which doesn't make any sense for a German schloss. Btw, it's very common to use "Chateau" and the likes for French palatial/stately homes and "Slot" for Swedish ones, we should do the same for "Schloss" with German buildings. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, could anyone guide me to a site that explains how I move an article, when the intended new name is "occupied" already, by e.g. a redirect? As it's the case with Schloss Moritzburg. Thank you. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Horst, I think the page ("site"?) you are looking for is WP:Requested Moves (make a proposal, provide some justification for it, see if anyone agrees with you), which I suggest you use in preference to simply moving pages around to suit your personal taste. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If a move is uncontested (spelling error etc.) just ask an admin whom you trust, - I trust Graham87 and Yngvadottir, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

<od>No: "Castle" is consistent with almost every other similar article, and is consistent with the notion of using English on the English WP.
And the idea that this place developed from a burg/castle to a schloss/palace is not correct; it was built in the 16th century as a hunting lodge. Also, I am not convinced those terms are as precise as you suggest; both terms seem to be applied to places built as fortifications and those whose use has changed to residential. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly BECAUSE the terms are not precise I would go for the original, not to loose even more precision in translation. Enough from me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the requested moves process should be used, because this page move seems like it would be controversial. Graham87 12:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarify: I didn't mean a move in this this case, of course, saying "uncontested (spelling error etc.)", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moritzburg Castle. 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/20120330004057/http://www.schloss-moritzburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/smoritz/pdf/MoritzburgCastle_LittlePheasantCastle_2011.pdf to http://www.schloss-moritzburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/smoritz/pdf/MoritzburgCastle_LittlePheasantCastle_2011.pdf

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) 18:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)