Talk:Sculptures in the Schönbrunn Garden

Let's get rid of this one.

Having worked on Schönbrunn and related articles for a while now, I see that in deWP, we're unlucky with the corresponding article, too. Thisone is even worse, mentioning only half of the 32 statues lining the Great Parterre (there are several more in the park), and displayed in an unpleasant way. I therefore propose a new layout for that gallery-like "not-very-much-of-an-article" article, and, for the English version, I also suggest to host it on Commons rather than here. It will, very probably, never be more than a gallery with some (little) comment.

Please have a look at my makeshift version at de:Skulpturen und Plastiken um Schloss Schönbrunn and comment here. As it's about the layout, there's no need to speak German to contribute.

Thanks, WeHaWoe (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. Originally, I just didn't want to delete this information, so I decided to move it into a new article, but to me this information is not important at all. A gallery on Commons will do the trick as well. -Wutschwlllm (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As I still work in deWP on completion of that minor article, I'll postpone the deletion request until that (deWP) information can be called "complete" (which is, due to lack of images, impossible before May 1st), then translate it and host it on commons. WeHaWoe (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lions and sphinxes in the forecourt (no 53 & 54)

Hi, both the two lions and the two sphinxes mentioned in the list as being located in the forecourt, are both just in front of the palace, outside the palace area and separated by a major street from the palace. So in my opinion you could mention them, as they are for sure related to the palace, but the do not fall under the topic Sculptures in the Schönbrunn Garden. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

the same is true for the other pair of sphinxes, no 55. See the map in the article. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Herzi. I made these corrections. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

numbering scheme

in the meantime, the numbering scheme seems to be wrong. At least it does not conform to the official page [1]. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Numbers 35 through 45 are not consistent with the official website map, but they are consistent with the Commons map used in the article. The Commons map should be updated to reflect the official numbering. When I get a chance I'll do this. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)