Jump to content

Talk:St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reason for move

[edit]

It said "(French: Église Saint-Thomas, German: Thomaskirche)" in the lead section of the article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It" being the article? Said so on what source(s)? - For those who didn't notice: It was moved from St. Thomas, Strasbourg to Church of Saint Thomas, Strasbourg, while other French churches come by their French name, or a translation which works for building and parish, in English commonly with "St" or "St." instead of "Saint". - I vote for moving it back to the simple, internationally understood name, and rather change the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would second the move back to "St. Thomas, Strasbourg". It has been like that for years, and perfectly correct. --Edelseider (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not typical way of translating a church building's name on English Wikipedia. Compare for instance: Template:Old_City_(Jerusalem). Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example, I'm afraid! Jerusalem was ruled by the British as part of the British mandate of Palestine. So you *naturally* have English names for places there! Strasbourg was never ruled by English speaking peoples, not even Saxons :). --Edelseider (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any consensus that you're referring to regarding standard names rendering of English Wikipedia articles on church buildings? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I may find some if I looked for them. However, it is *you* who should provide "legal arguments" (so to speak) in favour of the move you did, not me against it. After all, we should have had this discussion before, not afterwards. --Edelseider (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the logic of the mover (to go by article instead of by sources), Church of Saint-Sulpice, Paris should be moved to Saint-Sulpice, Paris, which might be a good idea, because the marriage of English "Church" and French name of the Saint looks awful to me. Church of St. Sulpice would be better than what we have. Keep simple and international, just Saint and location, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Saint-Sulpice ist also the name of a Paris métro station! It would be ambiguous in any case. You have also picked a rather bad example. Jerusalem, Paris... why do you people always have to choose the A-listers? Edelseider (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better example: Saint-Eustache, Paris, to my liking. Obviously the Metro station should have some disambiguation, as named after the church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, should the page be moved further to "Saint-Thomas, Strasbourg", or back, to "St. Thomas, Strasbourg"? Provided, of course, it is moved (again). As I wrote, I would just move it back to where it was for years. --Edelseider (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you move it back, as obiously not uncontroversial, and whoever wants to move it should better find consensus before on the talk. We are not obliged to follow an English pattern for a French church. Coming from St. Martin, Idstein, Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that even in German, the phrase "as obviously not uncontroversial" sounds vague. Da offensichtlich nicht unumstritten... that's paralyzing! I won't do anything (yet). All the best, Edelseider (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I felt some impulse to revert immediately, but was polite and asked "why". I almost regret it now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we followed the norm for churches in England, it would be "St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg. This pattern is used for St Thomas' Church, Copenhagen. Incidentally, the full stop after "St" is inappropriate.
By the way, I have come out of semi-retirement to comment on this matter, because I used to live right next door to this church and I care about it. LynwoodF (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you are so right! It is a precious place, full of history and art. Even if it does look a bit pudgy on the outside. --Edelseider (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done

[edit]

(− but yesterday a King!) --Edelseider (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity: we see now St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg, an English format for a French church. Tired ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the model of a church in Copenhagen, Denmark. Sounds reasonable. --Edelseider (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, when the church was built, Strasbourg was German... So, jawohl. :) --Edelseider (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is better, and should be the normal formula. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "formula" works when an article is [only] about a church building, but not when the parish is also a topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the article, as far as I can see, is only about the church building. Unlike fr:Chapitre de Saint-Thomas and its subordinates, fr:Stift and fr:Médiathèque protestante de Strasbourg (all three articles should be translated, btw.) --Edelseider (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "formula" suggested (to me) that it would be good to be used generally, and I don't think so. For my church, it would not be a common name, and simply wrong for the parish part. If "St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg" is a common name for this church, I don't know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for everyone

[edit]

Without that discussion above, I wouldn't have thought of writing this article: Gottfried von Hagenau, so thank you everyone! Edelseider (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Thomas' Church, Strasbourg. 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:

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) 10:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Thomas%27_Church,_Strasbourg&oldid=1211947320"