→Requested move: Ulm Cathedral |
Knepflerle (talk | contribs) →Requested move: trade-off |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
I agree that "Ulm Cathedral" is the [[WP:COMMONNAME|most common name]] for this building in English. GB comparison: [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Ulm+Minster&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=1950&as_maxy=&as_isbn= Ulm Minster], [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=100&lr=&as_brr=0&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Ulm+M%C3%BCnster&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=1950&as_maxy=2008&as_isbn= Ulm Münster] (mostly German), [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Ulm+Cathedral%22+date:1950-2008&num=100&as_brr=0&sa=N&start=100 Ulm Cathedral]. Erudy's disclaimer makes sense to me. [[User:Olessi|Olessi]] ([[User talk:Olessi|talk]]) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
I agree that "Ulm Cathedral" is the [[WP:COMMONNAME|most common name]] for this building in English. GB comparison: [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Ulm+Minster&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=1950&as_maxy=&as_isbn= Ulm Minster], [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=100&lr=&as_brr=0&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Ulm+M%C3%BCnster&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=1950&as_maxy=2008&as_isbn= Ulm Münster] (mostly German), [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Ulm+Cathedral%22+date:1950-2008&num=100&as_brr=0&sa=N&start=100 Ulm Cathedral]. Erudy's disclaimer makes sense to me. [[User:Olessi|Olessi]] ([[User talk:Olessi|talk]]) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I would say that that the usage of Cathedral is not so overwhelming that we should not at least consider the clause in [[WP:NAME]] and [[WP:NC(P)]] that we should name our articles precisely and with the least amount of ambiguity. The slightly less common names suffer less from this - it's a trade-off between the two factors. [[User:Knepflerle|Knepflerle]] ([[User talk:Knepflerle|talk]]) 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:38, 27 July 2008
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Germany B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Architecture Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Term
It is not a cathedral because it has never been the seat of a bishop. Münster shouldn't be translated as cathedral thus. Nobody would use the German word "Kathedrale" for this church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.140.131 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely it should be Ulm Minster in English, not Ulm Münster? As terms of art, they are a close match. Tacitus 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It should actually translate as "Ulm Cathedral". Musicandnintendo 07:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Google translates the article "Ulmer Münster" as "Ulm Cathedral". However de:Münster (Kirche) is Minster (church). The correct title of this article should be the German name "Ulmer Münster", with redirects from Ulm Cathedral and Ulm Münster. The church is a a very rich parish church, begun as a Roman Catholic and converted to Lutheran when Ulm voted for Reformation. It never was the seat of a bishop as pointed out above; This it is not a de:Kathedrale in the ecclesiastical sense. Although it is larger than many Cathedral churches and in a secular architectural view can be lumped in as a "Gothic Cathedral". Group29 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be "Ulmer Münster" because that appears to be the most commonly used name, even outside Germany. The wikitravel.org page uses that term. Google searches on English pages yield only 1,780 hits for "Ulm Minster" but 11,200 for "Ulmer Munster". I suspect the word "minster" is unknown by many American English speakers, so there is limited value in using the English translation/cognate. That might explain why Google translates "Münster" as "Cathedral". David@sickmiller.com (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Conflict
These two statements can't both be true:
- "It has dominated Ulm and the surrounding region for hundreds of years with its 161-metre-tall spire."
- "The building was finally completed in 1890 with the addition of the spire."
One of them needs to be edited --87.82.23.233 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Link Error
The cathedral was surpassed by the Singer Building, but from there the previous tallest is the Park Row Building. The Cathedral never was the tallest building of the world (Eiffel Tower built in 1889 has 300m), and never was the tallest fully inhabitable building since it isn't inhabitable from bottom to top. It probably was the highest church in the world, needs verification.
Confusing Sentence
"Ulm was destroyed in an area bombing raid by the British RAF on December 17, 1944."
This sentence is kind of ambiguous and should be edited. Does this refer to the city of Ulm or the cathedral itself? I assume it means the city of Ulm, so this should be amended. Either make the sentence clearer or completely remove it for being irrelevant.99.249.189.179
The Monster (Shreeeeeek) of Ulm
I have added most of the original content of the German version, ignoring some of the "less interesting" details, which only create a stack of red links.
As far as I am concerned, this article is almost finished.
I checked the relevant homepage, http://www.muenster-ulm.de/, for any additional wisdom. This is quite rich stuff with many pictures...
Greetings from Vienna...
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
I'm not sure this article should be moved to Ulm Münster; I agree that "Minster" is a fairly obscure term...what is more important is that it is not backed by English usage. Frankly, "Münster" is likely even more obscure to an English reader. What is English usage is Ulm Cathedral:
- Cathedral = 21,300 (Exact search "Ulm Cathedral" -"Ulm Münster" -wikipedia)
- Münster = 11,000 (Exact search -"Ulm Cathedral" "Ulm Münster" -wikipedia) Scrolling through these hits reveals that many are actually German language
- Britannica
- Encarta
- Guardian
- National Geographic
- This record of the organ at the church, which has title in German ("Ulmer Münster"), French ("Cathedrale D'Ulm"), and English ("Ulm Cathedral")
etc.
The chief problem with "cathedral", as has been noted, is that it is not technically correct in an ecclesiastical sense (although probably in a secular architectual sense). What I propose is that we title the article Ulm Cathedral and then immediately lay out the situation in the opening paragraphs. For instance:
Ulm Cathedral (German Ulmer Münster) is a prominent church, located in the German city of Ulm, which was the tallest building in the world from 1890-1903. Although it is generally called a cathedral, this is not technically correct in an ecclesiastical sense, because no bishop sits there.
For those who might find it comforting to have some company, it may be noted that most other language wiki's seem to go the "Cathedral" route in the title.
Erudy (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting case. Ulm Cathedral is common but not technically correct. Ulm Minster is technically correct but not common. According to Google, Ulm Münster is a bit less common than Ulm Cathedral but the results include alternate spellings such as "Muenster" and "Munster." In addition, Münster is simply the German word for minster and doesn't have a meaning in English or an article at Wikipedia. If the decision is for Ulm Cathedral, a disclaimer should be featured prominently in the intro para. Good luck. — AjaxSmack 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "Ulm Cathedral" is the most common name for this building in English. GB comparison: Ulm Minster, Ulm Münster (mostly German), Ulm Cathedral. Erudy's disclaimer makes sense to me. Olessi (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that that the usage of Cathedral is not so overwhelming that we should not at least consider the clause in WP:NAME and WP:NC(P) that we should name our articles precisely and with the least amount of ambiguity. The slightly less common names suffer less from this - it's a trade-off between the two factors. Knepflerle (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)