Talk:Tre Kronor (castle)

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion[edit]

Will try to dig up some sources beyond the Swedish Wikipedia(that does not contain any sources for it's article). I am sure I expanded it with much that needs further work, but at least its a bit beefier. Mceder 03:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tre Kronor (castle) → Three Crowns Castle — Seems inconsistent to me to translate the names of the kings here at en.WP (Charles et al) but keep a phonetic impediment such as this Swedish-language name for their Castle. Surely no one ever called it Tre Kronor when speaking or writing English about it while it existed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems to be that English speakers should use the translation, but in terms of WP:NC the issue is what we do use. Is there any evidence that the translation is more widely used? We shouldn't move the article unless and until this is provided. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see if anyone can find anything at all "widely used" in the way of a name in English for this castle. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, only mentions it in its article about Stockholm - the medieval royal castle - but never by name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the little word more. It's a comparative. For example, one road can be wider than another but both are narrow.

The other point being made is, the onus of proof is on the supporters of the move. And of course, this evidence should relate to what the Official Policy says about Naming Conventions, either citing it, or stating why it doesn't apply to this case (and should therefore be changed). Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being a bit condescending about language, I feel. How about this: let's not go there? We are probably not qualified to be each other's masters or teachers about such things. I have made a proposal. This is not a court of law. No one is charged with any onus here of any kind. I am looking forward to the constructive, and civil, input of a few more users. I have little more to say than to repeat the same challenge: somebody show us something "widely used". With nothing whatsoever "widely used", there isn't likely to be anything more or less "widely used". It would then make sense to have the article's title make sense to readers of English (our wonderful language) rather than en.WP having to be charged with the onus of giving unneeded lessons in Swedish (their wonderful language). SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it would be good to have input from others. I'm hopeful they will find my comments relevant. I'm afraid I don't think you have addressed any of the issues. Andrewa (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No evidence has been provided supporting the move in terms of WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move consensus?[edit]

Since when did only two users of opposing views become "no consensus for move", and since when is only this short of a time span allowed for discussion of same? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened on the 16th November, closed on the 24th. That appears to be a generous timescale in terms of WP:RM.

Um, since when did only two users of opposing views become any sort of consensus? I'm fascinated. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By what, specifically? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]