Talk:Noor Palace

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Miniapolis 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Noors slott → Noor Castle – like other Swedish castles, Noor should have a name in English here. The word "slott" is not part of a name, it is a type of building. 891 mm (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment are you sure it's a castle? It doesn't look like a fortification. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it's a castle. It's not a fort, it's a castle, a palace, a manor. What's your idea for a name? 891 mm (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• FreeDict defines "slott" as "castle" or "palace". The subject was the house of a king, and it doesn't look much like a castle. So I'd say "Noor Palace". Here is their website. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The Swedish word slott may mean both castle and palace. It seems "palace" would be a better translation than "castle" for this building, so let's move it to Noor Palace instead. 891 mm (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "Castle" but support move to Noor Palace. Tomas e (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We go by the common name in English language sources. We most definitely do not attempt to make up a home-made translation which we think would look nice. So what do reliable sources in English use? If there is no reliable name in English language sources, then the guidelines state that we stay with the name in the local language. For example, most castles in Wales are known by their English language name, such as Harlech Castle. However, where there is no English name in widespread use, we stick with the original Welsh name, as at Castell y Bere, as this is how they are usually known in English language sources. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: but "slott" is not part of the name. The name of this building is acctually just Noor, with the "slott"/"palace" part just describing it. 891 mm (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Incidentally, the English version of the website linked on the article uses Noors Slott, which would be the correct capitalisation of the Swedish name in English. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Understandably, the building doesn't feature very widely in English language sources, so a Google search has limited use. An advanced Google search in English over the last year for "Noors Slott" excluding "Wikipedia" gives 43 hits (which if you page through to the final result turns out to be 37 unduplicated hits). A similar search for "Noor Castle" excluding "Wikipedia" gives eight hits, all of which relate to a property development in Bangladesh, plus a false result for "Aganoor Castle" in Italy. Admittedly, a similar search for "Noor Palace" excluding "Wikipedia" gives 289 hits (236 unduplicated), but these all seem to relate to places in Pakistan or to Indian restaurants around the world. In other words, small though the number of hits may be (and some seem to be in Swedish), the Swedish version gets 100 per cent of them. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: but "slott" is not part of the name. The name of this building is acctually just Noor, with the "slott"/"palace" part just describing it. 891 mm (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reply Clearly, as the institution uses Noors Slott as their name on their English website, they consider that it is part of their name in English. Whether you like it or not, we go with the name used in English language sources, not with something you make up. A possible compromise solution would be to move to Noor, Sweden, but is it ever referred to as such (I see it is on the Noor estate)? Certainly the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't choose to use that title, going with Noors slott. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an institution, it is a building. You should use a name on this article like other articles on Wikipedia. The owner of a place does not exclusively decide on the name of that place, especially not in another language. 891 mm (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reply: Yes, you are correct that the owner of a place does not exclusively decide on the name of a place. But neither do you. Wikipedia goes with whatever it is referred to in English, and you have failed to supply a single instance of the building (or the business that operates within it, which constitutes an institution) being referred to by the name that you propose. "You should use a name on this article like other articles on Wikipedia" is not suggested anywhere in the guideline on titling articles, and cannot be used to justify inventing a name off the top of your head. The guidelines are set out at Wikipedia:Article titles. Specifically, it states:

  The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g., the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used since they predominate in English language reliable sources, while for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used.
  If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "Multiple local names" and "Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline.

It continues:

In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.

In this particular instance, there is not a great deal of English language usage, but there is some. And that usage, as demonstrated by the Google searches above, does not use (never; not at all; not in a single instance), the invention that you are suggesting we should adopt. The guidelines for what to do in those circumstances are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), where it states:

It can happen that an otherwise notable topic has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage. Very low Google counts can but need not be indicative of this. If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc.).

Back to Wikipedia:Article titles the section on "Considering title changes" is particularly relevant:

While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

It seems that that is exactly what you are trying to do: invent a new name, purely because Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• What are you so upset for? Have you even considered this thoroughly? Have you looked at Category:Castles in Sweden and have you looked in a dictionary? I haven't invented a name. The discussed part of this article head 'is not a name. The English word for "slott" is castle or palace, that's a fact. That is what you have to prove wrong. 891 mm (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Reply: Perhaps you should remember that I am not the one proposing a change. It is the proposer of the change that needs to convince others that their case is correct. If the proposer cannot win consensus for a change, then the page doesn't move. I don't have to prove anything. By the way, I'm not upset; I simply find your argument unconvincing and not in accordance with English Wikipedia's guidelines on article titles. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You certainly seem upset, as you are refering to multiple rules on names, seemingly to prove a point, without taking the time to see if they are applicable or not. They are not. The 'slott' part is not a name. I am not making anything up. 891 mm (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Skinsmoke. There's no evidence of a consistent English-language name for this building, and I agree with the IP that it doesn't look like much of a castle anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.