Talk:Sanssouci/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Articles needed

... to convert red links to blue - please indicate "claimed" and sign:

Note: I removed the wikilinks from the remaining redlinks. None of them appear to have articles in the German Wikipedia (where Sanssouci is an FA) so I think the article stands up without them. (This doesn't stop anyone from creating articles anyway, of course). In addition, a translation of Breslau Palace has been requested. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, but the last paragraph needs checking - especially my translation of 'Auffahrt' as 'approach' (the only other word my dictionary offered was 'drive' or 'driveway') which seems too vague. (Briefly had problems with 'Seitenfügel' until I realised when doing Ludwig Persius that it was a misspelling of 'Seitenflügel'). --Malthusian (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I checked the German version; it links to Bernterode (bei Worbis), so I changed the link in the English version accordingly. --Inge-Lyubov 01:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if I've repeated any. Trebor27trebor 21:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation

I'm trying to translate some of this from the German, where it is a featured article, as the English article was very short. However, I am not particularly good at German, so any help is gratefully received. I'll post my version from now on on my talk page here. Trebor27trebor 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you need any help with the German I am happy to help - however, it is easier if you say which bits you are having trouble with :) . ACH 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope I have translated 'sey' correctly as a dialectical form of sei (after much googling). I also wasn't sure about Höhenzug or about this sentence: 'In Sanssouci sollte er durch die Anlage der Weinbergterrassen zum Mittelpunkt des Parks werden, bekrönt durch ein kleines Schloss, „mein Weinberghäuschen“, wie es Friedrich der Große nannte.' as I can't find a main verb - is werden implied in the second half of the sentence? - and am confused by twice using durch when it doesn't seem to mean by or through.
Right, sey is, I believe, an old German form of 'sei' so you are totally correct. I checked up on your translation of Höhenzug: I am not sure what to make of it, as 'Höhenzug' means mountain range (as you rightly said somwhere) but I dont think there are any in that area, so you might have to be a bit creative - "hill" does not seem sufficient however, as it is not a single hill. Perhaps "hill range" but that just sounds ugly.
The sentence, as I understand it, means "In Sanssouci it (referring to production of wine) was to become the center of the park, [[all of it]] crowned by a small castle, "mein Weinberghäuschen", as Frideric the Great called it". The main verb is "sollte....werden" and in the second sentence a repeat of the main verb is understood. It could be separated to make (and I hope this makes my explanation clearer): "In Sanssouci sollte er durch die Anlage der Weinbergterrassen zum Mittelpunkt des Parks werden. Das ganze sollte durch ein kleines Schloss ,mein Weinberghäuschen“, wie es Friedrich der Große nannte , bekrönt werden."
The first though means "by means of" or "through", the second "by" .
Hope that made some sense at least, its quite late so I will blame any errors on that ;) ACH 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I've altered that now on the version linked from my talkpage. The best I've so far come up with for Höhenzug in English would be 'downs' or just 'group of hills', but I'm not sure the former is a particularly accurate translation or that latter sounds that good. It's better than 'hill range' though. Trebor27trebor 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
After some fruitless research for good translation of "Höhenzug" I can only offer "mountain ridge" or "ridge" as an alternative. However, LEO gives ([1]) "mountain range". Well, it's only one minor bit of information, anyway. ACH 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to help me, then the architecture section is quite a long section which I'm not sure I'll get through. Even the main 'Die Schlossräume' section would be nice, as it is the main focus of the palace (and not, I suppose my translation of some of the shenanigans about the body of Frederick the Great). Trebor27trebor 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, I'm not sure how to translate Viertelboegen. I've rendered it as quarter arches, but I'm not sure that's right. Secondly, there seems to be such a mass of German cultural references about Sanssouci, similar palaces and people of that time that the number of red links just relating to more specifically Sanssouci type articles or people seems to have exceeded 20. What is really needed is something like a Project Sanssouci. I feel a bit swamped by the amount there is to do, as even the extant articles (e.g. Schloss Charlottenburg) are far from comprehensive. Trebor27trebor 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a Viertelbogen is in this sense either (it's not this!). As for feeling swamped - don't worry, focus on one thing at a time. Let's make Sanssouci a good article first, and maybe take it to Wikipedia:peer review. Rd232 talk 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone please tell me in this sentence whether the picture runs contrary to or follows the established strict elegance? 'Der strengen Eleganz tritt ein heiter wirkendes Deckenbild des schwedischen Malers Johann Harper entgegen.' Thanks 85.210.179.165 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the sentence, it runs contrary to it. Perhaps "The strict elegance is contrasted by..." renders it best. ACH 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I was unsure as my dictionary gave two opposite meanings for the adverb and the preposition and it is not a word I'm particularly familiar with. Trebor27trebor 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the translation now. If someone could check it for me, that would be amazing. I'll insert some pictures tomorrow, and still reckon that it needs a bit of information on its fate during the GDR and tourism today. I'll also try to add relevant sources, but so far I've added nothing to the translation intentionally except a few full stops (some of those German sentences do have rather too many subclauses for English). I'll also re-read it and clean up some of the language and typos etc. Enjoy. :-D Is happy. Trebor27trebor 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I add a bit of consistency to the translation of Sanssouci by always redering it one way? Personally, I think carefree captures it, but I'm no French scholar. Also can I appeal again for someone to check my translation on this page, to make sure that it is accurate. I'll rewrite the English on the version which I've updated on my talk page and source everything I can find. Then, if everyone's happy, I can copy that version here on top of this one here.Trebor27trebor 10:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a look when I have don't have exams on my doorstep. Which version is the most recent (the one on your user page has German bits left in ... ) ?
ACH 15:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. What I've done is essentially left the original translation on the Sanssouci page here, but I've cleaned up the version on my userpage to remove some Germanicisms, added pictures, added a couple of sections and respellt Rococo (along with various other things). That is the version that I would like to see ultimately featured, but this version is the more literal translation so that is probably better to check. Trebor27trebor 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry, I ought to have mentioned that I left the German quotes in so that anyone who can read the German can get the original version. If that's not good style, then I'll change it.) Trebor27trebor 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done a revision of one of the sections on your user page version. Go and have a look (and see if you like it !). I'll do more when I have time :D . ACH 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks very good to me. I've changed 'moved to fortify of the marshy earth' to remove the of as I presume it was a typo. I will source everything I can when I get a sec. Trebor27trebor 20:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done another revision... ACH 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest doing as the user in the Peer Review section said - just merge your translation with the present article (which is a tough enough job because some bits simply changed... ) .

Then request the review. This way you can also ensure that any changes made stay and are not lost when you eventually do merge the article. Just my opinion 131.111.8.101 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read everything through, and I'm happy with the current article, but I'm inexperienced at this and don't really know what more to do. There doesn't seem to me anything notable in the revisions that happened between the 21st of January and the copying of the article on my talk page over the article previously on this main page except a change from 290 hectares to 2.9km^2 and a different translation of the Lumpenhund passage. If anyone can tell me what I'm supposed to merge then I'll try to merge it, but in the circumstances, I can't find more than that. We need to reach a convention on these two things, and I don't really mind how they're translated as long as Lumpenhund is not translated as rag-dogs in English (see my new footnote). My only other problem is that the 'mosque' picture doesn't seem to be working, and I'm not sure why. I may well have missed something, I am very fallible, but if this is all, then I would like to go to peer review. Thanks for reading this spiel. Trebor27trebor 12:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

'tis indeed a troublesome situation. But in essence, I would say that you are right in saying that there have been no significant changes "lost" and in any case, we can restore them quite easily (it's only 4 or 5 edits) . So it appears you need not merge anything any longer - I had not noticed that the anon had already done so. The translation of the Goethe quote is better than what I did, so definitiely include that (The translation goes : "A thousand lights became clear to me. I became quite privy with old Fritz [Frederick], saw his nature close up, his gold, silver, marble, apes, parrots and torn curtains, and I also happend to overhear his own rag dogs discuss the great man.) " (replacing rag dogs of course). Apart from that, the article looks fine - a peer review seems like a sound plan, and you can explain the situation there, too. I am not quite sure what you mean with the picture not working - it's there, isn't it ? Sorry if that was not very helpful, but I am not that experienced a user, either

ACH 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the quote to have 'louses' for Lumpenhunde as I originally put. I'm not sure it really captures the meaning, but with the footnote I hope any reader will get the idea. I think that on closer inspection the picture may be a problem with my (Firefox) browser as Opera and IE both display it perfectly. I'll put the page on peer review now. Trebor27trebor 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Current progress towards featured article status?

All the articles with a corresponding article in German are now either done or claimed. For the rest of the redlinks, do we really need articles there, given that the German version apparently got to featured status without them? Generally I'm interested to know what more needs to bring this article to featured status on this language Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at some other FAs and "some" red links seems to be ok. I gave the article today a proof-read and asked Agathoclea to do the same (my conversing in US English makes me not the best qualified to edit an article written originally in UK English). When he's done I think we need at least one more person to give it another go and then we should be ready to nominate it. I was thinking to ask Saintswithin but you would be a good choice as well, Sammy.  :) --Mmounties (Talk) 05:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is based on a translation of an article from the German Wikipedia.

I moved the {{de}} template to the end of the article and removed the redundant [[:de:Sanssouci]] interwiki link for at least two reasons: the end of the article is the most appropriate place for such a notice; it's already interwiki linked. I submit it to you, the wp editor, for your comment. Thanks, Easter Monkey 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the extra link to the exact article because it makes it easier to find the source. If we omit the source, we would technically violate the GFDL and the copyright of the authors of the original article. The question whether the link should be at the end or before the references section depends on how you formulate it:
This article is based on a translation of the article Sanssouci on the German Wikipedia, which cites the following references:

should obviously be before the references. If you omit the "which cites the following references", both placements seem to be fine. Kusma (討論) 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I think that folks are to uptight about copyright stuff, especially when it comes to translations from interwiki's. I do like your proposal though, but omitting the "which cites...", making it just right for the end of the article. --Easter Monkey 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's also useful for other things than copyright, e.g. if you want to ask the original authors something. Anyway, while we're at it, German Wikipedia might be an even better link than German Wikipedia, and perhaps {{de}} should be edited to take the article title as an (optional) argument. Kusma (討論) 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn/t see this was discussed here. As I responded on Easter Monkey's page, I believe the de template, with our without additional text should indeed be in the reference section as it is a major reference for the English article. (see also discussion on the German Translation requeststalk page. As far as a direct link to the German page, if it is indeed the one linked with the interwikis, I wouldn't have a preference, but then there is of course the possibility that the interwikis may get modified. I do like the "as of" date reference though, especially since these pages keep getting changed. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
By "but then there is of course the possibility that the interwikis may get modified" do you mean that the de version might change? IMO, it doesn't matter if the de version changes, the en version is its own entity now, it's not a subset of the de version. The en version now gets to take on a life of its own, unfettered by what may or may not happen with the other language versions. In any case, this has been a small education for me about GFDL stuff. I have a better understanding and think that there should indeed be a link to the de version in the ref section, but just in a different way. I'll make the changes, please let me know what you think. --Easter Monkey 03:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't make myself clear. It happens a lot that pages get moved because for instance a disambig page is created. So then all of a sudden our interwiki would point to a disambig page and not the page that was originally translated anymore. If we list the article (especially if we include the date) then page histories can get a person to the proper place. The way you changed it is good. Definitely works for me. -- Mmounties (Talk) 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

Style

I've started to go through the article, making minor changes as necessary. One of the more major thing's I'm doing is to remove the German versions of the quotes, leaving just the English in there. To include both seems a bit much. Any strong thoughts on this? Although I've removed the German for the moment we could easily incorporate them as footnotes. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. If someone wants the German version they can go to the de version. This will streamline the article a great deal. --Easter Monkey 04:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Go to it! --Mmounties (Talk) 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead reference

I'm in the middle of making the references and external links sections prettier - you can see what I'm aiming for here. This link, however: "http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/archiv/.bin/dump.fcgi/2003/0219/feuilleton/0020/index.html 19.02.2003 Retrieved 19.1.06" is dead. If it's a newspaper/magazine article it doesn't need an URL to be a valid reference, but it does need the name of the article, and since it's a dead link I have no idea what that is. Does whoever inserted it know what the article was called? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From [2], I expect that this article is called "Spröde Fassadengeschichten". I guess it is possible to find another reference for the Fredrick quote, though. Kusma (討論) 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another dead link: http://www.kunst-und-kultur.de/Museumsdatenbank/show.php/141/. Again there's no hint of what it used to go to. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And another: http://www.spsg.de/index.php?id=801&sessionLanguage=en. The rest of the references to that site are good, but that one is a blank page, as are all 404s on that site. I'll merge my version of the references section into the article later this evening, removing the dead links and sticking in {{fact}} templates if needed. This link: http://www.stadtschloss-berlin.de/schlossgeschichte.html will also be removed, as it's a self-reference (its source was the German Wikipedia). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Scratch the this evening thing. I can't combine the footnotes in the old style, so I'll have to convert them to the new style (inline), which will take longer than that. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In use tag

Following on from the above, I've added the {{inuse}} tag to the article while I fix the references. I know it's obtrusive and isn't in keeping with the spirit of WP:OWN, but updating the references affects the whole article, and if anyone made even a minor correction it would just have to be made again when I dumped the new version in from my userspace. With a bit of luck I should be finished by today, and that ugly banner will give me an incentive to hurry it up. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Time for WP:FAC?

The redlinks are filled (or removed), including all the relevant buildings, the references have been overhauled and the article has been proofread. Anyone have any objection to me submitting this on Featured article candidates as it is? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You did a BEAUTIful job. It's looking fine to me to submit. And thanks for all that hard work you did on this one. --Mmounties (Talk) 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks a lot for all the work, I could never have done this on my own. :) Trebor27trebor 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks

I have changed supraporte to the more accessible and familiar "overdoor" as I went along. A hammer piano is a fortepiano in English, and not a development of a harpsichord actually, but of a clavicembalo if anything. In most of my edits, I meant to condense extra words to a more concise version. It seems odd to hear that an oval dome takes the Pantheon as its 'model". There is a paragraph describing Rococo (not well) that is unnecessary. --Wetman 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I inserted that paragraph an almost direct paste (from here Rococo) don't you think there needs to be a brief explanation of what Rococo is all about? You've beaten me to the oval dome, I hadn't got that far!!! We'll worry about the pianos when (if ever we get there). I am concerned about the many Versailles comparissions which don't seem over referenced, and the many quotes obviously of Fred the Grocer's, but where have they come from? (Come on original gang - back to Deutschland and have a look) Thanks for the edits so far Wetman - keep watching! I knew you were the man for this! Thanks Giano | talk 19:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've left a message on Trevor's talk page (he's the one who did the original translation and provided the sources that are there so far), don't know when he'll get the message though but he's in your hemisphere. :) I'll try to search around the dewiki and elsewhere later tonight (after work). Will let you know what I/we can come up with. --Mmounties (Talk) 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the reason I said I probably wouldn't start working on the prose until it was too late for this FAC is not so much that I don't have the time, but more because I'm a bit sick of Frederician architecture and would rather browse the other areas of WP:GTIE for a while. Sorry, very selfish reason I know, particularly after I nominated the article, but on the other hand you've already put my efforts to shame, and I'm not sure you need me.
(Fred the Grocer's - excellent.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No we have not put you to shame - you have just stared at it for too long, and it needed some fresh eyes. It is a very "Germanic" article - very thorough. Probably too thorough. In fact it's a little boring. I'm going to continue slowly paragraph by paragraph (as it's on FAC we have to keep the page stable) removing repetition, and the Germanic tone remaining from the original translation, and re-aranging the various sections so that they follow each other better. Then comes the brutal part - deciding what is going to be chopped out. I suspect one of the reasons it has atracted so little attention on FAC is that no-one has ever managed to reach the end. You have done a great job so far, don't give up on it now - The nice thing is when it's finished we will have our own Sanssouci article rather than just a faithful but monotonous reproduction of the German one. Incidentally my grammar is abominable and always needs a copyedit - any volunteers? Giano | talk 06:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Very funny that you mention that perhaps no one has reached the end, I was thinking the same thing. How about subarticles for things like the architecture and whatnot? The whole thing is 51kb as of this moment. --Easter Monkey 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, but the architecture section is very pertinant to the page, as is the section covering the garden and park data. As I work through it I find a lot of the data can be placed into a different section, which is why I want to work my way to the end to fully assess what is there before removing too much, all I have removed so far are obvious repetitions of fact, and just doing that is shortening the page quite a bit. I hope to have reached the end (day job allowing) by the end of the week, and then have a good look at what is left. The sections of Frederick and his Grand nephew can both probably be absorbed elsewhere. If you could just be patient with me for a few more days, I think we'll be able to see where we are going. I know no-one owns a page, but I am very conscious of all the hard work that went into the page before I had even heard of - so I would appreciate some feed back on these ideas from the original editors - even if they are understandably sick to death of the page Giano | talk 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that it is important, but IMO there's to much on this page. A summary with a main article at Architecture of Sanssouci, move the bulk of the Interior portion to Interior of Sanssouci etc. The article is very thorough, but like you said, maybe to thorough. For those folks that are really interested they can read about it in the subarticles. Anyway, it's a thought. --Easter Monkey 02:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think making the article a little bit more compact could well be a good thing. We'd need to summarize the parts that are farmed out though. Re references, I've been looking around for 3 hours and have only been able to find one, but I put a note on Charles's page (he translated the New Palace article) because he owns an official guide for that one, so perhaps we'll luck out. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it is now becoming shorter, there needs to be fewer, but more comprehensive sections. Length in itself need not be a problem, comparable articles are Buckingham Palace, Blenheim Palace or Sicilian Baroque. I think a page on a building needs a strong architecture section. I plan to offload onto a new page the park section, and then rewrite it, but attemting to keep it short and interesting by bringing in grom elsewhere the images of the temples etc, whith captions explaining them. I've several books on the German palaces refs for thos quotes don't seem to be included - I'm not sure they add much to the page anyway. I'm glad we all agreed the page needs to be shortened, I feel I am begining to see the wood for the trees there, and it is becoming easier to look at - hope you agree. Giano | talk 06:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, you're only beginning to see it?!! That and the architecture that you know better, obviously, than we do was were you came in in the first place.  :) --Mmounties (Talk) 13:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps ;-) I hope to finish this monumantal copyedit in the next day or so, then you can all revert what you like. But like it or not, a page about an historic palace is an architectural page with a little history thrown in for free. Giano | talk 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The copyedit is almost finished, and the page is a respectable "34 kilobytes" hundreds of FAs are far longer. Now we need someone to make the prose "compelling". I think I know just the man ALoan gives a very good copyedit. Is it just me, or do the images of the interior section not download for anyone. I have yet to see them! Giano | talk 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You just keep going. I'm learning like craaazzzy here just watching you and just so you know, I'm taking notes... Re the pictures, it's just the two pictures of paintings, right? They download for me fine. On the references, the only one you had marked that still has no reference is the one for the "Godly Sanssouci". Since I'm going to be offline starting tomorrow for the better part of 2 weeks, and since it really doesn't add much if anything, I'd say we should can that quote. Do you agree? --Mmounties (Talk) 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion we are almost there. ALoan (thanks ALoan) has tidied up the edges. I think over the week-end I will prune the lead a little. I re-wrote it because it was originally too short for the page, and think I may now have gone too far the other way - but it summarises the article - so I'm not sure - I'll have a think on that. I don't think it is necessary to chop out any more text, as what is there now is pertinent to the evolution of Fred's scheme of Sanssouci as palace, park and garden. The pictures are bright, cheerful, and plentiful with explanatory captions to keep people awake until they reach the end. The references need to be checked out (I think they are OK) - if it returns to FAC though I think the quibbles will be: Text is not "compelling" enough, and too many German references. I have introduced one new English Reference book, it could do some more which bear out some of the German ones so a switch could be made. - Any views? Giano | talk 10:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see why too many German references should be considered a problem, at least as far as Wikipedia:Verifiability goes. (If that sounds too brusque, I do obviously understand that an English reference is better than a German one if it exists, but don't see it as a pressing need.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it need not be a problem, I am just playing devil's advocate, and saying what I expect others (less worldly-wise and cosmopolitan than ourelves!!) will say. Giano | talk 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
<Blushes> I have only just read this: I hope I have de-Germanified it even more, but the only way to get the idiom right is to run it through as many native English speakers as possible. I'm not convinced it is entirely "compelling" year, and it is still quite, um, comprehensive, but I would not want any content to be lost. I have, though, added some of the redlinks back: I think those artists, etc, deserve articles, even if the French or German wikipedias have not got there yet. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seven Years' War

It is repeated twice in one passage that the New Palace was intended as a celebration of the "power and strength" achieved by Prussia in the wake of the Seven Years' War. However, the war ended with Russian forces occupying Berlin, Frederick on the verge of abdication, and salvaged from utter ruin only by the miracle of the House of Brandenburg. This passage seems to be a piece of speculation and/or wishful thinking. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

More of an inaccurate reading of the source. I've tried to correct it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


"ohne Sorge"

Regarding this edit: [3] While "ohne Sorge" does indeed translate as "without care" into English. Most people (including Germans) refer to the palace as Sanssouci. Probably as a direct result of the German speaking Prussian king who built it having the motto and name "Sans' Souci" engraved around the central dome above the principal facade. Sanssouci is its name, and Sanssouci it is universally called. Giano | talk 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw a fair bit of the references while I was overhauling them, and I didn't see it referred to as 'Ohne Sorge' anywhere except as a translation (so AFAIK it wasn't referred to as 'ohne Sorge' any more than I tell my friends I've been listening to a lot of Dead Trousers recently). If it's true, it needs to be referenced. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Echo Template

Angr, I believe the idea is that since this is now a FA on it's own merits that was originally based on the German article and has since then been greatly improved on, we believe it is unlikely that it can be improved on by changes made on the basis of the German article. Please remove the template again. --Mmounties (Talk) 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The German article has nothing further to offer this page, as information on that page not here is now on other English wiki pages pertaining to this one. That is why I removed the template. Giano | talk 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above. According to the non-included text at Template:FAOL, if the English article is as or more detailed as the relevant foreign-language versions, {{FAOL}} should be removed from the talk page. That seems to be the consensus emerging here, so I've removed it again. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)