Talk:Karlštejn

Name

Moved from Karlštejn to Karlstejn Castle. This intermediate Frankenstejn-like mix is neither proper German nor proper Czech, but gaining popularity recently (1996) at Google books. Actually, I'd prefer a move to Karlstein Castle, as "Karlstein castle" has 348 English Google Book hits, while Karlstein Castle has 156 at Google Scholar, thus it is well established in recent English usage. Karlstein is the original name (actually it is Burg Karlstein), taken from the German language, and not from Czech. Even though the Czechs render it Karlštejn for some reason, the spelling "Karlštejn castle" is hardly used in English. -- Matthead  Discuß   12:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the move - the more common name is the simple Karlštejn. There is no a priori need for the extra disambiguation when it is not used in English. As pointed out many times before, relying on Google's OCR engine to reliably parse diacritics to make judgements on this issue is fatally flawed. For example searching for "Karlstejn"+castle on Google Books gives over 600 results, and [1] and ALL of the first five I checked with readable extracts actually use the spelling Karlštejn with diacritic, despite the clueless parsing engine's protestations to the contrary [2] [3] [4] [5]. All very recent, reliable, English language sources attesting the use of the current title. If this is to be moved, this needs wider discussion and strong evidence showing otherwise. Knepflerle (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So the observation that a major American software company has a hard time handling "š" indicates that "š" is proper English? Beats me. Diacritics or not, you say "For example searching for "Karlstejn"+castle on Google Books gives over 600 results". Well, 627 to be exact (as of today) - but 654 for "Karlstein" castle. Do you have any response to my statement that Karlstein is the original name, used in English before 1890, when Karlstejn was still unknown? The Czechs renamed the village to Karlštejn in 1952. And as English uses e.g. Munich rather than München, it seems simplified traditional names are preferred over diacritical local names anyway.

P.S. See Neušvanštejn or Category:Castles in the Czech Republic for information whether Castle should be part of the article name or not. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

" the observation that a major American software company has a hard time handling "š" indicates that "š" is proper English?" - no, and anyone reading my comments above see that I implied no such thing. Completely empty rhetoric.

"Do you have any response to my statement that Karlstein is the original name" - so what? Since when did the original name have anything to do with our naming conventions? Where do we stop, shall we move Frankfurt am Main to Franconofurd? Dresden to something closer approximating Drežďany? Our naming conventions do not promote pre-1890 usage for the sake of it either. What we expect our readers to be reading in sources now is our fundamental guiding principle, as well you know.

"simplified traditional names are preferred over diacritical local names anyway" - specious overgeneralisation. English is inconsistent on this matter. We don't have an article at Ratisbon. Or Leghorn. Or Saragossa. Or Filford. Or Mechlin. Or Brunswick. Or Coblence. Or Lyons. The list goes on. You cannot impose on English usage (and thus on our usage) a rule which does not hold, even in general. The same goes for introducing a bizarre dichotomy into our article, where the village name is spelt with š and the castle with s - leading to absurdities such as this]. It isn't logical, and doesn't reflect English usage in the slightest. Knepflerle (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, you still can not ignore the fact that plain Karlstein is used in English roughly as often as Karlštejn/Karlstejn, and was used much more often or exclusively in the past.

And your tedious reverting of articles edited by me just to split "[[Karlštejn Castle]]" (no matter what spelling) into "[[Karlštejn]] castle" was anything but helpful. You ignored my point above in regard to naming conventions of castles, too. Karlštejn is not exactly Camelot.

And none of the city names you list above, oldfashioned or not, contains diacritics. Try Köln, or Münster/Munster, or the whole bunch. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"the fact that plain Karlstein is used in English roughly as often as Karlštejn/Karlstejn, and was used much more often or exclusively in the past." - it's not a fact. If it were used more often before, and the same now, the number of hits over all time couldn't be the same. Your premise is wrong - Karlštejn is used much more often now, that's how the number of hits has caught up, as it were.

"You ignored my point above in regard to naming conventions of castles" - pointing to a category is not a naming convention. English is not consistent, you can't appeal to case law. Karlštejn is unusually well-known.

"just to split" - but it wasn't just to split it, was it now? It was also to revert this bizarre un-English spelling dichotomy that had been needlessly introduced when introduced Castle was introduced to every link.

"none of the city names you list above, oldfashioned or not, contains diacritics" - irrelevant. Some names with diacritics were not given exonyms. Some without were. Modern tendencies for city naming differ from older ones. There's no hard and fast rules. Comparing modern tendencies to use autochthonous names with exonym use from centuries ago is pointless. Knepflerle (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matthead that Castle should appear in the title of the article. The only point of contention should be whether it is Karlštejn Castle or Karlstein Castle. Being unfamiliar with the subject, I have no preference for either. bigissue (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, usage is more evenly split on this matter - but Karlštejn (alone) does predominantly refer to the castle. eg here or here or "Karlštejn is perhaps the most remarkable Czech castle", or here and so it goes on. I don't see much point in adding unnecessary extra disambiguation for a name well-understood in English usage without it. This reminds me of the discussion recently had where it was claimed English would naturally use "Lake" in the name of all lakes, until such famous cases as Windermere were pointed out. Knepflerle (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would do as you suggested previously and list at WP:RM, and get some more neutral opinions. The examples you give make it clear by the context in which they are written that it is the castle that is being referred to rather than the town, hence the lack of disambiguation.And I hate being pedantic, but the -mere suffix means lake, hence simply Windermere. bigissue (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well of course - but there's vanishingly few references to Karlštejn that are about the village and not the castle. It's like complaining that the majority of sources about Paris are only relying on context to explain that they're referring to France and not Texas. But again, let the people decide. As for -mere, that was put forward and rebuffed in that discussion too ;) That -mere originally meant lake has little bearing on how it's used in modern-day English. Never mind Lake Ellesmere, for example - I doubt many people's think much about etymology comes into it when they're discussing it - they write it because that's what they hear other people using. And that usage can change - see List of tautological place names - we wouldn't end up with names such as Torpenhow Hill (meaning hill-hill-hill hill!) if etymological considerations were as influential as you suggest. Just another example of how assigning a priori expectations to English usage will practically always end in exceptions! Knepflerle (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karlštejn. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801200107/http://www.playgolfinprague.com/karlstejn_golf_club.htm to http://www.playgolfinprague.com/karlstejn_golf_club.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saints?

I find it very hard to understand what the text about the Latter-Day Saints has to do with the castle. I would suggest to remove it completely.