Talk:Abbey of Saints Ulrich and Afra
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | On 12 March 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from St. Ulrich's and St. Afra's Abbey to Abbey of Saints Ulrich and Afra. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on St. Ulrich's and St. Afra's Abbey. 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/20070311043737/http://www.datenmatrix.de/cgi-local/hdbg-kloester/detail.cgi?id=KS0033&templ=db_vorlage_detail_geschichte to http://www.datenmatrix.de/cgi-local/hdbg-kloester/detail.cgi?id=KS0033&templ=db_vorlage_detail_geschichte
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 12 March 2025
[edit]- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Move. (non-admin closure) Legend of 14 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
 | It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Move logs: source title · target title
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
- St. Ulrich's and St. Afra's Abbey → Abbey of Saints Ulrich and Afra
- Basilica of SS. Ulrich and Afra, Augsburg → Basilica of Saints Ulrich and Afra
– Consistency, comprehensibility, less punctuation. "Saint Ulrich and Saint Afra" would be fine with me. Srnec (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This choice of WP:CONSISTENT style is in line with the first suggested style at MOS:PARTSAINT: "{Church building} of Saint {X}". "Saint" (or "Saints" plural) is an area of MOS:COMMONALITY, as "St." is considered to be American English and "St" is considered to be British. (And "SS." is rather an unfamiliar style.) "Saints X and Y" is more WP:CONCISE than "Saint X and Saint Y". Ham II (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not happy with the two suggestions. How about staying closer to the German name, St. Ulrich und Afra, perhaps merging the two related articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- What don't you like about the suggested titles? I don't think I support a merge. There are just too many things here. There is a building, the abbey church, currently a basilica. There is the abbey as an institution with buildings but not limited to them. And there is the state ruled by the abbots, which is not easily distinguished in English literature. If anything, we could cover the abbey-as-institution and the building(s) in a single article while leaving a separate article for the state. Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't like mixes of German and English, so using the (efficient) German name for the two saints would conflict with with "abbey", "basilica" and "Saints". If two articles I'd then go for an extra Kloster St. Ulrich and Afra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- What don't you like about the suggested titles? I don't think I support a merge. There are just too many things here. There is a building, the abbey church, currently a basilica. There is the abbey as an institution with buildings but not limited to them. And there is the state ruled by the abbots, which is not easily distinguished in English literature. If anything, we could cover the abbey-as-institution and the building(s) in a single article while leaving a separate article for the state. Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support both renaming suggestions for the reasons given by nom and by Ham II, and also simply because the suggestions are natural English. I object to any idea that the titles should be in German, either wholly or in part, because it's unnecessary: there are straightforward English language forms that are more naturally used. I also object to the idea that the two present articles shd be merged: they have distinct histories and contents, and are more effectively dealt with separately. Ingratis (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)