Talk:Caserta Palace

from User_talk:Tobias Conradi

Moving Caserta to Palace of Caserta
You've done the first part of your move. "What links here" will show you the links to Caserta that refer to Palace of Caserta. Let me know if you don't intend to clean up the redirects, and I'll do it myself. Thank you. --Wetman 17:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I did a move to Caserta Palace, please don't say "You have done the first part of your move", because my move was complete, i.e. I left no double redirect behind. Your wording implies that I would have been obliged to do more. thx.
 * FYI "What links here" does not only show links that refer to Caserta Palace but also links that refer to Caserta.
 * I don't see what you mean by "clean up the redirects"
 * I reverted your move from Caserta Palace to Palace of Caserta, because the former is the common form for palaces around the world that use the english term "palace" in the article title. -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

A move that leaves all references to the Palace of Caserta redirected to the town is an incomplete move. And a discourtesy. Only someone with more confidence than grasp of nuance would have moved Palace of Caserta to Caserta Palace..." like other palaces around the world that use the english term "palace" in the title". Such as Versaillespalace and Louvrepalace, no doubt. --Wetman 16:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a page "Caserta" that had links pointing to it. Some of them referred to the town and others referred to the palace. Since the article was about the palace and there is actually a town and a province with the name Caserta I moved this palace-article to a palace page and started the town page. The move itself was complete (no double redirects left behind). Someone who moves a page is not obliged to fix all links in the whole wikipedia. The whole wikipedia is incomplete, so maybe you just continue to work instead of intrudocing others what they have to do and what not. Why didn't you just fix the links?
 * you still did not explain what you meant by clean up redirects. It was like accusing me of leaving some "unclean" redirects behind.
 * about "X Palace" vs "Palace of X": if you would have read more carefully you maybe would have seen that I did refer to articles that have the term "palace" in the title. Louvere does not have this. Meantioning an exception like "Palace of Versailles" does nothing about the sentence I wrote. "X Palace" is the common form in wikipedia for article titles, that's nothing about how it could be used in the article itself. You may point your favorite browser to Category:Palaces and its subcategories to learn more about palace article names.
 * wikipidia is a project undertaken by many people. If you discover an error you can fix it. Someone fixed the interwiki links behind me. Everybody does a little part.
 * Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is this page at Caserta Palace? - it should be "Palace of Caserta", or even just "Caserta" or "Reggia di Caserta". Caserta Palace sounds like a colorful hotel with casino attached in Las Vegas. I shall move to "Palace of Caserta" if no-one comments within a week. Giano | talk 15:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * it's at Caserta Palace, because Caserta is a town. It is not "Reggia di Caserta" because at least one person thought it should be translated into the language of this Wikipedia, i.e. to help the reader guess from the article (name [forgot this word]) what the thing is about. The italian name is in first line. It is not "Palace of Caserta" because that's the way it is done for most things in Category:Palaces that use the word "palace" in the title. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not adopt that patronising tone when addressing me. There are no hard and fast rules on this subject; as I seem to recall was proved when we had the debacle over Province of X versus X Province  I seem to remember that as far as Italy was concerned Province of X won fair and square (as the English say).  Regarding other places I would certainly say Palace of Versailles, who has ever said "Versailles Palace".  I think because your nation sticks "Schloss" in front of most things - regardless of age and design,  you feel the same applies here.  It does not - as you well know.  Giano | talk 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ? - debacle? patronising tone? You cried for help (See your first sentence on this page - so I tried to explain the reasons to you). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Palace of Caserta", "Buckingham Palace", "Drottningholm" (without "palace", even though it is one). It's simply a question of familiarity with educated usage. Being tone-deaf is no excuse. --Wetman 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * of course you can have it without "palace" - but if it is ambigous you have to find a solution. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this correct
I am unhappy with this statement: "Of all the royal residences inspired by the Palace of Versailles, the Reggia of Caserta is the one bearing the greatest resemblance to the original model" is this comment sourced. I can think of several which are (IMO) closer to Versailles, the most obvious imitation being Herrenchiemsee. I won't remove it, but I would like it to be referenced. In my view the Baroque of Versailles and Caserta are widely different. Giano | talk 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sono un cittadino di Caserta. La nostra Reggia è una delle più belle costruzioni esistenti al mondo. Per ampiezza del parco, per la bellezza delle cascate e per lo stupendo giardino "inglese" ritengo sia superiore alla Reggia di Versailles. Dovrebbe essere maggiormente evidenziata come punto di riferimento per le visite dei turisti e per la storia dei Borboni.81.208.83.244 15:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Sergio Frascatore

Doubtful, POV paragraph
I've in the end decided to remove the following paragraph: "The kingdom of Naples was neither powerful nor prosperous when Caserta was built, and it has been unflatteringly described by the historian Edward Crankshaw as 'a colossal monument to minuscule glory' and a reviewer of George Hersey, Architecture, Poetry, and Number in the Royal Palace at Caserta, found that 'interpretive description is palsied by monotony, the principal quality of the palace and its garden."

It looks like POV, and of old-fashioned storiography. I'm not a fan of the Kingdom of Naples, nor of the "sudists" revisionists who are recently trying to revise Risorgimento as a colonization of a richer south of Italy from the avid Piedmontese. Not because the latter weren't, but because probably Kingdom of Naples was not that developed country that they want to convice us it was, just because it was the first Italian country to havew a railway (5 km long!!!!). IMHO, it was little more developed the the Papal States, which, in the 19th century, was the most underdeveloped and medieval in the whole Europe. Notice that the Kingdom of Naples had abolished feudalism only in 1805, and only for it was under a Napoleonic-French king. --Attilios 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The kingdom of Naples was neither powerful nor prosperous when Caserta was built. Removing quotes of published historians because one doesn't like them, while retaining a jejune and inaccurate assertion like It is inspired by the park of Versailles, but it is commonly regarded as superior in beauty, takes a certain kind of self-confidence.--Wetman (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)