Talk:New Town Hall (Hanover)

Title
An alternative name is "New Town Hall", which is used by the city's tourism site. Olessi 01:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 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: moved. Unopposed for over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New City Hall (Hanover) → New Town Hall (Hanover) – Neues Rathaus is more commonly translated as "New Town Hall"      over "New City Hall". I wouldn't mind a move to Neues Rathaus (Hanover) which is also fairly common in English. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:44, 4 March 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.

File:Neues Rathaus Hannover abends.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Neues Rathaus Hannover abends.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 13, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-10-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead external link
"3D model in GoogleEarth 4" is a dead link. The 404 error says: "This issue is likely due to a link that points to the old 3D Warehouse. Please update old links or bookmarks to point directly to the new 3D Warehouse."

A quick search in 3D Warehouse didn't yield anything, perhaps this model doesn't exist (anymore)? Slackergate5 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Photomontage in Infobox
Dropping the Photomontage from the infobox (see this edit) is a loss, IMHO, and a lonely section with just a gallery isn’t an improvement over a good montage in the infobox.

Having just the single image in the infobox for New Town Hall doesn’t do the place justice. That building is one of a few that are representative of Hanover, and having been there plenty of times it feels as if the infobox has now been muzzled and no longer represents the salient introductory aspects of the place. “Touristy” places scream for more images than, say, a suburban library does, and New Town Hall is a very touristy place.

I can’t see anything in the MOS (e.g., MOS:IMAGES, MOS:LEADIMAGE, WP:IMAGEDD) that says infoboxes can’t have photomontages, or that only infoboxes for some article classes (such as cities) may. Indeed, Photomontage is FOR grouping several images in an infobox. I accept we must balance
 * 1) the latitude and flexibility needed by authors to construct each article that is optimal for the primary subject of that article,
 * 2) harmonious overall organisation that both,
 * 3) eases and simplifies creation and evolution of each article by writers, and
 * 4) optimises comprehension through familiarity by readers,
 * 5) modern aesthetics, and
 * 6) good design.

Looking around, right now it’s “a bit of a dog’s breakfast”, so I think we need to use our best judgement here.
 * 1) Venice, New York City and Sydney have montages;
 * 2) Bridge of Sighs and Ca' Foscari have an image in the infobox, and another immediately below it;
 * 3) Statue of Liberty and Big Ben have a single large image within the infobox;
 * 4) Times Square has two large images within the infobox, as does Midtown Manhattan but here a mapbox is between the two images;
 * 5) River Thames has one small image, a very small and crude map, an enormous routemap (three mobile device screens long), and even larger settlement map and road maps (four screens each); and
 * 6) Potsdamer Platz has three images (one large) without an infobox.

Having said all of that, we can certainly be more selective (the night image for example can go, and maybe others ... it is easier to delete than to add), so please allow me to understand the basis of your no need for so many justification: why weren’t those images needed in your mind? (Gotta start somewhere 😀). Betterkeks (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Betterkeks and thank you for your comment. I totally agree that good photomontages can be very helpful in certain cases, for instance when an article's target subject covers a wide array of information or when more than one picture is necessary for the article's quick comprehension. The capital cities you mentioned above are such examples, as one picture would not suffice to highlight the many details contained within these articles. The same could be said about other comprehensive articles, such as those on art movements or world conflicts (e.g. Art Nouveau or World War II). I must disagree, however, that this particular infobox now screams for more images, or that it has now been muzzled and no longer represents the place. As far as I can tell, a featured picture showing the building's facade is sufficient to showcase what the article is all about. Actually, in my opinion, of the six pictures previously present in the infobox, only three were worth keeping, since as you agreed, the night photo was not, the bottom photo was just a repetition of the same facade in winter (with scaffolding hiding the side towers to boot) and the view through the lift was pretty low resolution and not that crucial anyway. Besides, if I compare this page to that of other city halls in Germany (e.g. New Town Hall (Munich) or Hamburg City Hall) or internationally (e.g. New York City Hall or Hôtel de Ville, Paris), none have more than a single photo, yet they would also probably fit the definition you mentioned of touristy places representative of those cities. Bernard Lee (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)