Talk:Doge's Palace

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Untitled

pl: link does not work here. I already have tried it myself. Inserting the same link on de.wikipedia.org works, though. Jcr2 06:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the Polish article has yet to be written: "Nie ma jeszcze artykułu o tym tytule." --Wetman 06:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, a polish article does exist, but under a different name. See the italian version, where the polish article is linked, too. It's a character encoding problem perhaps. Jcr2 07:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Jeez, I tried to get some pictures of this place while I was there but the tour guides are complete photo nazis. They kept on ruining the best pictures by showing up at the wrong times. Axem Titanium 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry

“Since the doge was not the head of the government, and the palazzo's principal function was to be the place of governmental functions, it should not be referred to as the Doge's Palace, but as the Ducal Palace." Gosh, if you’re going to be pedantic at least be rational. This whole paragraph is a tremendous non-sequitur, as well as being expressed in an absurd way ("the palazzo's principal function was to be the place of governmental functions"). Doge’s Palace and Ducal Palace have exactly the same meaning. I cut the phrase out and made one or two other minor changes. Perhaps the person who wrote it had some valid point to make but they certainly failed to make it. Try rewording it so it makes senseCampolongo (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more important, the text you're criticising appears to be an attempt at advocacy and/or original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia however well phrased. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move to Doge's Palace, Venice

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doge's Palace, Venice → Doge's Palace —

A move war seems to be starting here. Please discuss: is plain Doge's Palace to be the Venice palace or the disambig page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two "Doge's Palace" in Italy, one from the Republic of Venice and the other from the Republic of Genoa. Are there are any serious objections to disambiguating between the two by adding the locality to the name? Please see also the Italian Wiki names, which add the city. In my opinion, they should be differentiated. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gryffindor. Don Cuan (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I wouldn't call it a "move war", let's tone down the rhetoric. All I'm saying is that there are at least two palaces in Italy with the same name, the Italian Wikipedia takes that into consideration. I don't really see why Venice should take precedence over Genoa. Also see the differentiation between Doge, Doge of Venice and Doge of Genoa. Gryffindor (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move. Leave the DAB at the undisambiguated name. The Doge's Palace, Genoa is notable enough to hold a G8 Summit, so there's no way that the one in Venice can claim to be the primary meaning. A classic case where a two-way DAB is appropriate. Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support reversion of this recent controversial move. "Doge's Palace" almost always brings to mind Venice first. This article had 8,823 pageviews last month compared to only 353 for Palazzo Ducale (Genoa), the former title of that article and how it's referred to in the reference in that article.[1] This article also has more incoming links, and the first few pages of a google search refer only to Venice. The title Palazzo Ducale did not conflict with this article's title. In any case, with only two articles and this one primary use, it's much better to have a hatnote, so that the 95% majority get to this page directly rather than to a dab page where they don't wish to be, and the 5% minority get to Genoa with the same one click as they would through a dab page. Station1 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agree that if this article is moved to the undisambiguated name, there's no need for a DAB page at all, a hatnote is far better (as TWODABS says). The 20:1 ratio of pageviews isn't quite born out by ghits [2] [3] but 10:1 is still significant. But I'd still play safe and disambiguate both... I get almost 36,000 ghits for Genoa (your results may vary) which is enough to call the primary meaning claim into doubt. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Station1: In that case we would have to move Doge of Venice to Doge, since that would also be the first person we'd think of when we hear the word. Gryffindor (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, although I wouldn't oppose it. At least in that case Doge is a long-standing article that says something substantial about the term or concept of doges in general. If Doge were simply a new dab page with two entries, the analogy would be more exact. Station1 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It appears this controversial move has so far only been controversial to one person. Page views is not the only criterion for determining primary use of a term, and the Google figures given by Andrewa suggest there is some ambiguity. However, an [Advanced Search on Google] in English for Doge's Palace plus Genoa exluding Wikipedia gives 35,800 hits. An [Advanced Search] for Doge's Palace plus Venice excluding Wikipedia gives 642,000 hits. That, coupled with the page view statistics, seems to suggest that there is overwhelming evidence that the Venice term is the primary use. On that basis Doge's Palace should be about the one in Venice; the disambiguation page should be scrapped; and there should be a hatnote referring to Doge's Palace, Genoa. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote is not enough, because there are two places with the same name. Just like "Doge" can mean either "Venice" or "Genoa", "Doge's palace" can be in many cities. The Italian Wikipedia correctly reflects that fact as well [4] as well as the Commons [5], and so should we. Gryffindor (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Skinsmoke. Superfluous disambiguation; the hat note is sufficient. ^walk victor falk^talk 13:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Since "Doge" was not uniquely the title of the ruler of Venice, it is entirely proper that the target should be a dabpage. It just is that the Venetian example is the most famous. It hurts no one to get to a dabpage and have to move on. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a hatnote, both pages are functionally a dabpage. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:TWODABS should be mentioned. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, and see [6] and [7] above. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gryffindor. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

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: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doge's Palace, Venice → Doge's Palace – This is a simple WP:TWODABS request. The Venetian palace gets far more page views and, based on "doge's palace" -wikipedia, is dominant in travel and architectural sources to the point where we can call it a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (I performed the same search in Google Books and looked through the first five pages of results without finding a mention of the palace in Genoa). Assume two readers who search for "Doge's Palace" alone; George is looking for one in Genoa, and Veronica for the one in Venice. Under the current arrangement, both need to click through to their desired page. After the move, we save Veronica that step. Given TWODABS, and given that the evidence points to a clear majority of readers seeking the Venetian building, this move is common sense. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (i.e. WP:TWODABS) and arguments in the section above. — AjaxSmack 01:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as clear primary topic (17K views vs. 0.5K views). There are are many Palazzo Ducale but the other ones seem to be known in English as Ducal Palace. --ELEKHH^T 12:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, Sadads (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.