St. Emmeram's Cathedral, Nitra is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia 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.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
Why move the article to St. Emmeram's Cathedral, Nitra? Is the another St. Emmeram's that we need to distinguish this one from?imars (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it - apart from correcting the grammatical mistake - because it is usual to include the city name in cathedral names. It's also helpful, for places not in the English-speaking world, to have an indication in the title of the location. Indeed, I'm wondering, since there is only one cathedral in Nitra, whether the article should actually just be called Nitra Cathedral.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I do not agree 100 percent. I know for place names, we often add a modifier to distinguish a place from other places with the same name. But the most famous entry typically holds the unmodified article name. Look at St. Paul's Cathedral, San Francisco, Boston, and Augsburg. If there is no other St. Emmeram's Cathedral in the world, then the distinction is useless.
All articles that want to link to this article should (technically and stylistically) link to St. Emmeram's Cathedral, Nitra and not to the redirect at St. Emmeram's Cathedral. Having the extra article makes it harder for other authors to link to the correct article. As to your point about having the location to indicate where in the world the cathedral is, Nitra is just as unknown in the English-speaking world as St. Emmeram and his cathedral. I do not see the benefit.imars (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you moved the article, you should also go through and check what links to the old article St. Emmeram Cathedral and redirect those links to the new article.imars (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy to deal with any outstanding redirects. For the rest, I DO see the benefit. You are right, obviously, that there is no need for disambiguation if there is only one St. Emmeram's Cathedral in the world. But it is not just about disambiguation, it is about general informativeness. When scanning a list of names (for example, in a category) St. Emmeram's Cathedral, Nitra is far more informative than plain old St. Emmeram's Cathedral. Apart from anything else, Saint Emmeram is well-known as a German saint, and it is quite time-wasting to have to open up the article in order to find out that this isn't a German cathedral. Also, with all due respect to it, this is NOT as famous a building as the examples you give of undifferentiated cathedral names: you say yourself that few people in the English-speaking world will have heard of Nitra, and if you are right, then fewer still will know of the cathedral. So my view remains that it makes the article more useful. Nitra Cathedral is probably better still, however... HeartofaDog (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I did not agree 100 percent, but I wanted to voice my concern. I think a redirect from Nitra Cathedral would make sense, too. More people probably know it by that name than any other.imars (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
