Talk:Schatzkammer

(First comment)

A Schatzkammer or Treasury is a generic term for all such treasure hoards in display, not just the Habsburger Schatzkammer A Wunderkammer is a similar displayed collection, of natural curiosities. --Wetman 20:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

true

Schatzkammer can also just generically mean "treasury" but i thought that was mentioned in the article. i´ve heard that there are basically only 3 official Schatzkammern in the german-speaking area. although there seems to be one in Cologne Cathedral as well.. hm, we would have to set up a new article in that case.. Antares911 22:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dubious

The lead sentence here says that Schatzkammer, a German word which means "treasury" or "treasure chamber", is a term used in English for the collection of treasures...
So, first of all, NO, it isn't the term used in English for such places; a quick look in the OED has no entry at all for the word. If you want to see the Crown Jewels at the Tower, you follow the signs to the Jewel House; other places will call it the Treasury, or the Treasure Room. Nobody, writing in English, would use the word.
So, second, is this an article about treasuries in Germany, or about treasuries as a whole? If it's the latter, it needs moving to a generic English term, per WP:TITLE/ COMMONNAME/USEENGLISH. If the former, then the text needs trimming down to just the German examples (and then we'd probably need another article on everybody else's treasuries).
Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Not by you, evidently, but YES it is used, precisely because there isn't a good English alternative, for collections like the Waddesdon Bequest or parts of the Wallace Collection. Here's another and another. "Spectacular objects in the Schatzkammer genre that Baron Lionel bought during his lifetime included ....". Note the distinguished User:Wetman's comment from 2005 above. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, not by the OED or by Merriam Webster either, so 'used in English' is hardly accurate (it isn't a loanword); and as for no 'good English alternative', what's wrong with Collection? Or Treasure? Or Crown Jewels? Or, Regalia? Or even, Cabinet of curiosities?

Nor is it the generic term for such collections; the Treasures of San Marco are just that, as are the Treasures of St Vitus (cz) and the Imperial Treasures of the Ottomans (tr).

What it is, in fact, is a German word used by some people in the trade when they don't want to use the appropriate English word for the thing (a bit like someone describing a piece as a gesamtkunstwerk, when what they mean is a "mixed-media art work"). So what I suggest is, we remove the offending 'in English' and put in citations for the use of the term in each example given here (I notice the article is a bit light on sources). Deal? Moonraker12 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed synonyms just demonstrate that there isn't another exact equivalent in English, there's plenty wrong with:

"Spectacular objects in the collection genre that Baron Lionel bought during his lifetime included ...."

"Spectacular objects in the treasure genre that Baron Lionel bought during his lifetime included ...."

"Spectacular objects in the Crown Jewels genre that Baron Lionel bought during his lifetime included ...."

"Spectacular objects in the regalia genre that Baron Lionel bought during his lifetime included ...."

"Spectacular objects in the cabinet of curiosities genre that Baron Lionel bought during his lifetime included ...."

Whether you approve of writers' choice of word is hardly the point! I've demonstrated it is is used in English - I'm sure there are plenty of other uses, but most search results are naturally about the Germanic ones. You've demonstrated there isn't an exact alternative. I'll agree to adding a "sometimes" to the supposed "offending" bit. The wider subject is covered at Treasury, which has a link here early on, but obviously has other fish to fry. Even if say Treasury (room or set of rooms) was split off (a tricky subject to write about, as global over at least two millenia), the specialized nature of the schatzkammer would probably still rate its own article. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So now it's a genre? Where does it say that? The article claims that it's the English word for a collection of treasures; I'd thought it was the German word for the room where a collection was kept, but I can see how it can extend to the collection itself. Where does the genre come in? The German WP article doesn't claim that, and the word there simply translates to treasury.

And as far as what has been demonstrated: I offered a number of words that cover the items on the list here; the exact English alternative is "Treasury", and the fact that a number of other words can describe these things doesn't negate that. And what you've demonstrated is that the word has been used a few times in connection with the Rothschild collection; there's no evidence here that the word is used for the collections in the Tower of London, or the Topkapi, or Saint Marks, or Lacock. And the only reference to a Schatzkammer genre anywhere is that essay by Inge Reist you quoted; if it really was a thing there ought to be more. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod:: Were you planning to reply to this anytime? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really. Is there a course of action you propose? Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Other than adding an "OR" tag, I mean. That's always really helpful! I'm away for the rest of the week, so take your time. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Original research?

@Johnbod:: I've been looking at the history of this page: when it was first posted in 2005 it was about the museum in Vienna; by 2010 it was a bit of a dab page about collections in Germany. It was changed in 2011 (by you, and without any corroborating evidence) to a page on treasuries generally, but still with a German title, and with this dubious claim about being the term used in English for such things. And, it was proposed for deletion in 2015 citing some of the same concerns I'm raising now.
So: do you have any evidence that the places you've listed have ever been referred to as Schatzkammer in English? Do you have any evidence, (apart from a single mention by a (presumably) German writer referring to (again) the Waddesden Collection) of a 'Schatzkammer genre'? And do you have any reason why this page should not be either merged to Treasury, or deleted altogether? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Both of these are really terrible ideas - I won't bother explaining why for now. The alternative would be to rename the page, but an alternative short appropriate name for the pretty coherent concept currently covered (post-Renaissance European secular treasure collections) is not easy to find, hence the current name. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:OR again.

If you need a week or so before you can search, then fine, but unless you can provide citations for all these iffy assertions -- ie. sources that support .a) the use of this term in English for all these places, and .b) that attest to the existence in English of a 'Schatzkammer genre' (other than a single comment by some German writer somewhere), then they'll have to go. And if whatever is left lacks any notability, or isn't viable as a stand-alone article, then it's a candidate for deletion or merger. Personally, I don't even think it qualifies as a separate dictionary entry, but that's just me, so far. Anyway, good hunting... Moonraker12 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod:: there’s been no progress on this for weeks, now; no citations added that attest to the use of the term in English for these places, and no evidence of any "schatzkammer genre" in English generally. So I’ve gone with Plan B…

I’ve

• deleted the disputed claims, as they were unsupported by any reliable source
• moved the references that were added, as they were not general but specific to one case only
• deleted the original research; most of it has been unsupported since 2011, and some of it since 2005

Which left a dictionary definition and a couple of links, none of which is particularly notable. It was a toss-up between merging the stuff to those articles and referring the whole mess to AfD; so I went with the former. But I’m easy either way..Moonraker12 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• You had no consensus for this, & the redirect was unhelpful, so I've reverted (leaving the stuff moved elsewhere). Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod:: I assume by consensus here you mean agreement from you: Consensus is represented by policies (like No original research and Verifiability), so I don’t need your agreement to follow policy. Consensus doesn’t provide a veto over edits made in line with our guidelines (or, more to the point, edits made to fix situations that are contrary to guidelines): You’ve had since January to substantiate the claims you’ve made (in fact, you’ve had since 2011) and there’s been nothing, so I’ve gone ahead and followed policy. But if you want to discuss where the title should redirect to, I’m all ears… Moonraker12 (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:CONSENSUS is clear. It doesn't just mean what you think and nobody else seems to agree with. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

So where in WP: CONSENSUS does it say you can thumb your nose at our policies?

OTOH it does say that “Consensus seeks to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines”. So, how does your position address the legitimate concerns that’ve been raised, and how does it follow Wikipedia policies?

WP:Policies and guidelines says Policies “describe standards that all users should normally follow”, and guidelines are “sets of best practices that are supported by consensus”. It also says “these pages are controlled by community-wide consensus”. Ergo, following a policy or guideline is, by implication, backed by consensus.

Also WP:NOR: “articles must not contain original research, ie. facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”.

And WP:VERIFY: “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source”.

What part of this is “what I think and nobody else agrees with”? Moonraker12 (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)