Talk:Ca' Foscari

Aula Baratto was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 June 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ca' Foscari. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Italy Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Page Move

Why has this page been moved, it is a "palazzo" not a "palace" in any case it cannot be a Ca' and a palace at the same time; it's either Ca'Foscari or Palazzo Foscari - I don't care which, but in English a palace is something far larger, whereas in Italy it can mean any large townhouse, which is what Ca'Foscari is. Giano 10:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored it to Palazzo Foscari. There is a case for "Ca' Foscari", but in the interests of simplicity, it's probably better to keep all Italian palazzi in easy to understand terminology and format. Giano 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Affresco deluigi.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Affresco deluigi.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sironi.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sironi.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serramento scarpa.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Serramento scarpa.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another reason why wikipedia images should not be secreted off to Commons where they are deleted on the most stupid grounds. Giacomo Returned 21:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only today that I notice this. Are you here referring to Italian law as "most stupid"? If so, I must respectfully disagree: it is surely outclassed by mindboggling crassness in Abu Dhabi. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian law is not quite as zelous as some wikipedians, as is proven here [1]. The image in question was clearly not intended to be a reproduction of the copyrighted work. It does not look like the Abu Dhabi Presidential Palace is going to get much of a write up here - does it? Giacomo Returned 07:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I misread you slightly, sorry about that. (And perhaps I shouldn't mention Abu Dhabi: talk of nations jailing people for photographing buildings might inspire various other nations that seem eager to curtail freedom of panorama in the name of "security" or whatever.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Ca' Foscari Palace

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Ca' Foscari. Feel free to re-request alternatives. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palazzo Foscari → Ca' Foscari Palace – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Per the request on my user talk user talk:Monty845#Palazzo_Foscari, multiple buildings are called Palazzo Foscari, and this article is about the one called Ca' Foscari Palace. User:Globe.explorer would like to turn this page into a disambiguation page, with links there, and to articles for the other palaces that Globe.explorer intends to create. I am making this request on their behalf, as they expressed difficulty in understanding the details of the requested move process, and it seems like a reasonable proposal to me. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous suggestion. How can it possibly be "Ca' Foscari Palace"? does the nominator of this have the remotist idea what he is talking about? - is he next to suggest we move Buckingham Palace to "Buck House Palace." Giacomo Returned 20:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your remark, Giacomo, but I think you did not get the point. The entry Ca' Foscari Palace (with capital P btw :) already exists, and it was not created by me. What I am talking about is Foscari, which in Italian is a last name; in Venice there are more than one Palazzo Foscari. So I am asking to build up a disambiguation page to list also the other one. Buckingham Palace can stay the place it is, at least in my opinion, and i think this is very reasonable. :D --Globe.explorer (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who calls it "Ca' Foscari Palace", with a capital P? that's redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Septentrionalis. The entry Ca' Foscari Palace already exists, with capital P and it was not created by me. Yes, it is a little redundant. Best, --Globe.explorer (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would renaming the article to Ca' Foscari (palace) — analogous to it:Ca' Foscari (palazzo) — be an option? Favonian (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move it to the name used in the article, Ca' Foscari? The fact that there is a university there does not preclude use of the correct name for the building; there is no reason for that disambiguation. We have both Buckingham and Buckingham Palace. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Buckingham is a small university/market town some 40 odd miles distant from Buckingham Palace. There's no reason why this page cannot be just Ca' Foscari or Ca' Foscari (palazzo), allthough, I can't think why it needs the palazzo to disambiguate it, as it's the only Ca' Foscari. It cannot be "palace" because in this instance "palazzo" does not "translate" to "palace" in the English/American sense of the word. Giacomo Returned 06:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken regarding the palace/palazzo issue — guess looking higher up on this page wouldn't have hurt. Google book search doesn't seem to support the palazzo as the primary topic for Ca' Foscari (scholar search is of course completely swamped by author affiliations with the university), so I'll support Ca' Foscari (palazzo). Favonian (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not!! "Ca'" already means "palace": only ignorance of the original meaning could stem such a request. Would you move "Palais of Versailles" to "Palais of Versailles Palace"?!?! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right Attilios regarding the naming, but I would move Versailles to Chateau de Versailles - no matter; I always thought Ca' derived from "casa" (house) and was used in the same way as the great London town houses were Bedford House, Marlborough House etc (even though they were in the European sense palaces), this left the term "palace/palazzo" free for the Doge/ruler's residence. That's what I learnt as a student anyway. Giacomo Returned 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is a /* Disambiguation page request for Palazzo Foscari */ not a change for the Ca' Foscari page!!! Hello everybody. Let me try again to explain what my request is about. I understand this may be confusing for the non locals. I am sorry this is getting so time consuming for everybody.

Imagine there were three places referred to as "Smith Palace" in a given city. One is a "Smith Palace", the other is also "Smith Palace", best known as Smith house (also called Smith house(palace) by some others but let them do it if they like, I do not care about this); the third is another "Smith Palace" by another Smith family. At different addresses. OK? And when you search Wiki for Smith Palace, you are redirected to the first one only (which in this specific case happens to be Ca' Foscari (palazzo) which is the only chance given at present when searching Palazzo Foscari).
The only way to list the other two is to have a disambiguation page for Smith Palace: this is what my request is about. I am not willing to discuss the title of pages built by others, like this Ca' Foscari (palazzo) (which to me is not correct, but I am used to solve one problem at a time). So please note that mine is a /* Disambiguation page request for Palazzo Foscari */ and nothing else. Hope this is clear now. All the best, thank you for kind cooperation :) --Globe.explorer (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Aula Baratto

It's a room in a fairly important Venetian palace; it's been called Baratto for a tiny proportion of its existence. Unsurpisingly, there doesn't seem to be a notability guideline at WP:ROOM; if there was, this one would probably fail it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ca' Foscari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]