Talk:Ulm Minster

message: It is not a cathedral because it has never been the seat of a bishop. Münster shouldn't be translated as cathedral thus. Nobody would use the German word "Kathedrale" for this church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.140.131 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the article should be moved. Somebody be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In the German Kathedral article, it points out that sometimes in the Swabian-speaking/Alemannic areas, a cathedral is titled Münster. Adding more difficulty, in current related articles the former Catholic, but now Protestant de:Basel Münster is Basel Münster in the English Wikipedia article. The  de:Strasbourg Münster is Strasbourg Cathedral in the English Wikipedia article. The word Münster derives from the Latin monasterium, English monastery. One could generate a similar confusion about Westminster, or as now known Westminster Abbey, which is different from Westminster Cathedral. The google test is not a good indicator of the proper name. The building "looks like" a Cathedral, but it is not. See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Group29 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your criticism that popular usage is a poor basis of the proper name or that the google test is a poor method to ascertain popular usage?  Wikipedia:Search_engine_test explains that the google test can "confirm roughly how popularly referenced an expression is," and my above test showed a significant 6-to-1 disparity.  If popular usage is a good criterion, we could proceed to validate this rough measure.  Perhaps we could check English-language travel literature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David@sickmiller.com (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term 

message: These two statements can't both be true:
*"It has dominated Ulm and the surrounding region for hundreds of years with its 161-metre-tall spire."
*"The building was finally completed in 1890 with the addition of the spire."
One of them needs to be edited --87.82.23.233 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict 

message: I have added most of the original content of the German version, ignoring some of the "less interesting" details, which only create a stack of red links.
As far as I am concerned, this article is almost finished.
I checked the relevant homepage, http://www.muenster-ulm.de/, for any additional wisdom.  This is quite rich stuff with many pictures...
Greetings from Vienna...
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monster (Shreeeeeek) of Ulm 

message: In the header: 160,9 m; in the infobox: 162 m; (and in the finnish wiki article 161,53 m). Which one is right? 85.217.50.236 (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: Substituted at 09:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The article says that from the top of the spire, there is a great view of the surrounding area. It would be wonderful if somebody would submit a photo taken from the top of the spire. Pete unseth (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of the vista from the top of the spire