This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Dresden was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
I have just modified 17 external links on Dresden. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified 12 external links on Dresden. 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.
I have just modified 3 external links on Dresden. 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.
@LechitaPL:regarding foreign names:
A google search reveals a total of just over 2 million results (including double counting, including pages which are not truly in English, etc) for those 3 variants total, separated as follows:
Drjezdzany yields 80k results, including WP mirrors/other Wiki- projects and many pages which are not in English...,
Drazdany yields more but those are mostly non-English (only 2 English results (WP and Wiktionary) in first 5 pages of results...
And "Drezno" yields 800k results, but those are again mostly in Polish (the only non-Polish pages I can find, at a glance, are this one, a WP disambig page, Wiktionary, etc... - you get the picture)
As for Dresden, I find more than 120 million results for it. As such, these variants are not relevant under MOS:QUOTENAME and need not be mentioned. As was explained in the previous discussions, the Gdansk vote does not apply to this since the city does not have "a shared history with Poland" unless you use a very tenuous description of the term (which was rejected). Even if that vote did apply, the city is universally referred to (in English) as Dresden, unless maybe in listings of foreign language names. As such, There is no reason to include the Polish name, or any of the other translated names, except maybe in a "Names" section (and even then, arguing that we should include the Czech or Polish names is as bad an argument as saying that we should also include French "Dresde", Italian "Dresda", and so on - an English speaker is very unlikely to use those terms to look for this city, and the city was never Czech or Polish, so there's little historical ground for including them - the Sorbian name can go in the Etymology/Early history section, where it already is). regarding the Frauenkirche:
The bombing of the city is already mentioned earlier in the lead, and no detail is given for either of the three other buildings. No reason we should go in too much details about this in the lead - simply mentioning that it was destroyed and rebuilt gives a better summary of the topic (details about the Frauenkirche and why it wasn't rebuilt go either lower in the article, or in the article about the church itself). Giving all those details in the intro would be WP:UNDUE. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Dubious climate table
The climate table for 1991-2020 period for some reason shows the same precipitation as Düsseldorf, which made me doubt about the whole table. I made a new one for an older period. Please verify the weather box if you can.PAper GOL (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Found my answer. The precipitation values are for Dusseldorf not Dresden. I'm gonna fix it. PAper GOL (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Request to rename "Soviet Republic of Saxony"
A request has been made to rename "Soviet Republic of Saxony" to "Saxony in the German Revolution (1918–1919)". With the renaming, "Soviet Republic of Saxony" would be removed from this page's infobox.
Please join the discussion here. GHStPaulMN (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Removing “Drježdźany”
In line with the purging of German names in Slavic countries, Slavic names should likewise be removed herefrom 95.194.209.79 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Güte image
Wide to see more, or cropped without coloration?
There's a wider-frame version of the image in current use in the WW2 section, and in my opinion that wider framing shows the scope and nature of the destruction better. I would suppose that an argument against it is that for some reason, the only wide-frame version we have has been lightly colorized? However, it's such a light tint (a slight sepia, which wouldn't be an unexpected consequence of aging in an original photo that old anyway) that I don't think it affects the veracity of the image. No photograph presents an entirely unmediated view— the photo my iPhone takes isn't what my eyes see. So to me the wider shot is more informative for seeing the city more clearly, whereas the statue dominates the more cropped version to the detriment of the vista. Here are the two for comparison. I acknowledge there may be issues I'm unaware of. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
.png)
