Misplaced Pages

talk:German-speaking Misplaced Pagesns' notice board: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:00, 24 November 2007 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,966 edits →Zieten← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:12, 10 December 2024 edit undoHemiauchenia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users59,826 edits →Reliability of Bild: new sectionTag: New topic 
(433 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcut|]}} {{Shortcut|WT:GSWN}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} {{archivebox|auto=yes}}


Line 6: Line 6:
Willkommen zum Diskussionsforum der deutschsprachigen Wikipedianer! Hier kannst du auf Deutsch oder auf Englisch über relevante Themen und Artikel diskutieren. Da dies die englische Misplaced Pages ist, kann jederzeit eine Übersetzung der Diskussion ins Englische angefordert werden. Viel Spaß! Willkommen zum Diskussionsforum der deutschsprachigen Wikipedianer! Hier kannst du auf Deutsch oder auf Englisch über relevante Themen und Artikel diskutieren. Da dies die englische Misplaced Pages ist, kann jederzeit eine Übersetzung der Diskussion ins Englische angefordert werden. Viel Spaß!


== Map translation request == == Is Austrian a language? ==
Can ] be translated and uploaded to Commons? Our ] is missing a map and this seems like a good free candidate.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I fully realize that there are some differences in spoken (and less in written) German from Austria to Germany, but does anyone think that a reference to an Austrian science journal (see ], ref 66) should list the language as "Austrian" (now changed to read Austrian German, but still pissing me off). BTW, the archive lists it as German and I highly doubt if we have a bot or whatever checking cite tags, that it will have a field for Austrian. Am I out to lunch? Also, since I live in America, should I stop saying that I speak English? Maybe I should stop saying that we use English units rather than metric (since they use more metric and less English now)? ] (]) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
==Nationality (Entering the minefield)==
:There are tons of Austrian dialects (most closely related to Bavarian), but they're usually not written. No scientific publications I have ever heard of are written in "Austrian". Depending on the author, you will get a few Austrianisms, like "Jänner" instead of January, but that's it; the written language is German in spite of those. BTW I didn't find the ref you meant on ], but it seems to have been cleaned up. ] (]) 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:Books and journals published in Austria are no more written in "Austrian" than books and journals published in the US are written in "American". In fact, less so, since Austrian German and German German are closer to each other than American English and English English. The correct term for the form of standard German written in Austria is "German", unless the variant used ''really'' matters, in which case one would call it "Austrian German". ] ] 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::I got enough backup here (and even on the main board of Zherman wiki (!) with everyone saying to list it as German, so I just went to "2R" ;). I would not make such a big deal, but es clingt falsch. Um...and one of the nice things about the citation templates is the ability for a bot to scan for languages or the like (for instance if adding translated variaties...so if we have some strangeness like referring to American or Austrian as languages will mess everything up.)] (]) 01:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't know the English word for that, in German the expression ist that Austrian German is a ''Varietät'' of German (Interwiki of ] links to ]); it's like Britsh vs. Aussie vs. American English. There are more examples like ''Januar''/''Jänner'', f. ex. lodging (noun) is ''Holzfällerei'' in DE-de but ''Holzschlägerei'' in DE-at. A butcher (BE) is ''Metzger'' in DE-de but ''Fleischhauer'' in DE-at. But there are also some specific spelling differences, f.e.x ''story'' (as in first story of a house) is ''Geschoss'' in DE-de but ''Geschoß'' (with a long ''o'') in DE-at. See also ] and ]. --] (]) 22:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


== Should diacritics be encouraged or discouraged in article's titles? ==
I am updating some '''German''' chemists and now I have a problem with the scientists info box entries.
For example:
* ] (1827-1909) is Residence ] German Empire and Nationality ] Oldenburgian, then ] German
* ] (1835 - 1917) is Residence ] Germany and Nationality ] German


You may be interested in my proposal ]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 20:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem of who is which nationality and is a German Empire ''German'' a BRD ''German'' or is this a discontinuety or what ever, is a question I will not ask!


== Nazi ranks ==
::I had this discussion already with if ] (1869 – 1930) is a Slowenian. This question I would deny because Slowenia was never a independant nation while he lived making him an ]an and later a ]an and later ]n. But this should be done by people who whant to fight about it. I will encounter the Problem with Poland and Elsaß early enough.
I only want a hint which of the two methods is prefered! --] 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


I have raised concern about the articles in ] ] --] (]) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
===German nationality===
Until 1913 there was no German nationality in a legal sense, only the nationality of one of the souverain German states. In 1913 the Reichstag passed the ] (RuStG), which was amended several times later on. It did not introduce a direct German nationality, but an indirect one. So a citizen of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg would have the Hamburg nationality and a Hamburg passport, which made him indirectly a citizen of the German Reich (1913-1934). This was changed by the Nazi-goverment through the 1934 amendment of the RuStG, then creating a direct German nationality for all those belonging to the "Reich" as defined by the amended RuStG. The West-German ] from 1949 has a definition for German persons. Its "German in the sense of the Grundgesetz" is wider than the "German nationality" under the RuStG (kept until 1999).--] 16:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


==Redirects and grammar==
:Perfect for a lawyer but it does not help me with my question! Nationality is not defined by laws or birth only but also by heritage, making everything complicated. Staatsangehörigkeit and Nationalität I like more for these kind of definitions!
Members might be interested in this ] --] (]) 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


==]==
::But still I need an answer!--] 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are newly-created listings of the articles in the ADB in ], which may be of interest to those wishing to create historical biographies here. ] (]) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


== ] article nominated for deletion ==
:::I think in cases like these, using "German", while technically inaccurate, is what readers expect. The flags are impossible to get right, but 99%+ of biographies should not have images of flags anyway (only biographies of flag designers etc. benefit from adding flag images). ] (]) 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


The ] article has been nominated for deletion. It appears that several sources may be available, which are in German. Any German-speaking editors care to help to improve the article?
:::: Flags are pointless in most bios. Maybe they are useful for politicians and soldiers, to illustrate which state(s) or army(s) they represented (sometimes changing).--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
*{{Find sources|Jesko Friedrich}}
:{{mdash}}<small><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>]</strong><sup>]</sup></span></small> 02:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


== German page made at Wikimedia Australia workshop - needs review ==


A workshop participant has made this page: ] - but she is the only one here who speaks German :-). Some of the translation is difficult apparently. Review/editing appreciated. Thanks! --] <small>]</small> 01:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages really needs better guidelines regarding nationality. Due to changing borders, many famous Germans/Austrians/Prussians are claimed by present countries as "he lived here, so he's one of ours". See ] for a current ongoing editwar/debate.--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Categories ==
I tried to do some on the medal winners etc, but apparently I suck at it. I don't know if this is the right place to ask for someone to work on it, but if it's not feel free to delete this.--] (]) 22:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
=
==Louis XIV — Strasbourg==
Some of you might be interested in the ''Strasbourg'' discussion at: ]


] (]) 15:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A ] about categorization of Germans/German-speakers has got me thinking. Using the previously created ] and ] as examples, I had created additional categories, such as ] (for more, see ], <s>which is currently missing Bremen</s>). However, I am doubting that this is the best way to approach the issue. It makes sense to categorize people according to the specific principality/state when they were born, but the current "German natives of" scheme is problematic with some territories.


== Translate and transwiki to the English Language Misplaced Pages help request: ==
Some of the current categories can be confusing on ethnic grounds, which are often subjective. When should we differentiate between a "German from Alsace" and an "Alsatian"? Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia had substantial German-speaking populations, but were never part of "Germany". How/should we categorize such individuals? Should they be merged into ]? Or should that latter category only refer to the late 19th/20th century concept of Sudeten Germans, or strictly to the Nazi era?


Would someone who can translate German better than I can kindly translate/transwiki to the English wikipedia: and . Both men are significant intellectuals in 1600s/1700s Germany and have an academic genealogical influence on such major academics as Hegel. Thanks for your help! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
"]" is another problematic case. It was only formally created as a province of Prussia in 1773, but the phrase has frequently been used to refer to the territory of the ] (1525-1701) and sometimes earlier. Should ] be restricted to post-1773? King ] was born in Königsberg while it was part of Ducal Prussia; should ] be created? What about people born in East Prussia between 1701 (elevation of the duchy to the ]) and 1773 (creation of Province of East Prussia)? What about when East Prussia was merged with West Prussia into the ] (1824-1878)?


== Im Westen nichts Neues ==
A possible solution is to do away with the ethnic classification of "German natives of" and instead categorize solely on citizenship. To avoid cluttering up the root ] category, ] could be created as a subcategory. For example, the articles in ] could be split into ], ], and ], based on when/where they were born. The controversial ] (is he German, Polish, or Silesian?) would be included within ], a subcategory of ], itself a subcategory of ]. Of course, that wouldn't help with pre-1740 (]) articles- should they be included within a ] category? "German" Alsatians could be restricted to ], referring solely to the territory/era of the German Empire.


Does the English translation "No News from the West" adequately capture the different meanings of "Im Westen nichts Neues"? A related question is: can this English phrase be offered as a literal translation in the lead of the article about '']''?
Since Prussian history can be complicated at times, categories such as ] and ] or ] could be created.


There is a discussion at ].
Thoughts/suggestions/alternatives? ] 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Input from German-speaking Wikipedians would be most appreciated.
:Regarding ], an alternative would be to create ] (i.e. Bohemians of German ethnicity). ] 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 15:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
::The current ] could be troublesome, as ] would refer to both Moravians of German ethnicity or to members of the ] (often used in American publications). Perhaps this one should be merged into the aforementioned German Bohemians category. ] 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


==Ibbenbüren train collision==
:Because "East Prussia" is widely used in English to refer to both the ] and the Province of ], I do not see a significant problem with including residents of both in a single category. Plus, this avoids the questionable 1701-1773 time period. However, ] is my preferred title. ] 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've created an article on today's ] which killed two people and injured 20. Assistance in expanding the article from German sources is sought. ] (]) 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


== German names, is "von" superfluous or not? ==
::Your idea to drop the nationality and instead simply concentrate on just the regions (eg. ]) is IMO the way to go. It might not solve all problems but it is a good start. Nationality could then be introduced as subcategories, if necessary. - ] 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


A disagreement has arisen concerning German names with the '']'' "von". More specifically in ]. It is my understanding that, since 1919, the "von" is a part of the surname and hence is anything but superfluous, but this is ]. Since I did not find any clear consensus one way or the other, this noticeboard seems to be the right place to ask the question: is the "von" superfluous and can be omitted or is it a part of the name which should be included? Are there any guidelines? ] (]) 08:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:::Frankly, the introduction of new categories trying to describe regions is useless as they will get removed from articles anyway by certain users claiming they did not exist as political entities at the time . --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::{{User|Space Cadet}} is continuing his removal of ], from about two dozen bios today. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm just removing people who got added to the category by mistake, because they where born when ] did not exist. Thank You. ] 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Trying to limit the meaning of ] to the two policital subdivisions of Prussia, or claiming that some were added by mistake, is an interesting exercise in ]. East Prussia, as a historical region, covers about 500 years, also the times of the Monastic state, the Duchy, and the Province of the mid-19th century. Only ] is an alternative if more appropriate - deletion is not. In ], people are listed under present German states even when born centuries before these were formed, like ]. Thank you for quitting your destructive behaviour towards a useful category for undisputedly German speaking persons '''now'''. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


:Your understanding, insofar as it relates to Germany, is correct. of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic said, relevantly, "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden." (Noble designations apply only as part of the (sur)name and may no longer be awarded.). Also relevant is Article 10 of the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Act to the Civil Code), which says "Der Name einer Person unterliegt dem Recht des Staates, dem die Person angehört." (The name of a person is subject to the law of the State to which the person belongs.) So if you are German, and the surname you have inherited was preceded by a "von" immediately prior to 1919, then, unless your surname has since been changed by a procedure recognized by German law, it still includes the "von". In Austria, the law corresponding to article 109 was and still is different: § 2 of the '']'' abolished, amongst other things, "... das Recht zur Führung des Adelszeichens „von“" (the right to the use of the noble designation "von".) So, eg, in 1919 ] became ]. I'm not sure of the position in Switzerland, but could probably find out if you wish to know. ] (]) 10:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not being disruptive, I'm just correcting mistakes. ] was an administative region (with changing borders) of the Kingdom of Prussia, later of Germany. Why do you feel it's so important to promote a popular stereotype over actual truth? Only because the mistake was spotted by a Pole? Stop your Polononphobic games '''now'''! ] 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick reply. However, the question was not so much about the legal situation, but about the consensus on en.wikipedia, which may be different. Are there any policies, guidelines or even an RfC concerning this subject matter? A general rule or consensus? ] (]) 10:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:Don't you shout, there is no need for it. And ain't be silly.--] 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, the starting point is that in Germany, the "von" is definitely part of the surname. Then you might want to look at ], which includes the following comments: "Some Western cultures use a "double last name" format ... The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known." (eg, ]); "Some people, particularly historical figures, are known by names in the format "<First name> of <Location>", such as ] and ]. If, for a given person, this format is more often used than the usual "<First name> <Last name>" format, then it should be used as the article title." It's less clear how the subject of such an article should be referred to in the body of the article. For example, Ursula von der Leyen is referred to variously as "Ursula von der Leyen", "Leyen" and "von der Leyen" in the English Misplaced Pages article, but pretty much exclusively as "von der Leyen" in the German Misplaced Pages article. As she is (presently) little known and referred to in the ], this suggests that the English Misplaced Pages article should be edited to adopt the same practice as the German Misplaced Pages article. However, the position may be different in cases of people referred to more often in English language sources, eg ]. In cases like that, I'd be looking at English language reliable sources to see how they refer to him. ] (]) 13:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
::Oh, and when I got shouted at by your homeboy Matthead then it was OK, right? Also, don't call me names or I'll report you! ] 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Ok. Personally I strongly favor 'von So-and-so', but that's no ground to change anything. Besides, stictly speaking his surname would be ''Freiherr von Richthofen'', i gather, which is a bit much on all accounts, so i'll mind ] and thank you for the quick and thorough response. ] (]) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


== (quick) help with DYK ==
: ''"Polononphobic"'' is - as far as I can judge - a senseless term in English, the appropiate term would be something like "Polophobic", but I think that this is not the appropiate level for a serious discussion about historical questions (and their implications) at Misplaced Pages. WWII is over now for more than 60 years, so maybe we can let emotions out of this and discuss on the basis of facts.
: And a good advise to our polish friend: At Misplaced Pages, bringing good (proven) arguments is always better than using bad words, breaking the 3R-rule and getting blocked for this. In the long run, aggresive stile and dubious edits doen't succeed, its the facts and their exhibition in a serious discussion that count. -- ] 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Greetings. A DYK nomination has been created in which the hook fact has been cited to a source in German. I was hoping somebody would be willing to check that source, and see whether the fact is supported; shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The nomination is ]. Regards, ] (]) 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
::Polonia in Latin is Poland, therefore ]. And I don't recall Kresspahl or Matthead "bringing good (proven) arguments" but they are your homies so that's OK. East Prussia existed 1772 - 1829, 1878 - 1918 in one set of borders, then 1918 -1938 in another set, then finally for seven years 1938 - 1944 it included Memelland again. Calling people who were born outside those timeframes "German Natives of East Prussia" is like calling everybody born in Berlin a native of German Democratic Republic. ] 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'd be happy to help, but the source is a book published 125 years ago, and there are no copies of it in any library within 10,000 km of where I live ... sorry. ] (]) 09:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
::Ah well. I was not aware that it would be difficult to get hold of. In that case, it would probably be best for me to AGF and pass the nomination, it's been open too long as is. Thanks anyhow, ] (]) 09:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


== FRG 1949-1990 office holders ==
::: SpaceCadet, I think you are misguided, nobody here is my "homie" (whatever you mean with this term), I am disgusted by any kind of nationalism, irrepective if it is German or Polish nationalism (and maybe you know, that also we Austrians had to suffer from German nationalism). I just reminded you, that in a controversy debate proven arguments and a consens-willing-attitude are the best way to convince people, while any kind of "aggressive" stile in a dicussion will strongly minimize your standing. About the "phobie": At least an "n" was too much in your posting ;-) -- ] 09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone, i suspect a "sour Kraut", has been editing 1949-1990 FRG articles to call the offices "Chancellor of Germany" "Foreign Minister of Germany" etc. even though those people were *not* all-German office holders.
::::Sorry, I was misguided. Or rather jealous of how Germans can always stick together and back each other up. I wish it was true for my people. But here in the States, where I live, the worst enemy of a Pole is not German, Russian or Jewish but another Pole. ] is really the way it is spelled. Really. Happy editing, your friend ] 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Thoughts on what to do? ] (]) 18:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
::::: Yes, but you wrote ''"Polononphobic"'', so there was at least one "n" to much ;-) ... By the way: I am not German, I am Austrian. And telling an Austrian that he is German is normaly not very nice, as we struggled long enough to get independent (So to be clear: We are "german-speaking" but we are not "Germans"). And I am not so sure if - for example - Matthead and I would always agree about every part of our common history, but at least we will discuss it in an open discussion here at Misplaced Pages. Therefore I am a little bit scared when you talk about "enemies", irrespective of their nationality, as Misplaced Pages is an international project where we all should work to find a common sense, instead of starting "combats" (which one normally does with enemies). -- ] 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:As another "Kraut" – I thought that such WW II denotations have gone – I do not see what is wrong with that. It is a mistake in the English language Misplaced Pages to distingush between "West Germany" and today "Germany". It is a problem in the EN:WP – even in ] – that cold war point of view is maintained, interestingly that coincides the East Germany point of view. Pityfully the most important parts of ] are not available in the EN counterpart of the article, explicitely those parts discussing the full idendity of the Deutsche Reich and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland as decided by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. OTOH – since you did not give any diff links I have to be unclear – it shoould be guarded that the modifications do not reflect the POV of the ] and other extremists. --] (]) 07:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Matthiasb}} Sorry I stole the "sour Kraut" joke from that Red Dwarf episode where "Ace" Rimmer battles Nazi soldiers. If it was 1988, what would you recommend? Someone on en-wiki suggested using "FR Germany" as a way of disambiguate from the GDR. But, the FRG is also the name of post-reunification Germany so that does not work. Presidents and Chancellors and ministers of FRG between 1949 and 1990 were not all-German offices. ] (]) 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
]
]
:::Not really. Actually, 1990, there wasn't a unification of the GDR and the FRG but the GDR declared "accession" ("Beitritt") to the FRG according to the until then existing article 23 of the (then West) German Grundgesetz. (In a similar way the Saarland joined the FRG in 1957.) See ] and following section.
:::Mr Kohl's chancellorship began 1982 and ended 1998 but there is no distinction of west German chancellorship and all-German chancellorship but he was simply the sixth chancellor of the FRG – his second term as chancellor began in 1987 and ended early in 1991, when the on 2 December elected Bundestag constituted. Therefor Mr. Schröder was the seventh cancellor and Mrs. Merkel is the eight. --] (]) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


:::
::::::I understand. And when I said "enemies" I only meant people not being very nice towards each other. I am not a nationalist, either. ] 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


== Locomore ==
:::This is only one example of your ongoing campaign of deleting ] from biographies of persons undisputedly being born in the historic region ], the main part of ], where Germans have a 500+ year history. Your claim the category applies only to the periods 1773-1829 and 1878-1945 in which the ] existed as a separate province, but not for 1829 - 1878 when it was merged to ], is petty-minded at best. You have claimed you '''' during the recent ], yet all you do is continue in even worse manner. Unless there is a more appropriate category for that area in ], you shall not vandalise biographies by removing the geograpical classification for any German being born there before 1946.--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


I started an article on ]. --] (]) 09:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
What worse manner? I'm helping you guys to correct a mistake that occurred probably by accident. Why do you bring up the Sanction Noticeboard, where I was wrongfully accused of stuff by your buddy Sciurinæ? What does it have to do with anything? ] was not a "historical region" but an administrative unit that lasted only in timeframes mentioned above. Now I am not questioning that those people whose biographies contain mistakes are German. Also I'm not removing those who actually were born in East Prussia. But East Prussia was NOT a historical region. Sorry. ] 07:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


== de.wp image copyright question ==
Besides, you can create those missing categories yourself. Don't be lazy. Come on: German natives of ], German natives of ], German natives of the ] - and you're done! This last one would probably be even empty, because I don't remember anybody from there. Happy editing and I mean it! ] 07:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Guten Tag! Looking at page on de.wp, it is pretty vehement that the image might not be suitable for upload to Commons (that bit's in English!) but I'd quite like to know why, if someone could pull out the main points it is making? We've got a few pages that could use that and similar images, so it would be nice to know from the start where we're going to stand.
:All help received is greatly appreciated. Cheers! &mdash; ]] 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
:This standard advise in English is precautionary (and in some cases wrong). There are many other similar files already on Commons (see ]). Some of them use ], which is not correct (the author is unknown so we can not claim that the author "died more than 70 years ago"). However there is a suitable license for this case: ] (analog to the ] used for the file you mentioned). So it seems to me you can upload this file to Wikimedia Commons. If there are further questions regarding licenses I would recommend asking them at Wikimedia Commons. HTH -- ] (]) 10:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
::{{reply|Reise Reise}} Many thanks for the advice mate. Will do; take care. &mdash; ]] 16:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


== Přísečnice? ==
As I mentioned when I started this discussion, I don't support classifying these biographies in terms of location by ethnicity, preferring instead sorting by citizenship regardless of ethnicity. The current categories are a mixture of both - shouldn't there be a ] before there is a ]? Plus, the preferred category naming style is "People from", not "Natives of".


* Through the ] I found the new article ], which I belive should be merged wth, and redirected to the article ] since it tells about a city, when during its existence, was named Preßnitz and not Přísečnice. I would be greatful for an expert comment on this issue. ] (]) 13:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding ], for instance, is this referring to German ''citizens ''who lived in the ] (or other Silesian entities), or ''ethnically'' German Silesians? As an example, ] was a German-speaker who grew up in ], but he was not a citizen of Germany. I would thus recommend a ] for such individuals. Regarding ], I would suggest dividing that into ] or ], a subcategory of ], and ''also'' place people into ] (or other relevant Silesian entities). ] 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:Actually ] is the article on the river while ] is the article on the town which after 1945 only was named Přísečnice (and still existed for three decades). --] (]) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


== Request to delete article that already exists under German name ==
:Categories can always be put in question. Now for the ethnic German East Prussians, a category makes sense to me. There were indeed a peripheric part of the German nation/people/ethnic groups (cf. ]). And I don't see any logic in the nonsensical argument that East Prussia somehow disappeared in the 19th century, only because it was for a time part of a united province with West Prussia. What East Prussia historically was, when it came into existence etc., is to be discussed here: ]. PS: This is all history now. Poles and Germans are friendly nations, not enemies. And forget about the ]! --] 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've launched a request to delete the article "]" . The article already exists at ''']''', and "Narodil se Kristus pán" should be merged into it. "Narodil se Kristus pán" was initially a redirect created by User:Gerda Arendt that went to "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt." FWIW "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is on the Main Page today, in the '''Did you know...''' section. Narodil se Kristus pán was expanded from a redirect seemingly with ] intent by User:Heptapolein after the first one was created, with no consensus from anyone else. There is not even any other articles that link to it. It would help to get some input on it's AfD page. -- ] <small>(])</small> 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


== ] in need of attention ==
::Of course Poles and Germans are best friends, but then why are you calling my edits nationalistic? ] 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Space Cadet, where did DaQuirin call your edits nationalistic? Hardly in the comment right above yours. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Guten Abend: an editor over-wrote the redirect from ] to ] in English Misplaced Pages, replacing it by a promotional piece about a dubious-sounding educational institution: this has been reverted. I see that they've done the same in de.wiki, and my German isn't up to working out how to revert it there or where to leave a message about it. Perhaps someone here could help - see ], which for 12 years until 22 August 2018 was a redirect to ]. Grusse, ]] 22:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::, , ] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


:Today, the de.wiki redirs are fine: There, ] is a redir to the disambig ], and also there exists a new article ] created by this editor, which is also mentionend in the disambig ]. Hochschule translates to University, thus on your talkpage I see the the user is currently trying to create such an article, I assume with the content of . I think we can leave it up to the de.wiki people whether ] is notable – for en.wiki, of course, we ourselfs are responsible... I wrote some notices for Eleonorexoxo on her German talk page. --] (]) 20:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think, our nationalistic Space Warrior is on a mission here - a perfect premium member of a any new Misplaced Pages members Category in the field. Your argument that East Prussia was ''only'' an administrative unit is completely childish. You may discuss it here: ]. Where did you get this theory from? --] 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


== Resource Exchange request ==
:I'm not nationalistic. I'm not on a mission. Where did you take your theory that ] was anything more than an administrative unit from? Please provide a modern (post 2000) source. You may discuss it on my Talk page. ] 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


If anyone could look in at ] and let me know if you know anything, I'd be very grateful. As it is, I'm not even sure what I'm asking for :) danke schön! ]]] 15:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
::Sorry for calling you "nationalistic". I ddn't mean it. You should watch it too. I'm not gonna report a fellow Wikipedian for his childish games, but somebody else might. ] 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


== problem at ] ==
:::Just friends would be O.K. after what happened in the last century. Why are you so fixated with eliminating long-gone East Prussia from a category? What is your motivation? --] 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


this article has attracted the persistence of a user who seems to think that the official name of Germany as a country under Hitler was ACTUALLY "the Third ''Reich''". It was not. ] (]) 23:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: Truth, Logic and Common Sense! That's my motivation. Do you always answer questions with another question? That's fine, but this time I urge you to answer '''"why are you calling my edits nationalistic?"''' Remember that calling somebody a nationalist "just for fun", without adequate reasoning is a reportable offense! And I'm not removing long gone East Prussia, I'm just returning it to it's proper time frames. ] 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


== translation of "ze Werde" ==
:::::Why do I call nationalistic edits nationalism? A difficult question. For people like you, there is a rule: Deep in your heart, you always love what you are hating. You have strong feelings, I see. You are an Polish-American or emigrant? I wish you could come home and see your country rise to glory (maybe with future cabinet members that do not spy against each other). Our nations will be friends - you may not like it, but we don't have a choice anyway. --] 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm cleaning up the article ], and came across the phrase "ze Werde." Apparently this had some specific meaning in Urkunde, as these are the only places google shows it. ] (]) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You're a true Master of avoiding answers to straight forward questions and of dodging points based on common sense. I bow to You, Sir. ] 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:Apparently it means "at Wöhr". Accd. to ], Wöhr was originally called "wert" or something like that, and "ze" I would assume is an older or dialect form of "zu". --] (]) 05:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
::@]@] ''Ze wert(e)'' is Middle High German for "on the island". If you look at the map of Neustadt an der Donau, you will find that there are many bits of water that are obviously parts of the previous course of the river. The river looks like it has been rectified in modern times. The area called "Wöhr" is in the middle of this, so I'm guessing it was once an island in the river. Elsewhere in Bavaria you will find cities built on rivers at places where there were islands, probably because this makes it easier to cross (two small rivers instead of one big one), so they were natural convergence points for trade routes, and in these places forms of ''wert'' are not uncommon in placenames. So Regensburg's ''Unterer Wöhrd'' and Nürnberg's ''Wörder Wiese'' both lie between branches of their respective rivers.
::Aaaaand, I've just realized that this thread is five years old, so maybe the question is not relevant anymore, but there it is anyway. ] (]) 08:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
:::yes, old, but thanks anyway. I learned something new. ] (]) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


== Accurate summary of German source? ==
:So be serious. You are interested in the administrative history of 19th century Prussia? I must admit, I can't believe it. But if you like, we can discuss. For some time forming a united province, East Prussia and West Prussia were separated again, because they were two different historical entities. Now the ], and on and on.... --] 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi, re the ] article, is this current wording...
::I am serious, ironically. My hobby and passion is History of Prussia. All of it. Even the pagan times. And even today. I am Polish - American, and yes, ages ago I was an immigrant. What was that you started to say about ]? Finish the sentence please. And after that why don't you do expand on the difference in borders of East Prussia between let's say 1880 and 1936? ] 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::::{{green| also called ] an "effective democracy."}}
...an accurate summary of Modrow's answer below?
::::(question) {{brown|War die DDR für Sie eine Diktatur oder eine Demokratie?}}
::::(answer) {{brown|Sie ist für mich der Versuch einer sozialistischen Entwicklung, in der auch Demokratie mit Einschränkungen wirksam war.}}
(source: )<br>
If not, what wording would be better?


Thanks and happy editing, ] <small>(])] • ]</small> 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
:::The borders changed indeed in the (Catholic) Ermland region, so what? In the ex post perspective, it became finally East Prussia when West Prussia disappeared (first) from the map. (Sorry, with Prussia you mean only what was called "West and East Prussia"?) So you may eliminate some people from there from the East Prussia category, great thing. A hobby like yours is perfectly O.K., but it is always difficult if the clear view is hindered by too strong emotions. Your ] argument looks a bit childish, to say it very politlely (ja, ja, the good old ]!). By the way, being fixated on Categories, is a dangerous sign... Studying history always means trying to take different angles, but this not what you are up to, right? Seen from 20th century, the German-Polish history is a mess. But going deeper into this, it is far more complex (a German pope, 'designed' by a Polish Pope, still unbelievable!). Thanks to the Polish editors especially here and in the German wikipedia I have learned about a different perspective on Polish history. So you won for tonight, Polish-American Edit-War King! --] 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:Hmmm...what was probably meant was that it was "effectively a democracy". Now mulling over a good translation/rendering of the underlying thought...] (]) 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
::::I will continue on my talk page if you don't mind. ] 12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::"An attempt at socialist development in which democracy was somewhat working, albeit with limitations." This should catch the gist of what he said...what is implied is taht it was indeed a failed attempt, and you can feel his disappointment through his words. ] (]) 10:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Call your own homie Matthead an "Edit-War King", he just got banned again for 3RR.] 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Agree - I don't think it's accurate to say {{tq|an "effective democracy"}} because the quote is talking about an ''attempt''. -- ] (]) 02:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)~~


=="Liveright"?==
As fascinating as the above discussion has been, is anyone interested in discussing the proper categorization of biographical articles regarding the questions I have raised? ] 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just put up an article on German-American Arkansas businessman and politician ]. His middle name is given as "Liveright" in all sources. I suspect this is a literal translation of a German name - what would that be? His father was born "Gottlieb Remmel" but is identified on his gravestone as "Godlove Remmel".] (]) 23:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:This could be the given name Leberecht or Lebrecht. --] (]) 05:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::"Liveright" is a terrible translation, but Germans in 19th-century America did that kind of thing to assimilate, and if that is the name he actually used, you should cite it that way. ] (]) 07:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks! It was mere curiosity, I suppose. Unless I found a source that said his actual middle name was something like "Leberecht", I wouldn't mention it in the article. But, because of the way his father's name was translated, I suspect that that's what they did with "Liveright".] (]) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


== Reliability of Bild ==
:There are too many categories here, but this is only a personal point of view. You could solve your problem with a joint ]. It is not a perfect solution, but should answer various claims. --] 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


I've opened a discussion on the reliability of the German-language tabloid Bild. see ]. Please participate if interested thanks. ] (]) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would personally prefer to have categories for (country, state or province of birth). That means quite a lot of categories for the Holy Roman Empire, but we could avoid claiming that ] was from ] (he was born in the ] of the ]; NRW was not established until after his death). ] should be in a category that says he was born in the ] and another one that says he was born in ]; that Königsberg was part of an administrational area called "East Prussia" at other times is no more relevant for Hilbert's bio than that it is in Russia now. ], born close to ], was not a native of ], but of ], part of ]. I don't think the people born in a certain place need to be further sub-categorized by nationality or ethnicity. Perhaps we should use detailed category names like ], which is more exact than "from". ] (]) 08:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree with Kusma's suggestions. I have initiated a renaming discussion at ]. ] 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::I have to point out that neither ] nor ], nor too many others, have any category pointing to their provenance, due to deletions by you-know-who, or due to complicated categories like "People of the Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz-Ducksburg" preventing editors picking any category at all. I oppose an overcomplicated atomization in favour of a simple regional structure as proposed in ]:‎ 16 regions according to current state borders, and 8 historic regions. Additional subcategories as you please, but only as subcategories. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 08:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I have to point out that as of now both ] and ], and many others, have a category pointing to their provenance, due to constructive edits by "you-know-who" also known as ] 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

==Mistranslated source==

Hi there. I'm working on the article on ], and one of the key sources we're working with is an interview with the German press. Someone's done enough of a translation to permit us including some references, but the translation is not really perfect. The article is pushing ] so we'd really like someone fluent in German to have a look at the source, find out where the quote is coming from, check the references are valid, and see if they can give us a better translation. If anyone is interested in helping, please have a look at the details on the ]. Many thanks in advance. ] 18:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== German journal CotW ==

The ] project has selected ''']''' as our ''Collaboration of the Week''. It would be great if a few German speaking Wikipedians put this article on their watchlist and kept an eye on us. :-) I have just translated ] from the German article and last week it was ]. ] 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

== propaganda ==

servus. es gibt einen schlimmen beständigen zustand den ich anprangern will. propagandisten können mühelos diese wikipedia dazu verwenden um seiten nach zweifelhafter geschichtsschreibung abzuändern. schaut mal ] an. er gehörte zu den aktivsten wikipedianern und alles was er gemacht hat und macht kann man dem polnischen nationalismus zuordnen. viele seiner änderungen sind drin geblieben und kaum einen kümmert es. das ist keine übertreibung und er findet sogar noch zeit die russen zu nerven. warum bastelt Ihr unbezahlt zu gunsten eines projekts herum wenn doch die glaubwürdigkeit die Ihr aufbaut letztendlich ihm und dergleichen in die hände spielt?--20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC) {{unsigned|80.190.200.171}}

Rough translation (by Matthead):The editor complains about misuse by propagandists which seems to bother few if any, as edits remain. He asks why we contribute to a project without being paid for, trying to bolster its credibility, when that is abused as a propaganda platform?
: I wholeheartedly agree. Many articles regarding German issues suffer from the relentless activity of a small, but very active group with a very narrow focus. While some with an open anti-German bias broke the rules and got themselves blocked or banned, some manage to bend the rules time and again, out-wearing all other editors. Misplaced Pages in general suffers from this, and frankly, I am convinced it has "jumped the shark" long time ago, as the stats recently published show. Instead of quality content, we get only mediocre articles under constant fire by POV-pushers and vandals. And those should be treated as acting in ], to add to the insult. Misplaced Pages really needs to get its act together, abandoning old policies, and adapting stricter ones.--&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 04:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

hee? quite funny you are talking bout quality. aren't you the one stating "heil dir löschpedia" in the german edition? sorry but you seem to miss the bigger picture, if you want to have a higher standard of quality you need to sort out bad quality entrys, which can't be improved eighter due waht reason ever. ] 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you for taking interest, and for desisting from mangling quotes you apparently don't understand at all. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i was talking about ], what he does to wikipedia and how no one bothers, as matthead summaried. you're right, that we need to sort out bad quality entrys. who does want to help?--21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The first step would be registering an account. Steps 2 to ∞ : editing. Hit-and-run complaining doesn't solve anything. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like another job for the Space Cadet. I love to "sort out bad quality entrys", as you call them. ] 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently I (not singlehandedly, but with some substantial help from Olessi) "sorted out a bad quality" Category: German Natives of East Prussia.] 22:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

== County vs. district revisited ==

I thought we had settled how to translate ''(Land)kreis'' a year and a half ago after the discovery of the EU's recommended translation of "District" discussed at ]. However, a user has now moved ] to ]. It seems to me it should be moved back. Discussion at ] . —]] 09:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

== Zieten ==

Input would be appreciated at ] regarding the best title for the article. Names considered so far have been "Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten" and "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten". ] 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

== St. Hedwig, patron of Silesian expellees? ==
Could somebody verify - see also ]. Seems ]ish. Thanks, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 09:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:12, 10 December 2024

Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Welcome to the discussion board for German-speaking Wikipedians! Feel free to discuss topics and articles of interest in either English or German. As this is the English-speaking Misplaced Pages, discussion in German may be requested for translation for non-German speakers. Happy editing!

Willkommen zum Diskussionsforum der deutschsprachigen Wikipedianer! Hier kannst du auf Deutsch oder auf Englisch über relevante Themen und Artikel diskutieren. Da dies die englische Misplaced Pages ist, kann jederzeit eine Übersetzung der Diskussion ins Englische angefordert werden. Viel Spaß!

Is Austrian a language?

I fully realize that there are some differences in spoken (and less in written) German from Austria to Germany, but does anyone think that a reference to an Austrian science journal (see Myrrha, ref 66) should list the language as "Austrian" (now changed to read Austrian German, but still pissing me off). BTW, the archive lists it as German and I highly doubt if we have a bot or whatever checking cite tags, that it will have a field for Austrian. Am I out to lunch? Also, since I live in America, should I stop saying that I speak English? Maybe I should stop saying that we use English units rather than metric (since they use more metric and less English now)? TCO (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are tons of Austrian dialects (most closely related to Bavarian), but they're usually not written. No scientific publications I have ever heard of are written in "Austrian". Depending on the author, you will get a few Austrianisms, like "Jänner" instead of January, but that's it; the written language is German in spite of those. BTW I didn't find the ref you meant on Myrrha, but it seems to have been cleaned up. Trigaranus (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Books and journals published in Austria are no more written in "Austrian" than books and journals published in the US are written in "American". In fact, less so, since Austrian German and German German are closer to each other than American English and English English. The correct term for the form of standard German written in Austria is "German", unless the variant used really matters, in which case one would call it "Austrian German". Hans Adler 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I got enough backup here (and even on the main board of Zherman wiki (!) with everyone saying to list it as German, so I just went to "2R"  ;). I would not make such a big deal, but es clingt falsch. Um...and one of the nice things about the citation templates is the ability for a bot to scan for languages or the like (for instance if adding translated variaties...so if we have some strangeness like referring to American or Austrian as languages will mess everything up.)TCO (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the English word for that, in German the expression ist that Austrian German is a Varietät of German (Interwiki of Varietät (Linguistik) links to Variety (linguistics)); it's like Britsh vs. Aussie vs. American English. There are more examples like Januar/Jänner, f. ex. lodging (noun) is Holzfällerei in DE-de but Holzschlägerei in DE-at. A butcher (BE) is Metzger in DE-de but Fleischhauer in DE-at. But there are also some specific spelling differences, f.e.x story (as in first story of a house) is Geschoss in DE-de but Geschoß (with a long o) in DE-at. See also de:Österreichisches Deutsch and Austrian German. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Should diacritics be encouraged or discouraged in article's titles?

You may be interested in my proposal here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi ranks

I have raised concern about the articles in Category:Nazi political ranks here --FJS15 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects and grammar

Members might be interested in this redirect for discussion --FJS15 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie

There are newly-created listings of the articles in the ADB in Category:Missing encyclopedic articles (Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie), which may be of interest to those wishing to create historical biographies here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesko Friedrich article nominated for deletion

The Jesko Friedrich article has been nominated for deletion. It appears that several sources may be available, which are in German. Any German-speaking editors care to help to improve the article?

—Northamerica1000 02:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

German page made at Wikimedia Australia workshop - needs review

A workshop participant has made this page: de:Benutzer:Florasoft/Hinchinbrook Insel - but she is the only one here who speaks German :-). Some of the translation is difficult apparently. Review/editing appreciated. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy talk 01:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Germany at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

I tried to do some on the medal winners etc, but apparently I suck at it. I don't know if this is the right place to ask for someone to work on it, but if it's not feel free to delete this.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC) =

Louis XIV — Strasbourg

Some of you might be interested in the Strasbourg discussion at: Talk:Louis XIV of France

Sca (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Translate and transwiki to the English Language Misplaced Pages help request:

Would someone who can translate German better than I can kindly translate/transwiki to the English wikipedia: Johann Wolfgang Jaeger and Jeremias Friedrich Reuss. Both men are significant intellectuals in 1600s/1700s Germany and have an academic genealogical influence on such major academics as Hegel. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.187.219 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Im Westen nichts Neues

Does the English translation "No News from the West" adequately capture the different meanings of "Im Westen nichts Neues"? A related question is: can this English phrase be offered as a literal translation in the lead of the article about All Quiet on the Western Front?

There is a discussion at Talk:All Quiet on the Western Front#Providing the literal translation in the lead.

Input from German-speaking Wikipedians would be most appreciated.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ibbenbüren train collision

I've created an article on today's passenger train collision with a vehicle on a level crossing which killed two people and injured 20. Assistance in expanding the article from German sources is sought. Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

German names, is "von" superfluous or not?

A disagreement has arisen concerning German names with the Nobiliary particle "von". More specifically this edit in Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen. It is my understanding that, since 1919, the "von" is a part of the surname and hence is anything but superfluous, but this is not generally accepted. Since I did not find any clear consensus one way or the other, this noticeboard seems to be the right place to ask the question: is the "von" superfluous and can be omitted or is it a part of the name which should be included? Are there any guidelines? Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding, insofar as it relates to Germany, is correct. Article 109 of the Constitution of the Weimar Republic said, relevantly, "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden." (Noble designations apply only as part of the (sur)name and may no longer be awarded.). Also relevant is Article 10 of the Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche (Introductory Act to the Civil Code), which says "Der Name einer Person unterliegt dem Recht des Staates, dem die Person angehört." (The name of a person is subject to the law of the State to which the person belongs.) So if you are German, and the surname you have inherited was preceded by a "von" immediately prior to 1919, then, unless your surname has since been changed by a procedure recognized by German law, it still includes the "von". In Austria, the law corresponding to article 109 was and still is different: § 2 of the Adelsaufhebungsgesetz abolished, amongst other things, "... das Recht zur Führung des Adelszeichens „von“" (the right to the use of the noble designation "von".) So, eg, in 1919 Friedrich von Hayek became Friedrich Hayek. I'm not sure of the position in Switzerland, but could probably find out if you wish to know. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. However, the question was not so much about the legal situation, but about the consensus on en.wikipedia, which may be different. Are there any policies, guidelines or even an RfC concerning this subject matter? A general rule or consensus? Kleuske (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, the starting point is that in Germany, the "von" is definitely part of the surname. Then you might want to look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people), which includes the following comments: "Some Western cultures use a "double last name" format ... The general rule in such cases is to title the article with the name by which the person is best known." (eg, Ursula von der Leyen); "Some people, particularly historical figures, are known by names in the format "<First name> of <Location>", such as Stephen of Ripon and Anne of Cleves. If, for a given person, this format is more often used than the usual "<First name> <Last name>" format, then it should be used as the article title." It's less clear how the subject of such an article should be referred to in the body of the article. For example, Ursula von der Leyen is referred to variously as "Ursula von der Leyen", "Leyen" and "von der Leyen" in the English Misplaced Pages article, but pretty much exclusively as "von der Leyen" in the German Misplaced Pages article. As she is (presently) little known and referred to in the Anglosphere, this suggests that the English Misplaced Pages article should be edited to adopt the same practice as the German Misplaced Pages article. However, the position may be different in cases of people referred to more often in English language sources, eg Manfred von Richthofen. In cases like that, I'd be looking at English language reliable sources to see how they refer to him. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Personally I strongly favor 'von So-and-so', but that's no ground to change anything. Besides, stictly speaking his surname would be Freiherr von Richthofen, i gather, which is a bit much on all accounts, so i'll mind WP:IDONTLIKEIT and thank you for the quick and thorough response. Kleuske (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(quick) help with DYK

Greetings. A DYK nomination has been created in which the hook fact has been cited to a source in German. I was hoping somebody would be willing to check that source, and see whether the fact is supported; shouldn't take more than a few minutes. The nomination is Template:Did you know nominations/The creation of the violin. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but the source is a book published 125 years ago, and there are no copies of it in any library within 10,000 km of where I live ... sorry. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah well. I was not aware that it would be difficult to get hold of. In that case, it would probably be best for me to AGF and pass the nomination, it's been open too long as is. Thanks anyhow, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

FRG 1949-1990 office holders

Someone, i suspect a "sour Kraut", has been editing 1949-1990 FRG articles to call the offices "Chancellor of Germany" "Foreign Minister of Germany" etc. even though those people were *not* all-German office holders.

Thoughts on what to do? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As another "Kraut" – I thought that such WW II denotations have gone – I do not see what is wrong with that. It is a mistake in the English language Misplaced Pages to distingush between "West Germany" and today "Germany". It is a problem in the EN:WP – even in Legal status of Germany – that cold war point of view is maintained, interestingly that coincides the East Germany point of view. Pityfully the most important parts of de:Rechtslage Deutschlands nach 1945 are not available in the EN counterpart of the article, explicitely those parts discussing the full idendity of the Deutsche Reich and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland as decided by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. OTOH – since you did not give any diff links I have to be unclear – it shoould be guarded that the modifications do not reflect the POV of the Reichsbürgerbewegung and other extremists. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Matthiasb: Sorry I stole the "sour Kraut" joke from that Red Dwarf episode where "Ace" Rimmer battles Nazi soldiers. If it was 1988, what would you recommend? Someone on en-wiki suggested using "FR Germany" as a way of disambiguate from the GDR. But, the FRG is also the name of post-reunification Germany so that does not work. Presidents and Chancellors and ministers of FRG between 1949 and 1990 were not all-German offices. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
(West) German passport as issued before introduction of common all-EU design, this one according to file description from 1982
German passports, issued since 2005
Not really. Actually, 1990, there wasn't a unification of the GDR and the FRG but the GDR declared "accession" ("Beitritt") to the FRG according to the until then existing article 23 of the (then West) German Grundgesetz. (In a similar way the Saarland joined the FRG in 1957.) See German_reunification#German Reunification Treaty and following section.
Mr Kohl's chancellorship began 1982 and ended 1998 but there is no distinction of west German chancellorship and all-German chancellorship but he was simply the sixth chancellor of the FRG – his second term as chancellor began in 1987 and ended early in 1991, when the on 2 December elected Bundestag constituted. Therefor Mr. Schröder was the seventh cancellor and Mrs. Merkel is the eight. --Matthiasb (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Locomore

I started an article on Locomore. --Ysangkok (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

de.wp image copyright question

Guten Tag! Looking at this page on de.wp, it is pretty vehement that the image might not be suitable for upload to Commons (that bit's in English!) but I'd quite like to know why, if someone could pull out the main points it is making? We've got a few pages that could use that and similar images, so it would be nice to know from the start where we're going to stand.

All help received is greatly appreciated. Cheers! — O Fortuna! 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
This standard advise in English is precautionary (and in some cases wrong). There are many other similar files already on Commons (see c:Special:Search/Der Großdeutsche Reichstag 1938). Some of them use c:Template:PD-old, which is not correct (the author is unknown so we can not claim that the author "died more than 70 years ago"). However there is a suitable license for this case: c:Template:PD-Germany-§134 (analog to the de:Template:Bild-PD-§-134 used for the file you mentioned). So it seems to me you can upload this file to Wikimedia Commons. If there are further questions regarding licenses I would recommend asking them at Wikimedia Commons. HTH -- Reise Reise (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Reise Reise: Many thanks for the advice mate. Will do; take care. — O Fortuna! 16:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Přísečnice?

Actually Preßnitz is the article on the river while Přísečnice is the article on the town which after 1945 only was named Přísečnice (and still existed for three decades). --Matthiasb (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete article that already exists under German name

I've launched a request to delete the article "Narodil se Kristus pán" right here. The article already exists at Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt, and "Narodil se Kristus pán" should be merged into it. "Narodil se Kristus pán" was initially a redirect created by User:Gerda Arendt that went to "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt." FWIW "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt" is on the Main Page today, in the Did you know... section. Narodil se Kristus pán was expanded from a redirect seemingly with nationalistic intent by User:Heptapolein after the first one was created, with no consensus from anyone else. There is not even any other articles that link to it. It would help to get some input on it's AfD page. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

de:EDU in need of attention

Guten Abend: an editor over-wrote the redirect from EDU to Edu in English Misplaced Pages, replacing it by a promotional piece about a dubious-sounding educational institution: this has been reverted. I see that they've done the same in de.wiki, and my German isn't up to working out how to revert it there or where to leave a message about it. Perhaps someone here could help - see de:EDU, which for 12 years until 22 August 2018 was a redirect to de:Edu. Grusse, PamD 22:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Today, the de.wiki redirs are fine: There, de:EDU is a redir to the disambig de:Edu, and also there exists a new article de:EDU (Hochschule) created by this editor, which is also mentionend in the disambig de:Edu. Hochschule translates to University, thus on your talkpage I see the the user is currently trying to create such an article, I assume with the content of this. I think we can leave it up to the de.wiki people whether de:EDU (Hochschule) is notable – for en.wiki, of course, we ourselfs are responsible... I wrote some notices for Eleonorexoxo on her German talk page. --Cyfal (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Resource Exchange request

If anyone could look in at my request here and let me know if you know anything, I'd be very grateful. As it is, I'm not even sure what I'm asking for  :) danke schön! ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

problem at President of Germany (1919–1945)

this article has attracted the persistence of a user who seems to think that the official name of Germany as a country under Hitler was ACTUALLY "the Third Reich". It was not. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

translation of "ze Werde"

I'm cleaning up the article Neustadt an der Donau, and came across the phrase "ze Werde." Apparently this had some specific meaning in Urkunde, as these are the only places google shows it. Peter Flass (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it means "at Wöhr". Accd. to de:Neustadt an der Donau, Wöhr was originally called "wert" or something like that, and "ze" I would assume is an older or dialect form of "zu". --Rosenzweig (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Peter Flass@Rosenzweig Ze wert(e) is Middle High German for "on the island". If you look at the map of Neustadt an der Donau, you will find that there are many bits of water that are obviously parts of the previous course of the river. The river looks like it has been rectified in modern times. The area called "Wöhr" is in the middle of this, so I'm guessing it was once an island in the river. Elsewhere in Bavaria you will find cities built on rivers at places where there were islands, probably because this makes it easier to cross (two small rivers instead of one big one), so they were natural convergence points for trade routes, and in these places forms of wert are not uncommon in placenames. So Regensburg's Unterer Wöhrd and Nürnberg's Wörder Wiese both lie between branches of their respective rivers.
Aaaaand, I've just realized that this thread is five years old, so maybe the question is not relevant anymore, but there it is anyway. Doric Loon (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
yes, old, but thanks anyway. I learned something new. Peter Flass (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Accurate summary of German source?

Hi, re the Hans Modrow article, is this current wording...

also called East Germany an "effective democracy."

...an accurate summary of Modrow's answer below?

(question) War die DDR für Sie eine Diktatur oder eine Demokratie?
(answer) Sie ist für mich der Versuch einer sozialistischen Entwicklung, in der auch Demokratie mit Einschränkungen wirksam war.

(source: cicero.de)
If not, what wording would be better?

Thanks and happy editing, Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm...what was probably meant was that it was "effectively a democracy". Now mulling over a good translation/rendering of the underlying thought...Lectonar (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"An attempt at socialist development in which democracy was somewhat working, albeit with limitations." This should catch the gist of what he said...what is implied is taht it was indeed a failed attempt, and you can feel his disappointment through his words. Lectonar (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree - I don't think it's accurate to say an "effective democracy" because the quote is talking about an attempt. -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)~~

"Liveright"?

I have just put up an article on German-American Arkansas businessman and politician Harmon L. Remmel. His middle name is given as "Liveright" in all sources. I suspect this is a literal translation of a German name - what would that be? His father was born "Gottlieb Remmel" but is identified on his gravestone as "Godlove Remmel".Brianyoumans (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This could be the given name Leberecht or Lebrecht. --Cyfal (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
"Liveright" is a terrible translation, but Germans in 19th-century America did that kind of thing to assimilate, and if that is the name he actually used, you should cite it that way. Doric Loon (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! It was mere curiosity, I suppose. Unless I found a source that said his actual middle name was something like "Leberecht", I wouldn't mention it in the article. But, because of the way his father's name was translated, I suspect that that's what they did with "Liveright".Brianyoumans (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Bild

I've opened a discussion on the reliability of the German-language tabloid Bild. see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Bild. Please participate if interested thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)