Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rotes Rathaus

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stemonitis (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 19 June 2007 (→Stenmonitus: not true). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:25, 19 June 2007 by Stemonitis (talk | contribs) (→Stenmonitus: not true)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconGermany Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Recently I noticed in a book published in 1926 that what we now call Rotes Rathaus was just called "Rotes Haus". Can anybody clarify the date when this name change occured??? IsarSteve 09:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is called Rotes Rathaus but the text calls it Das Rote Rathaus - which is it? Adam 01:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Rotes Rathaus" is the "official" form in german. When you say "The Red Town Hall" it is in german "Das Rote Rathaus", only "Red Town Hall" means "Rotes Rathaus". You can also say "i go to the red town hall" which means in german "ich gehe zum Roten Rathaus". It has to do with the grammar but don't ask me which exact rule this is ;-) --BLueFiSH ✉ 09:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:UE this should be under English name, unless the German name is widely used in English publications. Rotes Rathaus - 65 books but only 21 are in English. Red Town Hall gives us 51 obviously English publications. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stenmonitus

Explain why you renamed this English wikipedia article to a German name, despite the external links clearly show there are used ENGLISH alternatives. I hope you have a decent explanation. Surprise me.Rex 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The book search referred to by Piotrus as coming up with 51 obvious English publications for Red Town hall shows about half Charles Dickens books about red town halls and some about red town hall in Vienna.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.225.41 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Rex, there are several reasons why I undid your moves.
  1. Firstly, there are several alternative English translations, and I think a discussion would be warranted to find whether any of them is appropriate as a title, and if so, which.
  2. Secondly, I don't think the evidence for each name has been studied in enough detail. Simple counts are not enough, because we need to know how each purported name is being used. If someone says "The Rotes Rathaus (meaning "red city hall") is the Berlin town hall", then only the first is being used as a name, with the others being merely explanatory. This sort of investigation has not been carried out. Indeed, if the anonymous editor above is right, many of the hits don't even refer to this building.
  3. Thirdly, you were clearly acting hastily. You evidently didn't consider all the options carefully or take time to establish trends in usage in the three minutes (!) you took to mull it over. This is clear from the fact that you moved it again two minutes later.
  4. Fourthly, I have suspicions that your moves are part of a personal campaign to rid Misplaced Pages of this one German word. I imagine you thought it would strengthen your case in the discussion at Talk:Rathaus if this article did not have "Rathaus" in its title. There is no reason to get rid of that disambiguation page, and there is no reason to retitle this one.
  5. Fifthly, this move of yours has been reverted three times by three different editors. Surely that alone indicates that there is consensus against it.
Any one of those would have been reason enough for me to undo your actions. Taking all five together, it's overwhelming. --Stemonitis 05:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As I expected none are convincing, let alone "overwhelming".
  1. If there are multiple English 'translations' (or terms used) then why do you revert back to a German name? The English term I used was established. A discussion on alternative English names would have been perfectly fine, but by what "logic" did you return to a German name on the English wikipedia?!
  2. That's your personal opinion. The same can be said to the person who used the German name. Did he or she research the English name for the English wikipedia? Apparently not.
  3. Again your personal opinion. I looked for possibilities and found them. It was not, as you suggest, a split second decision.
  4. Not even a reason. I make it very clear on my user page that I'm a big supporter of Naming conventions. Germanophones aren't, for some reason they like to use German words for things perfectly translatable in English. It's their problem not mine. Do you think German translators are anti German as wel? Ridiculous. It does in turn say something about your actions though. More than it does about mine.
  5. My move has only be reverted by you. No others. And if they opposed then why do/did I only see pro-move comments here and none of the opposers? Right.Rex 17:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To tackle just one point: . --Stemonitis 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories: