Talk:Schaffhausen

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Switzerland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities 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 articles

List of mayors of Schaffhausen was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 April 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Schaffhausen. 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.

The article states that a hundred people were killed in Schaffhausen during the American bombing raid, however a Swiss site on the subject lists 49 dead and 271 wounded...which numbers should take priority? (The former come from an American history book on the war in Italy.)

(My preference is for the Swiss figures.)

http://schaffhausen-nostalgie-foto.ch/266,0,schaffhausen-bombardiert-,index,0.html

Historian932 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Schaffhausen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160802003536/http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/02/blank/data/07/03.html to http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/02/blank/data/07/03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105172441/http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/regionen/02/key.html to http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/regionen/02/key.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501142322/http://www.bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/internet/bs/de/home/themen/kgs/kgs_inventar.html to http://www.bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/internet/bs/de/home/themen/kgs/kgs_inventar.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Schaffhausen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160926002720/http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/16/02/01/data.html to http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/16/02/01/data.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013103203/http://schaffhausen-tourismus.ch/en/welcome.cfm to http://www.schaffhausen-tourismus.ch/en/welcome.cfm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Schaffhausen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101223004/http://www.ref-sh.ch/kg/sjm/bericht/3832 to http://www.ref-sh.ch/kg/sjm/bericht/3832
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727215043/http://www.rheinfall.org/ to http://www.rheinfall.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the "exclave" wording, per the detailed description given in the exclave article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm no longer sure about this. I'll have to think some more. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was right the first time. Besides, the Büsingen article has called it an exclave since 2006. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Started a new discussion below before I saw this. Please see below. DocFergus (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war has broken out on whether this town is an enclave or an exclave. Although the two words are not directly antonyms of each other, there are distinctions in their meaning and usage.

Enclave

With the 'en-' prefix meaning inside, an enclave is a territory totally surrounded by another single territory. It must be ethnically or culturally different to the surrounding territory. The territory must exist as an entity in its own right. These last two would apparently exclude Büsingen am Hochrhein from being an enclave.

Exclave

With the 'ex-' prefix meaning outside, an exclave is a territory surrounded by multiple territories. It is also a territory surrounded by another single territory where the surrounded territory is separated from a parent territory. This would apparently include Büsingen am Hochrhein

Over the passing of time, the meanings and usage have become less distinct. Not that long ago, Büsingen am Hochrhein would be regarded by Germany as an exclave (of Germany) - as in 'outside (ex-) of Germany'. But it would also be regarded by Switzerland as an enclave (of Switzerland) - as in 'inside (en-) of Switzerland'. Thus a territory could be both an enclave and an exclave.

The version of English that should be used in the 21st century should use modern words and usage. The word 'exclave' has largely fallen into disuse over the last 100 years or so. In fact you would be very hard pushed to find a (printed) English dictionary published in the last 50 years or so that even includes the word (on line dictionaries often include it but note that it is little used today). If not actually officially an archaic word, it is certainly obsolete. In 21st century English, 'enclave' has become an all encompassing word for any territory surrounded by one or more other territories.

Thus we can say today that Switzerland itself is an enclave of France, Germany, Austria and Italy. For all I know, the modern German language may well still have an equivalent for 'excalve' (but not in my English-German dictionary), but then this article isn't written in German.

This article should stick to the modern usage and not attempt to resort to obsolete words not in common usage. DocFergus (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OED lists it as "frequency band 3" and says "A portion of territory separated from the country to which it politically belongs and entirely surrounded by alien dominions: seen from the viewpoint of the ‘home’ country (as opposed to an enclave, the same portion of territory as viewed by the surrounding dominions)." Using that definition, Busingen's article should list it as an exclave, which it does, and Schaffhausen should list it as an enclave, as far as I can tell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the last part of the above. Further research shows that only the online dictionary that I looked at lists the word 'exclave' as obsolete (typical!). None of the others that I checked do. In fact there is a lot of on line evidence that 'exclave' is coming back into usage, and one source even blamed the Wikipedia article. In view of the definitions given above and at Enclave and exclave, I have reverted my own edit to restore the clearly correct 'exclave' to the article. As Sarek notes, this provides consistency with the Büsingen am Hochrhein article and also with Enclave and exclave.

It clearly cannot be an enclave from anyone's point of view because there is no evidence that it is 'culturally or ethnically different'. DocFergus (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is one other issue. Per WP:NPOV, this article, like any, article should be written from a neutral point of view. Certainly neither the German point of view nor the Swiss point of view. And, of course, this is not the German or the Swiss Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia. A Neutral point of view (looking down from above?) is that Büsingen am Hochrhein is an exclave surrounded by Swiss territory and separated from its parent country (the exact definition of 'exclave'). As already emphasised, it cannot be an enclave because there is no evidence that it is culturally or ethnically different from Switzerland as an enclave would have to be. DocFergus (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stress is actually on the /au/. There is also no secondary stress. See DUDEN, Das Aussprachewörterbuch, Mannheim (etc.): Dudenverlag, 1990.