Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia ist, kann jederzeit eine Übersetzung der Diskussion ins Englische angefordert werden. Viel Spaß!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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?

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) =[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, the starting point is that in Germany, the "von" is definitely part of the surname. Then you might want to look at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia article, but pretty much exclusively as "von der Leyen" in the German Wikipedia article. As she is (presently) little known and referred to in the Anglosphere, this suggests that the English Wikipedia article should be edited to adopt the same practice as the German Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Reise Reise: Many thanks for the advice mate. Will do; take care. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Through the Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol I found the new article Přísečnice, which I belive should be merged wth, and redirected to the article Preßnitz 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. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guten Abend: an editor over-wrote the redirect from EDU to Edu in English Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

yes, old, but thanks anyway. I learned something new. Peter Flass (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Modrow] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)~~[reply]

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)[reply]

This could be the given name Leberecht or Lebrecht. --Cyfal (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]