Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany

ProjectDiscussionOpen tasksAssessmentFeatured ContentMembersPortal

User Gim709

The edits of this user -- the vast majority of which involve various German polities and subjects -- need to be closely examined. I have caught them using a false reference on an edit to German Empire, I suppose in an attempt to have the information they added not be deleted from the article. A quick look at some others of their edits did not disabuse me of the thought that their edits need to be monitored, a task the members of this project would obviously be ideal for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That edit of mine on German Empire is based on an information on Otto von Bismarck from which I also copied the source, sorry if I don't know the source is problematic. Gim709 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Der/die/das order ... or is it der/das/die?

If you are interested in that sort of thing, please have a look at Talk:German articles#Der/die/das order – again, where I attempt to reopen the question of revising that article so it works in der/die/das order rather than its current der/das/die. On the other hand, if you are not interested, then please have a nice day anyway. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related requested move

To get things clear (and wider discussed) I have started a formal requested move: Talk:Hartheim Killing Facility#Requested move 5 December 2022. The Banner talk 17:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names of districts

We have three different types of names of German districts:
I would prefer a unification.

Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first example needs "(district)" as a disambiguator because there is also a town of Groß-Gerau. The third example does not need a disambiguator because there is no town of Waldeck-Frankenberg, they are still separate municipalities. That leaves the second example. The practice seems to be that, where "kreis" is part of the name, we don't separate it and call the article e.g. "Wetterau (district)" or "Main-Taunus (district)", the "(district)" being needed in both cases to disambiguate from other articles. There's no particular reason why we couldn't, just as we usually split e.g. Rheintal and call it Rhine valley. However, the latter works because it's the WP:COMMONNAME whereas I'm not aware of English sources calling e.g. Wetteraukreis anything other than that. Bermicourt (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooops, I spoke too soon. There is an official site called "Wetterau District" here and another called "Main-Taunus District". So maybe worth thinking about. That would probably mean changing all district articles to "Foo District" for consistency e.g. Groß-Gerau District and Waldeck-Frankenburg District. That would then follow the practice with Austrian districts. Bermicourt (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are also X Land district names. Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In German there are the following forms (see the subcategories of de:Kategorie:Landkreis in Deutschland):
  • Landkreis X (e.g. Landkreis Waldshut, Landkreis Stendal, Landkreis Berchtesgadener Land, Landkreis Havelland)
  • Kreis X (e.g. Kreis Borken)
  • Xkreis (e.g. Wetteraukreis, Main-Tauber-Kreis, Oberbergischer Kreis, Eifelkreis Bitburg-Prüm)
  • districts with a disambiguator (e.g. Landkreis Rotenburg (Wümme), Landkreis Lindau (Bodensee), Landkreis Nienburg/Weser)
  • districts with special names (e.g. Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim, Kreis Herzogtum Lauenburg)
  • special cases (Region Hannover, Städteregion Aachen, Regionalverband Saarbrücken)
Since many of the districts are named after towns and hence by definition ambiguous, I could support moving all to X District. Except the districts that have "kreis" in their name, I prefer to keep those at the German name. I'm not sure what to do with the special cases, "Herzogtum Lauenburg District" sounds a bit awkward. Markussep Talk 08:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that there is no consistent system in the original German names (there are probably thirteen different systems with different exceptions), I do not think we should invent our own. Is there a system commonly used in reliable sources in English talking about German districts? If not, I would go for official names, which means German names (none of the links provided by Bermicourt are official sites of the districts), or translate "Kreis X" and "Landkreis X" but keep others in German. —Kusma (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good points and happy to leave it as it is. I'm not even a great fan even of the translation "district", simply because several other German levels of administration are also commonly translated "district" including Bezirk, Stadtbezirk, Stadtteil, (Stadt)quartier, Gemeindebezirk and the older Distrikt. The German Liaison Services of the British Forces in Germany, as well as the British Embassy, avoided this confusion by calling all the Kreise, "counties", which roughly corresponds to similar divisions in Britain and the US (fitting neatly below "state" as it would in Germany) and frees the term "district" for other levels of administration. The term "county" is also used on English language websites and in some English language books, so it is entirely valid. Of course, the official EU term is "district", but AFAIK they don't give any guidance about translating the other terms. Bermicourt (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are EU translations for some other divisions, see pages 58–59 of 160. For instance Bezirk as part of a town or city is "borough". I'm fine with leaving the titles as they are. Markussep Talk 12:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 DoneThis draft has been submitted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and after looking at the sources I concluded it needs to be reviewed by an editor fluent in German who also participates using Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Thanks for considering this request. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IIII (album)#Requested move 2 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not strictly a German topic, but it's German adjacent: the article Southtyroleans needs more eyes on it, for reasons that will immediately be obvious if you read it (or look at the spelling of the article title). See also talk:Southtyroleans#Name and talk:Southtyroleans#Unbalanced POV.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated it for deletion. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Inner German border

User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured article review for Battle of Schellenberg

I have nominated Battle of Schellenberg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third Reich NSDAP cabinet 1925

According to the 2nd template; "Feel free to improve the article". In the past 5 days I have made 10 such improvement edits of apx 5000 bytes. My intention is to clarify the article in reference to the deletion discussion.
There are 4 sections of this article. 1. Opening text describing the theme of the article in direct reference to 22 numbers. 2. A block of the 22 numbers, containing the published references by 22 authors who published the 22 numbers, with names allotted to each number. 3. A block of the 22 names (linked to their individual articles), with images. / 4. The 22 section headings containing, my clip notes from the 22 articles of these names. Of these 4 sections, section 4 is already accessible in section 3, and therefore redundant. If I leave section 4 in the article, the clip notes may be expanded to the length of 22 articles! It is my intention to put these clip notes into section 2, for quick, basic references on 22 known individuals, using section 2 for access to fuller details. Section 4, will be used for two new (relevant to section 1) section headings. Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat.
As such, would there be any objection to deleting the 22 redundant section headings, putting the clip notes in 2 block, (what it was created for), and replacing these with the more-relevant Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat sections. If I am not allowed to do this, are there any objections/comments/discussions, to deleting the 22 sections in 4.
I believe that the/my final draft will be self evident, and hopefully acceptable to any critics of my starting draft, and final draft. Any constructive help will be appreciated. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Riesling

Riesling has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from ""