Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

This issue, which I expect has come up before, has been raised at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_1#Categories_for_pre-Germany_years. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could contribute to the discussion at Talk:New Länder? Rd232 ^talk 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm thinking that project members could offer to help each other out with references.

Some books are not found in libraries outside Germany. Article writers who live elsewhere could benefit from editors who are able to look up books and copy out relevant text.

Other books are found only in some libraries in Germany, and editors who live in Germany but not in that city could likewise benefit from such assistance.

Also, while it is not yet on the Wikipedia radar as far as I can tell, quality control in the future will likely require not only referencing (i.e., in-line cites with footnotes) but also that references be checked by another editor to ensure that a book indeed says what the footnote claims it does. Here too we could help each other out by offering to perform such a service.

As a start, project members who like this proposal and want to help might want to sign their names below.

1. I'm in. Libraries that I can visit: Deutsche Bibliothek, Studenten- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, Stadtbücherei Frankfurt am Main.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about doing a Wikipedia:Signpost article on foreign GA processes. I have the beginnnings of an article at User:Peregrine Fisher/Workspace/. Is anyone familiar with the German Wikipedia GA process (or FA) and could you describe it on my workspace page? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably could find some help at the Help Desk as well, and likely a quicker response. Grsz¹¹ 19:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I just became aware of the defunct Munich Portal through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Munich. Would there be anybody willing to help out in getting that portal active again? Agathoclea (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently developing the article for the film Valkyrie about the July 20 plot. The film had its European premiere in Berlin yesterday (the 20th) and will commercially open in Germany tomorrow (the 22nd), so I was wondering if any editors here were willing to look for German news sources that could be translated and used for the "Theatrical run in Germany", "German critics", or "Historical accuracy" sections at the film article. Please come by the talk page if you are interested in contributing! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello;

I am working on Edmontosaurus, and I was wondering if someone who lives in the vicinity of the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt could take a photo or two of the "mummy duckbill" dinosaur specimen on display there for use in the article. The skull (with the bony ring in the eye socket and remains of the keratin extension of the beak) or one of the hands with skin impressions would be ideal, but I'm interested in any photographs. I could do some copyediting in return; I'm most familiar with paleontological subjects, but I can work on grammar and phrasing for other types of articles. Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is now rated as a Start Class, not a Stub...I will continue to work Corpus1 (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)on it... Greeks in Germany

If you can please add more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpus1 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be an idea. Anybody against me trying it? Agathoclea (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know Germany uses a lot of wind power, but have had some difficulty finding up-to-date information about the largest wind farms in the country. Would someone happen to know what the top ten largest wind farms are in Germany? Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

[1] is a good starting place. Inwind (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Something in English would be nice... Johnfos (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

TheChancellor of Germany article was split into Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) and Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) to distinguish between the two offices- this split has been challenged on the Talk:Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) page. Comments wanted! Gavin (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are required at Template talk:Infobox German location#Map size to discuss the new proposals to increase the size of the current maps in location boxes in favour of a smaller coat of arms versus map ration as normal. pLease join in and offers whether you approve of the idea or not because we don't want objections later! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Does anyone know reliable sources for comics and manga published in Germany. I'm mostly interested in German RS websites hosting reviews.
Thanks. --KrebMarkt 09:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just came accross SM U-66 which is a GA-class but another project has promoted to A-class. Any ideas how to proceed here? Agathoclea (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

possibly a moo point anyway as this is going for FAC Agathoclea (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen here, a divison dealing with culture is planned but not yet installed. I'd like to participate in such a division, or if possible a division solely made for music. Is there any news about this topic? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just get started on the page - work out an outline of what you want covered and see who joins. If there is enough activity there could be a switch in the banner. Agathoclea (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture or music? Anyway, thanks for your fast response!--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no interest at all I guess. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say people are just busy. eg I have been meaning to resurrect the newsletter for quite some time and failed because of being distracted. Agathoclea (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The "divisions" structure was borrowed from somewhere, and nobody ever did something about them. Perhaps it would be best to remove all these red links and only create them as need arises, so the little discussion that goes on here isn't fractionized even further. On another note, from my own experience, I think you can't get people to join by promising an abstract structure (they'll just "sign up" but won't do any work for you), you need to have something with a little meat inside: concrete projects to fix/translate/expand specific articles. It isn't easy to set up and to get people interested, but it sort of works if you are prepared to do the background work of finding good and fun projects that others can do. Good luck, Kusma (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the correct region code for Brandenburg is not DE-BR but DE-BB, see Template talk:Infobox German location#Brandenburg. Unfortunately, many articles use the wrong code in their "coordinates" template. Looks like a task for some bot to change them. --ulm (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A German speaking editor has created this article. It needs copyediting and wikilinking and references improved. I've asked him to address the issue of inline citations. Would anyone like to have a go at the copyediting and wikifying? Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently at FAC. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We have reached an impasse in the negotiations on the issues of politically charged terminology originating from the Cold War era, making the corresponding articles written about comparable subjects seem like they don’t relate to each other. The only question is whether a balance can be found between conflicting policy guidelines discussed here by both German and Polish editors, namely, WP:V and WP:NC.

The issues revolve around the migration of Poles and Germans after World War II, euphemistically called “repatriations” and/or “expulsions” and/or “deportations” and/or “flight” and/or “displacement” depending on which side of the fence the sources originate from. In the process, we created conflicting realities within one project, all of them inflammatory and misleading. The only legally correct term for these events in my opinion is population transfers, as per definition of international law, and in accordance with academically neutral language applicable to all cases. Unfortunately, editors inspired by emotive eloquence of writers and historians from across the Iron Curtain disagree on many particulars, so I’m not sure if all of us can see the writing on the wall.

Liberated German and Polish POWs travelling from Siberia to new Poland and to new Western Germany were encountering similar challenges along the way, to a differing degree of course. A lot of them went to great lengths to have their nationality recognized by the Russians, who routinely refused them the right to migrate back to their countries of origin (with already redrawn borders). Stalin considered many of them as his subjects, while, at the same time, conducting massive operations across central Europe in accordance with the provisions of Yalta Agreement. The Americans, the French and the British were not around to significantly influence the process of forced resettlement, which was a source of much tragedy and distress for civilian Germans from Pomerania and Silesia as well as the civilian Poles from Kresy, Volhynia and Podolia. The similarities are striking, not only in terms of how it must have felt for many of them, but also, how the Wikipedia articles about the affected cities and towns are presented. We all know that there's no going back.

I would like to propose that the articles dealing with these matters were re-examined for neutrality and renamed, so they can fit into the same category within the postwar history of Europe and world. We can start with two corresponding subjects, i.e. the Resettlement of Poles after World War II, and the Resettlement of Germans after World War II, as they are two parts of one area of postwar history. Please express your opinion. --Poeticbent talk 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the Talk:Repatriation of Poles. --Poeticbent talk 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. --Poeticbent talk 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic has always been fraught. Even with the best of intentions and treading very carefully, it's almost impossible to find language that both sides find acceptable. (A similar situation exists with the Czech expulsions of ethnic Germans post-WWII.) I'll take a look at the articles but will only make edits if I see a good chance of getting them accepted by both sides.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• At this initial stage, I think, it would be most productive if you began your research by listing the proposed changes to existing nomenclature (mentioned above), and placed your suggestions at both discussion boards for everybody else to see and comment on. We don't want a revert war to take place along the way, do we. --Poeticbent talk 18:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started with an identical opening statement on three boards, and is now (surprise) forking. Maybe the opener can choose one board for his thread and link it to the other boards? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know on what basis Fritz Ries sent to Nazi Occupied Poland and responsible for overseeing Jewish slave labour was granted the Expellee status after the war ? I stumbled on his article on German Wiki and it wasn't explained at all. I am planning to create an article on that person and would like to see if there any additonal resources--Molobo (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he was politically well connected, especially within the conservative parties in post-war Germany, according to these two sources (Der Spiegel): [2] & [3]. That would have helped. EA210269 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Interesting case.--Molobo (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just (nearly) completed a total overhaul of Wikipedia's translation system. Previously, there was a very complicated method of posting translation requests. Now there are simply tags, such as {{Expand German}}, that can be placed on stub articles (or longer articles if appropriate). I have tried to review all previous translation requests. Many translation requests were very old and no longer seemed needed, because the English Wikipedia article had developed in the meantime. Other translation requests were fixed by adding tags to existing English-language articles. Other articles I generally could create stubs myself that I could add the tags to. But a few articles, which I am placing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Old translation requests, I didn't think I could do well enough to withstand deletion. Hopefully people here can create stubs for these, and tag them with {{Expand German}}, so that translation can take place later. If you are interested in checking out other articles in need of translation (the ones that are properly tagged already), see Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work, but I'm not sure how good the idea to translate articles from the German Wikipedia is, a lot of them are unreferenced. Would they not therefore constitute an unreliable source? EA210269 (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my worry. Interestingly enough this was one of the reasons for creating a stub for every municipality some time back to avoid indiscriminate translating of de-wiki articles under who-knows-what articlenames. In particular I remember using details from an article some time back where the German article made a rather unusual claim about signpost in the area (signposts mounted higher than elsewhere due to the higher than usual theft rate because of the unusual name of the place) - I questioned the author of that particular statement who was a local of that locality who could not provide a statement and who subsequently after some WP:OR (tape measure) found the rumor to be untrue. As far as I am concerned we have a taskforce that deals with municipalities so we actually know which ones are stubs and need expanding without a further tag on the article. Agathoclea (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I translated a large portion of the article I wrote on a German municipality, especially the history portion, directly from the official town website. The fact that I know the town well from a personal standpoint was, admittedly, a great help in writing the article, as was the fact that I had read some of that same information from other sources, the names of which I have long forgotten.. I guess this raises a larger issue of the reliability of source documents. We have to start somewhere, I would say, and authors of wikipedia articles, like all authors of any piece, have to in some way try to sort the wheat from the chaff, that is, make certain value judgements about the validity of their source material. It is not always practical nor possible to reference the original source material, nor is THAT material always correct. (Herodotus comes to mind.) Nor is scholarship purportedly written based on original sources always correct (the Bellesiles scandal comes to mind.) I guess I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, of course, but isn't the correction of inaccurate information why we have a strong editing system in place? The truth will out, and so forth and so on..... Cheers! NDM (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:12, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Trying this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article alerts. Agathoclea (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember to give links from your front page (or something equivalent), otherwise nearly no one will know about them.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, maybe someone would like to share their expertise at Talk:Berlin_Wall? Basically the question is about the status of displaced persons (ethnic Germans, Poles from Eastern Poland etc.) in Eastern Europe after WWII and about whether the characterization of Übersiedler as "Eastern Europeans moving westward in West Germany" is appropriate in the context of the Berlin Wall. Regards, Yaan (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Some coding just has changed and all articles that are marked B but do not have the individual checks marked have been demoted to C including the above mentioned Berlin wall. Agathoclea (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, that will require null edits to move them from the B to the C category. See e.g. Talk:Bruno Walter which is still in Category:B-Class Germany articles. This opportunity could be taken to try and assess the B-class requirements. --Amalthea 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just all have gone back from C-class to B-class with the latest release of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Germany articles by quality log. Agathoclea (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask members of the WikiProject to comment on the contributions of this user: Special:Contributions/Gereonmc?

They have created articles such as Counties of Germany and County Boroughs of Germany (could someone check if these are cut-and-pastes?) and started changing wording and links in other articles e.g. [4] and [5].

I seem to remember our nomenclature for Lands-/Kreise and Bezirke was discussed at length at some time in the past, and formal consensus and style guidelines drawn up. The nomenclature being introduced by this new user, seemingly based on the United Kingdom's district naming, doesn't seem to be standard, and a wider discussion should precede any massive changes.

Comments? Knepflerle (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was me! I worked for the German County Association in Brussels and also dealt with this nomenclature. So the offical name for Landkreis/Kreis in the german local communities associations is county. District is not appropriate as it is only referring to an administrative level. But the counties and county boroughs are democratic self governmental units with the right of self-goverment stated in the german constitution. District is more likely to be the Regierungsbezirk which is only administrative and belongs to the administration of the Bundesland. It ist crucial for understanding the german federalism to distinguish between the different levels of democracy and federalism. In Germany there are three levels. The federal level, the level of the regions/Bundesländer and the local level. The allocation of duties and responibilities is done by the constitution. The Regierungsbezirk is a regional level of administration. The Landkreis is in first place a local level of self-government above the municipalities. Only on the second place the Counties execute administrative tasks for the Länder or the Federal state. According to this the "Deutscher Landkreistag" (German County Association, the "Deutscher Städte und Gemeindebund" (German Association of Towns and Municipalities) and the Deutscher Städtetag (German Association of Cities) try to use a consistent nomenclature. Which is

Landkreis/Kreis: County kreisfreie Stadt: County Borough Regierungsbezirk: regional district (regional is added to underline that this level belongs to the Länder-Level. The Bundesländer are within the European nomeclature NUTS 1, i.e. regions)--Gereonmc (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the European nomenclature NUTS?imars (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think these articles shouldn't have be renamed. And if they are cut and paste moves, it should be reverted. Wikipedia naming is based on, what name is in common use and well known; not what name is used by an administrative level like the EU. (The COI aside.) Greetings -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The EU English style guide (see Annex 5, page 119 of 130) uses "district" for "Kreis", "urban district" for "Stadtkreis" and "Kreisfreie Stadt", and "government region" for "Regierungsbezirk". I would say: keep the situation we had until today, that is Kreis=district and Regierungsbezirk=region. Markussep ^Talk 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check the iate database of the EU you will see the whole cunfusion. County Borough for kreisfreie Stadt, district for Regierungsbezirk and Landkreis etc.

You can also check the homepage http://www.kreisnavigator.de/landkreistag/englisch-index.htm of the Deutscher Landkreistag the top level association of the german Landkreise. They call themselfs County Association. The main reason is to say it again, that a district is only a adiministrative unit whereas a county is a self-governmental unit. This is a cornerstone of federalism that even units on a lower level are self-governed. If you mix up this terminology you will never get an understanding for federalism. And in the end an Encyclopedia should use right and unambiguous terms and not wrong common use. Make a german district-page in wikipedia, explain the difference between a Regierungsbezirk and a Landkreis in a nutshell and link it to the correct pages.--Gereonmc (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict, WP:NCCN is clear, imho. And the new or other names by this Association can be mentioned in the text—as it happens quite often—if it is already necessary. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This Association is the official umbrella organisation of all 323 Landkreise in Germany.--Gereonmc (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that NUTS tends to map translations to British political nomenclature – which is not universally followed throughout the English-speaking world. For instance, “county borough” is unintelligible to most Americans, for whom a “county” is the major political subdivision of a U.S. state and a “borough” – where used – is usually an administrative/voting subdivision of a city. Further thought needs to be given to how to represent these German governmental divisions before implementing large-scale changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you (=Gereonmc) provide a link to that EU database you refer to? The difference in meaning between "county" and "district" you suggest is not correct IMO, see for instance the Merriam-Webster dictionary entries county and district. Both are administrative units for local government. "Administrative unit" does not imply that it is only for e.g. statistical purposes, it can also have an administration = local government. Not only federations like Germany have local self-government and local elections, so does about every other country on the level of municipalities (Stadt, Gemeinde) and districts/counties/provinces/departments. Considering that, I see no reason to change all the districts to counties and all the regions to districts. Markussep ^Talk 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To quote the merriam-webster. County:
one of the territorial divisions of England and Wales and formerly also of Scotland and Northern Ireland constituting the chief units for administrative, judicial, and political purposes b (1): the people of a county (2)British : the gentry of a county3: the largest territorial division for local government within a state of the United States
District: 1 a: a territorial division (as for administrative or electoral purposes) b: the basic administrative unit for local government in Northern Ireland2: an area, region, or section with a distinguishing character <a shopping district>
A Landkreis/kreisfreie Stadt is not a subdivision or a administrative unit of a Bundesland or Germany in total. It is a territorial entity for local government and political purposes.
Whereas a Regierungsbezirk is only an administrative unit, a territorial subdivision of a Bundesland. According to the definition of MW Wikipedia uses the district definition of northern Ireland at the moment.
The link to the EU-database is http://iate.europa.eu --Gereonmc (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That site gives the translation "district" for "Kreis" but "county" for "Landkreis". The usage following the manual Markussep referred to is at least consistent. Kusma (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S: As the European Union is the main reason why all european stakeholders have to deal with a proper translation of ther names, the EU-speach is crucial for them.
The wording region for Regierungsbezirk is absolutely misleading. Region in the European context is NUTS 1 which are the Bundesländer. So if we call the Regirungsbezirke regions we will confuse everyone. --Gereonmc (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the cut-and-paste moves and reverted all changes until there is a consensus of this discussion to make a wiki-wide change. Agathoclea (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gereonmc, how about if you create a separate page with a table showing side-by-side the established WP nomenclature and the nomenclature of the Deutscher Landkreistag. Then, links (perhaps as footnotes or as entries in a "See also" section) could point there from as many WP articles as you wish?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the other way round! ;-) --Gereonmc (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite my opinion that county is a better description for Landkreis/Kreis, who is the one to name something? The German County Association calls its members counties. The formerly city of Bombay is mow called Munbay, Zaire now Kongo (again), Birma or Burma, Myanmar. I can tell you that there were lots of discussions within the Deutscher Landkreistag about a apropiate translation for Landkreis. As the element of self government is constitutive for the Counties, the word district, which primarely is understood as a administrative unit (aside from northern Ireland), was condemned. Common use and common "knowledge" is not able to make an improper word proper. It's the oterh way round. Using and establishing the imprpber word you perpetuate the misuse but even worse you corrupt the understanding of a Landkreis if it is associated with the word district (aka administrative unit) or you corrupt the word district if it will be associated with a self-government body.
So far, I am sorry for the inconvenience I caused. --Gereonmc (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Only a short comment to the "official" English Style guide and the consistency of the european translation service. It's stated that Regierungsbezirk should be translated as region. OK! Within the european Union regions are without doubt NUTS 1. On the other hand the EU has a committee of the regions (CoR), which is ment to be somthing like a second chamber in the legislation procedure. Its competences are weak but probalbly will get stronger if the Treaty of Lissabon comes into force. The regions are in the understanding of the treaties the federal enteties of the member states. The Bundesländer in Germany and Austria, the provinces in Belgium, the autonomous regions in Spain and Italy and so on. Autonomy and self-government is crucial for the understanding of the european regions. Even France now formed regions matching up with NUTS 1 and they also get a lot of autonomy. Bezirksregierungen doesn't have autonomy and even less democratic legetimation. So in the understanding of the European Treaties a region is a autonomous, democratic legitimated federal entity on the level directly under the member state. Does it make sence, if the translation service of the EU recommends to translate Regierungsbezirk as region?
Any other questions to the consistency of the EU-translation?--Gereonmc (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I already wrote above, "administrative unit" does not imply that it doesn't have an own government. Neither does "subdivision": Landkreise are subdivisions of states, just like Gemeinden and Städte are subdivisions of Landkreise. About IATE: from what I see that's not a database of commonly agreed terms, but a collection of translations from various sources, that are often contradictory (try "Kreis" or "kreisfreie Stadt" for instance). As WP:NCON says, self-identification can often help in finding the right name for an article, or in this case a group of articles. Apparently the Landkreistag calls itself County Association, but not all Landkreise call themself county. See for instance Kreis Borken, Landkreis Dahme-Spreewald, Landkreis Greiz, Kreis Stormarn, they all call themselves "district". I also saw a few that call themselves county: Landkreis Celle, Landkreis Kaiserslautern.

OK, to put it on a broader level.
The main difference is the differnece between administration and self-government.
Administration is coming from administer. Definition: to manage or supervise the execution, Etymology: Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad- + ministrare to serve, from minister servant Source: merriam-webster.
Government is coming from govern. Definition: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over  ; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy Source: merriam-webster.
An administration according to the sence of the word only executes, whereas a government controls and directs the making and administration of policy. Therfore self-government is a kind of hendiadys.
So if you say that a district is an administrative unit, and there I am with you, it is not compulsary a (self-) government unit.
To take the County definition in WP: A county is a land area of local government within a larger state. A county may have cities and towns within its area. And the District definition in WP: Districts are a type of administrative division, in some countries managed by a local government. They vary greatly in size, spanning entire regions or counties, several municipalities, or subdivisions of municipalities.
Both Definitions are not mine. :-)
But even if the definition of district may fit -because of the in some countries managed by a local government- the definition of a county is absolutely what a Landkreis is about. Why should we use a imprecise word if we have a precise one? English is probably the language with the largest vokabulary. Let us take advantage of that and be precise. Especially an Encyclopedia should try to.--Gereonmc (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Conciliatory Proposal Although this will also be lots of work:
We can take the example of Bezirksregierung. Take the German Words Landkreis/Kreis, kreisfreie Stadt/Stadtkreis as Title for the articles and explain in the first para that they are translated as county and district etc.
Furthermore we should redirect all Articles named German-District-XY or German-County-XY to the German Landkreis-XY.
Even though it is still my opinion that county is a quite good and accurate translation and description for Landkreis and its rights and duties this solution IMO would be better than using district. --Gereonmc (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I tend to think that neither 'district' or 'county' is a better term - and - one or the other will almost certainly cause (some degree) confusion in UK/USA etc with people expecting it to mean exactly the same as the usage in their country..

It's worth noting that many people will simply be looking for a geographic article, and not particularily interested in the details of how govermental is distributed.

I'd support the use of the german word in the title or at the least to always make it clear in the abstract that "district" refers to "Kreis" ..(eg Recklinghausen (district) : "Recklinghausen (IPA: [ʁɛklɪŋˈhaʊzən]) is a Kreis (district) in the.." )

FengRail (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to accept that some words don't have an exact translation and that selecting a good match may be the best we can do. Also if an international body (ideally worldwide, but European should be acceptable for European issues) with expertise in the area has come up with equivalents in different languages we should adopt their glossary unless there is a cast-iron case not to. Too often these debates are coloured by individual preference or the "common use" argument. Common use is often not helpful when translating, since some words are never or rarely used in English but there is still a case to translate all or part of the title in a sensible way, e.g. Maintal = Main Valley. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, this once again. I began this discussion here in Oct. 2007 but gave up nearly immediately due to the incredible changes upcoming and the nearly hopeless confusion. I'm still confused with the matter and the world seems this too. I use district for Landkreis or Kreis exclusively in Wikipedia, everything else I use county. The latter might be somehow incorrect for the official use in EU-documents but everybody is understanding it and it is in use in the EU too. As soon as I talk about German districts (I tried it a few times) the question comes up where there are any districts in Germany. Maybe the English speaking Wikipedia will be able to enforce the use of district. I'm in doubt the EU-bureaucrats will be able to. Many thanks to the German County Association in Brussels. Gerhard51 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To add to the mayhem... in historical articles you come across the term Distrikt for a region below Kreis. So if we use "district" for Kreis, what do we use for Distrikt?! And what about Bezirk? To bring consistency (if nothing else) to my own translations I have checked my 2 dictionaries - including the massive Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders and come up with the following decode below. Words in brackets are alternatives, but I don't generally use them unless the context suggests otherwise:

• Land = state (e.g. Bavaria)
• Regierungsbezirk = province (or region or county) (e.g. Upper Franconia)
• Kreis = county (or district)
• Landkreis = rural county (or county or shire)
• Kreisfreie Stadt = borough (or town)
• Bezirk = district
• Distrikt = sub-district
• Gemeinde = municipality (or community)
• Stadtgemeinde = township

I'm not claiming this is "right" or the only system, but it helps me to be consistent and the sizes of the English and German terms roughly correspond. HTH --Bermicourt (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are probably all kinds of consistent systems one can build. The system we agreed to use two or three years ago is the one found in the official EU manuals. I honestly don't see any advantage in switching to a different consistent system as long as ours is still commonly used in many places, and most translations are inconsistent anyway (I checked a couple dozen English-language Landkreis websites some time ago, and both "county" and "district" were widely used). If we are consistent in the words we use that means we deviate from real-world usage, so what we choose is essentially irrelevant. I haven't seen a consistent guide that seemed to be as authoritative as the EU translation manual, so I think that's the best system we have at the moment, and changing to something else won't be very useful anyway as long as redirects exist. IF there is confusion about the terms, we should have a link from the Landkreis infobox to an article describing the administrative system of Germany and explaining all the terms used with English equivalents in different systems. (Do we already? I haven't checked) Kusma (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a link to Districts of Germany from the infobox. I agree that the system we have now is as consistent as possible, and widely used. Markussep ^Talk 07:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The EU list has the advantage of at least being authoritative, although it doesn't help with historical terms like Distrikt. However it has taken this discussion for some of us to find this out as it is not mentioned on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions article. Does anyone object if I add it there for the benefit of all? --Bermicourt (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a list that I complied long ago here (although somebody redirected it to a completely weird place, which I just reverted). Move it wherever you feel is appropriate. The subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany are all rather disorganized (and many of them are useless or hard to find or both). If you know of a good way to organize these pages, just do it, you don't need to ask for permission :-) Kusma (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have summarised the EU guidelines on the Conventions page. It would look neater if the text after the colons was tabbed to the same point, but I haven't worked out how to do that! HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been translating the artticel AEG from the german wikipedia page, and it's totally defeated me. The translation is practically (70%) complete.

I don't have the background in business finance to be sure I've translated properly - specifically the year 1982 on the timeline - (in the section AEG#1970.27s_onwards )if someone could check this I would appreciate it..

Otherwise the article needs a good tidy/proper formatting/pictures adding etc which is easy.

There are sections on locomotives and brand use that I haven't translated yet - but can do later.

All I'm asking is that someone has a look at the bits already done. Thanks.FengRail (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't understand this translating from the German wikipedia at all. The German article, while mentioning a couple of sources, has no inline references at all. I thought, we are trying to use reliable sources? How does a German wikipedia article qualify with no indication to where specific information is from? EA210269 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's another way in which you could help then isn't it.FengRail (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a someone to check a specific part of the translation. Not to have a debate with someone.FengRail (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update) The article is now ~95% finished (from my point of view...) - there is a link to chronological history in the references, but no attempt has been made to add inline references for the chronological sections.

I'd still appreciate if someone could check the translation of the paragraph I mentioned above. Thanks.FengRail (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not against adding inline references to the chronology if that's what people want - though that would involve a lot of reference to the same source.)FengRail (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone born on US soil is granted US citizenship. Is the same true for Germany or is this edit [6] BS? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, now it is, imigration laws in Germany have changed considerably in the last 10 years. When LeVar Burton was born in 1957 however, he would not have an automatic right to citizenship, one of his parents would have to be German. I think, the edit is BS. EA210269 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Jus soli#Modification of jus soli --Boson (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this says it all: German nationality law. EA210269 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Analogous merger proposals at Talk:Territorial changes of Germany after World War II#Merge and Talk:Territorial changes of Poland after World War II#Merge, input appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Enigma machine for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

there is a what I think important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Placenames (2) - which could do with some input. Agathoclea (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Paderborn says

Paderborn was once the oldest academic site in Westphalia. In 1614, a university was founded by Jesuits but was closed in 1819. It was re-founded in 1972 as Universität-Gesamthochschule and transformed into a sole university in 2002. Today, it is attended by about 14,000 students.

Additionally, several theologic and private academic institutes exist.

Could someone please list / Wikilink the educational institutions of Paderborn. (In the article itself, obviously.) Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Auntieruth55 (who is new to Wikipedia, but seems generally to know what she's talking about) has made some major recent edits to this article. She approached me about having someone take a look at it. My guess is that someone on this WikiProject would be more appropriate than I would to review it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

some folks have looked at the article and given me comments and suggestions. I've incorporated those into the article. Other feedback is appreciated. Unification of Germany --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to the problem with the citations...they are marked with a big read X in the evaluation section. What do I need to do with them? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant criterion for B-class is

• It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.

But it might be a good idea to try to fulfil the criteria for GA or FA.

Relevant GA criteria are:

1. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[1] and

   (c) it contains no original research.

Relevant FA criteria are:

1. • (c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
   • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
     

--Boson (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am undertaking to create an English translation of de:Heinrich-Germer-Stadion. However, I am unsure about using the hyphenated version of the stadium's name. Unfortunately a google search does not yield any tendency. Another stadium in this context (Ernst Grube Stadion, de:Ernst-Grube-Stadion) does not use hyphens. Any pointers? Madcynic (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say if you use "Stadion" you should use hyphens (i.e. the German name), and if you translate it to "Stadium" you shouldn't. Looking at Category:Football venues in Germany we currently seem to be using every possible version. --Amalthea 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

... and having had a look at WT:WikiProject_Germany/Conventions#Group B Agathoclea linked to two sections above I suggest to stick to that and translate it to Heinrich Germer Stadium (with appropriate redirects). :) --Amalthea 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Crud, now I'm finished, and have moved the other stadium too. A little too quickly it seems. Ah well, we'll see if anyone takes offence. ;) Thanks anyway. Madcynic (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken (I don't know much about German political systems) Rhineland is one of the Landschaftsverbände of NRW, yet there is no mention of this in the article. In fact, there's far more in the article about the geographical area rather than the 'political entity' whose section is rather small. I think this would be a great place to mention about the fact it is one of the Landschaftsverbände. I'd be thankful for any additional information on this subject. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The geographical area is in my view of popular opinion (which is probably biased) far more important than the current political entity (I think that even today, the influence of the fact what was the Prussian Rhine Province is larger). But you are right, we could have an article about de:Landschaftsverband Rheinland. Kusma (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For a better overview I have moved all editors who have not edited in the last six month to the inactive section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Members. Agathoclea (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

An American school for military children. FYI. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Panzer commanders and aces has been proposed to be split into Category:Panzer commanders and Category:Panzer aces. See Category talk:Panzer commanders and aces#Split.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to obtain a death date for Hans Thomsen, charges d'affaires at the German consulate in Washington DC just prior to WW II. If someone could supply one I would appreciate it. Mangoe (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans Thomsen died in 1968, see this record in the German National Library. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ticketautomat (at de-wp) found at this page a CV of Hans Thomsen including dates of birth and death: 14 September 1891 – 31 October 1968. The same page includes also a hint about his career after WW2 by noting that in 1953 he became president of the Hamburg chapter of the German Red Cross. The problem is, however, that these additional infos were posted to a forum which is not exactly a reliable source. The post included some links but one of the links is meanwhile dead and the others do not support the CV. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found some better corroboration that some Hans Thomsen was head of the Hamburg Red Cross, but it isn't clear that it was the same man. Indeed, I've found a reference to a Nazi-era "Hans Thomsen" who appears to be a different person. Thanks however for the date of death. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've meanwhile found a more reliable source which provides the connection: Hamburger Abendblatt, article from 9 February 1959. The short article quotes Hans Thomsen as president of the Hamburg chapter and attributes him as Gesandter a. D., i.e. as retired ambassador. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that link. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe there's been no mention of this here (maybe there has I just didn't see it) but Commons recently received a 100k image donation from the German Federal Archives and a 250k image donation from the Deutsche Fotothek. Help is needed on Commons in categorizing all the images or at least adding them to relevant articles. The Fotothek donation is almost exclusively photos of Germany while the Federal Archive donation has much more photos from other countries. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(these photos can really help improve articles about Germany) --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this article was rated low priority, it is something I know a bit about, and I've been working on the translation. German doesn't always translate well into English, so it's more of an interpretive translation, basically, the sense of what is said, not the exact wording.

The author of the German article included a table of average monthly temperature. I have no idea how to do this in the English wiki, and I have figured out that the German templates don't work in the English side. Rather than fuss with it, and other direct transfer of information, I'm going to consolidate the information into text, rather than a table. If anyone has any problem with this, I'm sure someone will let me know, or reverse it.  :) Question of protocol, though. When I'm done, what do I do? Cheers! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Started article but needs experts to verify, approve and look at Saar Treaty stub.Ernstblumberg (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newbie,but if I were looking for info on the Saar Statute, I'd want more info than you've included in this article. It needs a context. Why was a treaty needed? What were the conditions under which it was negotiated? Why then? If the plebiscite was against, then what did that mean? Basically, I think we cannot assume that everyone knows the Saarland was contested space between Germany and France, and that following the war (actually following both wars), there were specific territoriality issues related to indemnification etc. So I'd say this needs context in the broader European sense, an explanation of what was going on locally at that time, and why it is important. IMHO. Cheers!--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The intro seems to describe rather the Treaty of Luxembourg than Saar statute. Saar statute only refers to the proposal of a (more or less independent) European territory, which was rejected by the Saar inhabitants. Greetings, -- kh80 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Saw it on the ToDo List - its just a start and I agree completely! Furthermore, it requires an experienced NPOV mindset as the info available is very much POV given that the source material archived comprises mainly German newspaper articles by journalists with an active role in the district at the time. In short...it seems too time consuming to pour over endless articles trying to glean a French perspective that is also NPOV. The end result becomes some sort of retro-active-cyber-Euro-proceedings played out in a volatile and heavily vestigial propagandist media of 1950's Europe which appeared to be still dwelling on the 'rope' and not the 'Eu'. Will no doubt feel the urge to tinker with it as time permits. Cheers, Geetings and Salutations! Ernstblumberg (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I'm from the de:Portal:Memmingen in the german wikipedia and I've started to translate the article from the german wikipedia. Unfortunately my english isn't that good. So I need someone to controll and correct my work. Can anyone help me? Greetings --Mrilabs (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mrilabs, send me a note when you're done, and I'll take a look at it. Cheers! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

An old problem has resurfaced which most editors are propably quite sick of: Is the Federal Republic of Germany now a different entity then before the German reunion? The issue is the article Germany national rugby union team, where, on its talk page, an editor denies this fact and is currently attemting to create separate articles for the West Germany national rugby union team and West Germany national rugby union team (sevens). The same process went on with the German national football team two years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Germany national football team ) and the West Germany article was left as a redirect then. Any new opinions now?EA210269 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the unification treaty from 1990 (Einigungsvertrag at de-wp) the German Democratic Republic dissolved itself and acceded the Federal Republic of Germany. Hence, the Federal Republic of Germany remained the very same entity, just enlarged. Germany kept its so-called Basic Law (Grundgesetz) with some minor adaptions and did not create a new constitution. Originally the constitution was not called constitution in 1949 but just Basic Law to reserve this term for a reunified Germany. But the approach of creating a new constitution for a united Germany was not taken in 1990. If this would have happened, it would be perhaps justified to view the united Germany as new entity. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There really should be a navigation box (the bottom of the page type) for the Bezirke; it seems really silly not to help people navigate what seems a clear set of cities, almost all of which were clearly important in East Germany. Subdivisions of the German Democratic Republic has full info. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A navbox would be useful if there were articles for the 14 Bezirke of the GDR, but there aren't any sofar. That's a bit of an omission, they existed for 38 years (1952-1990). Markussep ^Talk 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a Mormon temple in Freiberg. Should the article belong to this WikiProject? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Freiberg Germany Temple tagged and assessed --Boson (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a Mormon temple in Frankfurt. Should the article belong to this WikiProject? LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Frankfurt Germany Temple tagged and assessed --Boson (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there people willing to look after Wikipedia:WikiProject Frankfurt? I tagged a bunch of Frankfurt pages with the Frankfurt label. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have someone who know a little more about commons or our image policies to see if de:Datei:Hans Scholl.jpg could be copied to commons or to en-wiki? It is PD in Germany. Agathoclea (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can live at commons. They even have a template for that: commons:Template:PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps. I've taken the liberty to upload it as commons:File:Geschwister Scholl stamp, GDR, 1961.jpg. Cheers, Amalthea 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing this article on truce terms and am asking if there is anybody who can tell me what german children use as truce terms. A truce term is a word used to call a tempotrary halt to a game so a child can go to the loo or discuss the rules or tie a shoelace. If possible I would also like a source - like a dictionary of regional german or something. Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The most abundantly used German truce term is Tick (also Ticke). Tick might not only refer to a "virtual habitat" where you are save, but most often to an actual, previously agreed on area. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Would I be right in thinking this refers to a safe place, safe haven or safe base? The reason I ask is that safe base words, though similar, are slightly different to truce terms which specifically call for a temporary respite. The most easily understood example is the US time-out. Is Ticke used in this way too?Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is more the safe-base-kind-of-term, though it is also used the time-out-way. I must add that time out periods outside of "safe haven"s are not common, if you call for a stop ("Aufhören!") you surrender. I must further add that I just observe what my children do and recall my own youth, I have no sources to offer on this. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I use the redirect class when I come across them, and while not needed in most trivial cases I think we should use it a) when the there could be an article in place of the redirect. b) if the redirect was because of a merge c) the redirect was due to a controversial page move which needs tracking. Agathoclea (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor needs some fixings. I tagged it with necessary templates for improvement. --Kulm Ginos^{Member of the WP Guild} 07:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you indicate what needs to be fixed in this article, and what the expert(s) would have to do with it? Preferably on the article talk page.Markussep ^Talk 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the above list, but need a Wikipedian who understands German to help with a description for Band Ohne Namen. All sources are in German, so if a Wikipedian please could take one of the reliable sources and add a description of the band—like the other artists' descriptions—it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Pyrrhus16 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the bands website is off line right now, only displaying that message, no luck there. EA210269 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know why Regions of Germany is a redirect to the Regierungsbezirk article? That doesn't seem right but I can't quite think where else it should redirect to. EA210269 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that could be because there is a convention of translating Regierungsbezirk (NUTS level 2) as "region" (administrative of government). I agree that one would probably expect something different (perhaps more like Category:Regions of Germany. --Boson (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposal has been posted for a contest between all 200 country WikiProjects. We're looking for judges, coordinators, ideas, and feedback.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The German colonial empire article needs serious help, mentioning it here in case there are interested contributers. Greenman (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There have recently been some odd additions to White Rose, possibly well intentioned by a person or persons whose native language is not English.
Odd edits were made by Special:Contributions/84.191.110.223 and later by Special:Contributions/84.191.64.246. I see that 84.191.64.246 also made edits to various other articles, with the edit summary "royal.gov.ujk" for all edits.
I don't understand what these two IPs have been up to, but people may want to keep an eye on these articles, and/or on these IPs, and/or may want to try to get in touch with them to suggest better editing techniques. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, these edits are pretty odd and non-sensical. The editor also "attacked" other resistance articles like Hans Bernd von Haeften and Freya von Moltke. I added them to my watchlist, too. Thanks, EA210269 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)