Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

I have nominated Albert Speer 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm quite new to the English Wiki. I recently translated the German article of Wilhelm Ritterbusch. I would like to know where I can post a request for reviewing this article, in particular for eventual spelling mistakes. –Dave-George (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dave-George: This talkpage and the Guild of Copy Editors are the best places to request copyediting for your article. Thank you for your hard work. –Vami♜_IV♠ 16:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Vami_IV Thank you!!! Dave-George (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Info about the legal situation in Germany was oddly phrased and outdated, I have rewritten the "Germany" section based on uncontroversial basics from the German main article about the relevant contract. If anyone is interested in legal or gambling-related topics, it would be great to double-check this please (and perhaps add a few more relevant details). GermanJoe (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be interested in anyone from this project commenting on the use of "Germany" vs "West Germany" for song charts before reunification in 1990. The current consensus is to use West Germany, but there may be issues in doing so. Please join in here. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The wider implications of the nomination at Talk:Sobibór trial#Requested move 21 March 2019 and four other related article titles may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A zoomable, labeled location map can be included in the articles about German districts by adding {{Germany district OSM map|parent_subdivision=QXXXX}} to the 'map' parameter of {{Infobox District DE}}, where QXXXX is the Wikidata ID of the German state the district belongs to. A live example of the template can be see in the Nordfriesland (district) article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the clickable map feature, that's an improvement. German wikipedia does the same using templates like de:Vorlage:Imagemap Schleswig-Holstein, there the neighbouring states (Lower Saxony, Bremen, Hamburg) are also clickable. Is there a way to change the colours and line thickness in this new OSM map? I think the grey and red scheme that is used now (e.g. File:Schleswig-Holstein_NF.svg) is prettier. Markussep ^Talk 09:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the original posting, I've changed all the templates for Baden-Württemberg's districts to use this. It's pretty neat. –Vami♜_IV♠ 18:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:TV#Sat.1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Many articles about German cities are outdated, e.g. name mayors that aren't in office for more than 3 years [1][2]. --78.35.244.86 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

See a need, fill a need. –Vami♜_IV♠ 20:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Bad Wimpfen should be rated mid-importance. It is a spa town (not a village) with a long and rich history and some notable architecture, Its station even has its own article. It is better known in the region than its size would suggest. It's mentioned by Mark Twain and in The Reader. Bad Lobenstein is another historic spa town with a smaller population and it is also rated mid-importance. --Letkhfan (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned feel free to change it. Even though I do a lot of assessments myself (including importance ratings), I personally think that in many cases the question of importance is somewhat subjective. Ekki01 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been working recently on some 1800s German-American information on Wikipedia (William Radde) and Wikisource s:Portal:German Society of the City of New York. I don't speak German, but I bumbled and mumbled my way through one addition to German Wikisource -- with a LOT of help from German Wikisource volunteers -- de:s:Mitglieder-Verzeichniß der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Stadt New-York für 1863. I also tried to expand de:s:Auswanderung#Nordamerika_Gesellschaften.

While working on this stuff, I realized that the contribution of German-Americans to the development of the United States is not well covered on Wikipedia. Coverage seems OK for people who attracted popular newspaper coverage, but rather weak for German organizations and individuals in the USA who developed communities, hospitals, and changes to USA and state laws in the 1800s. I assume that's somewhat due to anti-German sentiment during WWI and WWII.

A related question I've bumped into is What did "Germany" mean in the 1800s when people said or wrote where they were from?

• Germania
• Germany (disambiguation)
• German Confederation
• North German Confederation
• German Empire

I got into this by wondering why William Radde is completely unknown to history. He was a businessman/merchant who apparently went to great efforts to assist German immigrants to the USA -- within his knowledge at that time of what would be most helpful. From what I've seen, he probably spoke a half dozen languages or more.

Wikipedia has separate language Wikipedias. I only speak English. I would greatly appreciate any contributions from multi-lingual Wikipedians to the above mentioned articles.-- Outlier59 (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the Germany regional portals, Portal:Rhön, is up for deletion here. Please feel free to comment. Bermicourt (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Another Germany regional portal, Portal:Harz Mountains, is up for deletion here. Again feel free to comment. Bermicourt (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-German sentiment/Archive 2#RfC: Rota may be of interest to this project.Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I added the IPA pronunciation for the name in Hans Günter Nöcker and would appreciate a native German speaker verifying it. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated Albert Kesselring 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Silesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Silesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Bagger 1473 might be of interest. I have "adopted" it. There has been some discussion of its notability in WP terms. Comments welcome on the TP. Jmar67 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you please have a look at this article. It has been imported from German Wikipedia where it is a case for arbitration committee due to puffery. I removed the attacking contents, but I am not sure whether this work is finished. --2A02:8388:580:6600:49AA:E6F2:7647:7BF5 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I will look closer at the German article, talk page discussion, and refs. The translation was too literal to be understood in some places. The Mollath article is well written and can serve as a guideline. I remember this case. Jmar67 (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jmar67: please, have a look at what happened to this article today and whether this is according to the guidelines --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear All,

there is a questionable edit/addition that was rephrased now [3], but was several times an attemt to add [4], [5]..I raised a question in the talk and asked for source & explanation, but I did not get...anyway the users edit logs are quite..how to say...does not seem serious, or it is meant to be a joke? As having good faith, I don't involve recently an admin, but please suprevise the issue somehow, is this addition valid? Merkel's father is not theperson referred there...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC))

I'm inclined to say it's a joke (the latest link implies he saved Merkel, but earlier additions have claimed its her mother, although her mother does not have the name given by the contributor), but based on the contributor's page (User:AustrianFreedom), I'd say the user may have some mental issues. I've reverted that particular edit, but this looks like it may be something of a longterm problem.

Based on this edit summary 1 I've informed an admin about them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ermenrich, some time aftermath, please check again the article along with the Rascians...

One example grabbed out ([6]), the former user claimed in his unblock request that he would be -> "look at my official website: Richard Saringer - Actor / LINKS", and now we have a user exactly with this name...I don't wish to place any unfold accusation, but only I'd smell some socking here?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:, I started an investigation a few days ago if you or anyone else has anything to add there. Unfortunately they always take a bit of time.--Ermenrich (talk)

Dear all,

I am working in the communications department of Grohe. I therefore have a financial COI. I have been working on updating the German de:Grohe article together with a mentor, who kindly took his time to help me create a thorough article about Grohe based on what existed already. We therefore mostly updated old information, but also added new information (mainly in the history and corporate structure sections), where we felt important information was missing. Based on this, I created a similar update for the English version of the article and suggested some updates on the talk page; first I suggested to delete some - what I believed was sugarcoated - wording and some format changes and now some updates to the history section. One user was already so kind to take some time to review a few suggestions but does currently not have the time to check more.

I therefore wanted to ask, if somebody here would be willing to help me with this. The last suggestions I made can be seen in this diff.

Thank you very much in advance for your time. Looking forward to your feedback.

Kind regards, --JBJDus17 (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lusatia, a portal relevant to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lusatia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Lusatia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Would someone from WP:GER mind taking a look at this article? There are some minor things which can be cleaned up fairly easily (e.g. MOS:SECTIONCAPS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:ORDER), but the main thing is that the article seems to be citing de:Technische Hochschule Lübeck as its only source. Actually, it's not really citing the German Wikipedia article about the school per se, but rather the sources cited in the German Wikipedia article, but the wy it's doing this is not really how it should be done. It might also be a translation of the German Wikipedia article which would require attribuition per WP:TFOLWP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The "By region" section is subject to an RfC. Please see the RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany#RfC:_%22By_Region%22_section and contribute. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A frienly reminder to contribute to this RfC. It would be unfortunate if an RfC was decided by editors who may not read sources which are in German. AadaamS (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring] has now reached the voting phase of WP:FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1. Interested parties are encouraged to drop by. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for suggesting a correction of Lettvin's Nachdichtung of Der Hecht from The Fat Abbot, Fall-Winter of '62.

http://jerome.lettvin.com/Jerome/TheFatAbbot.pdf

Included here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galgenlieder

[Der Hecht] adored the Host, denounced the Aryan

Ought it not be Arian - an adherent of an early Christian heresy taught by Arius, Archdeacon of Alexandria, denying the divinity of Christ and appointing him the role of the foremost spirit of God's creation* as opposed to Aryan, one of the Indo-European race, or in racialist discourse a Northern European?

This error runs back to the original periodical.

Lettvin was clearly a highly erudite man so I can only assume the printer stumbled. As the entire literary conceit is part of Lettvin's invention referring to the original is useless.

A footnote on the possibility might help.

Also to aid comprehension of the Nachdichtung of 'Der Werwolf', a footnote might explain that Ontology Recapitulates Philology is another joke of Lettwin's. Sadly nowadays few would recognise that it is a parody of Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, expressed as Die Ontogenese recapituliert die Phylogenese, the supposed and chimerical principle that the embryonic development of an organism repeats its evolution.

2A00:23C6:C08A:200:3C49:8D4:E5CD:B2E9 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Patrick Gray (amateur, late Dux of Dornoch Academy, applying to St. Andrew's to study German.)

• Agreeing nicely with the ecclesiastical atmosphere and Pelagianism, another early Christian heresy denying the Original Sin, taught by a British monk, Pelagius, and mentioned in the Nachdichtung.

Hi Patrick, your theory that Arianism, not Aryanism is intended, is plausible, but unless there are any scholarly sources that state this theory, Wikipedia can't really suggest this -- it is original research. It seems to me that Lettvin's versions of the texts are actually more sophisticated than the original (Lettvin compares Morgenstern to Lewis Carroll; personally, I explain Ogden Nash to Germans by comparing him to Morgenstern). Good luck with your university place! —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Eifel, a page related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eifel and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Eifel during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ore Mountains, a page related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ore Mountains and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Ore Mountains during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains, a page related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Westerwald, a page related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Westerwald and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Westerwald during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lüneburg Heath, a page related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lüneburg Heath and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Lüneburg Heath during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Palatine Forest, a page related to this project, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Palatine Forest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Palatine Forest during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that any members of the project who know any Polish and might be able to access Polish-language sources should really take a look at the article Walter Kuhn. Compare that to his biography in the Ostdeutsche Bibliographie by Norbert Angermann [7]. Now I admit, that biography is clearly sanitized of his involvement with Nazism, but I've already caught one misleading citation in our article and I notice that the worst accusations against Kuhn tend to be cited, without page numbers, to Polish sources. In one case I think (citation that Kuhn was prejudiced against Poles) as far as I can tell there is no indication that Kuhn was influenced by this to encourage genocide, as seems to be implied in the current article [8], but my certainty is limited by the fact that I'm using my A1 Czech and google translate to read the Polish and the the preview is so limited on google books. At the very least it looks like a question of WP:Weight. At the moment we present Kuhn as though he was only some kind of Nazi shill (and he appears to have done some of that), which completely ignores his apparently very reputable career after the war.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've begun trying to revise the article, but some help with the Polish sources in particular would be appreciated.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Another user has added back a lot of content I removed as WP:UNDUE for WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV reasons. I would very much appreciate any independent assessments of the state of the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I recently started List of members of the 19th Bundestag (almost two years late) and found out our coverage of German MPs is rather lacking. So if you feel bored, why not start a stub on a politician? If you choose well, maybe you can start the article on the future Chancellor of Germany ;) —Kusma (t·c) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bundestag constituencies are also in a horrible shape (some of the articles haven't been updated since 2009!). I also don't know what the best format is. Instead of updating an existing article, I just tried a slight variation at Koblenz (electoral district), but getting the data into the tables is too much work to do manually. Any ideas on the best way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusma (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I am active on this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed :) Thank you for helping out! —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The page has still has so many instances of {{Interlanguage link}} that it shows up in Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls, so some of the red links at the end are not garnished with an {{ill}}. Under 500 red links would be nice ;) —Kusma (t·c) 20:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated Rudi Gutendorf in the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates was a Guinness record holder having coached 55 teams in 32 countries across five continents.Article needs to be updated need.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Have added one more coaching job he had from this source. The source also puts his spell at Hertha two years later, please check upon that again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Werner Conze was a very important West German historian, the co-editor of Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe [de], and one of the founders of Conceptual history. According to our article, Werner Conze, however: Werner Conze (born December 11, 1910 in Amt Neuhaus, died April 1986 in Heidelberg) was a pro- Nazi German historian in Nazi Germany, who continued to work as historian in post-World War II West Germany. He was a member of the Schieder commission.. Compare that with de:Werner Conze, which handles Conze's Nazi connections in a neutral manner. Note also that Conze had a career of 41 years after World War II. I'm currently otherwise occupied dealing with similar issues on the article Walter Kuhn, but I implore anyone who knows anything about West German historiography, or anyone who can access RS on it, to help clean this thing up. This is a persistent problem in many articles.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I realize people are very reluctant to touch articles like this, especially after my own recent experiences trying to edit one. But the article doesn't just suffer from POV, it suffers from mis-used or distorted sources and serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE issues. I would hope someone from the project most qualified to address things like this would at least try to make a difference. There are several good sources on Conze, including a complete biography from 2010.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI to anyone interested, I've nominated The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari for featured article. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Franconia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Franconia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pomerania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pomerania until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

We should have a better article to link to de:Staatssekretär than the very British permanent secretary. I have created redirects for the moment (to Secretary of state#Germany) but if anybody feels like writing an article, it would be much appreciated :) —Kusma (t·c) 21:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstrasse}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstrasse', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstrasse#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstrasse}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A Good Article Reassessment proposal has been started at Otto of Greece, an article within this project's scope. All interested editors are invited to participate. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:AXN (German TV channel), regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

With the demise of Portal:Berlin, it's clear that few, if any, Germany-related portals are unlikely to survive the current deletion campaign which sees them competing with articles and so sets page views as the decisive factor, however notable the subject area is. Even Portal: Harz which survived a deletion bid last April has been put up again for deletion by the same crew. It's also clear that there's no effective support from project editors to retain them in portal space either. With that in mind, I'm in the process of moving the remnant of the Germany-related portals to project space so that we can at least continue to use them in a very practical way to see topic coverage 'at a glance' and to continue to expand and improve topic articles in a structured way as I have been doing over the years using these portals as my guide. I'll put links to them in due course on the main project page. Bermicourt (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this could be DYKed, but needs expansion, and think most mundane issues (not related to the recent controversy) are in German. De wikipedia has a much longer article, but most sources are in German, so if someone would like to help add ~200+ words with German refs, it would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this salvageable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That is no article, in this form it possibly could survive as a list. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to call your attention to the following request for comment because it is relevant to Standard German, especially to Austrian (or Swiss) Standard German:

• Help talk:IPA/Standard German#Should we use Austrian (or Swiss) Standard German pronunciation for topics related to Austria (or Switzerland)?

Thanks --mach 🙈🙉🙊 14:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm very very sorry if this is a stupid FAQ or the answer is right in front of me or if I have just got something massively and fundamentally wrong. I've frequently been guilty of all the above and plenty more so please be kind to me if I've done it yet again.

• I'd like to discuss a specific issue about how we do some German language articles. It's not huge, but it does affect more than one so it seems better to seek a more central forum than to start off a discussion on one Talk page in the hope of being able to apply its outcome to others. And I really hate mad crusaders who just get a bee in the bonnet and rock up and charge around changing colour to color or trunk to boot in 600 articles, so I would rather discuss it politely and centrally and try to understand the issue with other editors who are more knowledgeable than me (a low bar, tbh). The outcome of my enquiry will not be an impassioned orgy of editing across dozens of articles. Indeed it might be nothing at all.
• I also slightly hate bothering individual German-speaking friends here (you know who you are!) or friends/family IRL with my whingeing, so I am looking for a proper whinge-forum in these parts instead! (Goak here).
• I've been a member of, but not a significant contributor to, this Wikiproject for some time so – or but – I don't really feel as if I know my way around it properly. Sorry.
• I've looked in vain at the project front page, under things such as Project Divisions, Related Groups, and Task Forces, for a specific mention of language or grammar and not yet found it; similarly I don't think that there is a separate "Wikiproject German Language", or whatever, that I have overlooked, but please tell me if I am wrong.
• So where do I ask my question? There must (must – yesno??) be such a place – so I ask it there and, I hope, several editors with knowledge of, and commitment to, our German language coverage call me a silly sausage and set me on the right path, or not, or whatever? It might even be right here, but I didn't want to start without checking, and I don't want to risk reinventing the wheel if exactly the right place exists elsewhere, but I have simply failed to find it.
• To reiterate: it is a kind of procedural editing custom-and-practice question about German language articles on en-Wikipedia. It is not a question about how to speak or write German (I'm quite rubbish enough at that anyway, without bringing it here to annoy you!)

The highly observant reader will have noticed that I've not actually said what my editing concern is! This isn't an accidental omission – I didn't want to start two hares off running at the same time as it so often leads to a mess. Please tell me where a good place is to actually ask my language article question, and I will actually ask it! Finally, it is not earthshatteringly urgent and no-one will die if it is not resolved in the next 10 minutes, and I am not planning to sue, "contact Wiki", or withdraw my massive sponsorship, so if you would rather take your time and have a cup of tea, please do. Or don't worry at all. It's minor. The Thames is not on fire. Thanks and best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• [User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered|DBaK]]: I can think of several valid places where you could ask about German language and grammar. Here is fine, but if you want to avoid any Germany-centrism and make sure you include Austrian and Swiss perspectives as well, Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board would be a classic place to ask (older than this WikiProject, but a bit less active these days). If it is mostly about Germany and you wish to debate how to change a convention, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Conventions is a place to start. But as long as you advertise your discussion well, anywhere will be fine (last discussion about German language I was involved in was in the Help talk namespace of all places). If you are happy to ask here: how can we help you? —Kusma (t·c) 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks Kusma for the very helpful reply. I will have a look around and make my enquiry somewhere. Please, however, do not hold your breath as the world of work and real life has caught up with me a bit right now ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Gutten tag Team Germany, the mouse over for the book above is incorrect on all pages (cats and links) I cannot find how to correct, cheers121.99.108.78 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect? Like how? PrussianOwl (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi PrussianOwl, If you hover over any (all I have seen so far) of the links to the book (i.e. Category:Books by Adolf Hitler) it says "This is about a German boy who wanted to rule the world and anted everyone to be white with blond hair" which does not tie up with the lead in the article for same, if you can work out how to amend, and find out who edited this link to this mistaken prose, we may need to check anything else they have touched on wiki. Cheers 121.99.108.78 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see in the edit history that it said it for less than a minute – probably only a few seconds – on 23 November after someone made this edit, which was then reverted by ClueBot. If you are still seeing it four days later I wonder if your cache needs clearing or something? I can't be sure, but I suspect that it is not generally being seen, and certainly is not on devices that I use. Oh and that was their only edit so there's something we don't need to worry about, thanks. hth DBaK (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I purged the Cat no effect, purged the article and all good, thanks for help and attention and I learnt something.121.99.108.78 (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I need some help understanding the German nobility, and article 109 of the Weimar Constitution. According to the many pages on different German nobility, following 1919, titles were changed to just be a part of the surname (e.g. Graf#Modern usage in German surnames). However, the wording is not very specific as to the broader affect. Because when looking at people who died 6, 21 and 117 years before the law came into effect, they are also written as if affected by the law. But can a law really retroactively change peoples names and history? In any case, it needs to be better clarified on the various pages and nobility templates. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the key phrase from Artikel 109, "Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden", simply meant that titles such as "Graf" were no longer considered as such but rather just a component of the name. Prior to 1919, they were regarded as titles, which were also part of the formal name. I do not understand your concern. Jmar67 (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jmar67: it just seems like every German page, regardless of age, has the title as a last name. E.g. Otto Eduard Leopold Fürst von Bismarck, Herzog zu Lauenburg, should it not rather be “Fürst Otto Eduard”? Skjoldbro (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that's how it's always been said in modern German, but I'm not entirely sure.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The title used with a geographical region, family name, or other qualifier normally goes at the end. Otherwise it precedes the name. In order for it to be considered part of the name in the sense of Article 109, it has to follow the first convention, e.g. Otto Graf Lambsdorff, not Graf Otto Lambsdorff, to use an example of a prominent FDP politician during my stay in Germany. It may have been common prior to 1919 to place "Graf" ahead of the name in particular families. But it looks like "von Schlieffen" did not do that. In the case of Bismarck, there were two titles involved (Fürst and Herzog), and they would have to follow the name. At any rate, placing the title after the name is not necessarily a consequence of the Weimar Constitution. Jmar67 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jmar67:@Ermenrich: Thanks for the replies, I guess that makes sense. Do you think the pages on German nobility pages are clear enough in pointing this out? Skjoldbro (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to mention the 1919 change unless it is especially noteworthy (such as the Graf Lambsdorff case). If you think a particular page should address it, please advise. Jmar67 (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't think of any particular case where it would need to be pointed out, but there might be some.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, for your English speaking wikipedia you will have to decide whether you follow the German law of 1919, or whether you follow an English tradition. Just two examples of hundreds: You have here lots of different lemmas like Prince Ernst August of Hanover on the one hand and Ernst August, Prince of Hanover on the other hand (which is in this case the very same person). If you follow the German constitutional law of 1919, this should read Ernst August Prinz von Hannover instead: As it's not a title any more but simply a name, there is consequently no room for translating Prinz into Prince, von into of, and Hannover into Hanover. Like you wouldn't translate Johann Sebastian Bach into John Seb River. But no German law could hinder you from deciding to stick to an English tradition on foreign noble names. Even the German rainbow press will forever write willfully wrongly the former "title" like Prinz or Graf in front of the first name instead of the last name like 200 years ago, at least for all those celebs who are not politicians or scientists but famous only as rich or beautiful or "noble" society. For historical figures who lived in times when there was nobility until 1918, the old titles remain the same throughout scientific history writing in German and stay as titles in front of the first name. Had Ernst August lived in the 19th century, he would still be referred to as Prinz Ernst August von Hannover, because then he really would have been a prince and addressed to as "Königliche Hoheit/Royal Highness". Only for the last 100 years, he is Ernst August Prinz von Hannover and correctly addressed to simply as "Herr von Hannover". By the way, if it delivers any comfort, in some single cases, there are lively discussions on these matters in German as well, e.g. for Otto von Habsburg, who would have been the Austrian crown prince if nobility had gone on existing in Austria. Instead, 100 years ago Austria deleted the "Prinz" and even the "von" completely. So in Austria they'd call him Otto Habsburg. But he passed his last decades outside Austria in Bavaria and kept not the "Prinz" but just the "von" in an indiscriminate interpretation of the German law. 2003:EF:BF0:1219:24A7:96A9:8BC3:E6CF (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hoping someone here can advise about this. Is it correct that in an alphabetical list Düsseldorf precedes Duisburg because of the umlaut (ue)? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin – I was hoping that someone with more clue than me (i.e. anyone) would reply, so please take this with a pinch of salt and hope that someone else does chime in. But just on what I recall/feel (yes, OR!) then no - if anything I would expect the unaccented U to get in before the umlauted one. I do think that there are different ways of dealing with this - I think that historically at least the accented versions were sometimes all shoved to the end of the alphabet so that u-umlaut was somewhere after Z. On a quick look at my Duden app, though, what I see is that in its alphabetical list the U-umlaut comes after the U – but it does not affect the order of the following stuff, which is determined by ordinary alpha position. There is a sort of local sort on the Us followed by the main sort continuing. All the Us are sorted the same for the overall word, but within the U the umlauted ones follow the ordinary ones. So Duisburg is way before Düsseldorf because Dui is before Dus, but around Düsseldorf you get: Düsentriebwerk - Dussel - Düsseldorf - Dusselei - dusselig ... so it has sorted the whole words ignoring the variant of U, then resorted otherwise-matching stuff ONLY addressing the Us. I think. Does that make some kind of sense? well, I am writing from a gloomy position of profound ignorance but I have perhaps at least started the ball rolling, and maybe a proper German-knowledgeable person will step in now and help out ... Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Langenscheidt's dictionary appears to ignore the umlaut in deciding word order. Bermicourt (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DBaK and Bermicourt, thank you for the replies, which are very helpful. My thinking was that, if you don't use the umlaut, you'd write Duesseldorf, which would come before Duisburg, and therefore that order should be maintained even with the umlaut. But that's probably muddled thinking, so I'm glad I checked. Thanks again, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV. You're too harsh on yourself! You're thinking isn't muddled; the umlaut represents a missing "e" and is sometimes used if keyboards can't produce the umlaut. My guess is that Langenscheidt ignores it because it's felt to be less confusing to find words. But I haven't checked other dictionaries... Bermicourt (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

DBaK and Bermicourt, I hadn't even thought to look up Alphabetical order; see the section Language-specific conventions. On the German Wikipedia, it says the same, namely that dictionary order ignores umlauts, but lists of names are handled differently. See Alphabetische Sortierung#Deutschland, which discusses "DIN 5007 Variante 2 (spezielle Sortierung für Namenslisten, etwa in Telefonbüchern; Abschnitt 6.1.1.4.2)": when listing names of people, institutions and places, the umlaut is taken into account, i.e. ä is treated as ae, ö as oe, and ü as ue. That would place Düsseldorf ahead of Duisburg. If I've understood it correctly, this type of ordering is used for names because some examples of the same name use the umlaut and some don't (Mueller, Müller), and to separate them would be confusing. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Short answer - no time to read: when we list names for DEFAULTSORT, we drop the umlaut. It makes sense to sort the same way for lists, or would be confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: In Germany, we love rules. The "best rules" are from the Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization) which is the German member of the International Organization for Standardization. They have two different rules on this issue, both listed under DIN-Norm 5007. Variant 1 has all Umlaute treated as if they do not have the tréma. In variant 2, they are treated like they are followed by an E. As mentioned above, variant 2 is only used in lists of names, including lists of places. So, in your example, I would say, treat Düsseldorf like Duesseldorf. Side note: ß is treated as "ss" in both variants. Here is the link to the website of the Institute for reference (in German though). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks for pointing out DEFAULTSORT. Indeed, I see Duisburg precedes Düsseldorf in Category:University towns in Germany and in de:Kategorie:Deutsche Universitätsstadt. Zwerg Nase, thank you for the explanation and the helpful link. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that I must oppose to what has been written here. Yes, there are those two standards, but no, for encyclopedias, dictionaries and the like ONLY the first one is ever used. Please treat Düsseldorf as if it read Dusseldorf, as if it had no trema. The ONLY use in practise of the other variant where ü = ue is in telephone directories, so that I will find Herr Max Müller in the telephone book on my first attempt, even if I know him only phonetically, unsure whether he's spelled Mueller or Müller. 2003:EF:BF0:1219:24A7:96A9:8BC3:E6CF (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Germany since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Home Army/Archive 6#Request for Comments: German casualties: watchers here may comment.--JoeZ451 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Members of the project might be interested in this discussion: Talk:Capital ẞ#Does this symbol need it's own article?.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67 and Vami IV: and others. I see that User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Germany shows also class "redirect" and class "draft". Unfortunately these classes are not exist here: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Estonia. Can anyone help to add this two classes to WikiProject Estonia assessment table?--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have template editor rights, but |QUALITY_SCALE = on {{WikiProject Estonia}} needs to be changed from extended to subpage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your input about the categorization of settlements is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions. Thank you, Renata (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death to be moved to Adolf Hitler death conspiracy theories. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagar Aryal (2nd nomination) may be of interest to this project. As the article was refunded before, it would be ideal to have a more permanent resolution to the notability question. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Panzer Aces, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Mujinga (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Legiendamm has been proposed for deletion. I don't speak German. Are any WikiProject Germany members able to find sourcing or give some feedback on the article's talk page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I've done a small bit of Googling and can't find anything substantial enough to warrant it being given an entire article for itself. The German wikipedia project dedicates a paragraph to it here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luisenst%C3%A4dtischer_Kanal, which I think would be the best thing to do on the canal page on the English wiki as well. I agree with the deletion suggestion. Allenthalben (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled over some attempts to translate the title Ministerpräsident. It appears that someone decided to translate it "minister president" or even as a whole Wiki category "ministers president" which is even worse. It is a poor translation and is what native German speakers would call "Denglish".

The office of Ministerpräsident combines the roles and functions of head of government and head of state (sovereignty in Germany resides with the states and is only delegated to the Federation). As such the adequate translation would be "governor".

I would strongly recommend to replace the use of "minister president" and such in all relevant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareaustralis (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The common translation is "minister-president", especially as a title. The Oxford dictionary on my iPhone also gives "prime minister" or "governor", which could be used depending on the context. I might say "Markus Söder is the governor of the German state of Bavaria", if someone in the U.S. were to ask me who he his and I thought "governor" would be the best way to express it. There is no one-size-fits-all translation. Jmar67 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Minister president is perfectly alright and doesn't need a hyphen. Certainly when I worked in this field, we always referred to this post as the minister president and there were standard translations of other entities too. It has the great advantage of looking and sounding pretty much the same in both languages and thus minimising confusion. I'm sure the embassies of English-speaking countries have a common guide though. Bermicourt (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What about first minister for the head of a German state? The term popped into my head upon reading this section, though I have no experience in this area. But our article mentions this use specifically. Eric ^talk 02:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I've used Lower Saxony as an example. In the wider press and literature, "Minister President of Lower Saxony" and "Governor of Lower Saxony" are both common, whereas "First Minister of Lower Saxony" is rare. But the clincher is the English front page of the official site of the Lower Saxony State Government which uses "Minister President" as I suspected they would from my time working with the British Embassy in Germany, so that rather seals it. Bermicourt (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good, thanks. So does this read ok, or want changing?: First_minister#Other. Eric ^talk 14:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added the English spelling now. Bermicourt (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion at Talk:Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia#Recent addition concerning the US position about how to address discussions of separating the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia after WW1 may be of interest to the project.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback would be welcome at these two related move requests:

• Talk:Wiederbewaffnung#Requested move 25 May 2020
• Talk:German rearmament#Requested move 25 May 2020

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm categorising German biography articles. Can someone advise me whether people called Von Something should be indexed under V or S please? Practice clearly varies. Is there a rule or policy? Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Good question. From a quick internet search, it seems practice varies among English-language sources in how they treat particles such as "von" in names. But our colleagues at de.wp appear to go by the actual last name, with the "von" after the first name: de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Biografien#Sortierung. Eric ^talk 00:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Use the actual last name, and exclude their title. As an example, Frederick I of Württemberg should be not "König Württemberg, Friedrich", but "Württemberg, Frederick I". –Vami♜_IV♠ 12:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been categorising people by occupation and state, along the lines of Category:German businesspeople by state, but I am not sure what to do with people from Pomerania, Sudetenland etc. They get put in the state which now includes the place they came from. I could just leave these outliers in the Category:German businesspeople. At present there are no occupational categories for the former states and I suspect that is true for most other territories too. I could make new categories, like Businesspeople from Sudetenland. Or, for some, you could argue that they could be put in existing categories like Category:Estonian businesspeople, though that could be considered misleading. Or there could be categories a bit like Category:People of the Tudor period, which attempted to make it clear that they are properly regarded as German, but on different boundaries from today. I would welcome opinions. What would be most helpful? I dont think there is any obvious answer, and maybe leaving them where they are is the most sensible course of action. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, there's no such word as "businesspeople". Jmar67 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are stuck with the word. Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please check if this draft article translates the German version correctly. Thanks! im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 05:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Appears accurate. I did note that the resume implies the doctorate was granted in 1980, not 1982. Jmar67 (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Battle of Austerlitz 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. buidhe 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello all- I'm hoping to get some input from people with experience working on articles related to Nazi Germany: A new editor going under the moniker of GermanCamps is changing instances of Nazi to German or German Nazi. I find the changes make for awkward and redundant wording. I'm guessing this is not the first time such an issue has come up, and am wondering if anyone here might have input or can point to earlier discussions. See these diffs: Liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp, Nazi concentration camp badge; and discussion. Thanks in advance for any input, and for pinging any users who might be interested. Pinging one user mentioned on this project's active members list: L337p4wn. Eric ^talk 22:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the term "Nazi" needs to be used carefully; it is not freely interchangeable with "German" even in an historical context. The term is even used to in opposition to German e.g. Nazi Germany as opposed to Germany (i.e. Germany outside the time of National Socialist rule). When applied to people, my sense is that a "Nazi" is specifically a member of the NSDAP as opposed to an ordinary German citizen. The only time to use "German Nazi" is to distinguish a Nazi of German nationality from a Nazi of another nationality. It may be a misunderstanding. Perhaps you could ask GermanCamps what he or she sees as the distinction to determine the logic for the changes. Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, and thanks for your input. I agree. GermanCamps has made no edits since the last revert of my edits. Eric ^talk 14:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31/ GermanCamps (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

GermanCamps, welcome to Wikipedia. You're still a new user, and simply listing one reliable source like you did proves nothing. Please read WP:DUEWEIGHT, which applies here. When comparing the two expressions, the numbers appear to be crushingly against you, at least for certain search expressions on the web. For example, there are 1,210,000 results for "nazi concentration camp" on the web and 96 for "german nazi concentration camp". (The first tally is likely exaggerated.) Other search terms are possible, of course, and a search limited to reliable sources would be a better test. Perhaps you will find different numbers examining only books or scholarly articles; if so, please post them below. However, I expect the numbers will hold up there as well, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't. In the meantime, you should stop making this type of change to articles, until it can be justified with respect to DUEWEIGHT and other content policies and guidelines. There's also a possible username issue which I'll raise at your talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Coordinator here. While it'll be my aim to mediate this matter, I am going to parrot Bermicourt's opinion on it. Generally, in the English language at least, if you use the word "Nazi" as a descriptor, a certain image or connotation comes to mind. And it isn't Czech collaborators or Lithuanian anti-Soviet guerrillas. It is generally understood when the word "Nazi" is used that one is referring to a Waffen-SS officer, or an SS "doctor", or NSDAP functionary like a Gauleiter. The reference to Auschwitz, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Poland, as a "German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp" by UNESCO, while correct, is redundant, and just makes me think back to Barack Obama's faux pas in referring to Nazi camps in modern-day Poland as "Polish death camps". I suggest this: In the context of concentration and extermination camps, do not change "Nazi camp" to "German Nazi camp"; in the context of Nazis and Nazi collaborators, do not write "Hans Wilhelm König was a German Nazi camp doctor at the Auschwitz and Neuengamme concentration camps", but what I have actually written there: "Hans Wilhelm König was a German [SS officer and camp doctor] at the Auschwitz and Neuengamme concentration camps." There's my two cents. I will now call on K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) and Buidhe (talk · contribs), editors with an extensive history with the topics of Nazi Germany and the Shoah, to give theirs, too. –Vami♜_IV♠ —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, May 14, 2020

@K.e.coffman: and @Buidhe: as preceding comment was missing a signature. Agathoclea (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I would generally agree with Vami that "German" and "Nazi" are usually redundant, and with his points. However, I would provide a different justification: German should be used in preference to Nazi where there is no ambiguity casued (e.g. Treblinka was a German extermination camp would cause confusion and ambiguity with its geographic location) such that German-occupied Poland however, is preferred to Nazi-occupied Poland. Furthermore, since Nazi is an ideology rather than a nationality, it can cause a different ambiguity. If in future a Naziesque government came to power in Poland, some people might refer to it as a "Nazi occupation of Poland". The Tiso government in Slovakia had some resemblance to Nazi ideology, so did Nazi occupation of Slovakia start in 1938/39 or in 1944 with the German invasion of Slovakia? If we are talking about people it is vague to call them "Nazis", are we referring to their ideology or to actual membership in the Nazi party, or is "Nazi" being used as an insult? I believe that my suggestions correspond to the most common English usage. buidhe 09:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, before some trigger-happy editor jumps all over your comment, I understood what you meant by "I would generally agree with Vami that German and Nazi are usually redundant" and that you really didn't mean it "generally", but rather "specifically", in this context. In the end, as you say, we should use whatever "correspond[s] to the most common English usage". Hope this clarification fairly represents your PoV. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of any context in which "German Nazi" or equivalent would be used by the predominance of English sources. Yes, we should usally follow usage but we should also aim to be concise, clear, and unambiguous when possible, which sources aren't always. buidhe 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The best solution is to use German Nazi or Nazi German, as a) it links to the specific time period article, and b) it avoids ambiguity. Many people outside the Western civilization can be confused, see for example the entire issue with Polish concentration camps misnomer. I now live and work in Asia, and trust me, most people here have no cluse what SS is, and probably wouldn't automatically associate Nazis with 'Germans only'. Read on Nazi_chic#Asia (this topic needs a major expansion). Or read this semi-random piece of news. For Europans or Americans the word NAzi may seem sufficient, but Wikipedia is international, and for many people in other parts of the word it is obscure, and with much fewer negative connotations. Kind of like for most people in the West Rising_Sun_Flag#Controversy is a surprise, but if you display this in Korae or China, you'll be in trouble (here's another semi-random piece of news on this: [9]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

See here for discussion.--Smerus (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Kommando#Unfocused, regarding a possible split or other refactoring of this article. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there anybody active on this project also involved in WMG? ——Serial ^# 13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Battle of Moscow 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. buidhe 01:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are interested, there is a request for comment about an article in this WikiProject. Talk:Tripartite Pact#Request for comment: infobox. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've raised a concern on German rivers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, input will be appreciated.† Encyclopædius 12:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the reliability of Bild at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Given the fact that most regulars are unlikely to be familiar with this source, I thought it would be appropiate to alert this wikiproject. Kind Regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the reliability of the references cited in that article? If so, it would help to point to which of the forty refs you have in mind. Eric ^talk 20:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has been a disaster, and tagged as a disaster, for over a decade. I would appreciate help sourcing it, removing the worst bits and adding the necessary bits. Much thanks. 86.106.90.99 (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the article for the film Misjudged People, an editor overwrote the original version with a version translated from the German-language article. I reverted this because much of it looked unsourced. There do seem to be some sources, but considering how messy the German-language article was, can someone review the German-language sources in the attempted version and see what matches and what does not? Find a discussion here: Talk:Misjudged People#Revert from mainly-unsourced expansion. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Can other editors please review this situation? OliverTwist78 keeps restoring their version that has vast amounts of unsourced content. It's possible that there could be inline citations, but the editor clearly does not want to follow policy and provide them for the content they are adding. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Twist here: I have translated the Misjudged People from the lengthy German Wikipedia article (de:Verkannte Menschen) and checked the German-language sources that were cited in both English and German to be sure. I don't understand why Erik feels my English translation and German Wikipedia article aren't up to his standards. Erik kept adding the {{Expand German}} and reverting to older version. Erik even threatened to block me if I continue with "disruptive editing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

OliverTwist78, I have explained multiple times that you are adding content that lacks inline citations for readers to verify the reliable sources that are being cited to support the text. While the German-language article is lengthy, it is not high-quality in the specific regard of ensuring that its content meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy. That lack of quality should not be imported to the English-language article. Are you not able to add inline citations for all sentences or paragraphs? You cannot expect the reader to go through multiple potential sources to try to figure out which source supports which sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The introductory chapter to Heinsberg (district) says "Students of the University of Bonn started to use the affected area as a testing site to study the novel coronavirus and to search for ways to handle the situation in the best possible way." In fact, this was not kind of a grassroot movement, but a research project led by Hendrik Streeck. Students joined the data-collecting team. The project resulted in scientific publications: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090076v2 --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Another publication of Streeck et al., resulting from the data from Gangelt (town) / Heinsberg (district) is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.20114041v1.full.pdf+html, as the text lines 132-133 say.--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) (The text lines 132-133 refer to the preview pdf.)--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I changed it into "a research group" and added your reference. Markussep ^Talk 07:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank You. In my opinion, this diskussion thread is - how do you say it in English the german wikipedia term is "Erledigt" means has come to a good ending.--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Resolved". Jmar67 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Gemäldegalerie, Berlin has text saying "As of 2012, the gallery's collection faces a pending move to a temporary site". Please can someone with access to (presumably) German-language sources update it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Witold Pilecki 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I am writing a sort of solo-revision of Germania and I'll appreciate very much comments, questions etc. Draft: User:Sechinsic/sketch1; Discussion: Talk:Germania#A toponym —— Sechinsic (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Erbprinzliches Palais Dessau, please. It looks like a potentially interesting article, but needs somebody who reads German to evaluate sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I wish to make editors aware of a discussion that is occurring on Wikimedia commons. Here is the link [10]. A creator has uploaded a barnstar with Nazi imagery that is intended to be awarded to editors who work on articles related to Nazism. Its not for articles - it is specifically intended for use on a userpage which the author makes clear here [11]. I feel this "award" is offensive in the extreme and its potential to be used as a personal attack or harassment is obvious regardless of the creators intentions. Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  02:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MILHIST § Wolfgang Engels. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if anyone could help me look for sourcing for the article The Knickerbocker Gang. It's up for AfD and I've pretty much exhausted what I can do with a very basic level of understanding of the German language and Google Translate. I know that this is an Austrian series (I posted there as well) but since the series was published in German, I thought it may be good to post here as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

one minor correction done, i don't know much about he subject.--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

New perspectives and old issues needs comments. Please join at the talk-page Talk:Germania. Sechinsic (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this page salvageable, or should it be redirected to The woman question? At present, it's just a rehash of the POV-ridden Catholic Encyclopedia, and has been tagged for cleanup since 2009. The version in dewiki looks very different and much better, FWIW. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would redirect. Nothing to save.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, for now. Others should feel free to revert/rewrite if there are good sources in either English or German to reconstruct this with, but the last pre-redirect version was 95 percent from an old, biased source that IMO is not appropriate for an article by our standards. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the notability discussion that happened during the withdrawn DYK nomination, I have started a merge discussion on Talk:Schöningen forest elephant, input is requested.--Kevmin § 15:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

1 Ambassador10 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all German missions to the moon was in AfD and was voted to move to German space programme after i made a comment about how we could make a page. I meant for it to be incubated, though and it was just moved instead. If anyone would be willing to help build this article out some or have suggestions for what to do about it, they would be most appreciated. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding whether a separate article ought to be maintained for Capital ẞ or not that is of interest to the project, talk:ß#Merge Capital ẞ here?.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I created a new article on the artist and painter, Paul Seckel. Any further research would be appreciated! Right cite (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I've seen that somebody had changed this again on the article of Helmut Kohl, and since the topic is coming up again and again. Can we please find a consensus that the Weimar Republic is not a place, but a time period, and should therefore not be stated as "place of birth". It's like writing somebody was born in American Civil War... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Battle of Blenheim 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The article Annett Renneberg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

Unreferenced article about German actress

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs) 08:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A new editor's user page, D7evenZ (talk · contribs), is in the German language. I can't tell if it is a proper user page or a user-space draft or a WP:NOTWEBHOST page.

Could someone who reads German check it out, welcome the new editor, and if it's not a valid "user page" move it to a sub-page, blank it, or tag it for deletion? The same content or something close to it is in his sandbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's not really a valid user page, more a personal biographical page with links to his selected websites. And he also appears to be a user who has been banned indefinitely at German Wikipedia. See here. Bermicourt (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:German service people has been nominated for merging to Category:Restaurant staff. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Germans, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tserton (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi members, I have created the article King Ludwig Oak with the help of de:König-Ludwig-Eiche and have nominated it for WP:GAN. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 18:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interest in the related discussions here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

... and on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hitler_family about the current version of the article Hitler family created by the thread starter. --KnightMove (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion about three German propaganda organizations during World War II with very similar names, and what to do about it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've spent the last few days expanding the Nicole article. I've rewritten most of it and added some tables for her discography. Any feedback would be welcome. Up until a few days ago, I've mostly only done small edits on Wikipedia. GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This is just a heads-up that the article Germans is undergoing major revisions in the last few days. In addition, the Talk page has seen a lot of mostly unrelated activity in the last few weeks, including an Rfc (5 Dec) about the meaning of "Germans", and there is other Talk page activity as well. Those of you interested in the article, might wish to lurk, comment, or take part. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I've discovered a number of Fringe etymologies at the page Slavicism (see [12], [13], and this talk page thread and I was hoping anyone who knows more about Slavic etymologies could help pick out some more (I'm limited to my knowledge of Germanic). Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I intend to create an article for Thede Kahl, but most results in Google about him are in German, which makes it difficult for me to find sources. Furthermore, he is an academic, so I'm not sure where exactly can I look to find information on him. For this reasons, I need some help from German editors who may be more successful at finding the sources. I don't mean to make the page too long, a stub with some sources to prove that he's notable is enough for me. Kahl is mostly focused on studying peoples from the Balkans and is a professor at the University of Jena. Super Ψ Dro 13:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Please check out Magnificat (Hoffmann), and the talk page of Magnificat in A minor (Hoffmann). "Kleine Magnaficat" is wrong German, "Das kleine Magnificat" would be correct, or "Kleines Magnificat". Unfortunately some English sources read as if German grammar can be disregarded when speaking English. Is that right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first online Edit-a-thon that I am organizing. Which you can find here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Online_edit-a-thon_Tech_February_2021 - Online and global about trade unions and technology. I am based in Berlin, and would love advice/participation of other folks interested in WP:WikiProject Germany to attend, and suggest topics/articles of interest. ~ Shushugah (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

An AfD discussion of the above article is taking place here.--Smerus (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tom Rees (airman) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Curse you Red Baron. First of his victims. Eradicating history again. The article was a DYK. And looks it. Well developed article, but anything can be improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

See an image and media discussion at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Excessive images and files; life summary? Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Participation welcome at Talk:Nazi Germany#RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This RM discussion may be of interest to people on this project. FOARP (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is just a note to say that this discussion has been relisted for further discussion. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Changed First sentence in Bremen-Hemelingen article from "Hemelingen (Plattdeutsch Hemeln) is a city and district of Bremen and belongs to the Bremen district East." to "Hemelingen (Plattdeutsch Hemeln) is a German city and district of Bremen belonging to the Bremen district East." I believe this clarifies the sentence by establishing the city's country and removes the repetitive "and" in the sentence. Arrived at this article via article of Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers, the discoverer of the astroid Vesta which stated he was "born in Arbergen, today part of Bremen". ☉Qψîδịzഴ^ⓧ•—>Quisizyx _talk 09:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated War of the Fifth Coalition 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Social issue#The question of societal guilt which could use your feedback. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#U-Bahn station names which may be of interest to members of this project. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

After successfully completing our Asia and Africa contests over the past six months, we now welcome contributions to our Women in Europe contest which runs for three separate months from April to June 2021. To qualify for the contest, articles have to contain at least 160 words or 1,000 characters of running text and participants need to be members of Women in Red. We look forward to lots of new biographies of women from Germany.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:The Flying Dutchman (opera)#Requested move 10 April 2021 Aza24 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if someone were willing to take on the GAN of Frederick the Great. I'm not well enough versed on 18th century German history to feel confident evaluating this article. (t · c) buidhe 09:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeking Germany-based editors with a subscription to WAZ to assist with clarification in AfD discussion regarding Laura Hoffmann Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Are Rügen White Chalk Formation and Rugen Formation the same thing? The articles are uniformly uninformative and identical (a geologic formation from the Cretaceous in Germany). The references are not usable, since they reference the front page of a website instead of a specific webpage containing information. They were created by the same user at the same point in time. They both appear on List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Germany -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

accourding to the article they are "not to be confused". As you correctly state the sourcing is extremly thin. The former I think is de:Rügener Kreide but I can't find a deWiki article for the latter. Agathoclea (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WT:GEOLOGY these were merged into the new article Rügen Chalk -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up some interlanguage links, I came across the above. The former, de:Deutscher Ringer-Bund is about the guiding organsation of German wrestling clubs, established in 1972. German Wrestling Federation is a professional wrestling promotion founded in 1995, with a de article at de:German Wrestling Federation. Following the general standard, our en article on "Deutscher Ringer-Bund" would be expected to be at "German Wrestling Federation" (as per German Cycling Federation, German Equestrian Federation). But that title is occupied by the 1995 promotion. The questions I ask are:

• Is there a primary topic, and if so is it occupied by the right article?
• What should the organisations be titled - if the 1995 is moved to different title, or the 1972 one should have a different title?

As an aside, National Olympic Committee of the GDR has an article on de as de:Nationales Olympisches Komitee der DDR, whereas here it currently redirects to East Germany at the Olympics. Should the ill be retained in anticipation of an article on the Olympic Committee, or is the redirect to East Germany at the Olympics (i.e. assuming that we will not have an article on the 'National Olympic Committee of the GDR' in the future) the better option? Spokoyni (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Could someone who knows the language please add this review as a reference to this article, to help the article survive its AfD? Familiarity with the subject isn't necessary, nor is writing anything elaborate. A couple of sentences on the reviewer's general opinion in the article's reception section would be plenty in the circumstances.

If someone can help, thank you so much. If I'm in the wrong place, can you please direct me to a better one? --Kizor 23:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Help is needed checking most of these edits, please: [14]. Dates in articles have been changed but cannot be checked via the broken link at Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Ideally someone fluent in German could find a new source to cite. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Link is still broken. But edits no longer need checking, as I have undone them. Meticulo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Would someone be a dear and provide a translation of this quote in English — Diese Zeitschrift, die seit 1995 mit dem ehemaligen Südasien Bulletin fusioniert ist, publiziert vergleichende Studien aus einem kulturwissenschaftlichen Blickwinkel und berücksichtigt die lokale Geschichte. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate renders it, "This journal, which has been merged with the former 'South Asia Bulletin' since 1995, publishes comparative studies from a cultural-scientific point of view and takes local history into account." Hope that's of some help until someone fluent in German can give a better version. Meticulo (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Meticulo It does helps, of course ))))) ... but still, if a German speaker is passing by, kindly do verify. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, of course it all depends on the context. And it depends on whether you are determined to match the original text word for word and tense by tense, or are more concerned to convey the meaning of the entire sentence. I'm far from fluent in German, but I read it a lot and my English is quite good. How about starting with:

*"This magazine, which in 1995 was merged with the now defunct publication, "Südasien Bulletin", produced comparative studies from a culture-based point of view, taking the local history into account".

But you should almost certainly want to improve on that, based on your context. Sei gesund! Charles01 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles01. Actually, I would be using it as a source in an article that I'm currently developing in my sandbox. So, if possible, then please provide a perfect or near-perfect translation. Danke Schön, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Charles01, I would like to add that I might need to use the |quote= and |trans-quote= parameters in the citation. So, that's why a "word for word and tense by tense" translation would be greatly helpful, if that can be made available. Danke Schön, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you already more or less have that from our friend's google translation. However, there's a whole bunch of stuff to be written about the translation into English of "Wissenschaft" and "wissenschaftlich". Google uses in this example "science" and "scientific", and lots of folks would do the same. But "Wissenschaft" means "knowledge" in a much broader sense than English speakers will normally take from the word "science". For instance, wikipedia uses "German Academy of Sciences at Berlin" for "Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR". But for many purposes a more accurate English language translation could be "German Academy of Sciences and Humanities at Berlin". I don't have a "one answer for all situations" version. Context is always important. But for what I understand as your own present purposes .... be aware!

Meanwhile, if someone with mother tongue German will be bold and produce an English language translation of Diese Zeitschrift, die seit 1995 mit dem ehemaligen Südasien Bulletin fusioniert ist, publiziert vergleichende Studien aus einem kulturwissenschaftlichen Blickwinkel und berücksichtigt die lokale Geschichte, I would also be interested to see it. Please?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a native German and translation is not an exact science, but my rendering is: "This journal, which merged with the former Südasien Bulletin ("South Asian Bulletin") in 1995, publishes comparative studies from a cultural perspective and takes account of the local history." Whether Zeitschrift means magazine or journal/periodical depends on which one we're talking about, but the topic sounds 'serious' enough for it to be the latter. Bermicourt (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i made some new photo montages for some cities but i have problems with getting them into the articles. Especially one user opposes my montages. I want to show some of them here just to know if there is anyone else who thinks they would be an improvement to the articles, and if so you are welcome to integrate them yourself. Maybe i'm wrong and they are ugly/no improvement, but here they are. Greetings

Dresden

Leipzig

Schwerin

TheCarlos1975 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheCarlos1975: the montages are attractive, but I'm not sure what Wiki policy is on this. They allow galleries, but that's not the same thing. Where I have seen montages are on portals, but a lot of Germany-related portals were decimated a while back in a campaign by anti-portal editors. That's stopped now, so I don't know if they can be reinstated. Bermicourt (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject can be found at Talk:Nazism#Paragraph dealing with NSDAP-DNVP relations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, today I received an email telling me that nearly all of the scans of old books that are available online (at digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf.de) have been recently re-licensed under a PD / CC0 license by the University and State Library Düsseldorf.
Previously I had asked them why many of their scans of books in the public domain were published online with a "non-commercial" limitation in their licenses. If you have any idea where else to announce / advertise this new availability of their online material, please tell me or publicize it yourself. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am looking for someone to help me read and confirm my references. The article has been in the German wiki for a long time and the English version has unfortunately been deleted. I would be very happy if someone looks at my Draft [[15]] and gives it a positive rating so that it can be published again.--NinaSeitle (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I did some work on your draft. Notability might still be an issue. See my thoughts on the draft's talk page. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Any native German speakers willing to take a crack at translating the quite-substantial de:eco – Verband der Internetwirtschaft over to the draft/stub Draft:Eco_-_Association_of_the_Internet_Industry? There are at least two English-language articles for which it's red-linked: DE-CIX and Quad9#Sony_Music_Injunction. I don't speak German and I'm not that familiar with the German Internet industry, so I've probably taken it as far as it's useful for me to do. Once there's a decent translation up in draft form, I'll be happy to take it through the new-article-proposal process, though. Thanks for considering. EVhotrodder (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I started translating and did some other work on your draft, most importantly linking the associated legal registry entries for such a lobby group, but otherwise the (German) sources are badly lacking: It's all eco describing themselves. Before a further translation effort makes sense, we'd need more reliable sources. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, It think it is possible – at least highly likely by sense in my opinion – that "The Shark" (Lettvin's Nachdichtung after Morgenstern's "Der Hecht" contains a printer's error and Arian is meant (the deviation from the German is too great – these are really Nachdichtungen, interpretations, to settle it from that source), i.e. a Christian heretic who denies the divinity of Christ (just as a Pelagian is a Christian heretic who denies the necessity of grace for salvation – the pun on ’pelagic’ is outside my scope), for an Aryan is merely one of the Indo-Germanic or Caucasian race, which has no bearing whatever on the poem.

I might also suggest a note be made of just how free Lettvin is – if we take the German text, the liberties are so considerable it is really a kindred poem in my inexpert eyes rather than a translation – even the setting goes from pool or pond to sea and the fish from pike to shark. If recollections a year old are of any value, there are yet other liberties in the translations of the other pieces so I would suggest marking them as Nachdichtungen and explaining what a Nachdichtung is.

2A00:23C6:C088:A000:9F4:9FF2:24C7:7788 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Patrick JK Gray

This is about Galgenlieder. As I said almost two years ago, you are probably right about Aryan vs Arian, but we can only report what is in reliable sources. The Galgenlieder page is in need of some TLC, sourcing, and some English analysis. —Kusma (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to members of this Project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've done some work on this article in the last week, first establishing a well-referenced retelling of the circumstances of Jalloh's death. I then moved to the chronology of investigations and court cases and got to the 2011 - 2012 retrial verdict.
Right now, I'm ambitiously working on a chronology of the whole time span from 2007 until now, mainly translating from the well-researched German WP article, but also looking for English language sources, whereever possible.

I would be glad for any help with translating, checking and adding sources, and general copyediting.
You can find (and edit) the current draft in my Sandbox --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of the international parliamentary election articles, have at the bottom prime minister before election & prime minister after election. Perhaps we can add this to the West German & (post unification) German general election articles, changing the Cabinet to Chancellor. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this is that elections do not, strictly speaking, determine the Chancellor, just the composition of the Bundestag, and the chancellor is then determined after lengthy coalition talks. The chancellor after the election is essentially always the same as before the election, continuing as a caretaker until a new chancellor has been determined by the Bundestag. For a recent example with complications, see 2019 Thuringian state election: Bodo Ramelow was minister-president before the elections, and was expected to win the vote in parliament despite not having a majority of any kind, but Thomas Kemmerich, the candidate of the smallest party in parliament became minister-president instead, which caused a massive scandal, and he resigned soon after without having even formed a government. See 2020 Thuringian government crisis for the details. Now Bodo Ramelow is prime minister again without a new parliament. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Notification can be add where required, see 2017 British Columbia general election article. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for a source to confirm that Alica Schmidt has been selected for the German 4 x 400 metres relay team for the 2020 Summer Olympics. None of the English language sources for this meet the definition of a reliable source, as they're all tabloid newspapers or websites copying those newspapers. Would a German speaker be able to look through German language news sites and see if you can find a reliable source for this? My German is not good enough for this task, unfortunately, and there doesn't seem to be asource for this anywhere on en.wiki or de.wiki, so far as I can see. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302: This one is a RS: https://www.rbb24.de/sport/thema/2021/olympia/tokio-2021-leichtathletik-diskus-pudenz-lueckenkemper-harting.html (rbb24 is part of RBB Fernsehen). "Auch die 400-Meter-Läuferinnen Karolina Pahlitzsch von der LG Nord Berlin und Alica Schmidt vom SCC Berlin haben sich jeweils für die Staffel qualifiziert." = "[Also] the 400m runners Karolina Pahlitzsch of LG Nord Berlin and Alica Schmidt of SCC Berlin have both qualified for the relay." —Kusma (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you (danke schön) - exactly what I was looking for. :) Joseph2302 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Editors here may wish to join the discussion at Talk:English people about the links (or not) between the English and Frisian peoples and languages which has arisen in the wake of multiple deletions and, in some cases, reversions and re-reversions of links between these topics, so a consensus would be helpful. Other articles affected include: Frisians, Saterland Frisians and Faroe Islanders. There may be more. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the project's FAs are listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020, and should be looked through / updated / improved to modern standards. For example, IG Farben Building is in need of better sources, Ulm campaign and Night of the Long Knives have some concerns listed on the talk page. I'm currently trying to update Georg Forster to use better sources and would also welcome comments at Talk:Georg Forster. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hallo, I wish I could remember more of my German language class. I went to find the small town of Vehra where my ancestors lived, but there is not a Wiki page in English. I found it from the Henschleben page, but this page is much more complete in German. I used a web translator to read them both, but I assume it would be inappropriate to use the translations to edit. I would be happy to help, but I don't think I'm able to do it properly. The pages are: Henschleben English (no information) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschleben

Henschleben Deutsch (much more info) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschleben

Vehra Deutsch (there is no corresponding English page yet) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehra

Thank you, and please let me know if I can help. Gina

Tzinamarina (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:NGEO you should cite at least one reliable source (aside from census tracts) that has in-depth coverage about the settlement, but legally recognized settlements are presumed to be notable until challenged. This historical village and contemporary town district (German: Ortsteil) might be notable enough for its own little article, I think. I don't see why it shouldn't get its own article. But Wikipedia is made up of many people: Someone else might think differently.

I may be willing to help you with the page creation. Would you create a draft for Vehra in your user space and start searching for sources? (German language sources are perfectly fine for this purpose, though English ones would be even better, of course.)

The sourcing situation of the German article is a bit spurious for our purposes: They have two list-style census tracts and one list-style book about town foundation dates. None of the sources writes about the village of Vehra in-depth.

Do you personally know know any of the inhabitants? Then you could ask them if there ever was any book written about them. Or you might call the town's disctrict mayor's office with that question, for example.

Don't get me wrong: It's likely that the article will be created either way, but its quality would be much improved from the outset if we had an in-depth source about it. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the telephone number of mayor Starroske's office from straussfurt.de: +49 36376 53449

You could start by calling them and ask if they know of any source material about Vehra. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, in case you didn't know this: Other media are fine too, like newspaper and magazine articles, movies, websites, etc. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Night of the Long Knives 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this June 2021 edit at Politics of Germany?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Germany&diff=1027670301&oldid=1027605584

Is it vandalism or is it censorship? Either way, why has it been chosen to be ignored? 2403:6200:8832:2ECD:99BB:81B6:A027:F40E (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done – see Talk:Politics of Germany for very exciting update regarding the reinstatement of two words and a dot. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A while ago, I was editing on climate articles and I came across this map, used in several pages. The first map legend (in yellow) says "Arid, steppe, cold (BSk)". This corresponds to cold semi-arid climate in the Köppen classification. If this is true, then that's a pretty cool fact and I'd love to see a photo of the place. If not, then the error should be noted in the caption, or the image replaced. Zach (Talk) 14:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. It's hard to compare it to the natural regions of Germany map because the map projections are different, but it looks as if it's pointing to parts of the Harz and possibly the Kyffhäuser, neither of which I would think of as steppes or particularly colder than e.g. the Ore Mountains. That said the eastern Harz is in a rain shadow, which may be why it's considered arid. But I thought the Kyffhäuser was just a ridge. Bermicourt (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I used Image Overlay on Google Earth. Some of the places in the yellow areas are: Staßfurt, Bernburg and Halle (Saale) (all in Saxony-Anhalt). Does it make sense? I have no idea... Zach (Talk) 18:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting. de:Halle_(Saale)#Klima says it is one of the most arid cities in Germany and in the de:Mitteldeutsches Trockengebiet. There's also the Brocken as a very special place climate-wise. —Kusma (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Brocken area is very interesting - know it well. But it's not arid - as part of the Upper Harz it helps to take the brunt of the prevailing weather The Brocken itself has the highest precipitation of any point in north central Europe, which is why the eastern Harz is so dry. I've seen days when there's continuous heavy rain on the Brocken and bright sunshine immediately to the east. I wonder if the arid steppe region shown is actually the rain shadow area on the plain to the east of the Harz which would include Halle? Bermicourt (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly what is was looking for. The Brocken is right on the dark green area (Dfc) in the middle of Germany, and given the amount of rain there, no wonder it's dry on the lee side. What is surprising is that the countryside seems to be quite green (and wooded) for a "semi-arid" area, but I think this is because of low average temperature. BSk is common in Spain, Grece... but also in Bulgaria and eastern Europe, so it encompasses a wide range of environments. Zach (Talk) 11:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: You're exactly right. I must say I'm astonished that a 1141 m high mountain can have such a drastic effect on the weather. In fact, I did not even notice it until I set the Elevation exageration to 3 on Google Earth (lol)! Zach (Talk) 11:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BayernLB#Requested move 6 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of cities by country that have stolpersteine#Requested move 19 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Recently, I found an article regarding the city of Marksuhl. The article itself was impressively short. I read the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia, and found a wealth of information. I would like an editor to, if possible, expand the article on the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksuhl) with the same article on the German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksuhl). I apologize for any inconvenience. 100.40.193.109 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Head's up, I've listed an old GA - my first, actually - for GAR because it sucks. Here's the link. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The list of navigation templates in de:Kategorie:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Wahlen (Deutschland) are sorted by year and government type, when it could simply be sorted by year to match the ones in Category:Germany election year navigational boxes. Any opposes? It initially would be a renaming of the template, and then in cases of 2016/21 also adding the Bundestag elections to them. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done with Wikidata linking ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Johann Walther (1684-1748)

207.144.140.235 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed that the article Prince-elector be renamed and moved to Elector of the Holy Roman Empire. If any project members or talk page stalkers wish to contribute to the discussion, it is at Talk:Prince-elector#Requested move 14 September 2021. TSventon (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Unification of Germany to be moved to Unification of Germany (1871). Since you had some involvement with Unification of Germany, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is entirely negative in tone and poorly sourced. Please consider whether this can be made BLP-compliant reasonably quickly, or may need to be deleted under WP:BLPDEL. Also posted to BLPN here. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone, I'm currently working on creating an article about the relations between what was East Germany and the United States. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find much information outside of the links I have stored on my subpage. I can't seem to find any information on the ambassadors of the GDR to the U.S. or images or articles about their old diplomatic mission in Washington. If there are German-language sources for the ambassadors and the mission as well as any other information, I would appreciate it if you could send them to me on my talk page. Thanks. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, all, the article has been created. Feel free to edit or read. I will be creating the pages on GDR's ambassadors to the U.S. and their respective articles soon. The last related Germany relations article for the time will be my current draft of U.S.-West German relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The list of ambassadors page has been created. If anyone wants to add more information, they are welcome to. There is a need for it as well as for the three ambassadors of the GDR to the United States. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone, in the past day or two, I've created the articles of the GDR ambassadors to the U.S. borrowing from the German Wikipedia. Feel free to improve the Rolf Sieber, Horst Grunert, and Gerhard Herder articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated IG Farben Building 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking for a consistent way to translate these German terms for parts of cities, towns and municipalities: Stadtbezirk, Stadtteil and Ortsteil. The English Style Guide of the European Commission, page 66 of 150 uses "borough" for a Bezirk that is part of a town or city, so it's probably best to use "borough" for Stadtbezirk as well. The style guide offers no suggestions for Stadtteil and Ortsteil, and they redirect to "quarter" and "village" respectively. I think Ortsteil doesn't mean the same as "village", do we have better suggestions? If we can decide on the best translations for these terms, I think we should add them to the WP:Naming conventions (Germany). Markussep ^Talk 10:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

IIRC I've used "quarter" or "municipal district" for Stadtteile and for Ortsteile. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Quarter" is probably OK for many "Stadtteile" (like the ones in Cologne), although literally "quarter" is the translation for "Viertel". Some "Stadtteile" do not form a continuous built up area with the central city, for instance Liebertwolkwitz as part of Leipzig, so maybe something like "municipal district" or plain "division" would be better for all. Markussep ^Talk 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a tricky area which I had hoped to research thoroughly to tie down the nearest English equivalents, but haven't had time. It's not helped by the fact that there are various usages in different English-speaking countries, although the EU goes with British and Irish practice. Nor by the fact that dictionaries etc often translate everything as "district". In Britain, London is divided into boroughs, but Birmingham has council constituencies, while Poole is both a town and a borough and has "suburbs and neighbourhoods". So Stadtteil could be translated as borough, quarter, district, neighbourhood, suburb or ward (= voting district). On Wikipedia I usually divide cities (Großstädte, population > 100,000) into boroughs or quarters and towns (Städte, pop. < 100,000) into districts, but it depends on the context. A Stadtteil that is largely residential on the edge of a town or city could be a "suburb". But sometimes Stadtteil is even used for a separate village outside of the main town e.g. Garßen. You'll see at that article that I've avoided translating Stadtteil (too confusing) and just said that it is a village which is part if the borough of Celle (using the analogy of the borough of Poole).

The nearest English equivalent of an Ortsteil is a (civil) parish; both are administrative areas comprising a main village and the surrounding countryside within a clearly defined boundary. But there's no way to indicate that it's not independent like a Gemeinde, but is part of a larger unit. Taking Bergen (Celle) as an example; it has 13 Ortsteile which are all separate villages apart from Bergen itself which is a small town. Here you could translate Ortsteil as parish and say they're part of the borough of Bergen. Or just say that the borough of Bergen comprises the town of Bergen, 13 villages and a number of hamlets, which is also true. Bermicourt (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "borough" for an independent town ("Stadt") like Celle or Bergen, since the EC translation guide recommends using that for a "(Stadt)bezirk". I'd like to stay as close to the original German as possible, but "city part" (as I've seen in the Districts of Cologne) or "local part" seems a bit ugly. "parish" would be "Pfarre" in German, which has only a religious meaning AFAIK, I wouldn't use that for "Ortsteil". Then there's also "Ortschaft" (often used for former municipalities, see for instance the subdivisions of Annaburg), which we could translate as "locality". Or we could call all of them (Stadtteil, Ortsteil, Ortschaft) "division", which matches the "teil" part of the word. Markussep ^Talk 07:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So should we add the following terms to WP:Naming conventions (Germany)#Administrative units?

• Großstadt: city
• Stadt: town
• Stadtbezirk: borough
• Stadtteil, Ortsteil: division
• Ortschaft: locality

Maybe we should also mention quarter as option for Stadtteil, and village for Ortsteil. Markussep ^Talk 19:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. I would definitely give a thumbs up to the first three, so we should add those unless anyone else has a major objection. Clearly there are many times when Stadt is used in German for a Großstadt, but we should still translate it as "city" otherwise there will be confusion. Also when Stadt is being used in the context of Stadtbezirk, we should translate it as "borough". What I'm saying is we have to look 'behind' the actual word to what the author means. We can add a sentence to the convention to explain that it is not a rigid word-for-word substitution. Stadtteil and Ortsteil are very tricky. I think "division" or, better, "subdivision" works e.g. in the sentence "Celle has the following administrative subdivisions:" - see {{Municipalities in Celle}} which is titled "Subdivisions of the borough of Celle". It could also be "Municipalities in/of the borough of Celle" since all administrative subdivisions are Gemeinden i.e. municipalities. But I don't think "division" works so well in the case of "Altencelle is a division of Celle", where it would be better to use "Altencelle is a municipality in the borough of Celle" or "...village in the borough of...". The former refers to the whole Altencelle jurisdiction; the latter to the actual built-up area only. Alternatively, where the nucleus is a village it's okay to use "parish". We have thousands of civil parishes in Britain which are not religious and which consist of a village and its surrounding land. So as long as no-one translates it back into German as Pfarre by mistake, we're fine. See parish. I think parish is a better translation of Ortschaft than "locality" which is quite vague, like "place", and certainly not an administrative unit. I think we're making good progress considering, that this is not an exact science. Bermicourt (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The principal problem with an over-prescriptive preference for "borough" (apart from the fact that I can never remember how to spell it) is the one that someone pointed out above. It doesn't really convey the same things in English English as it does in Australian English or in US English. (And where are our "customers" coming from anyway?) There are times when "(city) district", "region", "administrative district", "(city) quarter" or, as you wrote, "division" / "city division" work better. So, as I think some people here are thinking, its important to consider carefully (1) which term works best in the context of the article on which you are working and (2) whether most of the readers for the article will have mother-tongue American English or English English or Indian English or or. Town or city for "Stadt" also suffers from the extent to which (writing, at this point, as English born and in cheerful defiance of all my stateside kinsfolk) our American cousins mis-use the term "city". On wikipedia I tend to favo(u) city over town in cases of doubt simply because I tend to anticipate more American readers than English ones. But it is nevertheless one more example of where one size does not fit all situations. When you start looking for "a consistent way to translate" something you imply that there is a perfect one to one synonym for the word pair you have in mind. If our languages had been invented by computers, that might be how it worked. And between languages of similar ancestry that have been extensively "improved" by government agenciess - I guess I'm thinking German-Dutch - you generally come close. (Though I am advised that many Dutch people would not agree.) But in the interests of accuracy we should not pretend to some simplistic 1:1 relationship between some version of English and (?post-Rechtschreibung) high German simply to make life easier for the computers. IM(H)O. B well. Charles01 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, we should not apply a rigid relationship and the guidance should state that. Re city and town, in Germany at least they have this definition that any Stadt with a population of <100,000 is a Großstadt, so that gives us a useful threshold and avoids us getting into a, quite understandable, debate about what we English speakers mean by "city" and "town". According to the Wiki article "borough" is defined and used differently as you suggest, but in general it conveys the sense of a relatively large municipal area such as that belonging to an independent town or an official subdivision of a city. It doesn't sound small, like a parish, village or community.

I've found though that German Wiki settlement articles tend to have a standard-ish format that it might also be good to agree on e.g.

• Altencelle ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Celle in Niedersachsen.
• Stadt Elbingerode (Harz) ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Oberharz am Brocken im Landkreis Harz in Sachsen-Anhalt.
• Berghaupten ist eine Gemeinde im unteren Kinzigtal (mittlerer Schwarzwald) in Baden-Württemberg (Deutschland) und gehört zum Ortenaukreis.

My usual formulation, having looked at the map, is something like:

• "Altencelle is a village in the borough of Celle in the German state of Lower Saxony." So I avoid trying to translate Ortsteil and just refer to the settlement, having made sure it's not contiguous with the town of Celle, otherwise it would be a suburb, [town] quarter or the like.
• "The town of Elbingerode (Harz) is part of the borough of Oberharz am Brocken in the county of Harz in Saxony-Anhalt." That gets around the "town within a town" problem, but actually Oberharz am Brocken is not a town anyway. It's a municipal area in which Elbingerode is the biggest settlement but includes two other towns (Benneckenstein and Hasselrode) that are not much bigger than villages but have town rights. That's why we have to look at the map! I tend to use "county" not "district" for Kreis as that is what the British Embassy guidance for the Forces in Germany. Either works, but "district" tends to be slapped onto so many levels of government that it can become meaningless. And they are the equivalent of a "county" at least in the UK and US i.e. formal subdivision of a state/nation. But I don't go around slavishly changing "district" to "county" to avoid stressing other editors!
• "Berghaupten is a municipality in the lower Kinzig valley (Central Black Forest) in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It is part of the county/district of Ortenaukreis." Where Kreis is compounded I tend to leave it unchanged which technically is tautologous but I'm trying to help the reader. It would also be perfectly okay to say "Berghaupten is a village..." Bermicourt (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't quite agree... I think it's only professional to use the same terms in the same contexts. I have difficulty with using "county" for "Kreis". A county in German context is a "Grafschaft", an area (formerly) ruled by a count. The EC uses "district", that's also in the naming conventions, so please let's stick to that. The same for using "borough" for "Stadt". Of course not all places referred to as "Stadt" are independent municipalities ("Gemeinden"), as your Benneckenstein example demonstrates. But Oberharz am Brocken is a "Stadt", and hence a "town", even if there is no populated area or historical place with walls called Oberharz am Brocken. The EC uses "borough" for "Bezirke" that are part of a city or town, so for instance the Stadtbezirke/boroughs of Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt etc., similar to the boroughs of London and New York City. Let's use "borough" for city divisions only, not for independent towns like Celle or Oberharz am Brocken. And if we can't agree on a consistent translation, maybe we should leave them untranslated and create articles explaining the administrative details, if they aren't there already. Markussep ^Talk 18:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree there. A consistent translation is important, especially, as we have an EU translation guide to go by for the most part. There are edge cases where we have municipalities (or even towns) where we have no main urban area with the same name. My translation woud be "Altencelle is a village belonging to [the town of] Celle in the German state of Lower Saxony.", or maybe even cuting the German state part and relying on the linking of Lower Saxony. Agathoclea (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ortsteil and Stadtteil seem to be more or less interchangeable, Gemeinden obviously don't have Stadtteile, but for intance Leipzig has Ortsteile, that can be both outlying villages and city quarters. I'd say we use "village" and "quarter" for both of them, depending on the context, and "parts" or "divisions" in general, or where a heterogeneous group of Teile (like for Leipzig) is referred to. What shall we do with the "Ortschaften"? Markussep ^Talk 11:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baden-Württemberg#Requested move 25 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an RfC of interest to this project at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp regarding whether or not an article in Haaretz on significant errors and distortions of the article's portrayal of the camp and a connection of said errors to historical revisionism in Poland can be cited due to Haaretz's use of globally banned user Icewhiz as a source.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has requested for North Rhine-Westphalia to be moved to North Rhine–Westphalia. Since you had some involvement with North Rhine-Westphalia, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

There is also an alt-proposal to move to Nordrhein-Westfalen. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to merge Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, and am seeking more opinions on the matter to contibute to the discussion. Given the proposal is within the scope of this Wikiproject, I thought it'd be a good place to start. You can view the discussion here. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I created Volkswagen worker organizations and would love more eyes/feedback given it’s complex/technical and historic nature. I’ve primarily stuck with English sources, but German sources are likely necessary in some places. The structure of article is modeled after other transnational worker organizations like IBM worker organization, Apple worker organization and Amazon worker organization ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is a buildup of text scraps, most of them hardly understandable and not relevant. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I've made a start by restructuring the article into something more like the normal sequence and adding the section on Geography from German Wikipedia. But it needs a lot more work. Bermicourt (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I started a discussion at SS General von Steuben, about the problem of diving to ship wrecks, and whether the article advocates it. Any input would be appreciated! Renerpho (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if anybody know how to lookup a German court case. I've not been able to make any headway against it at at. The number is Case 8K 5055/94 under judge Kohlheim. It is to verify information regarding German diplomat Rudolf von Scheliha and whether he took any money off of Soviet intelligence for the reports he was providing to them. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities § Looking up a German court case

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There’s a discussion about moving Zürich to Zurich of interest to this project—Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § WP:PLACEDAB and disambiguating by state/province. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leo-Baeck-Medal#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Obscure bibliographer from Pomerania who I stumbled on. I don't read German, but a bunch of the hits in this search result and on Google Books (eg [16]) are in German. Would love some help with finding and reading German-language sources if anyone has time and inclination. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. This is extremely My Thing so I'm embarrassed to have never heard of him (or at least, I'm currently unable to remember knowing anything about him at any point), but I'm somewhat reassured by the ironically extended discussion here [17] on how completely obscure he really is. You weren't kidding! I don't think that Google Books result is very useful for expanding this right now (at a skim, looks like it's mostly interested in how he classified things as part of a larger argument, so it seems a bit undue-weighty, topic-wise, for an article at this size) but I'll put it into External Links for now. Ping me if you think there's likely to be anything especially good in one of those German-language Internet Archive sources? A skim is all I had time for right now and nothing jumped out at me as particularly promising. But it was a really quick skim. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Italian War of 1521–1526 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Italian War of 1521–1526

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, guten tag, everyone. I have started this article 2G-Regel. It is largely translated directly from the de wikipedia, using Google Translate, as my German is very basic and rudimentary. Any improvements would be most welcome. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Please consider including the date of birth for Dr Guy Stern in the BIRTHS section of the Wikipedia page identified as 1922 in Germany. Dr. Stern's date of birth is January 14, 1922 as verified/confirmed on his own personal reference Wikipedia page.24.127.32.201 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I recently find more and more articles in both German and English Wikipedia that either gloss over/completely ignore the Nazi associations that various prominent politicians, business men have for example Parliamentarian Hermann Conring (politician) who was in charge of deportations, or a more nuanced/debated cases like VW CEO Heinrich Nordhoff. Are there guidelines/any potential taskforces to go through such articles systematically? My suspicion is a mixture of lack of English sources, and recent resurgence of examinations of the past contribute to why Wikipedia/sources are only recently analyzing more critically the past deeds. I'm inspired in general by the work User:K.e.coffman has done on counter on wiki Myth of the clean Wehrmacht revisionism ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve had a similar thought about scholars and other Mitläufer, see [18]. I think it’s a good idea.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this myself. Companies, too - I came across an article on a company whose "history" section involved WWII but completely failed to mention, for example, that the factory had employed slave labourers during the war. I don't think we can blame it on lack of availability of English-language sources, for two reasons: not only is the problem also present on German Wikipedia, but the (biography) pages I've noticed have clearly stated at least something about Nazi associations in their Deutsche Biographie entry. Which shows up in the "authority control" template, so it's not an obscure source that's difficult to locate for an editor who doesn't read German. Not that I'd advocate that editors use sources they can't read, but it's not like "joined the NSDAP in 1932" is going to be ambiguous through Google Translate; you'd at least be tipped off that something is there. As for guidelines or taskforces, I don't know of any. -- asilvering (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll create a task-force later this week and notify people in WP:MILHIST, WP:WikiProject Jewish History, WP:COMPANIES and WP:LABOUR. Would be good to also create a list of what are highest priority companies/individuals etc.. and any guidelines/advice how to spot whitewashing of history ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's fine as long as we don't give undue emphasis to this issue. Some editors involved in this area are just as hard over in demonising all wartime Germans as the Holocaust deniers are at the other end of the spectrum. And there are sources out there which are just as biased. Hard though it is, we need to find a balance. In the same way that we would not necessarily fuss about every Russian who was a Communist during Soviet times unless we could show that the role was significant in some way. Bermicourt (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to forget about the Nazi past is a common German sin, although a lot of Vergangenheitsbewältigung has taken place, not just looking at Hans Filbinger or Kurt Waldheim. But even things like local commemmoration of concentration camps like Osthofen was controversial in the 1970s, and apparently Nohra still is. I agree about checking what is due and undue, but neutrally mentioning Nazi organisation membership should be fairly uncontroversial, and certainly profiteering from forced labour should be mentioned in company histories. One thing to look out for is companies "founded" in the 1930s, which were often from buying out Jews who were fleeing the country. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep balanced, @Bermicourt: - I think my recent work at Werner Conze shows basically the sort of neutrality I'm aiming for (particularly for individuals who were important in West Germany after the war). We need to openly discuss Nazi involvement and any attending controversies without ignoring whatever else the biographical subject may have done after the war (or trying to paint post-war actions as bad if that's not the consensus of the sources). I've certainly encountered at least one source that seems more interested in discrediting Conze than in fairly appraising him as a historian, and that appeared to be the view of the Conze article before I started editing it. Simultaneously there are other scholars such as Hermann Aubin where nothing about his Nazi past is mentioned. This is obviously a larger, systemic problem on Wikipedia that needs addressing.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

By having a central place to alert people to possible issues, whether whitewashing or WP:UNDUE I am confident we will find consensus and overall improved articles. A Taskforce category talk could also allow us to keep track of such articles in the long term even if it’s undue to include something in the content space about membership in the NSDAP people etc ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering about how to handle taskforce Talk page templating and if that itself wouldn't be undue in some cases. Maybe that's jumping a bit ahead of things and I shouldn't worry. I'm just remembering everyone in Anglophone news going "omg! The new pope was in the Hitler Youth!!" like that meant anything at all. (Yes, of course he was. It was legally required.) Obviously that's a deliberately over-the-top example of context collapse, but if this hypothetical task force is going to be flagging articles for improvement, presumably some articles will stick around for a while with no reference to their subject's Nazi-associated history while they wait for someone to come by and fix them, and anything that makes that visible to someone who isn't familiar with the aims/context of this task force (a non-Wikipedian reader, an editor who doesn't normally read history articles, etc) could have some unintended effects. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering agreed with the concern, which is why Article/mainspace categories would be inappropriate, whereas even now...anyone with a massive COI can slap a Wikiproject template/ask any questions. Of course they can be removed if excessively bad faith. But having a template slapped on the pope's talk page and making sure it's due weight, would be preferable to subtle insertions that go undetected for a long time. Any such tag should reflect that, e.g. 'Taskforce:Possible Nazi associations' may be more neutral than 'Taskforce:Nazi Associations' etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I created the task force Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation Task Force . We can worry about categorization later, but first let's see if there's interest from participants signing up and also examples of topics people would like to improve. I included mainly IBM/VW related ones and some known examples. I will alert the other WikiProjects and also see if we can get a mention in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in this article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from this project's members. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion. Thank you! —AFreshStart (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Prehn. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

More generally, please watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany to hear about all AfDs in the scope of this project. —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you help to fix the links to German resistance shown at Disambig fix list for German resistance? Widerstand was recently change from a redirect to German resistance to Nazism to German resistance, which has created around 100 links to the disambiguation page. This is unhelpful to readers and I do not have the knowledge to correct the links.— Rod ^talk 15:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - this issue seems to have been resolved.— Rod ^talk 09:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested for West Low German to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with West Low German, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). --Heanor (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Greater Region to be merged into Greater Region of SaarLorLux. Since you had some involvement with Greater Region or Greater Region of SaarLorLux, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). --Heanor (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has requested for Recovered Territories to be merged into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Since you had some involvement with Recovered Territories or Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so).

Further input is requested from all interested WikiProjects to facilitate reaching consensus. Felix QW (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I recently created a draft for Mahnmal. I need some help finding source material in German as the German Wikipedia article has none. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If anyone from this project is interested, First homosexual movement is waiting for a GAN review. It's an interesting topic and I hope to get it to FAC soon. (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:David+Martin has been sitting at AfC for a while. It is promotional in tone but I think the main reason it is sitting is because the majority of references (in the draft and online) are in German. Can anyone help by taking a look and letting me know if the references cited would meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41 The bar for AfC isn't "is an ironclad AfD pass" but more "isn't an obvious AfD fail", right? By that metric it looks fine to me, but I've seen people apply WP:NCORP in ways that seem very strange to me, so I don't want to come off as too certain. I checked refs 1, 3, 4, 19, and all are substantial coverage, not simply interviews, and independent. At that point I stopped checking, so the others might be fine too. But do you have any idea what the paid editing disclosure on the creator's userpage means? I don't get it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering:, first of all thanks for looking at the draft. For AfC, the standard currently used is that the draft would more than likely pass at AfD. Of course, if something is overly promotional or needs a ton of cleanup then it is often rejected as well. For WP:NCORP, the interpretations are sometimes all over the place; however, one constant is that references showing notability must meet WP:ORGCRIT. As such, I am going to move this to the mainspace. Based on your comments, it would more than likely pass AfD based on reference meeting WP:ORGCRIT. There is always the deletion discussion route for those who disagree. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as the disclosure, it is kind of strange as I don't under who actually hired them. Being the page is promo in tone, I tagged it as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I note that we have a number of articles like Hartheim Euthanasia Center (German: NS-Tötungsanstalt Hartheim). The German word Tötungsanstalt literally means "killing center" or "killing institution", without any euphemistic connotation of "euthanasia". Should these articles be moved to more literal titles such as Hartheim Killing Center or Hartheim Killing Facility? -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A very cursory look at Gbooks shows that both "euthanasia center" and "killing center" (or their respective British variants) are in use. I would prefer the literal title. (Incidentally, Aktion T4 states it was "mass murder by involuntary euthanasia", which to me means "mass murder by murder", but perhaps I am misunderstanding something). —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

We need to choose our words carefully because the subject is loaded with emotion. When I was involved in these articles I used the title for each centre that seem to be the most common in English sources. IIRC it wasn't always consistent; one centre might be more often called "Foo Killing Centre"; another "Foo Euthanasia Centre". Obviously the former is a literal translation of the German equivalent, but literal translations aren't always the best; in any case, we're supposed to use WP:COMMONNAME.

The word "murder", as well as being emotive, is usually defined as crime committed by illegally killing someone intentionally. Under the Nazi regime, sometimes these killings were lawful; at other times not. I've always carefully distinguished the two, so that when a euthanasia programme such as T4 was authorised, people were killed by involuntary euthanasia on an horrific scale. However reprehensible that was – and my personal view was that it was utterly wrong and despicable – it was not murder in the normal sense of the word. That came later when they carried on killing people after the programme was officially halted. That was mass murder.

That said, on some pages other editors have disagreed and called everything "murder" which, in my view, muddies the water and devalues the word murder to mean any killing we don't approve of i.e. it becomes no more than a WP:POV. And whereas a dictionary definition is fixed; POVs vary from one editor to another. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to participate! --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:German occupation of Czechoslovakia#Requested move 28 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:I Can See Your Voice (German season 2)#Requested move 9 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ich is making uncited, mass changes to Germany related articles which appear to be driven by a WP:POV rather than WP:RS and may need to be checked for factual accuracy. These changes include:

• Changing "Third Reich" to "Nazi Germany".
• Changing "killing" to "murdering" even in cases that were lawful ("murder" by definition is unlawful)
• Changing "sent to their deaths", "put to death", "died" or "killed" to "murdered" - again this is a change of meaning which may or may not be accurate. Also, is it wrong to use a mix of terms and phrases? What did the source say?

Of course we should not try to defend the indefensible or water down the atrocities that were committed, but as a responsible encyclopaedia we need to follow the sources and use words in an accurate, not emotive, way. So I am inviting User:Ich to refrain from further edits and revert his changes until a consensus can be reached on how to proceed. Bermicourt (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

My pov: Third Reich is Nazi counting, which should be kept only in quotes or quotation marks. We shouldn't honour them by using their terms even if many sources from the time will do so. Similarly for euphemisms for their victims' deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Co-signing. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, thanks for writing. I am happy to hold off on changes until we formulate a relevant styleguide policy. I firmly believe that the murders that occurred during the Holocaust should be referred to as murders.

• I've written an essay on my user page on this subject. The German government has repeatedly acknowledged that the Holocaust was mass-murder, even the aspects of it that were legal under the laws of Nazi Germany, which the German Federal Constitutional Court has deemed to be an Unrechtsstaat or "Verbrecherstaat" - a "criminal state" whose laws are not valid because the state itself has been seized to pursue criminal ends. I live in Germany and speak German, and the use of the word "murder" to describe killings in the Holocaust is widespread and uncontroversial, both in popular and governmental usage, such as the federal government's Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Both the occupying allied powers and the subsequent governments of East, West, and reunited Germany have prosecuted and secured convictions for the murders that took place in the Holocaust. I've written plenty of responses to these points scattered across a number of talk pages but am happy to dive further into the matter.
• On the first point, "Third Reich" is used as a synonym for "Nazi Germany" and it has (also elaborated on my user page) both historical baggage from the term's roots in Nazi propaganda, and it is less clear to the unfamiliar reader.-Ich (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes "Third Reich" is a term of Nazi origin that they used to describe their territory, alongside their official names, whereas "Nazi Germany" is the term used in English language sources for "Germany under Hitler". My point is that, in making blanket changes, it's important to check that a) we're not altering the term used by the source and b) we're not relabelling something incorrectly. For example, if the source said "Hitler's so-called Third Reich..." and we changed it to "Hitler's so-called Nazi Germany..." we're misquoting the source. If the source said "The NSDAP promoted their grandiose notion of an emergent Germany by calling it the Third Reich because..." and we paraphrase it to "the Nazis called their new nation Nazi Germany...", we're misrepresenting the source and the facts. If the Nazis issued a "Third Reich Order of Merit" medal, it would be inaccurate to rename it the "Nazi Germany Order of Merit". I'm always worried when mass changes are driven by a POV, even a valid one, that time is not always taken to check the context and the sources to ensure that each change is appropriate and balanced, and doesn't result in a factual error, misquote or misrepresentation.

Re "murder", I agree that it is right to use "murder" to mean murder and I agree that the Holocaust undeniably involved mass murder. However, we should guard against 4 things: first, excessive use of one word when other words and phrases, indeed the whole context, make it clear that murder was committed. We do not need to say "the murderous Nazis carried out their murderous intent by murdering people in a murderously murderous series of murders". I'm exaggerating, but you see the point. We can even convey the sense without using the word e.g. "the ruthless Nazis carried out their evil intent by executing innocent people in a brutal series of killings." Second, we should not create our own description, but one based on the words of the sources. Third, we should avoid using only those sources that line up with our view, but reflect a balanced view of all reliable sources. Fourth, we should not use the word "murder" to refer to a legal killing even if we disagree with the law. That's changing the English language and causing confusion. However, we could point out in an article that some reliable sources refer to legal killings as murder, where that's the case. Whenever I see mass changes, I'm always concerned that these checks aren't being done and that our encyclopaedia will end up being inaccurate and misrepresentative of the sources. Maybe we can pick an article and work on it jointly to achieve an agreed solution. Bermicourt (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bermicourt I'm very alarmed by this reasoning, which appears to be implying that Ich is not competent to make these changes, without providing any evidence that this is the case. Have you found any that have been done incorrectly? If you have, fine, let us have this conversation about how to proceed. If you have not, why the concern? At present, this looks like a thought experiment. But it's a thought experiment aimed at another editor, who so far does not appear to have done any wrong. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering. Ich and I have already discussed changes to specific articles, so this isn't coming out of the blue. So please don't suggest I'm engaged in some kind of 'thought experiment'. Just go and look at the changes yourself - if they're fine, that's great. But in a couple of cases, I had some of the above concerns myself which is why I raised them, both for information and consensus. That's the Wiki process. Bermicourt (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bermicourt What consensus are you looking for, here? I don't think anyone would defend "the Nazis called their new nation Nazi Germany" or "they carried out their murderous intent by murdering people murderously." If Ich has made an incorrect edit like the former, of course it should be fixed, and no new consensus would be required for this; if Ich has made an edit that results in a faintly ridiculous statement like the latter, it can be edited, and if Ich finds those edits unacceptable, appropriate wording can be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. -- asilvering (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bermicourt I fully understand a reflexive unease about mass-changes. Aside from the aid of cite tools, I don't think I've ever made a single "automated" edit – each one has been done by hand, reading and understanding the context of my changes. I've taken care to leave direct quotes and book titles untouched. I've also changed links that pointed to redirect pages anyway, e.g. "Flag of the Third Reich" > "Flag of Nazi Germany". I do recognize the quixotic and sisyphean nature of my undertaking.-Ich (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)