Talk:Adolf Strauss (general)

Milhist B-class assessment

Assessed as start class - content on army career needs fleshing out, for both wars. Citations are very minimal. Zawed (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

There seems to be a slow edit war going on over the spelling of this guy’s name.
This was changed on 1st June, (from Strauß to Strauss) without explanation, and reverted the same day with the edit summary "rv disruptive edit; restored spelling according to sources & WP:DIACRITICS". This was repeated yesterday and today.
108: If you make a bold edit, which is reverted, the next step in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is to discuss the matter and come to some agreement, not push your point of view. The discussion is here if you wish to make a case.
Michael: you quoted WP:DIACRITIC in your rebuttal, but I suggest that doesn’t really help your case. Use of modified letters is governed by English usage, as found in reliable sources. You have, I’m sure, been here long enough to know that English never uses the eszett in general text; it is always transliterated to "ss". It doesn’t help that the only sources given here are in German, which (to my mind) raises the issue of notability; it's fine for the German WP, but if the guy isn’t mentioned in any English language sources, why do we need an article on him here? You might also note WP:DIACRITIC says "German proper names should be treated with care, and attention to English practice".
So I suggest the next step would be to produce some English language sources; ideally, some that use the "Straub" spelling in preference to "Strauss". Xyl 54 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of Google Books turns up quite a few hits with coverage in English (see this), so notability does not appear to be a problem. The first hit in English has limited preview and spells the name "Adolf Strauss" (see this). From this cursory look, it appears the article might need to be renamed to Adolf Strauss. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My inital edit was based on the same rationale as User:Tide rolls' edit on 14 December 2011 which reverted three edits by 184.35.67.176 – that an article should use the spelling of its headword. This had been the spelling in the article since its creation on 21 June 2008.

I called the reversals of 108.234.185.147 "disruptive" because they also reverted several non-controversial improvements which I had mentioned in my edit summaries.

I think user:Xyl 54 is incorrect in asserting "that English never uses the eszett in general text"; clearly, the English Wikipedia does, e.g. all articles listed at Straße use that spelling throughout – plus, most notoriously, Voßstraße – as do Schloßplatz (Berlin), Schloßplatz (Dresden), Schloßplatz (Wiesbaden), articles on people with the surname Weiß, and about a dozen Wehrmacht generals with "ß" in their name.

None of 108.234.185.147's contributions at User talk:Michael Bednarek or at User talk:Xyl 54#"ss" transliteration of eszett address the main point: are there sufficient reliable sources which compel Wikipedia not to use his native name? User:Robert.Allen's contribution above is the first one in this direction. There are of course other English-language sources which use "Strauß": p. 171, or even "Adolph Strauss": pp. 112, 151. Is the latter a reason to use that spelling in Wikipedia?

In short: as long as the article is named "Adolf Strauß", the name should be spelled that way in its text. As it currently stands, the article's title and the spelling of its subject's name in it fully comply with WP:DIACRITICS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Usage may be changing. With the advent of computers more unusual characters are now readily available which were often not used in pre-computer printed books, simply because they were not at hand. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael:There’s a certain perverse humour about using practice on the English WP to define normal English usage; and there’s a whole shelf-full of worm-filled cans in the articles you’ve quoted as examples. Still, the issue (as you suggest) is what to do here, not what happens (or should happen) in the project as a whole.

There do seem to be enough English language sources in the search Robert has posted (thanks, Robert, for that!) to answer the notability question; most of them look like casual references, but this one is a fairly detailed biography, so I’ve added it to the reference section.

But it does raise the question about whether the title is correct; they all, invariably, use the "Strauss" spelling, while a search for "Adolf Strauß" (here) throws up up just one example of English language use (and that not for this guy) in twelve pages of strauss's. So if there are “of course” other English sources that use straub it would be useful for you to detail them. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I did provide an English-language reference for "Strauß"; I don't understand what "straub" has do with this. Usage elsewhere in the English Wikipedia is not "perversely humorous"; it demonstrates widely practised usage. Regarding this article: I can't find any rule or guideline which demands different spelling in the article's text to the spelling of the article name/headword, and that was what my initial correction of 108.234.185.147's edit was all about. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don’t see the irony, it doesn’t matter. But I think one example of a particular spelling is hardly a convincing picture of what normal English usage is in this case. I think the page needs re-naming, so I’ve opened a Request move below. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Referenced tranliteration is standard in my own two hardcover English language Encyclopedia Brittanicas (1966 and 1932 editions), and it is standard in most Wiki articles on famous Germans (e.g.Gauss, Hess, Dollfuss and 8 other Germans named Strauss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.185.147 (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no standard on the English Wikipedia which demands such transliteration; see WP:DIACRITICS. I've responded to these cases on my talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact our mixture of using the Chicago MOS and WP:Commonname leads us to use the original name in most cases but diverting from that in case of the really known ones as their (altered) spelling is burned into the public eye. I have not quite worked out which of the two this one falls into. Agathoclea (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Adolf Strauß → Adolf Strauss – Move to conventional English language spelling per WP:TITLE (criteria, common name, and “use English”) and per wall-to-wall usage in English language sources. Google book search (here) shows widespread use of "Strauss" format, while search for “Strauß” format (here) shows overwhelming use of Strauss spelling (one English language example of "Strauß" in twelve pages)<br?> Also conforms to usual practice on En:WP with articles on persons with this surname (see Strauss and Strauß) Xyl 54 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support this is the spelling used by Stackpole Books, a publisher of many English-language WWII history books. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support., per Moscow 1941 (2006), Blitzkrieg Unleashed (2010), War of Annihilation (2007), and The Men of Barbarossa (2010). Kauffner (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Adolf Strauss (general)  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Adolf Strauss → Adolf Strauss (general) – There is another person with this name Adolf Strauss (composer). Disambiguate the page. — Zawl 10:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Restore to Adolf Strauß per WP:ß and Ian Kershaw Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis 2001 0141925817. With all respect to the Stackpole books mentioned by the IP in previous RM, those are hobbyist sources, not really full Unicode WP:RS. Good to see the new article on composer Adolf Strauss (disgustingly murdered in Auschwitz at the age of 42). In his case the name was -ss, not ß. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Restore to Adolf Strauß I looked at this article a few years ago and could not make up my mind. Now that we have the choice to follow either sources with a good or sources with a bad editorial background it is obvoious that we should follow the good. Agathoclea (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The general receives 82.8% of the page views,[1] and appears to have more long term significance. Using "ß" for either name should be a non-starter, as the "ss" version is well established in sources, and infinitely more legible to English readers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Striking my oppose - those page views are off, per K.e.coffman. While Adolf Strauss (composer) was created August 3, it was apparently moved to draft space until Sept. 9. Since then, the page views have been much closer.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Adolf Strauss (general). The composer's article has been created very recently, so the appropriate comparison of page views would be this one. The ss spelling is well established in English-language sources (not just in Stackpole, but also in Cambridge University Press (a book by David Stahel, for example), among other Uni publishers; I could provide more. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and per convincing !vote by K.e.coffman. As for the surname, the spelling "Strauss" should be retained for both men. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.