Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a fact-check for a German reference

Hello all. This is regarding Philipp Hildebrand, a recently resigned Swiss banker. There is some suggestion by an IP user that Hildebrand was set up by Christoph Blocher. The IP has provided this reference ([1]) to support this edit. Can't read German, is this source being accurately represented? Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments could be made at Talk:Philipp Hildebrand, where a thread has started on this issue. The Interior (Talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Help against right-wing nationalism in Wikipedia

Since 2005 through to 2012, a guy has been undertaking an experiment, spending almost every edit on nationalist lobbying against German subjects and seeing how it works out. He is still roaming freely, almost unchallenged and greatly successfully because of a widespread lack of interest.

• MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) /Current
• Molobo (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) /Former

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_13#Anti-German_editing
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, known by Wikileaks as the Wikipediametric group

In Wikipedia, Admins and Arbitrators are influenced by the number of people because majority support is their own lifeblood. If not even Germans care, no one will care.

Unsigned contribution of IP 188.40.54.165.

The above dirt is obviously a biased hunt for a person. The accusations create a climate for a campaign in which the partly well sourced arguments of the hunted person don't count anymore. In the users discussion User talk:188.40.54.165 you will find remarks like „Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia”. May be interesting to follow the given links though, and to read the story from your own point of view.--fluss (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me we can't completely ignore the issue of our unnormalized self-image http://www.welt.de/print/wams/nrw/article13815946/Und-da-war-es-wieder-das-deutsche-Problem.html perhaps is this the real reason why someone like MyMoloboaccount could misuse the project for so long? As long as he's able to rewrite history with Wikipedia, it exploits and undermines everyone else's contributions and motives.

Unsigned contribution of IP 188.40.54.165. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.40.54.165 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Open page move discussions

• (Discuss) – Moonlight Sonata → Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)
• (Discuss) – Heer (1935–1945) → German Army (1935–1945) Kauffner (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure how I got here

I have spent many hours trying to get a wikipedia entry for my grandfather who received an OBE for services to his country (Great Britain) in 1946. He was also mentioned in despatches for his efforts during The First World War. I hadn't realised that I should have not mentioned that and that my proposed wikipedia entry would be prvented by pro German sentiments. It is almost 100 years since the First World War surely it is time to forgive and forget? So many young men lost their lives and it really doesn't seem right that the ones that survived should be penalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.248.186 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific. Has a page been deleted? If so name of the article and reason given for the delete? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I presume this refers to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arthur Claud Lisle O.B.E., which was rejected on the grounds that the subject did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I can't find any sources documenting adequate notability (e.g. award of the Victoria Cross) or entries in any other encyclopaedias. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of pro- or anti-German sentiments being involved. --Boson (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Rail accident investigation

Hi! I found an English page documenting rail accident investigation: http://www.eba.bund.de/cln_031/nn_249968/EN/EBA/Organigram/AccidentInvestigation/accidentinvestigation__node.html?__nnn=true (EBA) And a website in German from what may be the investigating agency: http://www.eisenbahn-unfalluntersuchung.de (Central Office for Accident Investigation, EUB)

• And here is the EBA organigram: http://www.eba.bund.de/cln_031/nn_249968/EN/EBA/Organigram/organigram__node.html?__nnn=true

So is it that the EBA has responsibility for accident investigation, but the EUB actually does it? I'm not certain who does what... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

German Visa Affair 2005 -- NPOV?

Hello, I skimmed through the article; I was going to remove the NPOV tag as outdated, but I'd appreciate a second / third opinion on any issues. - RoyBoy 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is made from uncited sentences. (Well, one sentence has a citation, to the effect that some regulation was canceled.) Hence, no sentence can be easily verified. The general citations at the bottom are akin to adding a citation of every article saying "A book from the US Library of Congress"; which is, in effect, saying go do the verification research yourself. This article is about as trustworthy as a website on GeoCities IMO. Int21h (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad. More like saying "Read these 5 articles and create your own footnotes." We should remember that the article was mainly created in 2005 and was probably originally translated from German Wikipedia, which was then not really into footnotes. So someone at least went to the trouble of finding some English references. I have fixed the outdated links (I hope). If I get time, I may get round to matching the statements in the article with the 5 articles and putting citation-needed tags on the remainder, but I will not be disappointed if someone beats me to it. --Boson (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Germany will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Germany's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship or nationality for German Empire-era biographies

At Talk:Emmy Noether#Nationality a dispute arose whether we should mention her Bavarian citizenship in the infobox and in the lede, or the less precise German nationality. There are precedents for both, with Albert Einstein having citizenship and David Hilbert or Theodor Fontane having nationality in the infobox. Opinions? Huon (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New template on German literature

I've started this template because I think it would be useful to have a navbox for German literature. Please feel free to add authors to the list. A couple notes:

• This template is about literature written in German, not literature written by German citizens or literature written in Germany, so it includes Austrian, Swiss, German-Jewish, migrant literature, exile literature, etc. Simple nation-state distinctions don't really work well as organizing principles for the history of literature.
• Authors should be notable, with a reasonable chance of being included in an undergraduate or graduate syllabus in a German studies course.
• The periodization (like any periodization) is provisional rather than absolute. If a section gets too large, we should think about breaking it down to smaller ones.

Sindinero (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

German Party

I have entered a few remarks on the "German Party" talk page that you may want to consider. Best, Khnassmacher (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Willy Brandt School of Public Policy

Hey, I am new to English Wikipedia, but would like to contribute. Since I am not familiar with the policies of translating articles from German to English, I wanted to ask if it's okay, to just translate an already existing, German wikipedia article (e.g. http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Willy_Brandt_School_of_Public_Policy) to English, creating a new article? Or do I need to find all the sources in English and/or cite them appropriately as done in the German article?

Appreciate any comments or help. Jakenite (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary should note that it is a translation and link to the original (e.g de:Willy Brandt School of Public Policy).

The template {{Translated page}} with appropriate parameters should be added to the talk page.

Inline citations should be given, preferably using the appropriate templates (e.g. {{Cite web}},{{Cite book}}). It would be ideal if you could provide English sources, but German sources are acceptable. They should be marked as German by using the 'language=' parameter of the citation template or adding the template {{De icon}}. If you don't use the citation templates, that's OK; someone will probably add them for you. Feel free to contact me if you have any problems.

To avoid what is sometimes known as "citation plagiarism", I would say that you should personally access and confirm any sources you retain, or at least indicate that they come from the German article and have not been verified directly.

--Boson (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do not create the article in one go, you should make sure that the first version at least contains sufficient references to establish notability and links to the German article, to avoid any problems with new page patrollers. --Boson (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks a lot for the advice! Recently I did not find the time to work on it, but will start translating the article in the next weeks, trying to consider as much of your advice as possible.

Jakenite (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Estlandia

(See Talk:German Wikipedia for details): This user (formerly User:Miacek, see de:User:Miacek) is known to vigorously promote right-wing POV at the German Wikipedia. Most of his “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists and that do not include the current state of the public and scientific debate in germany although it is well known to this user. See for example Hans-Helmuth Knütter before my revert and compare it with the German article − even Google translate should be sufficient to see the differences.

His latest edits in the German Wikipedia article (and elsewhere) follow a well-known pattern: debates that have finally been resolved (usually not to his contentment) at the German edition are carried over to the English edition. Since en: does not have the manpower nor the necessary sources and informations to control these edits, political POV (and in this case even worse: ultra right-wing and right-wing extremist POV) widely goes unnoticed. I do not have the time, let alone the nerves, to put up with this kind of bold POV pushing here. My considerations are simple: the damage is greater if he acts like this at the German site so I am playing the watchdog there. English articles are not the first adress for German-speaking readers when they are seeking information, so it is not giving me sleepless nights. However, I consider this user's behaviour highly harmful to the English Wikipedia. All in all, he is making Wikipedia's section on German politics worse by adding articles and information, so you really should consider putting an end to this if you are interested in a half-decent account in these topics. I have also posted this on the talk page of the German Wikipedia article. If you would like to have additional information on this user's history and behavior, feel free to contact me on my talk page on de: or ask de:User:Hozro oder de:User:KarlV.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusations that my articles are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists is simply slander and should best be removed. WikiProject pages are not meant for encouraging stalking or personal vendetta. It's of course no surprise 'Toter Alter Mann' would come to attack me - his and his pals' manipulations in German Wiki have been documented in detail in a newspaper article that I dared to refer to in the article on German wiki. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone needs additional information about the background of this marginal dispute – he will be welcome to read my documentation about this conflict of interests on de:WP. Regards--KarlV 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck is it really necessary to have "Prussian-German"?

Prussians are Germans both by nationality and ethnicity, it seems a bit pointless.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's important. Bismarck was born in a Prussia that existed after the Napoleonic Wars after the fall of the HRE in 1806 and was not part of a unified Germany - which didn't exist until 1872 - and hence, a formally independent state. Besides, there were huge differences between the German regions, which even continue to exist today. For example, a Bavarian wouldn't usually consider himself Prussian and vice versa - there are really different mindsets, which could be attributed at least in part to the different confessions - the north is largely Protestant, whereas the south mostly remained Catholic. Apart from that, Bismarck unified Germany under the rule of the Prussian King, who was also German Emperor in personal union, a move which angered many Southern Germans. The animosity between Bavarians and Prussians still exists today, though not as harsh as it may have been 100 or 200 years ago. I think it's at least partly comparable to the situation in the UK and the relationship between England and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So yes, I think the fact that Bismarck was Prussian-German instead of just German is hugely important. --Schanzer (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

German Empire

Would anyone else like to look at what's happening to the first paragraph of German Empire? --Boson (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Law for the Maintenance of State Authority"

This is mentioned in the rise of the Nazi party as a law passed by Paul von Hindenburg, but it is unreferenced and I can't find anything else about it anywhere. If nobody can source it, it ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.198.25 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.bwbs.de/biografie/Verbot_von_SA_und_SS_B1067.html (in German, published by the "Bundeskanzler-Willy-Brandt-Stiftung") SA and SS were banned at 13. April 1932 based on the (emergency) law called "Notverordnung zur Sicherung der Staatsautorität". That ban was repelled later by Papen. I don't have the correct English translation for this law, but the fact seems correct. GermanJoe (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added references to Adolf Hitler's rise to power‎ and changed the translation to "Emergency Decree for the Preservation of State Authority". --Boson (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge Main page tomorrow

For tomorrow the Battle of Vimy Ridge article has been chosen to be featured on the main page. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fritz Weitzel

This is a bit of a mess now if anyone cares to work on it. Partially content, partially formatting. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

An editor at Talk:Nazi Germany#Poll on "Reich" vs. "realm" has suggested soliciting input from German-speakers English-speaking German Wikipedians on the use of the words "Reich" and "realm" in the context of that article.--Boson (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wagner

I imported a number of articles into our project that should have tagged ages ago but somehow they got missed. All related to Wagner. A good number are rated as B-Class (see Category:B-Class Richard Wagner articles) but that does not include the B-class switches so they could do with some checking. Maybe some material there to take things a little further. Agathoclea (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There are also a lot of assessment comments in the respective banners. Agathoclea (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

move/split request at Luftwaffe

At Talk:Luftwaffe#needs to be broken up a discussion is underway on a proposal to split the current article Luftwaffe. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please go there and read the proposals and arguments given so far. noclador (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Stadtschloss, Wiesbaden

A review of Stadtschloss, Wiesbaden is needed. I just found the article after a recent rewrite based on the dewiki article which is a "GA" over there. I think there is potential to take it further. Agathoclea (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Willy_Stöwer

The Willy Stöwer article could use the attention of somebody fluent in German. Much of what I translated required a bit of interpretation, some of which I am uncertain. It currently reads a bit awkward in places. It is a very short article, and shouldn't take too long to compare it to the corresponding de.WP article and verify whether or not the English derivation of material is reasonable. This is my 1st significant editing project, and any assistance would be appreciated. Also, perhaps somebody could determine if the current "stub" status should be upgraded. Thanks!
My edits have been under the two following IPs:

• ~Eric F 98.26.28.41 05:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC) (temporary)
• ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• HI Eric, as a first editing project your article is great! I spent time editing the header, thumbnail and infobox with perhaps just stylistic changes that hopefully clarify your intent. I then did a standard copyedit for wordflow/wikification throughout. It could use another pass but your references as compared to the original are spot on, so I removed the unref'd notes and I think further any smoothing of words on your part would not change the meaning of what the refs point to. As for stub status or not, once the Project reviewers go thru it they can assess importance. My experience has been that a brand new article doesn't go above "C" status on the first pass, but give it time and some more hands and you'll see it rise up. I'll look at it again once you confirm what I did to it, then I'll be braver and give it a grade :)

-- Ultracobalt  (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, nice start. 2 quick comments for possible improvements:

• The lead could use a little expansion with noteworthy facts (maybe the huge number of his illustrations, or that his painting style was self-taught - whatever you feel is immediately interesting for the reader in the summary lead). One lead paragraph should be fine for the article length though.
• A photo / drawing of him would be great (if available, not sure if you checked already). GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, verifiable info about him is hard to find (most internet sources are copied from WP). No image of him that I could find. It would be great if somebody who can read German could find a copy of the following:

• Jörg M. Hormann (2001), Marinemaler der Kaiserzeit, Willy Stöwer, Hamburg: Koehlers Verlagsgesellschaft, ISBN 3782208226, 3782208226

I can't even find his birth name, family or education (etc.) -- See also notes on the talk page. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Berlin State Museums regarding the correct and common name for the organization. Comments and suggestions by this project's members would be most welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Berndt Seite

New article Berndt Seite could do with few more sources and information judging by the importance of the article subject. Many thanks to a new user starting the article today for picking up on the fact that we had a gaping hole here. Agathoclea (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen (General)

Manfred von Richthofen (General) was translated from the German WP and nominated for DYK. After both author and nominator gave up during the review process, I tried to rescue the nomination. As usual for German articles, sourcing is vague. There are books mentioned, but no details given. I have no access to the books. Please compare the version with an online summary of his life given as a source, which is not acceptable, to know where sourcing is missing now. Any help is welcome, best in the article and/or in the nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks to Yngvadottir! please note, that the article was also moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor

I have made substanial additions to Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, primarily by incorporating translated texted from the German version of the article and inserting information from related English pages. While some copyediting may still be required, I believe the article's quality has significantly improved since I began the process. I wish to request a formal assessment of the page to determine it's quality according to the quality scale.

Presently the article is ranked "C", but this rank is a carry over from the period before my signifiant modifications. - Rougher07 (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't do a formal assessment, lacking experience in that area. However a few quick comments:

• Needs a lot more sources. Not for every single detail on C- or B-level, but some sections and central paragraphs are completely unsourced.
• Grammar/prose could use further work, some phrases are problematic to translate from German into English.
• The German Wiki tends to be quite detailed on thoughts, intentions and feelings of the main actors (no offense meant, it just is a different style to present a topic). This should be trimmed down to a more factual, encyclopedic tone.
• Minor point: more actual political maps for Otto's lifetime instead of the after-death versions would be good. GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth requested-move notification

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

• Perth → Perth, Western Australia
• Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perthshire
• Perth (disambiguation) → Perth

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pirate Party and Pony Time

Someone has objected that My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom article, citing this Deutschlandradio report, has misinterpreted the idea of "pony time" (not that the report is incorrect, but English Wikipedia's description is) at this section. I don't understand German at all, so can anyone fix that, based on the report? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Hope I have clarified. The possible misinterpretations are because the German word Fraktion means what (in the English parliament) is called the "parliamentary party" (i.e the parliamentarians of one party as an organized group, who meet to discuss who will be members of which parliamentary committee, etc.), and they meet at their offices in the parliament; so the text is correct, but possibly misleading, because it is the meetings of this group (possibly within the parliament building) that are meant. The Fraktion is a recognized institution in parliamentary procedure. For some reason, presumably the similarity of the spelling, some people translate Fraktion as "faction", which actually means something different (e.g. an ideological grouping within a party). --Boson (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is BINDER (company) notable?

I'd prod it but most sources are in German, so I am having hard time verifying notability. Please review, I strongly suspect promotion spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds promotional, but there seem to be sources. What puzzles me is the lack of a deWiki counterpart. Agathoclea (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a borderline case:

• 200.000 - 500.000 hits on google search for company name, depending on the search terms.
• The articles used as sources appear independent, but some are of the "look at this nice company" type of journalism (some of their statements are clearly too favorable and it's hard to distinguish, which facts were provided by interviewed company staff and which were really researched. However i'd assume, that most basic facts are accurate and checked.
• The company claims to have a worldwide leading, notable product, albeit in a very specialized niche segment. I'd actually would like to read a bit more about technical details and features of that product.
• Without violating AGF i guess it's safe to say, that the article's intent is atleast partly promotional. But that could be fixed: overly positive qualifications and statements of opinion should be trimmed (statements like "The South of Germany is known for its entrepreneurial spirit and the Binder family was no exception." do not belong. "Then in 1991 WTB BINDER released the APT.line™, a preheating chamber with a revolutionary product design for constant temperature equipment" is not covered as fact by the given source).
• A few additional, less journalistic sources would be great.
• Someone more experienced in wiki-etiqutte ought to point out WP:COI to the author and offer some general guidance. GermanJoe (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just started a user talk page for them with Template:Welcome-COI, and I'll add a quick note to that now about the promotional tone of the article. Sindinero (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Poles in Konigsberg

This section of the article may be of interest, and the same is true for the various... semi-discussions, on the talk page [2].VolunteerMarek 00:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

link to German wiki

Is it correct to link to en entry on the German wiki when tere is no tranlation yet? I tgink it is a sensible idea. WHat are your comments? Gumtau (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because relativley few readers will actually understand German therefore its a pretty low value link. Rather leave it as a redlink so people are aware that no article has yet been created. Calistemon (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As a rule I agree with Calistemon, but there may be occasions when it's useful e.g. if drawing attention to a diagram or image perhaps... --Bermicourt (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Interwiki links appear in the sidebar, while they are not allowed in articles. Wikilinks within an article have to point to the same wiki.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean "Yes". Take a look at Inline interlanguage links which explains their purpose and how to create them. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Berlin

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to condense the Berlin article. As a result, I have created split -off articles. The split-off articles are Media in Berlin‎, Demographics of Berlin‎, Georgraphy of Berlin‎, Architecture in Berlin‎, Religion of Berlin, Sports in Berlin and Football in Berlin. These articles need working on and would be good if somebody who knows a thing or two about any of these topics to work on it. Kingjeff (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Berlin task force

Anybody interested in having a Berlin task force? Kingjeff (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Hamburg1843Medal.jpg

File:Hamburg1843Medal.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WWII pictures

Several pictures related to the German military of WWII are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 9 -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

German caste?

Editors on this WikiProject may be interested in the ongoing RfC on Talk:Caste. The article lists Germany as a region that has historically had a caste system, along with other countries, claims which some editors have found controversial. Editors critical of the current article have argued that the article has become a WP:COATRACK used to push the view that the caste system is not linked to Hinduism or India, while others have defended the article's portrayal of the caste as a universal phenomenon. The input of editors familiar with German history would be most helpful in this discussion. Was German society a caste? Is that a mainstream view and should Germany be listed?--Ninthabout (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this. I'm not an expert but I've never heard of the unehrliche Leute mentioned in the German section of the article and don't agree with the general line that a hierarchical society, which is universal, is the same as a caste system. Furthermore when I look at the only online reference in the Germany section, it is talking about a range of occupations like shepherds, millers, barbers, weavers, police and others - not a caste system. Interestingly German wikipedia's article on caste makes no mention of unehrliche Leute or a caste system in Germany, but only has sections on India, Sri Lanka and Bali. In my view the article is conflating "caste" with "status" and is thus way off beam. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Germany have a caste system? If one uses the "classical", old-fashioned definition, which focuses on social and religious aspects, then no. If the term "caste" is redefined, analyzed and redefined again over and over beyond recognition, then yes :). The article starts with 3-5 completely vague and arbitrary definitions of "caste", sources one to a dictionary-entry and then gets worse. It manages to list over 30 (!) so-called caste systems and still hasn't begun to explain the concept itself until the very last 2 paragraphs. And those 2 sections are based on North America and a historian from 1917. Agree with Bermicourt on the other points. GermanJoe (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lem Villemin AfD

Lem Villemin article is currently being discussed for deletion. There are a couple of sources in German language (like news sources), will be helpful if someone understanding German can find if they are useful or not. --SMS ^Talk 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Lists relating to German states

I have created categories for lists relating to two states eg Category:Brandenburg-related lists and Category: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern-related lists. These correspond to the lists by state or province for Australia, Canada and the United States. There should be lists for all of the 16 (?) current states; the Category:Berlin-related lists also exists. Hugo999 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Elections in Stuttgart

Is there any coverage at Wikipedia of the upcoming elections in Stuttgart? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/FC Bayern Munich/archive1

I've opened up a peer review for Bayern Munich. Kingjeff (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Halle, North Rhine-Westphalia

There is a current move discussion at Talk:Halle, North Rhine-Westphalia which could certainly do with some more input as this together with the recently closed Halle (Saale) will affect further moves. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Berlin victory parade in 1945/1945

Perhaps some German language sources can be found to help expand the Berlin Victory Parade of 1945 and clarify the potential mislabeling of photos as described at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Wrong_commons_description.3F_1946_Allied_Victory_Parade_in_Berlin ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Try Die Welt newspaper. There might be something there. Kingjeff (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on film One Hundred Years of Evil

• One Hundred Years of Evil

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gaffron Castle

Please see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Gawrony_Castle.2C_Lower_Silesian_Voivodeship. I am having trouble finding any Polish sources to verify the castle's existence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Posen

I've created this using Polish sources. I am sure that it could use expansion and some NPOVing using German sources. (Please note that my primary source is in English, although the author is of Polish origin). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks interesting [[3]], although i haven't read it very thorough and can't speak for NPOV or RS. It claims October 1827 as first Sejm meeting ("Eröffnung") rather than December. If you need help with some German passages, just let me know. GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hauptbahnhof again

An editor has been removing links at Central station where the original name is "Hauptbahnhof" prompting a discussion at Talk:Central station#Removal of links to central stations in German-speaking countries which you may be interested in. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pageview stats

New stats are out and SAP AG as well as Borussia Dortmund are the only Start-Class articles in the top 50. Agathoclea (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Precise German Language translation needed re Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

Precise German Language translation needed re Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

Should redirect for "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

(See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -

"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:

Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1]

Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."

• I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany.
• There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone).
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS.
• According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’."

Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.

I propose a disabiguation page. But having inadvertently stepped from writing WP:BLPs into trying to edit the Alternative medicine article, I assume per User:IRWolfie's comments at alt med, that it is best to first propose things in a small way at talk pages, before editing on any articles involving religion, racist groups, evolution, alt meds, and articles about topics involving groups of irrational people that are still in existence. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: I'm assuming here that Third Realm is being used as an Anglicization of Third Reich? But nobody says that; the fixed form uses Reich untranslated. So I think the redirect to Nazi Germany is surely wrong.

That doesn't mean the redirect to abstract object is necessarily correct. First of all, is Frege's conception more specific than abstract objects in general? If so, possibly it should redirect to Gottlob Frege.

Another point to consider is that most of the ghits seem to be for a heavy-metal band, about which we don't seem to have an article. If the band is notable, it might grab the main name (not because it's more important than Frege's concept, certainly, but because it's more on-point for the search term) with a hatnote to Frege (or maybe to abstract object), and just possibly to Nazi Germany if it can be established that anyone actually translates Reich in this way. --Trovatore (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I updated and modified my opening comment after Trovatore made his. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Using Third Reich halfuntranslated only applies to Hitlers monstosity. In case of Frege's concept it can and should be translated unless there are English RS that keep it untranslated. A disambiguation or WP:TWODAB is in order. Mayby I asked a music WikiProject Metal for input on the notability of the heavy metal group. Agathoclea (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Reich and Drittes Reich should both redirect to Nazi Germany as being the overwhelmingly primary use of the terms. Obscure philosophical concepts and in-fashion music groups are surely not on the same level as the empire that changed world history. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lan (subculture)

The article Lan (subculture) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as unsourced for over four years; no indication of meeting WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Angr (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ß

I know there's discussion or guideline somewhere about WP:ß, can someone please remind me where? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Deutsche Bahn

The article Deutsche Bahn has been assessed as "top importance" to this project, yet since August 2011 it has been marked as needing an update. Can someone help? --Bejnar (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated the main data source (#1) to 2010 - please feel free to double-check. The 2011 numbers lacked a source and were mixed with 2005 information - besides, i do not think, such variable data needs to be updated every single year (unless you really want to :) ). Note: there are still some old references to update, i just fixed the main data and board to the 2010 situation. GermanJoe (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Variable data should either be placed in an historical table, or deleted as ephemeral. I do not know the concerns of the editor who first tagged the page as not up-to-date, but my concerns were about the reorganization of Deutsche Bahn that was supposed to have taken place in 2007 or so. --Bejnar (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Feminism in Germany Page

Hi, I'm starting an article on Feminism in Germany. Please feel free to contribute to the draft in my sandbox. I'm new to Wikipedia so thank you for any suggestions. I am eager to learn, so feel free to send any tips, etc. Mk30 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Imperial road

I believe it would be non-controversial to change page name Reichsstraße (Middle Ages) → Imperial road; (note that Imperial road currently doesn't redirect anywhere). Note also, the disambiguation: Reichsstraße. Please also see my discussion regarding Ulm: Talk:Ulm#Imperial_road - any clarification would be appreciated. ~Thanks, Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick search on google books reveals a) the use of "imperial road" for Reichsstraße is not that common (but that's not a showstopper) and b) possible confusion with Kaiserstraße being translated as imperial road as well (although it occurs less often and arguably should be translated "Emperor Road"). --Bermicourt (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, my knowledge on the subject is primarily from textbooks, (from the previous century), where the term was "imperial road". - I would like to note that straße doesn't appear in English (US) dictionaries, and 'ß' isn't on US keyboards. Also, when googling "Reichsstraße", excluding Wikipedia, 9 of the 1st 10 results ask if I want to "Translate this page". There should at least be a redirect for "imperial road". And the reason that prompted me to this page is that I have just fixed links on pages that referenced "imperial road" (or "Imperial road") - And a WP search for "imperial road" yields 51 results, most (but not all) refer to one or more of the Imperial roads of the Holy Roman Empire. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough then. BTW, I used google books rather that google to reduce the number of irrelevant German hits even if you search for English pages only. And "-straße" is usually written "-strasse" in English books, but you can obtain ß on a keyboard by pressing Alt 225. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Or (on a Mac) option-S. —Kusma (t·c) 08:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I came to this talk page is that Reichsstraße Talk is one of those pages that gets a response once every 2-3 years - and as an IP, I can't make those kinds of changes (redirect / name-change), and I am hoping for some kind of consensus from folks more knowledgeable than I am on such matters. ~Thanks again, ~Eric F : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorted. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

~Vielen Dank, ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Alfhausen

Alfhausen says that it has a "sea climate affected by damp northwest hoist by the North Sea". I have no idea what is meant by "hoist" in this sentence, and suspect the author made a mistake. Can someone improve this description, please? bd2412 T 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It clearly should be "moist". I've cleaned the whole article up using on the German wiki equivalent where necessary. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hochsprung

Hochsprung was just created. I was wondering if this shouldn't be a disambiguation page? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's poor use of a redirect, so I've created the dab. Whether Dawn Hochsprung is notable enough I'm not convinced, but I've left it for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Carin Göring a.jpg

file:Carin Göring a.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Werner Müller

I've created Werner Müller (musician) on 1 December 2012. But unfortunatelly, so far it is only a stub. I'd like to call all music enthusiasts to expand the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested article: Otto Basil

Would anyone stub de:Otto Basil? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Germans and Ethnic Germans - input requested

A long discussion has taken place at Talk:Germans which has resulted in a proposal being made (by myself) to rename and redefine the article and also the Ethnic Germans article. Any comments from members of WikiProject Germany are welcome. The renaming proposal is here, though much of the discussion takes place in the preceeding sections. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Friedrich Oer.jpg

File:Friedrich Oer.jpg has been nomianted for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Grunwald.jpg

file:Battle of Grunwald.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg

image:Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Duino Elegies nominated for good article, seeking review...also Thomas Traherne

I did a weekend-long overhaul on the article discussing Rainer Marie Rilke's 1922 work, Duino Elegies. I would hope someone from this project would give it a good, thorough review.

I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels, 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 will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Liamdavies (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dissolved regions in Saxony

Hi, Dresden (region), Chemnitz (region) and Leipzig (region) have been dissolved 2012/03/01. They are now a part of the Landesdirektion Sachsen (see de:Landesdirektion Sachsen). Regards, --IW 17:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dist Mil-Pilot GDR med.pdf

file:Dist Mil-Pilot GDR med.pdf has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Louis XIV — Strasbourg

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

Sca (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Ohm entry

i think someone messed w/ the martin ohm entry, for example the 'chocolate' and 'ball bag' references. can someone look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.249.137 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverted - thanks for the notice. GermanJoe (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for Silesian gau's, articles needed

I've created redirects for Gau Oberschlesien and Gau Niederschlesien, but per the list at Administrative divisions of Nazi Germany, I think we could use full articles. If anyone familiar with this topic could do so, it would be a nice addition to the administrative history of Silesia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Move of Bremen (state) to Free Hanseatic City of Bremen

User:GirasoleDE has moved the article entitled Bremen (state) to Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, albeit there is already an article on the city itself, entitled simply Bremen. Whilst this appears to mirror German Wikipedia, and may be a direct translation of the state's official title, I am not sure the state is commonly referred to this way and it certainly has the potential for confusion. It sounds particularly odd in other linking articles talking about the state where GirasoleDE has changed the word "Bremen" to "Free Hanseatic City of Bremen" e.g. take a look at List of cities and towns in Germany or List of former German railway companies. Even the official Bremen website portal talks about Stadt Bremen vs. Bundesland Bremen, not Freie Hansestadt Bremen. Could those more expert than I take a look at this? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A agree that "Freie Hansestadt" is a term of history, today's would be "Bundesland". It's a bit simple to translate that to "state" but acceptable. Move it back and tell the user to formally request a move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this really should have gone through the WP:RM process. Confusing new title, to say the least, and then smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS. I like the name, but it does sound like it was found in a history book. Jared Preston (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not synthesis and it's not a historical name but the normal English translation of the state of Bremen's official name, "Freie Hansestadt Bremen". [4] However, both in English and in German it's more common to refer to the state as "das Land Bremen"/"the state of Bremen". The German Wikipedia is more inclined to use the official name in such a case, whereas per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, the English Wikipedia strictly prefers common names. Hans Adler 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. We don't tend to use full titles whether it's the "Free State of Bavaria" (the article is just Bavaria) or the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (see United Kingdom). Of course the full title can be used in the lede and the infobox; no problem with that. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the state is commonly referred to this way... It is commonly referred to at the official website of Bremen - see "free hanseatic city". It sounds particularly odd in other linking articles talking about the state where GirasoleDE has changed the word "Bremen" to "Free Hanseatic City of Bremen"... This was to avoid of having Bremen (the city) und Bremen (referring to the Hanseatic City) in the same sentence. "Bremen" is the common name for the city, so the official name of the state is the best way for disambiguating. --GirasoleDE (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't do such a thing to New York, New York. - Please go through a formal move request and have it discussed. To use something invented, translation of something official, is about the opposite of common name, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't invent the translation "Free Hanseatic City of Bremen". In fact it has been a state long before the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany. --GirasoleDE (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I said above: the name Freie Hansestadt is historic, you can use it in that context. It's no good name for today's Bundesland. State and state can mean very different things in German history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your bold move for now. I think that WP:COMMONNAMES applies. The common name of the state is just Bremen. To differentiate the state from the city, the disambiguator (state) is necessary. If you want to change the status quo, you should initiate a WP:Requested move. And please stop to change wikilinks pointing to this page, unless the community has decided whether or not to move it. --RJFF (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A move has been now requested. --GirasoleDE (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rescue Dina Foxx!

Can anyone help with the notability of the TV show Rescue Dina Foxx! and with the reliability of the sources listed in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rescue Dina Foxx!? Please add your comment here or add it to the draft article by adding an "afc comment" below the existing comment(s). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nymphenburg Palace

Nymphenburg Palace. How can such a well-crafted article not have more than one sentence referenced?--walkee^talkee 12:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Heinrich-Lades-Halle

Can someone please give me the history of this building? Evangp (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lott and Thomason on the U-35.jpg

file:Lott and Thomason on the U-35.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:P-38Monti.jpg

File:P-38Monti.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Wmcross.jpg

File:Wmcross.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 01:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.250.103 (talk)

File:Schwerin coat-of-arms.jpg

File:Schwerin coat-of-arms.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've found the source. It does seem that some of these files, which are highly likely to be legitimate due to a) their age or b) the fact they are licensed under German law etc, are being over-zealously flagged for deletion instead of making the effort to find the needed info. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people nominate anything for deletion that uses the wrong template, or has the lines on the template filled in wrong/incompletely. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Krolewiecherb.PNG

File:Krolewiecherb.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

RawitschWindmills1899.jpg

file:RawitschWindmills1899.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wakendorf II

Apparently I'm not allowed to edit the article "Wakendorf II" , which is pretty short. I would like to extend it, would be nice, if someone could give me the permission. I would use reliable souerces from the german wiki.

Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.206.43 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia unless they're banned, so I don't know why you're having a problem. You edited this page, so you can edit Wakendorf II. Try registering - that will make it easier still. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I can see why your edits have been reverted - apart from the statement about it being a kaff, the other edits are unencyclopaedic, rather inane comments. Try adding some useful information, preferably referenced and/or translated from German Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

File:German postage stamp in honor of Heinrich Göbel.png

File:German postage stamp in honor of Heinrich Göbel.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Germany article

During the last few weeks the "old" discussion about this article has come up again: What level of detail should be in this article? How many images are necessary? I have argued, that large (mostly unsourced) detailed additions of text and images violate the guidelines of WP:SUMMARY and MOS:IMAGES. Admittedly i am getting a little tired of this debate - i would appreciate additional, uninvolved input into that discussion, and maybe 1-2 bits of advice how to handle that situation. Some of the discussion can be found at [[5]]. Or see the article history and User_talk:Horst-schlaemma. GermanJoe (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What old discussion are you constantly refering to? There was no such thing as a thorough and thoughtful discussion. Rather a decision by few. Thus there's no legitimation to have a country article considerably less detailed and encyclopedic compared to most other country's articles. I'm not into getting in a fight about this, but at the same time this article is among the most relevant pieces of information about Germany and virtually looks like a plucked chicken. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you linked to the "decision by few" that you are referring to and the discussions that you have looked at so far. From memory, I believe there were a couple of issues discussed at great length at Talk:Germany where there were apparently differing traditions on English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia:

• the use of summary style and the related issue of the size of the principal article and its status in relation to its sub-articles (linked to by the {{Main}} template), English Wikipedia putting more emphasis on diffusing detailled information to the sub-articles created for the purpose of keeping the size of the principal article manageable
• image use policy and MOS:IMAGE, in particular with regard to the pertinence of images and avoiding "shoehorning" of images into the article when they are not especially relevant for illustrating the text. If I recall correctly the article had acquired a much higher number of images than comparable featured articles.

--Boson (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Camp Hodolein 1945-46

I was four years old when my family and I were at Camp Hodolein. Being ethnic Germans we were detailed to a farmer in Tucapy to work on his farm. Adolf Minaschek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.130.25 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments concerning the year Lufthansa was founded in

There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. Is today's Lufthansa identical with Deutsche Luft Hansa (which would mean it was founded in 1926), or was it founded in 1953 as a completely new company, only adopting the name of the earlier airline? This argument is about which date should be given in the infobox, and which sources should be followed. To me, the current situation is unacceptable (because today's Lufthansa clearly was founded just once: Either in 1926, or in 1953). There is nothing like a "re-establishment" of a company. Either, a new company is founded, or an existing company is revived. For consistency reasons, the founding date given in the infobox, the respective categories and the article text should be the same.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this RfC be placed in a separate section at Talk:Lufthansa and be merely advertised here? In other words, the discussion should be held at Talk:Lufthansa and readers should be directed there. --Boson (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Boson, but maybe it's easier to just move on with this (not sure what happens, when you move a RFC-section). I have notified all other interested projects as per article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I say point out that it was re-established separately in the article. As for the starting date well which has more sources that pass GNG supporting it? MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 08:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The current approach to use the "legal" date as infobox date and most accurate information, and to include the "traditional" view in the article and a detailed footnote is a good compromise. Both views are not excluding each other. GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was randomly invited to participate here by RFCbot. I agree with the above contributors that this is not the proper location for this RFC. Please move it to the article talk page and I will join you there. Jojalozzo 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This question belongs on the Talk page for the Lufthansa article. From the Deutsche Luft Hansa article: "Lufthansa, today's German flag carrier, acquired the name and logo of the 1926-1945 airline upon its foundation in 1953 and considers the former airline to be part of its history, even though there is no legal link between the two companies. Between 1955 and 1963, the newly-founded East German national airline operated under the same name but, having lost a lawsuit with the West German company, it was liquidated and replaced by Interflug." It's obvious the current airline was founded in 1953. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative for Germany

To my opinion, the article Alternative for Germany is one load of propaganda, electioneering and POV. I have the idea that a bunch of Germans closely related to the party are involved, as they remove all critical comments. More eyes needed! The Banner talk 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It seems that the people who are mainly editing are close to the issue. But there needs to be a group effort to deal with the issue as I expect those editors to continue reverting any change. Kingjeff (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:ZissBenz1911front.jpg

File:ZissBenz1911front.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Censuriana.de

Thought this would be a good place to put in a request for comment for someone, preferably with German language skills, to join in the conversation at RSN of whether or not the website Censuriana.de is reliable. See here: Wikipedia:RSN#Heavy Petting Zoo. Despite what my username might suggest I only speak english and bad english. Freikorp (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mars Statue Wareswald.jpg

File:Mars Statue Wareswald.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Neuhoff, Nazi German Luftwaffe Ace.jpg

image:Hermann Neuhoff, Nazi German Luftwaffe Ace.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Allied Kommandatura building 1948.jpg

image:Allied Kommandatura building 1948.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Kommandatura Berlin.jpg

image:Kommandatura Berlin.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Quadriga (award)

Anyone know what the status of this award is? The awards were cancelled in 2011 because of the reaction to Putin being named a recipient but it also appears that no awards were made in 2012 -- is the Quadriga Award done? I looked at the official website, but it mentions nothing beyond 2010. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nazi medals images up for deletion

• File:LongServe25orwm.jpg
• File:LongServe25owm.jpg
• File:LongServe25rwm.jpg
• File:LongServe40or.jpg
• File:LongServe40owm.jpg
• File:LongServe40rwm.jpg
• File:LongServe50bwm.jpg

have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wadan Yards

German wikipedia has an article about the company [6] that had most of its activity in Germany. "Wadan Yards was a company (headquartered in Oslo) that owned shipyards in Germany and Ukraina: Wadan Yards MTW Wismar, Wadan Yards Warnow GmbH and Wadan Yards Okean OJSC." What more text does one need to make a stub? --Herligatje (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Guðrún

The usage of Guðrún/Gudrun is under discussion, see talk:Guðrún -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Translate and transwiki to the English Language Wikipedia help request

Would someone who can translate German better than I can kindly translate/transwiki to the English wikipedia: Johann Wolfgang Jaeger and Jeremias Friedrich Reuss. Both men are significant intellectuals in 1600s/1700s Germany and have an academic genealogical influence on such major academics as Hegel. Thanks for your help! --24.112.187.219 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I translated Johann Wolfgang Jäger for you today. It will take a little while to be approved and then you can check it out! I will try to get to the second article as well. Whitnokos (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Hi! I need some help with an article, Agnes (novel). I've managed to find enough sources to where I think it's fairly safe from deletion but the bigger issue is that I barely speak a lick of the language. I did take some classes during high school, but that was a while ago and most of it was of the "where is the bathroom, can you direct me there" variety. Is anyone interested in working on this article? The book looks like it's somewhat important as far as German language books go. There are already sources on the article to work with, but my problem is that the wording was so advanced that I could barely make out what was being said. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

New aerial pictures of Hamburg

During a Photo project "Hot air balloon ride" in Hamburg in June 2013 a group of photographers toook about [[:Commons:Category:Projekt Heißluftballon|2,000 aerial pictures of Hamburg] that can now be used to illustrate articles about historical buildings and other landmarks, oil processing companies and harbours installations etc in Hamburg.

Additonally a list of missing articles that could be well illustrated was started.

• Oil processing in the harbour
  • Ölwerke Julius Schindler (draft, photos)
  • Shell Raffinerie Hamburg-Harburg (photos)
  • Tamoil Raffinerie (photos)
  • Oiltanking Hamburg (photos)
• harbour basins (vgl. list of harbour installations in Hamburg)
  • Ellerholzhafen (photos)
  • Hohe-Schaar-Hafen (photos)
  • Kaiser-Wilhelm-Hafen (photos)
  • Kuhwerderhafen (photos)
  • Oderhafen (photos)
  • Roßhafen (photos)
  • Spreehafen (photos)
  • Steinwerder Hafen (photos)
  • Travehafen (photos)
  • Werfthafen (photos)
• traffic buildings
  • Knoten Argentinienbrücke (photos)
• buildings
  • Rethespeicher (photos)
  • Kirche Moorburg (draft, photos)
• geography
  • Neuhof (new article, photos)
  • Kattwyk (photos)
  • Hohe Schaar (photos)

Maybe some people would like to use images in enWP, or to write, or import and translate articles. Best --Martina Nolte _Disk. 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Interkosmos patch for GDR Cosmonauts.svg

image:Interkosmos patch for GDR Cosmonauts.svg is being discussed at NFCR, see WP:NFCR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Desperately in need of help on Tempodrom

I have done a huge overhaul of this article, which was badly copied from the German WP and several other sources, and hopefully it is much improved. I need plenty of help, though, in covering its political and financial problems. Much of this would appear to source to Der Spiegel and the Berlin newspapers, and while I can sort of handle the latter I simply cannot put together a comprehensive picture of the the various scandals and management turnovers from reading week-to-week blow-by-blow coverage. If someone who knows the situation could come and help flesh that section out and ensure that it is well-cited, I would be most grateful. I could also use help with better coverage of its departure from the Tiergarten; I get the picture of what happened, mostly, but it needs citation. Seyasirt (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done some basic fixes to the article, like removed the gallery and replaced it with a link to commons instead. I have also added a reference section so the inline citations show up. As to the scandals and management changes I know nothing about but I wouldn't go into to much detail, the Berlin newspapers and Der Spiegel take care of that, I'm sure. Calistemon (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Felix Auerbach

I've been trying to mangle the article de:Felix Auerbach into English, using a mixture of machine translation and distant memories of learning elementary German a long time ago. I've made quite a lot of progress, and ironed out quite a lot of the article, but these two excerpts have stumped both me and the machines:

1889 übernahm Auerbach die von Ernst Abbe eingerichtete Professur für theoretische Physik an der Universität Jena. Als Jude wurde ihm eine ordentliche Professur zunächst verwehrt, erst 1923 wurde sie ihm doch noch eingerichtet.

Horst Bredekamp bezog sich in der ZEIT darauf, dass der Kunsthistoriker Ulrich Müller schrieb, dass der Jenaer Physikprofessor Felix Auerbach „in zwei Schriften der Jahre 1906 und 1921 Einsteins Relativitätstheorie zu erläutern verstand und insbesondere eine Reihe von Künstlern beeindruckte, weil er sich über Jahrzehnte mit einer Physik der Künste beschäftigte.“

Can anyone help?

-- The Anome (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

These are typically tortuous German sentences! The nearest I can get is something like this:

"In 1889 Auerbach took over the professorship of theoretical physics at the University of Jena which had been established by Ernst Abbe. As a Jew he was initially refused a formal professorship; it was not until 1923 that this was granted to him."

"Horst Bredekamp made mention in Der Zeit that art historian, Ulrich Müller, had written that the Jena Professor of Physics, Felix Auerbach 'was able to explain Einstein's Theory of Relativity in two papers, dated 1906 and 1921, and in particular impressed a number of artists because he had dealt with a physics of the arts for decades.'"

I hope that makes sense, but happy for those more expert to confirm or amend. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've carried out an initial cleanup of the article but not added in the second sentence above. Hope that helps anyway. Bermicourt (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

2 euro coin from 2007 reverse.jpg

image:2 euro coin from 2007 reverse.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been moved to commons -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Henry Kissinger, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Looking for help citing the following

Hi,

I am working towards overall improvements to the Treaty of Versailles article. The following is from the territorial changes section. I have not been able to find any information that backs it up, yet it does not seem prudent to just delete it since it does add some background context. Can anyone confirm if the overall points are correct and at the same time provide some inline citations to support the paragraph?

"Germany′s borders in 1919 had been established nearly 50 years earlier, at the country′s official establishment in 1871. Territory and cities in the region had changed hands repeatedly for centuries, including at various times being owned by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Poland, and Kingdom of Lithuania. However, Germany laid claim to lands and cities that it viewed as historically "Germanic" centuries before Germany′s establishment as a country in 1871. Other countries disputed Germany′s claim to this territory. In the peace treaty, Germany agreed to return disputed lands and cities to various countries."

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the paragraph has to give just a general idea of the historical situation in Central Europe, serving as an introduction to the rest of the section which provides the details. In this case individual countries need not to be mentioned, or maybe just Denmark, France and Poland as major examples of territorial disputes (I am not aware of any German-Swedish dispute, by the way). Regards TheaKantorska (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

History of Württemberg to History of Baden-Württemberg

Can someone just check that this undiscussed move is reasonable please. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Baden-Württemberg has only existed for around 60 years, whereas the individual states of Baden and Württemberg existed for several centuries, it would seem to make sense to split this into 3 articles - History of Baden, History of Württemberg and History of Baden-Württemberg - with the last-named covering just the period of its existence. Each article should, naturally, refer to the others. All would be long enough to justify separate articles anyway. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A division would certainly be in line with the articles on Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, two other fairly clear-cut post-war mergers with a double name. TheaKantorska (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative for Germany

I got a little involved in this article, addressing POV issues following an AfD discussion. There have been renewed (but non-specific) allegations of bias, so I thought it might be a good idea if some more people looked at it, especially in view of the upcoming elections in Germany. In May, there was also some feedback, suggesting that it had a UK perspective. Someone might also consider assessing the individual B-class criteria on the project banner. --Boson (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

German/Austrian station naming

There has been an issue raging for some time over the naming of German and Austrian central or main stations aka Hauptbahnhöfe. Essentially the debate is over whether we use the English name "Foo Central Station" or leave the article title in German i.e. Foo Hauptbahnhof. The truth is there are arguments both ways, but the debate has polarized opinion and is leading to inconsistency as we change titles based on our own perspectives. I will try to summarize the essentials in an objective a way as possible:

• Many English sources use Foo Hauptbahnhof alone
• Many English sources use Foo Hauptbahnhof and an English translation – either may be in brackets
• Many English sources use "Foo Central Station".
• Quite a number of English sources use "Foo Main Station", for certain stations this is even the most common name used.
• The national railways of Germany and Austria use "Foo Central Station" and Foo Hauptbahnhof (and sometimes both) in English publications and web pages
• Depending on which side of the debate editors lie, "Foo central station" and "Foo main station" may or may not be counted. Those "against" argue these are descriptive, those "for" argue they are proper names.
• Leading and specialist dictionaries recognise that Hauptbahnhof can mean "central station" or "main station". Some editors vehemently oppose the former term (see Talk:Central station).
• There is confusion because "central station" could mean geographically central to the city or operationally central to the railway network.
• In reality the most common name in English sources varies from station to station. It may be Foo Hauptbahnhof "Foo Central Station" or "Foo Main Station".
• For some stations there are few English sources.
• For others, especially the big stations, there are thousands of online English sources.
• There have been at least 4 heated discussions on talk pages to change names. Of these 3 have supported "Foo Central Station" (Nuremberg, Leipzig and Berlin I).
• Following the latest debate, Berlin Central Station was moved to Berlin Hauptbahnhof. There is a proposal to do a mass move back to Foo Hauptbahnhof, possibly following a short RM discussion based on the top few.
• Meanwhile sporadic moves continue.
• Current Wiki practice for ordinary stations is to translate Bahnhof Foo as "Foo station" or "Foo railway station"

I’m not aiming to spark yet another argument over the merits of the different names or to debate the above, which is only intended to indicate the complexities and the need to do some research before forming an opinion. I am really seeking views on the best way forward.

The whole subject is crying out for a proper review of English-language sources. I feel that is best led by WP:WikiProject Trains, with the support of WP:WikiProject Germany and WP:WikiProject Austria. It may also make sense to avoid wasting everyone’s time, that no more moves take place until this is sorted out. Ultimately I don’t mind which way this goes as long as it is based on sources not POV, that there is some consistency amongst articles and that article text recognizes all significant usage, both English and German usage. Bermicourt (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Multi RM

As discussed by among others User:Wheeltapper and User:Bahnfrend at Talk:Central station, the multi-RM for 121 stations is at Talk:Kaiserslautern Central Station. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)