![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There are a couple of discussions the talk page that some of you might be interested in. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the discussions on the talk page is helping at all. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just added a new portal for East Frisia at this page. This joins other portals added since last October for:
All these portals (and earlier ones e.g. Bavaria) could use a couple of editors each to keep them fresh. Please feel free to join in. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Godesberg has been nominated for Featured Article and could use reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the poll was no consensus to change anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there are more than 2 options, does everyone agree with a Two-round system? Kingjeff ( talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't use voting at Wikipedia, we use discussion and consensus, see Wikipedia:Voting. Furthermore, the topic of your proposed vote is a different question than the question previously being discussed at the lenghty Christian Wulff talk page and elsewhere. I do not necessarily agree that we have to use the same title for other states just because we use a particular title in the case of Lower Saxony, I think we would always need to look at what reliable sources relating to a particular office say, in any case this issue needs more discussion, not a premature vote not supported by policy on voting, discussion and consensus. Also, you cannot expect people to have read the Christian Wulff talk page in order to take part in a vote. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a shorter discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, relating to the title of the Lower Saxon heads of government. Two of the terms both have some merit, Prime Minister (being the common English term in official use in English by some German states) and Minister-President (being the literal translation, also in use in English by other German states, although not really an English term). Both should be included in relevant articles, like it was done here: Prime Minister of Lower Saxony. We have found ample evidence that the Germans use "Premier" as a less official short-hand term for "Prime Minister", and that the terms are frequently used interchangeably [1], I think we should primarily use the most formal term, while noting the use of short-hand terms in relevant articles. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with several of your points here, but not entirely with all of them. While English sources seem to use at least three different terms for this office, virtually none of them use a German language term, so this shouldn't be an option in an English language encyclopedia.
As far as "premier" is concerned, I agree that it's a fairly common term referring to the position (similar to "governor") in journalistic sources, but I'm inclined to think it's not (the translation of) the formal name of the office for a number of reasons, but rather a short-hand term.
Here are some results from Google Scholar. The main finding seems to be the fact that premier and governor are both significantly less used by academic sources, compared to journalistic sources. Both Prime Minister and Minister-President are widely used by academic sources:
These sources establish that overall, in academic sources, the most used terms are, in the following order:
I think it's clear that Prime Minister is an established term, used by both academic and English language journalistic sources, as well as authoritive/government sources (as previously established).
Minister-President is also used by other authoritive/government sources (as previously established) and by academic sources, but less frequently by journalistic, English language sources, given the fact that it's not really an English term. Also, some of the academic authors using the term may be non-native speakers. I would like to stress once again that Prime Minister and German Ministerpräsident have exactly the same meaning, i.e. the one heading the government, the first of the ministers - Prime Minister just happens to be the common English term and Ministerpräsident happens to be the common German term, also used when referring to the PMs of foreign countries in German.
Premier and Governor are both frequently used by journalistic sources, but seldomly by academic sources, and seldomly/never by authoritive/government sources. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: There is a discussion ongoing and no consensus on having a vote now.
Josh Gorand (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to voice your opinion, but there is no reason to unilaterally start yet another non-valid " vote" without any consensus while the discussion is ongoing (and in case we should at some point use such a non-binding poll (after we are finished discussing and looking at sources), we should give it more time). It would be better if people took part in the discussion. An opinion supported by arguments and/or sources carries more weight. We are really making progress in the discussion above. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I also note the repeated attempts to delete/move this comment to an irrelevant section, which makes this unilateral, premature and non-valid "vote" seem even more dubious. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
extended debate over voting procedure, and bickering |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Nice try, but still not a match: You have presented no proof whatsoever that you HAVE actually spoken to the administration in the Lower Saxony Legislative Assembly. Do you have any names? If so, how can we contact them? Unfortunately, without any proof, your statement is just that: a statement, an assertion - not backed up by any evidence. So for all we know, you may be economical with the truth. That is probably one of the most insidious tactics I've seen on Wikipedia. Leicchaucer ( talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|
The discussion has thus far established that Prime Minister is supported by more sources than Minister-President, both scholarly and journalistic English sources. This is uncontested. Josh Gorand ( talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
discussion of google searches, collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Prime Minister (523) Minister-President (506) Governor (162) Premier (146) But these are only google hits - a very unreliable method. Nor do I agree that journalists - especially non-native-English speakers - are an authority on translation. Like I said you need to find a better logic or leave it alone and get on with more important things as Knepflerle suggests below.-- Bermicourt ( talk) 14:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
|
What utterly disproportionate overkill this discussion and voting is for the translation of one word - just scan back through this discussion, then read colour of the bikeshed.
Look at it from the point of the reader, which is always the most important viewpoint to consider. Writers use both terms frequently, on the assumption they are both understood by readers. Readers are, to a good approximation, pretty much equally likely to come across either, and understand either. So whichever term we use, roughly the same number of people will understand it. If it doesn't make an appreciable difference to our readers' understanding, there's no point arguing about it whatsoever.
Use either, or both, or whatever the respective Land's website uses - whichever you pick, it'll make next-to-no difference. Carry on arguing at length if you wish, but don't deceive yourselves that it's for the benefit for readers. Knepflerle ( talk) 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The numerous sources cited in this discussion have thus far established that Prime Minister is supported by more sources than Minister-President. While the terms were used to roughly the same degree by government and academic sources, journalistic sources ( WP:RS secondary sources) in the English language showed an overwhelming preference for Prime Minister. These facts are uncontested (in order to contest it, it is necessary to produce sources that prove these findings wrong). Nothing in the previous summary section challenged these results. Josh Gorand ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's just nonsensical. Just another personal theory of yours. First of all, there is no overwhelming consensus (contrary to your suggestion). Secondly, the term "Premier" is equally preferred - Wikipedia does not distinguish between "official" and journalistic terms. That's an artificial divide you have chosen to create. All you do is avoiding the reality that the facts are against your theory. As it happens, most sources contradict your ridiculous and, frankly, obnoxious claim. Prepare to be contradicted some more, my dear. Are you even a native speaker of English or at least bilingual? If not, I suggest you defer to the judgment of those who can fluently speak both languages and are familiar with both terms. Leicchaucer ( talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
bickering, remainder of section collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
CGN2010, where in the world is a Prime Minister a head of a government that is not a national government? This is one issue I have with Prime Minister. Kingjeff ( talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly! Josh Gorand doesn't give a ... about other people's opinions, the fine nuances of constitutional law or ordinary English language. He's holding up the entire process of moving on and trying to game the system by raising irrelevant and poorly-supported objections. As stated previously, this is the user who used a sectarian fringe group's website as a news source! His attitude is more reminiscent of authoritarianism than acceptable democratic and consensus-oriented conduct that formed part of the Wikipedia tradition. I don't care if we keep arguing about this for the next 10 years - but I shall not stand for one man's erroneous and totalitarian idea of "persuasion" forcing the rest of us to accept a "translation" which is inaccurate, unsupported by any serious sources and advocated with the charm of a refrigerator. Leicchaucer ( talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I asked it as a ligitmate question. Every position of Prime Minister that I know of is a head of a national government like the Prime Ministers of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Japan, France and Ukraine. I am unaware of any Prime Minister that isn't head of a national government. There was nothing personal about the question. Kingjeff ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I will ignore comments/personal attacks that are not backed up by sources. Produce sources, or accept that Prime Minister is the most common term, supported by scholarly, government and journalistic usage, to be used per Wikipedia policies, as evidenced by the above discussion. Josh Gorand ( talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Josh Gorand, where was the personal attack? Kingjeff ( talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Kingjeff: the personal was referred to "doesnt give a ..." (do you want to talk more about it or shall this be about the original topic?). I shouldnt have answered your totally ligitimate (even still pre-occupative) question by making counter-questions. All I meant to say was, that there is not a good understanding of politics within certain federal states, especially if it doesnt fall in line with the the system of the most-average national government system. I dont think this is the right approach, but here's the answer to your question: Politics of Russia#Presidential Power in the Regions, e.g. Chechnya or Tatarstan and these are titles also found in the wider public. I know politicans in Greenland, Scotland or Catalonia have similar translations. I am out of this discussion. Have fun everybody. CGN2010 ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
It is not just a matter of selecting whatever term gets the most hits on Google. The Google searches performed show that Google finds a very slightly higher number of "scholarly" sources, but the numbers and the differences are inconclusive. They also show that "prime minister" is used more often in journalistic and other non-academic sources, but there is no consensus on the interpretation of these results, particularly since the difference between journalistic and scholarly results differs greatly.
It is not sufficient to know that journalists most often refer to a person as "prime minister"; we need to be convinced that the term is used with the same precision and specificity and in the same (encyclopaedic) register.
For instance, when translating the name of a cultural or political institution, we can use a calque (such as "minister president" for "Ministerpräsident"). This retains the specificity and refers to the particular office in that particular polity. We could also use a cultural equivalent, such as "governor" for "Ministerpräsident" (for an American audience) or "prime minister" for "Kanzler"(for a British audience), or perhaps "First Minister" for Ministerpräsident (for a Scottish readership); this really works only when the readers all belong to the same "culture"; the "translation" does not really refer to the same thing, so it is not a candidate in an encyclopaedia.. Another approach is to use a wider term such as "premier", head of government", "leader", "premier " etc. At least for a Commonwealth readership, "prime minister" fulfils this purpose of designating the head of any parliamentary government (at least of a sovereign state). This is not specific, and is not necessarily the term used for the specific office, but a more general term especially if extended to apply to the head of a non-sovereign ("federated") state. Using "prime minister" in this way, we could say "the prime minister of Ireland is called the Taoiseach" or the prime minister of Germany is called the chancellor (but that does not mean that those articles should have "Prime Minister" in the title); with slightly less justification (because we are not talking about a sovereign state in the usual sense) we could say "the prime minister of North Rhine-Westphalia is called the minister president. So it is not sufficient to show that journalists most commonly use a particular name to refer to a particular person or office.
Like the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia has an article on Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. But if we Google, we get the following results:
but the German article is (quite rightly) not called "Queen Mum", however many Google hits that name gets. Similarly, if Sarah Ferguson is commonly referred to in the British press as "Fergie" and North Rhine Westphalia is commonly referred to in the German media as "das bevölkerungsreichste Bundesland", that does not mean that these are candidate names in Wikipedia. The French lower house is often referred to by that name, but that does not mean the Wikipedia article should be so named. You cannot simply count the Google hits. Interpretation is required. -- Boson ( talk) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Prime Minister of the United States (English UK) President of the United States of America (English US) Chancellor of Amerika (German) Fist Minister (Scots) Queen Mum (French & all other) | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Style | Mr. President
[1] (Informal) The Honorable [2] (Formal) |
Residence | White House |
Term length | Four years, renewable once |
Inaugural holder |
George Washington April 30, 1789 |
Formation |
United States Constitution March 4, 1789 |
Website | whitehouse.gov/president |
Oh please, don't try to be Mother Theresa here! Playing the sympathy card, are we? Poor you! First of all, maybe you should learn to read properly. It's LEICCHAUCER! Not LEICCHAUSER! Get it? It is somewhat funny that you accuse me of the conduct that you have exhibited time and again. After all, you're the one not willing to engage other users in constructive, meaningful debate. You are the one not willing to consider any sources other than your own. You are the one who cannot back up his many assertions - and when called on it by the wider community, you insult, obstruct and spout legalese. It seems to me, Josh, that you're the one not willing to write an encyclopaedia in a consensual fashion. It would also seem to me that you willingly ignore clear facts and sources that contradict your own. You're the one who uses expressions like "It has been established..." and "It is proven" with a degree of finality that (in this context) I can only find laughable. Laughable just like your POV-infested article on the "Prime Minister of Lower Saxony" that you created to make a point. You are the one who should be ashamed of your incredibly dishonest, totalitarian and socially limited attitude towards the writing of this encyclopaedia and complete intellectual vacuousness. Your "sources" include an extremist "Jehovah's Witnesses"-like sectarian organisation newsletter from Philadelphia. Once again, you fail to mention that I produced quite a source collection in support of "Premier" as well. I quoted several English-language news sources referring to the head of the Lower Saxony government as “Premier”: Reuters, the BBC, the Financial Times, the Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, Agence France Presse, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Independent, Bloomberg, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, The Times, Fortune, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Straits Times, the Irish Times, The Scotsman, The Economist, Time, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Telegraph, the English language edition of Der Spiegel Your reliable news sources have been comprehensively rebutted. In fact, I have provided the editors with a greater number of reliable news sources than you have. You will also find that corporations such as Thyssen Krupp, RWE, Deutsche Telekom and the Deutsche Messe AG (with its seat in Hanover and merely the organizer of the world’s largest computer fair, namely Cebit!) and even the German federal government refer to Christian Wulff as the “Premier of Lower Saxony”! There was also the small matter of the Lower Saxony state constitution calling the office “Minister-President”. The prime legal document of the state, the English translation of which was published by the Lower Saxony Parliament for the perusal of (among others) diplomats and international jurists, does not refer to the office as “Prime Minister”. That’s a clear fact. Plus, as Lower Saxony is not an independent nation and comparable to an Australian state or a Canadian province, the term "Premier" strikes me as the most appropriate. In addition, I cited press releases by the federal government and leading German corporations. All of your previously presented sources were comprehensively rebutted - yet you fail to acknowledge it. I am sick of you constantly claiming that I haven't provided real sources!!! This article would make for excellent reading for you!
How you (a neophyte compared to all users here) can even dare to consider these sources "unworthy" of serious consideration is frankly beyond me. For you to ignore this shows the extreme intellectual shallowness that defines your "contribution" to Wikipedia discussions. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise to us for this childish, immature and, frankly, pre-democratic behaviour. I will call you on it - and if you can't stand the heat, maybe you shouldn't be in the kitchen, eh? I'm not impressed by your permanent stream of insults, half-truths and inventing facts. And I meant it: If it takes 10, 20 or 30 years to solve this question - then so be it. Unlike others on here, I will stay in the discussion and fight your logical fallacies every step of the way.
One final word to everyone else: Prove your fidelity to the facts and real sources. Don't let yourself be whipped into submission by someone who (as is often the case in life, it'd seem) tries to railroad his interpretation of an important term through by sheer lack of courtesy or basic civilised behaviour.
Cheers! Leicchaucer ( talk) 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Leicchaucer, I think we all should just ignore Josh Gorand. We all know where Josh Gorand stands on the issue and there is no need to pay anymore attention to him. We all know he wants to get his own way on this topic and he will just continue with obsessive arguements by all of us paying attention to Josh Gorand. As we can see from previous statements, Josh Gorand will try and manipulate the situation and as far as I'm concerned, this is justification for everyone to ignore him. But we have to make sure we don't ignore others just because they agree with him. Kingjeff ( talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing new here now. If we were to start at, say, Category:Ministers-President in Germany, then we wouldn't have an awful lot to do or change by sticking with Minister-President. I think the summary here for German Ministerpräsidenten is quite fine. Jared Preston ( talk) 23:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the cats add up now, just some links in the articles will need to be corrected over time. But this was never going to be an easy job. I really don't want to annoy anyone here though. I hope everyone has a nice, easy weekend. Jared Preston ( talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A possible compromise could be "head of government", with articles that list both titles (PM & MP) prominently in the lead (List of heads of government of (state) and so on). In the case of the oldest states (Bavaria, Saxony and some of the city-states), these titles have changed several times over the course of the centuries. Josh Gorand ( talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We need some German speakers to help us with this AfD. Thanks in advance. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Oskar Kuhn has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 07:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Necati Arabaci has been nominated for deletion. I think a few German-speaking/reading editors might be able to help things out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necati Arabaci. Location ( talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, This article predominantly focuses on the Organizational structure of Luftwaffe during WWII and not its history. An honest effort has been made to cover all aspects of the hierarchy including Ground elements part of Luftwaffe, such as Paratroops and Flak regiments. I will appreciate your feedback. Thanks for the time invested. ' Perseus 71 talk 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
VA Tech Wabag needs to be improved using information found in the German Wikipedia article VA Technologie. Also, that article and the German article Siemens VAI will be helpful in fixing some problems with the English article Voestalpine. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Was the Courante published in the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (The Netherlands)" or in the "Dutch Republic (The Netherlands)"? See Talk:List of newspapers by establishment date#Which country? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted . I hope to attract some attention here, since I can see that the Germany portal has rated the article as High-importance . The comment is at the talk-page, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01 . Sechinsic ( talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposed move over at the Johann/Jan Dzierzon article which may be of interest to members of this project [28]. radek ( talk) 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Bundesstraße has been listed for deletion. This is a major template, supported by numerous sub-templates that enables route information in potentially hundreds of articles on German federal roads to be displayed or hidden in the infobox as desired. Someone has converted the existing articles to Infobox Road and, because it is incapable of handling the route info, has clumsily moved the latter into the articles themselves where they fail to display correctly. This is a major setback to the project to translate federal road articles into English Wikipedia. Please register your views at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 24. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't split this discussion to more locations. There is already the TfD nomination and a discussion at the Transportation task force talk page. If your desire was only to notify the larger WikiProject about the nomination, you should have only stated that the TfD existed, not rendered an opinion on it. That could be construed as canvassing or forum shopping, both of which are highly frowned upon. As it is, you have only included one side of the issue in your posting here. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia but I'd like to help out by translating some of the German articles into English. I looked through some of requests for translations and noticed that most of the German articles had very few or no sources. Would it be helpful to translate articles that lack sufficient sources or would they just be just be deleted. -- Deutschgirl ( talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I came across this too - I simply looked up sources to corroborate the translated text, but of course most of these sources were in German. Citations are also missing in many Germany articles. Hohenloh + 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Lots of redlinks - anyone want to take a look? Exxolon ( talk) 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who is interested in the Wikipedia article on the Ruhrgebiet may leave a commentary on Talk:Ruhr#Requested_move. Wikiwiserick ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
"nur noch gut 100.000 Personen Beiträge an den ... entrichten" - "only 100,000 of the members contribute financially" or rather we are talking about obligatory member fees? Xx236 ( talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
The FAC review for this article is open open. Your comments are welcome. All editors are invited to participate. TIA Perseus 71 talk 00:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see comments on that situation. Zeitgeschichtliche_Forschungsstelle_Ingolstadt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After a Polish user reverted to an obsolete, thoroughly discredited version on 28 June - a version that I later reverted -, a few biased left-wing editors and IPs chimed in (the one from the 78... range has been POV-pushing there since 2009). The article as it stands is now more of an ideological lampoon than an encyclopedic article. Opinions of political opponents are presented as undisputed facts, with some recently inserted 'pearls' of mud-slinging having apparent traces of the use of machine translation:
In rejecting the findings of historical research, the ZFI in using Pseudoscience based on ideology, created a "parallel universe" isolated from scholarly discourse.
What they have developed there is a mess based on cherry-picked quotations. What can be done is unclear, since the constructive comments of an uninvolved user have been ignored so far by our hongweibings (not to forget the comments left there by our German expert Molobo [29]). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Some necessary background. According to the German Wikipedia article the ZFI is a "geschichtsrevisionistischer Verein" (revisionist association). Nothing about research. It was founded by Alfred Schickel, a revisionist historian who has published several books with Grabert Verlag, an extreme right-wing publisher (which specialises on revisionism including holocaust denial, which is illegal in Germany; at least two authors have been convicted for that). According to Schickel, WW2 was Roosevelt's fault. Hans Adler 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of the most viewed articles on the German Wikipedia? Thanks, Hohenloh + 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Max Weber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B ( talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a recent proposal here to split Category:Lower Saxony geography stubs up by using district stubs. This means that most stub articles currently marked with {{LowerSaxony-geo-stub}} will have that stub replaced by a district one e.g. {{Celle-geo-stub}}. I gather this system is partially replicated in other states.
This begs the wider question for the Germany WikiProject of what level of stub is most useful? Do we want German geographical stub articles broken down by state (which can make the stub category quite big) or by district (which may cause confusion with multiple stub categories and district names that most English speakers don't know)? Bavaria, of course, could be broken down by 'province' i.e. Upper Franconia, Lower Bavaria, etc. Whatever we do, we all need to use the same system for consistency.
The creation and categorization of stub tags is carried out by a band of dedicated Wikipedians, who help us manage the stubs, but they are not necessarily Germany experts. Do others have any views? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's much point in discussing this further - the stubs have been created and are steadily being added to articles anyway. The project just needs to be aware so they add the right stubs in future. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wilhelm von Gottberg was evacuted from East Prussia. An editor removes this sourced information replacing is with "expelled". Why a precize, sourced description is worse than a general one? Xx236 ( talk) 07:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. It seems there is an editor causing some issues in Football articles by inserting unsourced information. One major issues that exists is that this editor appears to only speak poor English and prefers to converse in German. I wonder if there are any German speakers here who would be willing to try and talk to this person and translate the issues/responses The relevant AN/I thread is here. Thanks! -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 21:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There are a couple of discussions the talk page that some of you might be interested in. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the discussions on the talk page is helping at all. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just added a new portal for East Frisia at this page. This joins other portals added since last October for:
All these portals (and earlier ones e.g. Bavaria) could use a couple of editors each to keep them fresh. Please feel free to join in. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Godesberg has been nominated for Featured Article and could use reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the poll was no consensus to change anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there are more than 2 options, does everyone agree with a Two-round system? Kingjeff ( talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't use voting at Wikipedia, we use discussion and consensus, see Wikipedia:Voting. Furthermore, the topic of your proposed vote is a different question than the question previously being discussed at the lenghty Christian Wulff talk page and elsewhere. I do not necessarily agree that we have to use the same title for other states just because we use a particular title in the case of Lower Saxony, I think we would always need to look at what reliable sources relating to a particular office say, in any case this issue needs more discussion, not a premature vote not supported by policy on voting, discussion and consensus. Also, you cannot expect people to have read the Christian Wulff talk page in order to take part in a vote. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a shorter discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, relating to the title of the Lower Saxon heads of government. Two of the terms both have some merit, Prime Minister (being the common English term in official use in English by some German states) and Minister-President (being the literal translation, also in use in English by other German states, although not really an English term). Both should be included in relevant articles, like it was done here: Prime Minister of Lower Saxony. We have found ample evidence that the Germans use "Premier" as a less official short-hand term for "Prime Minister", and that the terms are frequently used interchangeably [1], I think we should primarily use the most formal term, while noting the use of short-hand terms in relevant articles. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with several of your points here, but not entirely with all of them. While English sources seem to use at least three different terms for this office, virtually none of them use a German language term, so this shouldn't be an option in an English language encyclopedia.
As far as "premier" is concerned, I agree that it's a fairly common term referring to the position (similar to "governor") in journalistic sources, but I'm inclined to think it's not (the translation of) the formal name of the office for a number of reasons, but rather a short-hand term.
Here are some results from Google Scholar. The main finding seems to be the fact that premier and governor are both significantly less used by academic sources, compared to journalistic sources. Both Prime Minister and Minister-President are widely used by academic sources:
These sources establish that overall, in academic sources, the most used terms are, in the following order:
I think it's clear that Prime Minister is an established term, used by both academic and English language journalistic sources, as well as authoritive/government sources (as previously established).
Minister-President is also used by other authoritive/government sources (as previously established) and by academic sources, but less frequently by journalistic, English language sources, given the fact that it's not really an English term. Also, some of the academic authors using the term may be non-native speakers. I would like to stress once again that Prime Minister and German Ministerpräsident have exactly the same meaning, i.e. the one heading the government, the first of the ministers - Prime Minister just happens to be the common English term and Ministerpräsident happens to be the common German term, also used when referring to the PMs of foreign countries in German.
Premier and Governor are both frequently used by journalistic sources, but seldomly by academic sources, and seldomly/never by authoritive/government sources. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: There is a discussion ongoing and no consensus on having a vote now.
Josh Gorand (
talk)
05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to voice your opinion, but there is no reason to unilaterally start yet another non-valid " vote" without any consensus while the discussion is ongoing (and in case we should at some point use such a non-binding poll (after we are finished discussing and looking at sources), we should give it more time). It would be better if people took part in the discussion. An opinion supported by arguments and/or sources carries more weight. We are really making progress in the discussion above. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I also note the repeated attempts to delete/move this comment to an irrelevant section, which makes this unilateral, premature and non-valid "vote" seem even more dubious. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
extended debate over voting procedure, and bickering |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Nice try, but still not a match: You have presented no proof whatsoever that you HAVE actually spoken to the administration in the Lower Saxony Legislative Assembly. Do you have any names? If so, how can we contact them? Unfortunately, without any proof, your statement is just that: a statement, an assertion - not backed up by any evidence. So for all we know, you may be economical with the truth. That is probably one of the most insidious tactics I've seen on Wikipedia. Leicchaucer ( talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|
The discussion has thus far established that Prime Minister is supported by more sources than Minister-President, both scholarly and journalistic English sources. This is uncontested. Josh Gorand ( talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
discussion of google searches, collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Prime Minister (523) Minister-President (506) Governor (162) Premier (146) But these are only google hits - a very unreliable method. Nor do I agree that journalists - especially non-native-English speakers - are an authority on translation. Like I said you need to find a better logic or leave it alone and get on with more important things as Knepflerle suggests below.-- Bermicourt ( talk) 14:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
|
What utterly disproportionate overkill this discussion and voting is for the translation of one word - just scan back through this discussion, then read colour of the bikeshed.
Look at it from the point of the reader, which is always the most important viewpoint to consider. Writers use both terms frequently, on the assumption they are both understood by readers. Readers are, to a good approximation, pretty much equally likely to come across either, and understand either. So whichever term we use, roughly the same number of people will understand it. If it doesn't make an appreciable difference to our readers' understanding, there's no point arguing about it whatsoever.
Use either, or both, or whatever the respective Land's website uses - whichever you pick, it'll make next-to-no difference. Carry on arguing at length if you wish, but don't deceive yourselves that it's for the benefit for readers. Knepflerle ( talk) 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The numerous sources cited in this discussion have thus far established that Prime Minister is supported by more sources than Minister-President. While the terms were used to roughly the same degree by government and academic sources, journalistic sources ( WP:RS secondary sources) in the English language showed an overwhelming preference for Prime Minister. These facts are uncontested (in order to contest it, it is necessary to produce sources that prove these findings wrong). Nothing in the previous summary section challenged these results. Josh Gorand ( talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's just nonsensical. Just another personal theory of yours. First of all, there is no overwhelming consensus (contrary to your suggestion). Secondly, the term "Premier" is equally preferred - Wikipedia does not distinguish between "official" and journalistic terms. That's an artificial divide you have chosen to create. All you do is avoiding the reality that the facts are against your theory. As it happens, most sources contradict your ridiculous and, frankly, obnoxious claim. Prepare to be contradicted some more, my dear. Are you even a native speaker of English or at least bilingual? If not, I suggest you defer to the judgment of those who can fluently speak both languages and are familiar with both terms. Leicchaucer ( talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
bickering, remainder of section collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
CGN2010, where in the world is a Prime Minister a head of a government that is not a national government? This is one issue I have with Prime Minister. Kingjeff ( talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My point exactly! Josh Gorand doesn't give a ... about other people's opinions, the fine nuances of constitutional law or ordinary English language. He's holding up the entire process of moving on and trying to game the system by raising irrelevant and poorly-supported objections. As stated previously, this is the user who used a sectarian fringe group's website as a news source! His attitude is more reminiscent of authoritarianism than acceptable democratic and consensus-oriented conduct that formed part of the Wikipedia tradition. I don't care if we keep arguing about this for the next 10 years - but I shall not stand for one man's erroneous and totalitarian idea of "persuasion" forcing the rest of us to accept a "translation" which is inaccurate, unsupported by any serious sources and advocated with the charm of a refrigerator. Leicchaucer ( talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I asked it as a ligitmate question. Every position of Prime Minister that I know of is a head of a national government like the Prime Ministers of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Japan, France and Ukraine. I am unaware of any Prime Minister that isn't head of a national government. There was nothing personal about the question. Kingjeff ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I will ignore comments/personal attacks that are not backed up by sources. Produce sources, or accept that Prime Minister is the most common term, supported by scholarly, government and journalistic usage, to be used per Wikipedia policies, as evidenced by the above discussion. Josh Gorand ( talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Josh Gorand, where was the personal attack? Kingjeff ( talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Kingjeff: the personal was referred to "doesnt give a ..." (do you want to talk more about it or shall this be about the original topic?). I shouldnt have answered your totally ligitimate (even still pre-occupative) question by making counter-questions. All I meant to say was, that there is not a good understanding of politics within certain federal states, especially if it doesnt fall in line with the the system of the most-average national government system. I dont think this is the right approach, but here's the answer to your question: Politics of Russia#Presidential Power in the Regions, e.g. Chechnya or Tatarstan and these are titles also found in the wider public. I know politicans in Greenland, Scotland or Catalonia have similar translations. I am out of this discussion. Have fun everybody. CGN2010 ( talk) 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
It is not just a matter of selecting whatever term gets the most hits on Google. The Google searches performed show that Google finds a very slightly higher number of "scholarly" sources, but the numbers and the differences are inconclusive. They also show that "prime minister" is used more often in journalistic and other non-academic sources, but there is no consensus on the interpretation of these results, particularly since the difference between journalistic and scholarly results differs greatly.
It is not sufficient to know that journalists most often refer to a person as "prime minister"; we need to be convinced that the term is used with the same precision and specificity and in the same (encyclopaedic) register.
For instance, when translating the name of a cultural or political institution, we can use a calque (such as "minister president" for "Ministerpräsident"). This retains the specificity and refers to the particular office in that particular polity. We could also use a cultural equivalent, such as "governor" for "Ministerpräsident" (for an American audience) or "prime minister" for "Kanzler"(for a British audience), or perhaps "First Minister" for Ministerpräsident (for a Scottish readership); this really works only when the readers all belong to the same "culture"; the "translation" does not really refer to the same thing, so it is not a candidate in an encyclopaedia.. Another approach is to use a wider term such as "premier", head of government", "leader", "premier " etc. At least for a Commonwealth readership, "prime minister" fulfils this purpose of designating the head of any parliamentary government (at least of a sovereign state). This is not specific, and is not necessarily the term used for the specific office, but a more general term especially if extended to apply to the head of a non-sovereign ("federated") state. Using "prime minister" in this way, we could say "the prime minister of Ireland is called the Taoiseach" or the prime minister of Germany is called the chancellor (but that does not mean that those articles should have "Prime Minister" in the title); with slightly less justification (because we are not talking about a sovereign state in the usual sense) we could say "the prime minister of North Rhine-Westphalia is called the minister president. So it is not sufficient to show that journalists most commonly use a particular name to refer to a particular person or office.
Like the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia has an article on Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. But if we Google, we get the following results:
but the German article is (quite rightly) not called "Queen Mum", however many Google hits that name gets. Similarly, if Sarah Ferguson is commonly referred to in the British press as "Fergie" and North Rhine Westphalia is commonly referred to in the German media as "das bevölkerungsreichste Bundesland", that does not mean that these are candidate names in Wikipedia. The French lower house is often referred to by that name, but that does not mean the Wikipedia article should be so named. You cannot simply count the Google hits. Interpretation is required. -- Boson ( talk) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Prime Minister of the United States (English UK) President of the United States of America (English US) Chancellor of Amerika (German) Fist Minister (Scots) Queen Mum (French & all other) | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Style | Mr. President
[1] (Informal) The Honorable [2] (Formal) |
Residence | White House |
Term length | Four years, renewable once |
Inaugural holder |
George Washington April 30, 1789 |
Formation |
United States Constitution March 4, 1789 |
Website | whitehouse.gov/president |
Oh please, don't try to be Mother Theresa here! Playing the sympathy card, are we? Poor you! First of all, maybe you should learn to read properly. It's LEICCHAUCER! Not LEICCHAUSER! Get it? It is somewhat funny that you accuse me of the conduct that you have exhibited time and again. After all, you're the one not willing to engage other users in constructive, meaningful debate. You are the one not willing to consider any sources other than your own. You are the one who cannot back up his many assertions - and when called on it by the wider community, you insult, obstruct and spout legalese. It seems to me, Josh, that you're the one not willing to write an encyclopaedia in a consensual fashion. It would also seem to me that you willingly ignore clear facts and sources that contradict your own. You're the one who uses expressions like "It has been established..." and "It is proven" with a degree of finality that (in this context) I can only find laughable. Laughable just like your POV-infested article on the "Prime Minister of Lower Saxony" that you created to make a point. You are the one who should be ashamed of your incredibly dishonest, totalitarian and socially limited attitude towards the writing of this encyclopaedia and complete intellectual vacuousness. Your "sources" include an extremist "Jehovah's Witnesses"-like sectarian organisation newsletter from Philadelphia. Once again, you fail to mention that I produced quite a source collection in support of "Premier" as well. I quoted several English-language news sources referring to the head of the Lower Saxony government as “Premier”: Reuters, the BBC, the Financial Times, the Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, Agence France Presse, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Independent, Bloomberg, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, The Times, Fortune, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Straits Times, the Irish Times, The Scotsman, The Economist, Time, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Telegraph, the English language edition of Der Spiegel Your reliable news sources have been comprehensively rebutted. In fact, I have provided the editors with a greater number of reliable news sources than you have. You will also find that corporations such as Thyssen Krupp, RWE, Deutsche Telekom and the Deutsche Messe AG (with its seat in Hanover and merely the organizer of the world’s largest computer fair, namely Cebit!) and even the German federal government refer to Christian Wulff as the “Premier of Lower Saxony”! There was also the small matter of the Lower Saxony state constitution calling the office “Minister-President”. The prime legal document of the state, the English translation of which was published by the Lower Saxony Parliament for the perusal of (among others) diplomats and international jurists, does not refer to the office as “Prime Minister”. That’s a clear fact. Plus, as Lower Saxony is not an independent nation and comparable to an Australian state or a Canadian province, the term "Premier" strikes me as the most appropriate. In addition, I cited press releases by the federal government and leading German corporations. All of your previously presented sources were comprehensively rebutted - yet you fail to acknowledge it. I am sick of you constantly claiming that I haven't provided real sources!!! This article would make for excellent reading for you!
How you (a neophyte compared to all users here) can even dare to consider these sources "unworthy" of serious consideration is frankly beyond me. For you to ignore this shows the extreme intellectual shallowness that defines your "contribution" to Wikipedia discussions. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise to us for this childish, immature and, frankly, pre-democratic behaviour. I will call you on it - and if you can't stand the heat, maybe you shouldn't be in the kitchen, eh? I'm not impressed by your permanent stream of insults, half-truths and inventing facts. And I meant it: If it takes 10, 20 or 30 years to solve this question - then so be it. Unlike others on here, I will stay in the discussion and fight your logical fallacies every step of the way.
One final word to everyone else: Prove your fidelity to the facts and real sources. Don't let yourself be whipped into submission by someone who (as is often the case in life, it'd seem) tries to railroad his interpretation of an important term through by sheer lack of courtesy or basic civilised behaviour.
Cheers! Leicchaucer ( talk) 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Leicchaucer, I think we all should just ignore Josh Gorand. We all know where Josh Gorand stands on the issue and there is no need to pay anymore attention to him. We all know he wants to get his own way on this topic and he will just continue with obsessive arguements by all of us paying attention to Josh Gorand. As we can see from previous statements, Josh Gorand will try and manipulate the situation and as far as I'm concerned, this is justification for everyone to ignore him. But we have to make sure we don't ignore others just because they agree with him. Kingjeff ( talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing new here now. If we were to start at, say, Category:Ministers-President in Germany, then we wouldn't have an awful lot to do or change by sticking with Minister-President. I think the summary here for German Ministerpräsidenten is quite fine. Jared Preston ( talk) 23:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the cats add up now, just some links in the articles will need to be corrected over time. But this was never going to be an easy job. I really don't want to annoy anyone here though. I hope everyone has a nice, easy weekend. Jared Preston ( talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A possible compromise could be "head of government", with articles that list both titles (PM & MP) prominently in the lead (List of heads of government of (state) and so on). In the case of the oldest states (Bavaria, Saxony and some of the city-states), these titles have changed several times over the course of the centuries. Josh Gorand ( talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We need some German speakers to help us with this AfD. Thanks in advance. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Oskar Kuhn has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.55 ( talk) 07:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Necati Arabaci has been nominated for deletion. I think a few German-speaking/reading editors might be able to help things out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necati Arabaci. Location ( talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, This article predominantly focuses on the Organizational structure of Luftwaffe during WWII and not its history. An honest effort has been made to cover all aspects of the hierarchy including Ground elements part of Luftwaffe, such as Paratroops and Flak regiments. I will appreciate your feedback. Thanks for the time invested. ' Perseus 71 talk 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
VA Tech Wabag needs to be improved using information found in the German Wikipedia article VA Technologie. Also, that article and the German article Siemens VAI will be helpful in fixing some problems with the English article Voestalpine. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Was the Courante published in the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (The Netherlands)" or in the "Dutch Republic (The Netherlands)"? See Talk:List of newspapers by establishment date#Which country? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted . I hope to attract some attention here, since I can see that the Germany portal has rated the article as High-importance . The comment is at the talk-page, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01 . Sechinsic ( talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposed move over at the Johann/Jan Dzierzon article which may be of interest to members of this project [28]. radek ( talk) 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Bundesstraße has been listed for deletion. This is a major template, supported by numerous sub-templates that enables route information in potentially hundreds of articles on German federal roads to be displayed or hidden in the infobox as desired. Someone has converted the existing articles to Infobox Road and, because it is incapable of handling the route info, has clumsily moved the latter into the articles themselves where they fail to display correctly. This is a major setback to the project to translate federal road articles into English Wikipedia. Please register your views at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 24. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 21:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't split this discussion to more locations. There is already the TfD nomination and a discussion at the Transportation task force talk page. If your desire was only to notify the larger WikiProject about the nomination, you should have only stated that the TfD existed, not rendered an opinion on it. That could be construed as canvassing or forum shopping, both of which are highly frowned upon. As it is, you have only included one side of the issue in your posting here. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia but I'd like to help out by translating some of the German articles into English. I looked through some of requests for translations and noticed that most of the German articles had very few or no sources. Would it be helpful to translate articles that lack sufficient sources or would they just be just be deleted. -- Deutschgirl ( talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I came across this too - I simply looked up sources to corroborate the translated text, but of course most of these sources were in German. Citations are also missing in many Germany articles. Hohenloh + 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Lots of redlinks - anyone want to take a look? Exxolon ( talk) 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who is interested in the Wikipedia article on the Ruhrgebiet may leave a commentary on Talk:Ruhr#Requested_move. Wikiwiserick ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
"nur noch gut 100.000 Personen Beiträge an den ... entrichten" - "only 100,000 of the members contribute financially" or rather we are talking about obligatory member fees? Xx236 ( talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
The FAC review for this article is open open. Your comments are welcome. All editors are invited to participate. TIA Perseus 71 talk 00:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see comments on that situation. Zeitgeschichtliche_Forschungsstelle_Ingolstadt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
After a Polish user reverted to an obsolete, thoroughly discredited version on 28 June - a version that I later reverted -, a few biased left-wing editors and IPs chimed in (the one from the 78... range has been POV-pushing there since 2009). The article as it stands is now more of an ideological lampoon than an encyclopedic article. Opinions of political opponents are presented as undisputed facts, with some recently inserted 'pearls' of mud-slinging having apparent traces of the use of machine translation:
In rejecting the findings of historical research, the ZFI in using Pseudoscience based on ideology, created a "parallel universe" isolated from scholarly discourse.
What they have developed there is a mess based on cherry-picked quotations. What can be done is unclear, since the constructive comments of an uninvolved user have been ignored so far by our hongweibings (not to forget the comments left there by our German expert Molobo [29]). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Some necessary background. According to the German Wikipedia article the ZFI is a "geschichtsrevisionistischer Verein" (revisionist association). Nothing about research. It was founded by Alfred Schickel, a revisionist historian who has published several books with Grabert Verlag, an extreme right-wing publisher (which specialises on revisionism including holocaust denial, which is illegal in Germany; at least two authors have been convicted for that). According to Schickel, WW2 was Roosevelt's fault. Hans Adler 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of the most viewed articles on the German Wikipedia? Thanks, Hohenloh + 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Max Weber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B ( talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a recent proposal here to split Category:Lower Saxony geography stubs up by using district stubs. This means that most stub articles currently marked with {{LowerSaxony-geo-stub}} will have that stub replaced by a district one e.g. {{Celle-geo-stub}}. I gather this system is partially replicated in other states.
This begs the wider question for the Germany WikiProject of what level of stub is most useful? Do we want German geographical stub articles broken down by state (which can make the stub category quite big) or by district (which may cause confusion with multiple stub categories and district names that most English speakers don't know)? Bavaria, of course, could be broken down by 'province' i.e. Upper Franconia, Lower Bavaria, etc. Whatever we do, we all need to use the same system for consistency.
The creation and categorization of stub tags is carried out by a band of dedicated Wikipedians, who help us manage the stubs, but they are not necessarily Germany experts. Do others have any views? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's much point in discussing this further - the stubs have been created and are steadily being added to articles anyway. The project just needs to be aware so they add the right stubs in future. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Wilhelm von Gottberg was evacuted from East Prussia. An editor removes this sourced information replacing is with "expelled". Why a precize, sourced description is worse than a general one? Xx236 ( talk) 07:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey all. It seems there is an editor causing some issues in Football articles by inserting unsourced information. One major issues that exists is that this editor appears to only speak poor English and prefers to converse in German. I wonder if there are any German speakers here who would be willing to try and talk to this person and translate the issues/responses The relevant AN/I thread is here. Thanks! -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 21:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)