Rail transport in Germany task force/Conventions/Archive 1

the following text has been restored here after unilateral deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Rail transport in Germany task force, combined with a move of the commented-on topic to here

Please comment here.

Oppose the whole text; this "convention" reads like a personal reflection and does not refer to the general Wikipedia policies which apply to the areas concerned at all, and frequently ignores them completely in its provisions. In particular, the naming conventions are in direct opposition to the consensus described in WP:Use English and have a significant potential for producing names in violation of core content policies, particularly WP:OR. Per WP:CONSENSUS, this text should be abandoned as a local consensus cannot overturn the wider consensus as recorded in the main policy and guideline pages. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 13:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Unfortunately this convention contradicts WP policy and MoS in several places, and it needs a thorough point be point review in order to eliminate these contradictions. I'm not sure how much this would leave of value; the only real way to tell is to conduct the review. As a start, I've listed some contradictions below. -- Starbois ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Contradictions

• The statement The common compound name ...talbahn can be translated as '... Valley railway' contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a railway already has well known English name in this form, or if the valley the railway is named after has such a name, then the suggested usage would be fine. But otherwise the stricture to use the local name kicks in, and the local name of the valley would 'xyztal'. So the railway should be named 'xyztalbahn' or 'xyztal railway'; as a railway (unlike a valley) isn't a place, the naming conventions can be read as not applying to the bahn bit. These placename conventions are there for a good reason; if we were to go down the road of decomposing placenames and translating the decomposed bits, we would for example have to rename our article on Dusseldorf to Dussel Village or (even worse) Twit Village. -- Starbois ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Some of the examples above appear to contradict the statement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions (admittedly only currently a proposed policy) that Wikipedia does not use the German-language system of hyphenating the subdivisions of municipalities. For example the discussion on the use of long hyphens in names such as the Bremen-Vegesack–Bremen railway only makes sense to me if the Bremen-Vegesack bit is being used in this deprecated way. I would suggest that this should actually be the Vegesack–Bremen railway. -- Starbois ( talk) 14:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I think there's a subsidiary question here; do we treat geographical names that are a subcomponent of the names of other things in the same way as the geographical name alone? While an appeal to consistency might suggest so, consensus as described in policy, and actual practice, suggest consistency is generally considered subsidiary to other considerations ( Peking duck, but Beijing, University of Calcutta but Kolkata, Basse-Normandie but Normandy, The Köln Concert but University of Cologne, etc.). Once again, I think English usage is the key; what do English reliable sources call this subject? If there are no English sources, it seems reasonable to treat geographical names as described in general (provided we do not slip into original research), although there may well be exceptions; if this railway were generally known as "BVB" (I have no idea if it is), to call it "Vegesack–Bremen railway" might cause more confusion than it fixed. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Some further contradictions:

Translation

• "As a general rule, German words should not be used unless they are already widely used in English ... Similarly the German letter ß should be changed to 'ss' as many English speakers will read this as a 'B'." contradicts WP:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms "Within an article, spell a name that appears in the article title as in that title (covered in naming conventions) rather than an alternative spelling, unless there is a good reason to do so, such as may be given in Naming conventions (use English). Spell the other foreign names, phrases and words as most commonly spelled in the English-language references in an article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic."

Railway lines

• "Bahnstrecke, -strecke, Bahn and Eisenbahn should be translated as 'railway' when part of a title." and "'Line' or 'route' should not used in the title," contradict WP:UCN "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" and WP:UE: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." It has the potential to contravene WP:OR if it results in a title unused in English language sources.
• "Where a railway line is also the name of a company (as is often the case in the early days of the railway) the title should be fully in title case" contradicts WP:CAPS "always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun"; it may be that in some of these cases, the title is a proper noun in the sense it is being used; this should be decided case-by-case.

Railway stations

• Entire section contradicts WP:UCN, WP:UE and potentially WP:OR as discussed above.

Company names

• Entire section contradicts WP:UCN, WP:UE and potentially WP:OR as discussed above.

People

• Section consists of an almost throwaway line contradicting WP:UCN, WP:UE, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and potentially WP:OR and WP:BLP

Valve Gear

• No clarification is given whether this generally follows WP:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms; this may be a sensible convention as consistency may be beneficial.

-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC) end of restored text reply

Please note I have added a template header to inform readers of the current status of this document.

While the new document does at least acknowledge the existence of policy, it appears to abuse its intent in some places. This appears to be a sticking plaster where radical surgery is needed (sorry for the idiom; I mean that much bigger changes are required). I cannot support the current version any more than the original, and essentially all the faults of the original as described above remain.

Also, I note that reference is made to consensus on German Wikipedia. This is not relevant on English Wikipedia.

Should all editors be changing this draft document, or should debate be restricted to this talk page? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Consensus or convention on German Wikipedia may be relevant; it depends on the subject. For example, it may be better than what we have, especially in this field, where they have many more articles and have already worked out a smart way to categorise or name them that we could usefully adopt. It may also aid the rapid translation and linking of articles. The German convention being referred to here was very specific: their use of long and short hyphens for describing railway lines. Following the same convention means quicker translation and fewer broken links, especially as the difference between the 2 is hard to spot. I was really foxed the first time I came across the problem and could not work out why the links weren't working. There are hundreds of them in some articles, so it is a factor. HTH. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no problem with this convention; it seems sensible and in fact follows the English Wikipedia consensus at WP:DASH. I'm sure you would agree that providing redirects from the title with all hyphens is sensible to assist readers; it would be helpful to mention this in the conventions. As far as I am concerned, the fact it may be accepted convention at another Wikipedia is irrelevant. If it is a convention in relevant reliable sources, to me that would be a better argument; perhaps German Wikipedia in fact follows such a convention? To my knowledge, there is no consensus to vary the guidelines of Wikipedia for the convenience of translators; generally English Wikipedia guidelines favour the convenience of the general reader over other parties. Any faithful translation of notable, encyclopedic material from other language Wikipedias is extremely welcome (and thank you for your work in that area by the way), but there is no reason why other editors should be barred by a convention from copyediting such work to better reflect English Wikipedia's consensus on matters of presentation. Of course, editors are always free to propose new or replacement guidelines that mirror a particular guideline elsewhere, but consensus on English Wikipedia does not appear to prioritise harmonisation with other Wikipedias, or in many cases within English wikipedia itself, see for example, WP:ENGVAR.

Please do indicate whether you welcome changes to your draft, and at what level (copyediting, minor changes, major changes, etc.). In the absence of an indication, I will make some changes, but only copyediting with the intent to improve style and clarity, as I believe this is the best way to do this. I will not be offended if they are reverted, although I may open a discussion. I will not knowingly change any meaning unless you indicate this is appropriate. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree pretty well all of that. I just know that there are some conventions on German Wikipedia which it makes sense to emulate, but agree that the fact its a German Wikipedia convention is not, of itself, justification to use it.

My intent as stated in the opening section was not to go against accepted English Wikipedia practice, but to provide helpful additional guidance in this specialist area where Wikipedia was silent. That said, you're right, we should challenge existing guidance where appropriate (e.g. if it is unclear or hasn't considered something).

The hyphen issue could potentially affect editors and hence readers alike e.g. if the List of scheduled railway routes in Germany has hundreds of routes (and hence hyphens of different types) so it would take hours to change and there is the risk of mistakes. And if the individual articles use a different scheme (because we haven't recommended a system) the links won't work either and it could be a long time before anyone picks this up and laboriously corrects it.

I'm not precious about 'my draft'. In fact I've been disappointed that, until quite recently, it feels as if I've been plugging away at this whole Rail transport in Germany project largely single-handed (notwithstanding the excellent contributions of many folk before the task force began). I am more than happy for edits and changes, but would suggest any significant changes to a suggested convention are discussed and, if necessary, voted on in the normal way. I'm just one editor/translator with a passion for the subject and if we can build a team and a consensus, I say bring it on! -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The context for the comments above was a separate and entirely justifiable debate about whether a particular article should be named "Kirnitzsch Valley Railway" or "Kirnitzschtalbahn" or something else. This type of issue is raised in the opening paragraph of the conventions:

"Translation is not an exact science: there is often more than one option and sometimes it is difficult to know whether to translate words, especially names, at all."

In putting the case for a fuller translation of such names, the convention was referred to, attracting the strongly-held views above.

Whilst I wholeheartedly encourage debate; I would just point out that sometimes there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. In this case both approaches can work; each has pros and cons. However, the arguments need to be clearly stated. Having followed the links above, I have been unable to find where they substantiate the views being expressed. Links are cited, but the words don't match the argument. To my mind, the links tend to support the convention or are just unspecific. I am clear, however, that we should not contradict wider Wikipedia guidance, unless there is a good case otherwise. As the convention says:

"These [guidelines] are intended to extend and further clarify, not replace, existing Wikipedia conventions."

Debate is healthy and we learn from it. In particular, I have begun to amend some of the guidance and to add specific references to wider Wikipedia guidelines and practice to show the provenance of some of the suggested guidelines. I hope this helps Please engage in the discussion and let's make Wikipedia better still and, in particular, more intelligible for the majority of our English-speaking readers who don't understand German. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, if you dispute the meaning of English Wikipedia guidelines and policy, let's get specific. I would like to start with WP:No original research and WP:Use English. I am taking them together because your interpretation of the latter is in serious danger of breaking the former, and in fact I believe may have already done so. Please accept my apologies in advance and correct me if I mischaracterise your intent in the guidelines.

• You appear to claim that WP:NC#Use English words means that we should take foreign words or phrases and translate them into their semantic equivalents in English. Thus Georg becomes George and Kirnitzschtalbahn becomes Kirnitzsch Valley Railway, without reference to reliable sources (however note in the example, Franz Josef Strauss, Franz is not translated to Francis, nor is Josef translated to Joseph).
• I believe that the meaning of the naming convention, as clarified at the naming convention WP:Use English, is that we should "use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources". That is, usage in English reliable sources determines the name whatever this may be, translated or untranslated, with or without diacritics or scharfes esses.
  • If there is no discussion of the article's subject in English reliable sources, WP:Use English says: "follow the conventions of the language in which the entity is most often talked about", that is, in this case, almost certainly, use the name as it is in German, with diacritics and possibly scharfes esses (usage in the German language does vary; one might wish to apply the spirit of WP:ENGVAR and reflect the usage of the locality of the subject).

The interpretation your convention appears to place on this policy means that when names are translated, a form may be chosen that do not appear in any reliable sources. This is explicitly excluded, albeit in the context of naming disputes, by naming conventions: "Do not invent names... . Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." ( Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns). But the principal reason not to create new names for things is that to do so would be original research and violate one of Wikipedia's core content policies. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache, sound familiar? Maybe we're trying to take on too much at once. Here my take:

(1) I'm not yet entirely sure I like the system the German wiki uses for the Article names with its dashes (the -/−/— distinction). This seems it violates POLA/ WP:POLA, at least for people that want to participate and edit/create articles. It took me a while to figure why some of the German railway interwiki links didn't wanna work, I don't think we have to propagate a bad idea. It seems, in the english, WP the most used disambig method is to use '(qualifier)', not sure why we don't use this here. Just saying that Vegesack(Bremen)–Bremen railway appeals more to me than Bremen-Vegesack–Bremen railway.

(2) For actual titles, I think there is a difference between WP:Notability in WP, and where a term becomes notable enough in the English language to get its own deformation. München and Roma are examples of achieving both, but until the subject of our description achieves that kind of notoriety, I think we should stick to the term that is used the most. For the Weißeritztalbahn, todays google gives the following picture:

English only gives the picture below:

When a term on the second line passes that on the first, we can then argue moving the article.

(3) Some of those railway names are trademarks, including the Weißeritztalbahn and the Fichtelbergbahn. I don't think WP is the place to mess with that.

(4) Learning German ain't easy, (I had to deal with it since I was born), maybe there is a small misconception that you can chop a compound noun into its pieces as one sees fit. But, once that word is together, it's not easy to get it back apart. You can take the example of Blumentopferde, and translate them as Blumento-Horses or simply as potting-soil, but in either case, this interpretation seems to go against WP:No original research (as User talk:Rogerb67 made it a point above).

(5) The next question is: Where do we stop translating: Not sure I'm beating a dead horse, but wouldn't we make it easier if we just go all the way? Would it not be easier to find the Little spruce mountain railway, the Wild white creek valley railway or the Sediment valley bottom railway?

(6) However, one exception: In German, you can typically split the last noun of a compound noun, which is typically the class (type) that is talked about. Hence, it is proper to write Weißeritztalbahn as Weißeritztal-Bahn. However, you cannot write Weißeritz-Tal-Bahn, since the combination of nouns becomes ambivalent: The word now can mean Weißeritz-Talbahn or Weißeritztal-Bahn (two different meanings now). That's why the xx railway bit could work for me, but the xx Valley Railway or xx Mountain Railway just doesn't.

My take on all:

the em-dash naming

I think it's poor practice of a few people on the German wikipedia. There is a suggestion at (1) above, I think it's better, but I'll accept anything thats we can all agree to.

literal translation of railway names

is a non-starter for me, since it's lacking common sense. (2) - (5) are the arguments why.

translating xyzbahn to xyz railway

sorta works for me as per (6), as long as we check the other obligations (i.e. trade marks)

-- Captndelta ( talk) 10:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually there's a more fundamental debate than the use of various dashes: the stations themselves are not actually called (in most cases) München-xyz, but just xyz. Adding the city name seems to be an En Wiki convention. I have looked at the entire Munich S-Bahn and U-Bahn map and cannot find a single station prefixed by München. So perhaps Bremen-Vegesack is really Vegesack after all. And then surely we only need Vegesack (Bremen) if there's another Vegesack article. But I'm reluctant to move all the articles created by someone else. It's not necessarily wrong and we have better things to do - like creating and translating more articles!

I tend to agree that where we have a company name there is an argument for not translating that and mostly I have left them in the original. However, there is both precedent in original sources, as well as clarity and merit in translating some company names e.g. Royal Saxon State Railways which otherwise is meaningless, unpronounceable and unspellable gobbledegook to an English reader. I myself am not sure where to draw the line here; e.g. Arriva is basically untranslatable anyway, but Regentalbahn is not. As you say, schwere Sprache.

I am less inclined to accept Google hits as an authoritative way of deciding which way to go. The problem is that railway sites are often created by railway buffs who either learn basic railway German or can't translate the words effectively or are native German speakers anyway. But Wikipedia isn't just for gricers or German speakers, it's for everyone. If you look at travel books, they take it rather more seriously and tend to translate more so that English readers can understand what things are. But there are few hard and fast rules. That's why we're having a discussion.

I also agree that there is a limit to translating and it's this. We shouldn't translate the actual proper name part of a compound word. The Selbitz Fluß is the Selbitz River, the Selbitztal is the Selbitz Valley. That is standard English practice. I would never propose that Weißeritztalbahn becomes "Wild white creek valley railway" (evocative though it sounds!) or that Düsseldorf becomes "twit village" (even if some might think it apt!), nor would anyone else I suspect. Gruß. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 13:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, the name of Düsseldorf is a good example here, since it doesn't, as often assumed, derive from the word Dussel (eng: Twit), but from the small river Düssel. If there was a railway thru the valley of that river (actually there is), it would be the Neander Valley Railway if we'd stick with the conventions that are outlined :). Nix für Ungut, -- Captndelta ( talk) 04:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply