Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany

Halle

Can someone at this project help with fixing links to the disambiguation page Halle? Thanks. --Tesscass (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I did what I could. Halle, Belgium twice, Halle (Saale) all the others. I wasn't sure about sports and concerts, and I only looked at articles, not talk, not user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sports evenly split between Saale and North Rhinewestphalia. A handfull left to look at. Agathoclea (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Germany

In the German Wikipedia someone pointed out on this article which lacks any neutreal point of view (me would consider it racistic itself). However if any German user would request a deletion some might argue that the deletion request is a result of conflict of interests. So I thought to refer the article to this project members' awareness and consideration what to do with this collection of anti-German POV, original research of unrelated events, lack of reputable sources, reputability of cited sources, bad formatting and a bunch of other issues. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In the temporary state, the article should be renamed Racist assaults in Germany after 1945. It contains very few information about the time before 1945 (an aspect which, for my own part, I consider biased) and it deals with a very narrow definition of racism which is apparently limitet to violence against foreigners. I agree with the criticism on the article's talk page, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot of work to do here, for a brief overwiev (in German) I recommend, among others, Wolfgang Benz (2008): Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung 17 and as an addition Anton Pelinka & Birgitt Haller (2010): “Rasse” – eine soziale und politische Konstruktion (also focused on Austria). These books offer a good overview on the topic and could be the basis for a decent article.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Valid topic (so not a good AfD candidate), piss-poor article. The page view statistics are relatively high (>1000 page views per month), so the article really needs attention. Hans Adler 10:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 -jkb- (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC), not german by origin

As a (small) german social scientist I know the tendency to ignore the obvious and the hidden racism. In the public in germany the drama in the real incidents and scientifically distant views often (and often unconsciously) are played against each other. One should not serve this pattern with hiding paradigmatic incidents behind abstractions and generalisations. On the other hand it is not encyclopedic, piping hot to deliver an accountants complete list from hell. It works the other way around: Use excellent sources to mention characteristic incidents in short and concentrated, do not make the facts nicer than they were and deliver the relevant context from the wide field of scientific publications on the subject. Avoid the article finding a crappy theory. - As it actually still lurks between the lines, most likely without this or that author being conscious of it.

One also should take into account that racism in english and anglo-american culture is a different story with terms, differing of german ones. The theme is a very developed and sophisticated one among humanfriendly and politically conscious germans, so it would be too simple, to knock them all down with woodcarved generalisations from pre-scientific english or anglo american views. --fluss (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_April_16#File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Highest mountains in Germany

I created the above article some while ago and have now completed the expansion of all the stub articles on Germany's highest mountains from German Wikipedia - some 30+ articles in all - to give better coverage of this area. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

German singers

I added "contemporary music" to several talk pages yesterday and wonder if the Project Germany should be added to German singers, orchestras, composers, cantatas ...? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

yep :-) Agathoclea (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional Opinions Requested - Baron Munchhausen

Additional opinions would be appreciated at Talk:Baron Münchhausen#Unsourced Material. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP

Hello. Diane, Duchess of Württemberg is a referenced BLP on de.wp. Could anyone add a reference to the Stuttgarter Zeitung and remove the BLP warning, please? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Boson (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Error in fact - Article on Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch

As suggested by Boson I have moved this subthread to its proper place at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans_Adolf_Eduard_Driesch. Thank you. --Alex146 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

North Rhine-Westphalia taskforce

Who would be interested in having a North Rhine-Westphalia taskforce? It is Germany's most populated state. Kingjeff (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist, although my main focus im Moment is Lower Saxony. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully we could get 2 or 3 more people to help. Kingjeff (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already done quite a bit on the geography of NRW, but there is more to do, so that will be my main focus. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Image:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg

File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to keep this iconic picture. However it probably is still under copyright. On a quick look I cannot find much information on the photograph. Who was the photographer and for which organisation was he/she working for? Although this picture is on a number of internet sites e.g., this does not mean it is public domain; can anyone find a copy of this image in a public repository?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Note when searching recommend German spelling Bruderkuss: Honecker - Breschnew. Appears to be an AP photo [1]. Not in Budesarchive.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

--Traveler100 (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are copyright problems at My God, help me to survive this deadly love (see its talk page), so the image is currently orphaned and will be deleted unless we have a new article in a couple of days. —Кузьма^討論 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. Sadly I have zero time atm. The article is extensivly sourced so a new article can be resurected from those sources and the picture can be undeleted then. Agathoclea (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains

I have created a portal for the Elbe Sandstone Mountains here. Please feel free to create articles for the red links or add others you are interested in. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

B-Class criteria

Are people interested in a change to have six criteria? Things changed since back when we were early adopters of a B-class with explicit criteria... Check #6 at the linked page. It shouldn't be too hard to change the template, but 3,203 articles will need to be checked. —Кузьма^討論 12:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend checking those 159 articles before the template change is implemented otherwise they get lost in the masses of C-Class articles Agathoclea (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping they'd get added to a special category of B-class articles needing to be checked, but I don't know if that still works. (No energy to parse all the template code right now to find out). —Кузьма^討論 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Another question is whether the B-Class checklist should be displayed on Start-Class articles. Are there any strong opinions on this? —Кузьма^討論 11:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be happiest if B-Class criteria were displayed for Start, C, and B class, but I have no strong opinion. --Boson (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We could try to do this while we're editing the template anyway, see below. If you think #6 applies to us at all and is important to be checked. —Кузьма^討論 06:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are 6 criteria, it sounds like a good idea to use all of them on this project. Perhaps we should also have some guidance/discussion of how to apply criterion 6. I am wondering about the use of words like Länder, Großdeutsche Lösung, and Bundestag in running text. They could be interpreted as technical terms that should be avoided.--Boson (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a 6-criteria B-Class working, and it should place pages where B6 is not checked in something like Category:B-Class Germany articles needing review, but maybe that needs more testing. Please try {{User:Kusma/GT}} and tell me if anything breaks. —Кузьма^討論 05:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: It does work on Start-Class now, but the category displays on everything that has an incomplete B checklist, not just on B-Class articles. I guess we either need to figure out how to fix this (help appreciated) or just check all B-Class articles as Agathoclea suggested above. —Кузьма^討論 10:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll postpone this part until I figure something out, so we can at least roll out the GDR part (which should be working). Any thoughts on that? —Кузьма^討論 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@Boson that would be a good oportunity to revisit those terms. Agathoclea (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for taskforce on East Germany

I'm considering starting a task force on East Germany, since the coverage of GDR-related articles seems rather poor. Would anybody else be interested in joining that? My background is literature and culture, and I'm going to be working on an article on GDR science fiction over the next few months. I've never started a taskforce before, but if you're interested in participating, say so, and also what areas of interest/specialization you could cover. Sindinero (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Great! I've been planning this for a very long time, but never got around to it. It is not likely that I will work on it anytime soon, but maybe there is something on my old page that you can use. How to start a task force? You collect interesting projects, tell others about these projects, get them excited. Task force started :) If you want, you can have a switch added for your task force on the project template, but I guess I'd start with lists and ideas first. Happy editing (and I'm looking forward to your article; I only know Johanna and Günter Braun and would like to know more about GDR science fiction). —Кузьма^討論 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the project page you set up! Do you think this would get enough participation for a project of its own, or should we go for a task force within Wikiproject Germany? Sindinero (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a task force is the way to go, and just one page (plus possibly the category system needed for the assessment template) will be enough. Most WikiProjects tend to have too many subpages, so members don't watch enough of them. Note that my project page is an abandoned idea from 2006, before Badbilltucker founded this WikiProject, then mostly left and I sort of ended up working on this project instead. Anyway, do with that page whatever you like: move it, edit it, steal its content. Be bold, start whatever you think is a good idea and you'll get some people to join in. If there's somebody who likes to write portals, for example, it's a nice open project to design a GDR portal. —Кузьма^討論 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help when I have time. My focus is translating articles from German Wiki, so if there are any key ones I can have a go. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems like this is something we can do. I have no idea how to design a portal, structure a task force so that tagged articles show up on a to-do list, come up with a category system for the assessment template, or add a taskforce to the Wikiproject Germany template, but I'll start figuring that out over the next several weeks. Hints would be much appreciated. Meanwhile, I've designed my very first userbox, so that's a start. Can anyone tell me how to tinker with it so that, once we have a portal, adding the userbox to your user page will automatically add you to the list of participants in the tf? Sindinero (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Once there is a subpage of this project, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/GDR task force with shortcut WP:GDR that has reasonable content, I can go and do the template and category work. That part is relatively easy; what is harder is to get people involved so they actually do article work (and go and add |GDR=yes or something like that to the talk pages of related articles). You can see e.g. at WP:GER/MZ (a task force I mostly founded to test task force parameters in the template) what can be bot-generated and what needs to be done manually. —Кузьма^討論 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a DDR portal on German Wiki at de:Portal:DDR. I can port this across and translate it if that helps. It's not the most attractive portal, though, if you can point to another portal you like the design of, I may be able to use that design and port the info in from the DDR one e.g. look at others I have created or ported i.e. Portal:Harz, Portal:Lüneburg Heath, Portal:Saxony, Portal:Saxony-Anhalt, Portal:Lower Saxony, Portal:Elbe Sandstone Mountains, Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, Portal:East Frisia or Portal:Elbe-Weser Triangle. Some are more complicated need more maintenance (Schleswig-Holstein); others (Harz) need very little. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I like your designs! Schleswig-Holstein is very nice, but even something low maintenance like the Harz portal has a good layout and a clean feel to it - what about it requires more maintenance? I think a GDR portal should have the basics that other portals seem to cover - articles requested, existing articles (by category), a link to the GDR taskforce and other clear ways that people can participate, a statistics box listing the articles by priority and quality, etc. As far as structure and content go, I think some other portals (like the Anarchism portal) offer good models. Sindinero (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get a template with extra task force working soon (maybe this weekend) -- it is not a completely trivial task, since the current version of the template only allows for the 5 task forces we have. But as there are other WikiProjects with 20+ task forces, I am sure I will figure it out. Is |GDR=yes the best name for the switch? I thought about using "East Germany" for a while, but that is less well-defined. Still, the scope needs to be clarified: Should Leipzig part of the GDR project? Angela Merkel? Also, if we want to tag dissidents, perhaps we shouldn't use the coat of arms, but rather a map of divided Germany. —Кузьма^討論 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On both counts I'd say include. No doubt about the towns. People I feel should only be tagged if they where active during the time of the GDR which Merkel was. I think people like Brandt and Kohl should be included as well, as they had a major inpact on history. Good thought about the divided map. Agathoclea (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started the portal in userspace at User:Bermicourt/Portal:East Germany. We can tweak the detail - e.g. I'd like good iconic images for the title bar. I will also move red links to the "wanted article" section. I'm now focussing on porting the other sections across from de.wiki's de:Portal:DDR. I'd also like confirmation of the title which currently matches the main article East Germany. I'm not sure "Portal:GDR" works well, but will go with the consensus. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This looks great, Bermicourt. I'm confused about your question about the title though - you're asking about the title for the portal, the taskforce, or both? I don't really have a strong preference here. "GDR" is technically more specific, but "East Germany" is more widely recognizable. I have two preliminary options for userboxes, one featuring the flag, and one, per Kusma's suggestion, featuring a map. Your thoughts?

Also, as far as content goes, over the next few months I'll start working on lists and categories relating to GDR culture and literature, starting stubs in these areas, tagging things for improvement, etc. Sindinero (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the portal title. I've called it "Portal:East Germany" for now to tie in with the main article on East Germany, but can call it whatever we all agree on. My main aim is to get the portal up and running, and then we can fine tune it. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Phew - I've finished the portal and it's now live here: Portal:East Germany. I think it's an improvement on the GDR one. It will need the image and article of the month to be maintained, but it's working for now. It will need either a separate members/maintenance page or links to the task force page(s) in due course. Lot's to do! --Bermicourt (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! This looks excellent, and I look forward to the next steps (if I understand right, those would be: setting up the task force, making a category system for the template assessment, and setting to work on the articles). Sindinero (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a pleasure! I've just added the management pages for "Image of the Month" and "Article of the Month". What it needs now is for those more expert than I to add 11 images and article introductions to the lists on those pages, so that as the month changes they automatically come up. Have fun! Viel Spaß! --Bermicourt (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, and great suggestions for missing articles already! I didn't get any template and auto-categorization work done yet, but that doesn't need to be live day one of the task force anyway. I haven't forgotten it yet :) —Кузьма^討論 20:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we have a section on the portal dedicated to the taskforce, perhaps with its own link up top (up by 'project pages,' 'contact,' etc.)? In this section we could have a list of participants, how to join, and the userbox. On the question of userboxes, do people generally prefer the one with the flag or the one with the map? Sindinero (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Some advertisement for it is fine, but I wouldn't put userspace stuff like userboxes on the portal page. List of participants also should not be visible on the main portal page, I think. Better just as a section on the task force page.

Anyway, User:Kusma/GT is an attempt at a new project template. Please test and comment (you can use {{User:Kusma/GT|GDR=yes|class=A}} or something similar just as you would use {{WikiProject Germany}}), and let us agree on parameter names (those can't be changed later without huge effort). Of course, before it goes live there needs to be a task force page to link to. —Кузьма^討論 08:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I tested it by previewing it on existing articles, and it works fine. Do you like that image better than either of the ones I've put to userboxes? I've made a third version with that image, and you can find it here. Thoughts? Sindinero (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What I like better about this image is that it makes clear that only East Germany is highlighted. It is what I suggest, but I don't have a super strong opinion either way (and no opinion about userboxes). Anyway: do you have an opinion on the task force and parameter names? GDR=yes or East=yes and an importance parameter called GDRImp or EastImp? East Germany task force or GDR task force? All seem to have advantages and disadvantages; I like "GDR" because it makes it clearer that we're talking about a period in history, not just some region. —Кузьма^討論 05:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, should we amend the Germany project template to include the Rail transport in Germany task force? It's included in the Trains WikiProject template, but not this one. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a task force of Trains, and any page that falls into Trains and Germany will have both of the templates anyway. I'm not sure this duplication is a good idea (do other transport task forces belong to two project templates) and fear it might be confusing, but if the Train project people do not object, I don't really mind adding it. —Кузьма^討論 06:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or t'other; I just wondered what the Germany project members thought. If the main purpose is to add categories that the task force can work on, then that's already covered provided the Trains project template is added and correctly completed.--Bermicourt (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For the parameter names, GDRImp and GDR=yes seem preferable, because less ambiguous. For the task force name I also have a preference for GDR task force. I think anyone who might be tempted to contribute would already be knowledgeable enough to know what that means, and for the merely curious, clicking the wikilinks would eventually clue them in that GDR = East Germany. But I think the portal name can stay "East Germany" - I have no objection there and I don't see that the two contradict each other. Sindinero (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I'll leave it that way. Now all we need is the task force page (and some more template tests) and we're ready. —Кузьма^討論 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Had we figured out who was going to do the task force page? Sindinero (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I will find out who has done it when this link turns blue. —Кузьма^討論 13:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it's begun. I basically copy-pasted from the SF task force, changing the wording where necessary. It's still a very rough draft, but it's live.

• It would be nice to have one of those assessment statistics boxes. I'll look into figuring out how we can do this.
• At the moment, there are two ways people can 'join' - by adding their name to the list, or by adding the userbox to their userpage, which puts them into Category:Members of GDR taskforce. Can we synch these? Is there a way for users to be automatically entered into this category if they choose just to add their name to the list?
• A navigation box like that found at the SF task force would be a nice touch. I'll see if I can figure out how to add this.
• Images would be nice. Any ideas?
• Any other pressing items to take care of, suggestions, thoughts, etc.?

Sindinero (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Kusma, does the GDR=yes tag need to be moved from your userspace to the Germany wikiproject template? Sindinero (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the Germany project template is fully protected, so it is admin-only. I'll do it when I'm happy with all the other changes (see the B-class discussion above). Assessment statistics will be possible to do automagically once the template is updated (see WP:GER/MZ for an example what it looks like). We have a Germany navigation box that is used on WP:GER and that should be updated with a link to the new task force. —Кузьма^討論 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The project template and category system are live. I hope the bot will pick it up soonish. —Кузьма^討論 08:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is great, I'll start tagging things then. Sindinero (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IceMole, FH Aachen

IceMole and FH Aachen, related to science in Germany, are nominated for DYK and deserve improvement, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(Nazi) renames

There is a long list of renames today where the disambiguation "(Nazi)" is used. My kneejerk reaction was to revert them all, but thought better of it and rather come here for more input. Personally I find a) Party membership not really a defining character of a person b) the term Nazi being used as a deregatory term and if the party membership being the most defining characteristic of a person it should be be spelt out more encyclopedic. (P.S. My family is close to a number of Holocaust survivers so there is definetly no loveloss to these people). Any input/comments? Agathoclea (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "Nazi" is used because it is the most defining or easily identifiable characteristic of many of these people in a search. There will continue to be people with the same names who are notable as doctors, lawyers, physicists, etc., but there are not likely to be such notable people in the future who are Nazis. And in many cases, Nazi party membership is the defining characteristic of the person. When someone searches for "Heinrich Mueller", they are not going to search for "Heinrich Mueller (Gestapo)". They will most probably first associate him with Nazism. You believing that the term "Nazi" is being used in a derogatory manner is just your own perception.Hoops gza (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Tesch (Nazi), for instance, is not distinguished so much for being a chemist as he is for the ways in which he used chemistry to carry out the Nazi ideology. As well he was a Nazi party member. Therefore, he should be identified and remembered more as a Nazi than as a chemist. Nazi physicians were frequently stripped of their degrees or rights to practice medicine after the fact, therefore no longer making them physicians, therefore they are more closely associated with Nazism than with the ethical practice of medicine. Who could possibly justify identifying Josef Mengele more as a medical doctor than as a Nazi?Hoops gza (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your thought for the "general reader" as reason for the change, Hoops, but its does present a few problems. One, Müller has always been known by his association with the Gestapo; and had the nickname "Gestapo Müller" to distinguish him from a much lesser known SS general by the same name, even in the 1930s, 1940s. Also, Müller was not really a Nazi but a nationalist. As historian/author Charles Hamilton on page 169 of his Vol. 2 of "Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich" states: "Müller developed a strong hatred of communism...was not a Nazi and only joined the Party in 1939 when Himmler compelled him to do so...He was a professional policeman...ruthless...a die-hard nationalist. I will go with consensus on this one, of course, but must vote that for him the scale in tipped to revert it back to how it was for years before; for the reasons stated above. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

With all respect to HG, this was not well thought out and actually involves some level of WP:OR, i.e. deciding who will or will not be tagged as a "Nazi". In addition, such a wide reaching article move project should have been discussed with others. My own instinct is that this looks unprofessional, appears to be tagging certain people as Nazis based on views as to their activities and, far more important than any other issue, was done without consensus or discussion. I would say revert all until this is better discussed. -OberRanks (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

PS- The recent wave of new category names for Category:Beer Hall Putsch should also really be discussed. At least one of them (Nazi Collaborators who participated in the Beer Hall Putsch), appear to be almost totally based on original research - clearly against policy. -OberRanks (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I would not worry too much about this, I was done with the page moves at this point regardless. But I do not see how this is controversial. It is a FACT that they were members of the Nazi party. It is a characteristic rather than a derogatory or judgmental term. And most Nazis had unique names so it's a non-issue in most cases. I am rather lacking in the skill of providing good examples, as the case can be seen with Mueller, but I stand by the reasoning that people such as Bruno Tesch are more closely identified with Nazism than with the practice of their profession. The Nazi "physicians" are in fact now not physicians due to the fact that they did not conduct an ethical practice of medicine, were stripped of medical licenses, etc. I think of Karl Brandt (Nazi) as being a Nazi who practiced unethical medicine, not as a medical doctor who practiced ethical medicine.Hoops gza (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Beer Hall Putsch, I do not see how that is OR. For the purposes of that event, the people were either Nazi Party members, collaborators with the Nazi Party, or opposed the Nazi Party. It is listed in their articles which one they were.Hoops gza (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguator should reflect what the person was most notable for. If they were a minor member of the Nazi Party but became famous for some scientific discovery then "Schmidt (scientist)" seems more appropriate. If on the other hand they were best known for being a notorious Nazi leader then "Schmidt (Nazi leader)" seems better. Perhaps "Nazi" should normally be qualified with their role e.g. "Nazi doctor", etc, if that's what they are remembered for. And anyone with a reasonable knowledge who sees the title should react "Oh that Schmidt - I know the one". --Bermicourt (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there was a recent discussion on this at the military history project, apparently sparked by an earlier one of this series of moves; it's worth noting that until the recent moves, we seem to have had hardly any pages at all using (Nazi) as a disambiguator. My understanding had always been that we tend to list people by field rather than by nationality or affiliation, but this may not be formal policy. Shimgray | talk | 09:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Bruno Tesch (Nazi), nothing in the article says that he was "a Nazi". Was he a party member? He was clearly a bad guy, but he might have just been an opportunist who would have sold poison gas to the Communists or whoever -- would that make him a Communist? "Chemist" is supported by the article, "supplier of poison gas" or "supporter of mass murder" would be, but "Nazi" isn't directly supported. Actually, I agree with Bermicourt and Shimgray, and would support reverting all the moves (per WP:BRD). Such moves could then be attempted again via WP:RM if necessary. —Кузьма^討論 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The user who attempted this move project may need some type of mentor. There is a much larger issue on the user's talk page regarding dozens of images uploaded with no source information, apparently lifted from various websites with a generic "copyright expired" tag on Wikipedia. I've suggested HG seek out a mentor on his own, if someone with knowledge of the mentor system would like to take this further that might not be a bad idea. -OberRanks (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted Müller, per the clear consensus above; what about all the rest then? I now believe they also should be done. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We should revert everything. This move project was done without discussion or consensus. -OberRanks (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted all but Gustav Wagner, as I could not do so. An Admin. would have to do that one; if I missed any, please fix. Further, I did not change Hans Krebs as he was listed as a National Socialist, anyway. OberRanks, I leave the other matter of the Beer Hall Putsch to you. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: I changed Hans Krebs (Nazi) to Hans Krebs (Nazi Politican), which better explains what he was known for to general readers. Kierzek (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The category move situation was very deep and complicated - a lot of pages were changed to reflect new category names and I couldn't find them all. I asked a neutral administrator to review the situation here, mainly because HG's editing habits are headed in a direction contracting to Wiki policies, especially with these massive page moves and category renames. Constantly reverting will only upset HG in the long run, and the user doesn't appear to be doing this on purpose. -OberRanks (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gustav Wagner needs a new title anyway as the old title is not the way the two online references don't support Gustav F. Wagner. Agathoclea (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I cannot get Bruno Tesch's page to load at all. I think it's because two people put in redirects. With Gustav Wagner, discussion appears to want to make that the primary topic with a disambiguation for the bobsledder.Hoops gza (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl Brandt should also be made into the primary, I don't know why he wasn't to begin with. He is FAR more renowned than anyone else with that name.Hoops gza (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Heinrich Müller should be made into the primary as well. He was the head of the Gestapo.Hoops gza (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Many of those renames might conflict with WP:BLP if the persons in mind had not already died. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in two minds about responding here, but here goes...
Hg may have been over-zealous in making these changes without discussing them, but he has a point. Describing Bruno Tesch as a chemist, or Karl Brandt as a physician, when they are notable chiefly as war criminals, is a bit disingenuous. It looks like we are trying to rehabilitate the bastards, don't you think? Swanny18 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't these two actually the primary topics? If not, I would still prefer "war criminal" to "Nazi" as a disambiguator. Note that while the examples at WP:QUALIFIER, the relevant guideline, seem to favor professions as disambiguators, the text itself does not support this, so I'm not sure whether there are any real guidelines on what to use. —Kusma (t·c) 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a Nazi, but...

... a rename, or requested move at "Talk:Julia Görges" yet again. I'd appreciate your input. Jared Preston (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerd von Haßler

I found a new article, Gerd von Hassler, of a new user who is blocked. Someone should take care of an important person, beyond a machine translation and overlinking? I established at least the link to de, but don't have time for more. Help, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,862 (as of 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). Thank you for all of the work you've done to date, but we are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

• WP:URBLP has set up a large number of topic based lists, which are updated each day by a WP:BOT. Your project's list is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Unreferenced BLPs and currently contains 62 articles.
• WP:URBLPR is focusing on clearing out the backlog based on the month in which each article was tagged as being unreferenced. The current task is Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2009, and it is the last month remaining from 2009.
• You can also reference a random article or make your own lists using one of the catscan tools, such as this search for German musicians.

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thal, Styria

Hi, can somebody translate the sections and proof read it so far, I translated what I could.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 07:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've translated the remaining sections. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Christoph Schlingensief, Johann Kuhnau

I came across two unrelated artists today, Christoph Schlingensief and Johann Kuhnau, who have in common that their articles should be improved. Please help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I reduced Kuhnau drastically, please check if I went too far. In preparation for the Paulinerkirche to appear on the Main page. Wanted: English terms for "Langhaus" and "Predigt- und Hofkirche", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think nave is what you need? I guess one could also add File:Universität Leipzig Augustusplatz Neubau.jpg or some other image of what is there now in place of the church. —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic idea. The Langhaus consists of the nave and two aisles, as described. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pic helped a lot for Paulinerkirche, next step: Augustusplatz, where 2009 was still in the future ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A class review for project related articles

Hello all, the articles on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (U), which are related to this project, are currently undergoing Military history project A-class reviews. Any editor who is interested is invited to help review them. The reviews can be found here: WP:MHPR, while the Military history project A-class criteria can be found here: WP:MHA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination Portal:Military of Germany

Moin! I thought I'd leave you a hint that this portal has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of Germany. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for transliterations

I have been been editing the Emminger Decrees article, and I am in need of some German transliterators, and maybe translators, as well as some people fluent in German to track down the actual laws and regulations referred to as the Emminger Decrees. From what I could gather from German language sources, there are more than just the decree of 4 January 1924, there also being references to 22 and 8 December 1923, 4 January and 13 February 1924. There are likely both laws and regulations issued on the subject, as it seems an enabling law was in effect. The Reichsgesetzblatt (Reich Law Gazette) is online here. Pages 15-22 of Reichsgesetzblatt I being the most important, but any other relevant articles would be great. German language sources (which I cannot use effectively) may also be of help. Again, I only really need transliterations, as I can use Google Translate, although the addition of translations may also be much appreciated. The main reason this is needed is because I need to know what the referenced law/regulations (p. 15-22) says, if the title should be plural or singular, if there is a better name, when the state of emergency ended, when legislative powers reverted to the Reichstag, German language sources, etc. If you need somewhere to put them, put them on my Sandbox. Please and thank you. Int21h (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Any transcriptions should probably be done at wikisource:de:Reichsgesetzblatt (Deutschland) to prevent duplication of efforts. Here is a full list of the possibly relevant laws and regulations on the dates you mentioned:

Date	Source	Title
8 December 1923	RGBl I p. 1179	Ermächtigungsgesetz Enabling act
22 December 1923	RGBl I pp. 1239–1243	Verordnung zur Beschleunigung des Verfahrens in bürgerlichen Rechtsstreitigkeiten Regulation on the expedition of the proceedings in civil disputes
4 January 1924	RGBl I pp. 15–22	Verordnung über Gerichtsverfassung und Strafrechtspflege Regulation on constitution of the courts and [on] criminal justice
13 February 1924	RGBl I p. 117	Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten über Durchführung der infolge der Unruhen in Hamburg vom Oktober 1923 anhängigen Strafverfahren Regulation of the Reich President on the execution of the criminal proceedings that are pending due to the unrest in Hamburg in October 1923
13 February 1924	RGBl I pp. 135–150	Verordnung über das Verfahren in bürgerlichen Rechtsstreitigkeiten Regulation on the proceedings in civil disputes

The enabling act is the basis on which the Emminger reform could be done without parliamentary participation. The regulations of 22 December 1923 and 13 February 1924 (the second one) reformed only civil proceedings, while that of 4 January 1924 affected both civil and criminal proceedings. All these regulations are not "decrees", so "Emminger Decrees" is a misnomer. (The standard term in German appears to be "Lex Emminger" [2].) The first regulation of 13 February 1924 only concerns a specific communist rebellion and is probably not what you want. I only included it to prevent confusion in case it does come up somewhere. Hans Adler 09:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: As your request is about a lot of text, I think it's best to use some kind of OCR. I will try doing it with OCRopus, but it may be a week or longer until I get around to installing that software. Or if someone else wants to send the pages through OCR, I can just do the proofreading and put them on WikiSource. Hans Adler 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you. ATM, your research may be enough, transliteration may not be necessary but just useful for even further research by others. Since the other acts are peripheral I do not see any major importance for transliterating them any more than others. I will be opening a discussion on Talk:Emminger Decrees concerning the naming and my reasoning and thoughts. Int21h (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I believe Notverordnung is more appropriate than just Verordnung per the Article 48 article, I have actually opened a discussion at Talk:Article 48 (Weimar Constitution)#Translation of Notverordnung on the most appropriate translation of Notverordnung, as a quick Google Books search yields (slightly, 2 or 3) more (English) results for "Emminger Decree" rather than "Emminger Reform". (I have noted Emminger Reform in the article in the meantime.) Int21h (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The German word is Verordnung, not Dekret, so I would call it a regulation in English, not a decree. Also, it's Verordnung, not Notverordnung, so I wouldn't call it an emergency regulation, either. Technically it was one, but the emergency was the inability of the parliament to take any decisions, and so this term is a bit misleading. On the other hand, calling it a regulation is also misleading because it seems to have very much the character of a law. The best title might be Emminger reform, as the literal translation of the common German description Emminger-Reform or Emminger-Novelle.

If you do need any translations, let me know at my talk page, as I may miss it here. Hans Adler 19:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the English is not a direct German translation, you must realize that very few acts describe themselves as "decrees", yet they are named as such. It has the connotation of arbitrariness and tyranny about it, no doubt. But it is the term by which I found it referenced in the (English language) academic materials I have seen. Int21h (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Decree" has connotations of an essentially arbitrary decision. This justice reform was debated on various committees for a long time, and the constituent countries of the Reich were part of that process. The German book that I linked to above [3] has almost 700 pages and consists entirely of an edition of the regulation and the various sources that have survived from the process that led to it. Also, a Google Books search suggests that "Emminger reform" (6 hits in English) is as common in English as "Emminger decree" (5 hits in total), and very common in German and Italian sources.

You may have a notion that this regulation had something to do with the Nazis. But it appears that this was a necessary reform at the time, as there were serious problems with the jury system that was first introduced in 1848/1878. After the Second World War, the various parts of Germany used different strategies for dealing with the legal system, which had been butchered by the Nazis. When West Germany was formed, it reverted to essentially the 1924 situation to get back to uniformity. And nothing much has changed since then. Hans Adler 11:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, there is no difference in the underlying instrument used, ie. a regulation, between the Emminger Decree and the Reichstag Fire Decree. In other words they were both verordnung passed in an Article 48 emergency pursuant to an enabling act. Yet, the term "decree" is still used. I would argue that the "decree" terminology had little to do with the Nazis and more to do with the method of passage. Int21h (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same instrument, but it was used under totally different circumstances. The Emminger reform was the result of negotiations between the central government and the various German states that started with the drafts of July 1919 and ended five years later. The reform was carried out to save money at a time when Germany was under extreme financial pressure (due to astronomic World War I reparations – the German public made the democratic politicians responsible for this problem because they had ended the war when it was basically lost but they generals didn't want to admit the fact; this was one of the factors that contributed to the fascist dictatorship). It was decided by a democratic government that had to work with this dysfunctional parliament. AFAIK this was the reason for the emergency regulations, a real state of emergency. The Reichtag Fire Decree is a completely different beast. It was created literally over night. The Reichstag burned on 27 February 1933. The Decree is dated 28 February, and in fact it was signed by the president in the morning.[4]

There is a huge difference between the open society of the Roaring Twenties in 1920s Berlin and Germany in 1933.

'Decree' is an inherently POV term when applied to something that is originally called a regulation. For the Reichstag Fire Decree it fits because (1) it was a regulation by the president, and (2) it abolished civil rights in Germany. For the Emminger reform it does not fit because (1) it was a regulation by the government, and (2) it followed democratic procedures to the extent possible at the time and restricted people's rights only marginally, and for the purpose of making the judicial system leaner and cheaper. Hans Adler 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, (1) both were apparently legal (2) it modified/abolished what were until then civil rights in Germany (right to trial by jury) and (3) as far as I can tell regulations/laws during state of emergencies and/or enabling acts to subvert the will of the Reichstag does not "follow democratic procedure" as I know it. (Although, given German legal history, it might in Germany. There have been many occasions where the U.S. Congress has came to a stalemate, but if the executive were to start making laws in the alternative, well ... my guess is the U.S. may have reacted to many events in Germany differently.)

I understand it smacks of POV in the same way that "Reichstag Fire Decree" does. Since I have seen it called by both decree and reform and both are mentioned, and since I do not really care if the title is "Emminger Reform" (other than that "decree" be mentioned in the article, maybe in a criticism section), that would be just as well. Int21h (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if you think so, make the necessary changes. Int21h (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The jury wasn't really abolished, it was only suspended for about 10 weeks (I am not sure why. Probably to get things going while the new system was set up, and maybe to get a few political cases finished quickly without the bothersome laypeople.), then reformed. A reformed jury court consisted of 3 professional judges and 6 lay jurors. These 9 people decided jointly about both guilt and penalty. [West] Germany had another reform later. Nowadays a so-called jury court in Germany consists of 3 professional judges and 2 lay judges. There seems to be no problem with this system.

Thanks for the invitation. I will have a look later this week. Hans Adler 23:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to put reliable English sources up there. I haven't seen any sources mention that it was only suspended for 10 weeks then later reformed. Were both the suspension and later reformation done by the 4 January act? Yes, I have seen the criticisms of the jury system and that it is apparently a widely held view. But I have doubts about how widely held it is, and why. My first guess is that it was been widely held that juries were a problem for the same reasons that it was widely held (pre-WW2) that Jews and communists were a problem. The sources I have read touch on these topics as well, noting that not much discussion either then, or now, was done on the jury system or the layperson system, it was just done by the powers that be and that was that ... there were bigger topics on everyone's tongues at the time. (hyperinflation, French occupation, Communists, etc.) Int21h (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And let me correct myself and say what you probably already knew: the sources positively do not need to be in English. In fact, they will likely be in German given the subject material. Anything that makes the article better or reflects on anything and everything revolving around these ... reforms ... the better. Int21h (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg

I would like to write on Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg, what would be the appropriate article name, and how would her title and maiden name appear in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the Germany project but as can be seen at House of Metternich her current name should not be anglicized but left as "Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg". Her maiden name would be transliterated to Tatiana Ilarionovna Vassiltchikova. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful. How about titles? Fürstin and Prinzessin appear in the German article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooohhh, you're stepping into a bit of a minefield! I generally favour, "Name, Title of Place", but the folks at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) get very excited if you don't follow their rules, even though they don't always agree with each other either! I would pose your question there. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will, even if I think it may be different for a 20th century person, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Concentration camp coordinates

There are still quite a number of concentration camp articles needing geocoding: see User:The Anome/Concentration camp articles needing coordinates for a list of these, and WP:COORD for a guide to geocoding. Many of these are proving difficult to track down, yet all are historically important. Can anyone here help with adding location data to these articles? -- The Anome (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have an old item that I wish to identify: A star like badge with the inscription "Bundeskonig 1926"

It appears to have a familly, or royal crest on it. It looks like one of those badges worn on a sashel by German leaders of the time. Anyone with information may contact me via email at, "jakeonmaui@yahoo.com". I can send a picture of it.

Thanks Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.215.51 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is probably not the place for this, but I would guess that it is an award for marksmanship. See Schützenverein.--Boson (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it appear to have a coat of arms with concentric circles (representing a target)?--Boson (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New Article Thought

Just created "Descendants of Major Nazis". Thought this would be a good index page, especially to articles already on Wikipedia. Would appreciate any input. -OberRanks (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI to others, the above is now moot. Kierzek (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A further discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideology of the SS. Similar situation (new article, etc). Listed here for a wider scope of review. -OberRanks (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Project scope and duplication

I just noticed that somebody removed the WPGer tag from the article on U-41. Is there really a duplication? --FJS15 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011

Yes. The tag duplicated with this edit Agathoclea (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me. I must have overlooked the one at the top. --FJS15 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi ranks

I have come across Category:Nazi political ranks and I'm not comfortable with it. While I do not dispute that most of the political ranks listed there were actually used by the Nazis, I would like to point out, that a lot of them are still used in present Germany without any link to the Nazi party. Except for Ortsgruppenleiter, Kreisleiter, Gauleiter and Reichsleiter all articles deal with positions which are perfectly normal first or mid-level management roles (e.g. I had a meeting with an Abteilungsleiter (i.e. department manager) just the other day). So I would suggest to add something like (NSDAP) to it (like in Inspekteur (NSDAP)) in order to prevent confusion about the meaning of these words in German. Any objections? --FJS15 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We certainly need to do something about them. Mitarbeiter normally means "employee"! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the renaming and the text should also be modified to make the general use of the word clear. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure that they were actually NSDAP ranks and not standard civil service ranks. The Nazis had a habit of setting up parallel organizations without replacing the original governance structures. I know there are one or two translations of NSDAP party handbooks around that would help with this.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anwärter is another example. It is still used in the military for (Unter-)Offiziersanwärter. F. ex. in the Luftwaffe as a fresman you're a Flieger but if you signed up for four years at least you're finally becoming an Stabsunteroffizier (or when eight years then a Oberfeldwebel) you'll start as a Flieger UA (or OA if you're staying at least 12 years for a carreer as officer, normally quitting in the rank of a Hauptmann). --Matthiasb (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Style guide for titles?

Is there any style guide to the translation of titles: courtly titles of the Holy Roman Empire, especially: They're so common in German wikipedia biographies. Saying "privy councillor" for Geheimrat just doesn't sound right. Other phrases like: "mit Diplom...in den Freiherrnstad erhoben" get really tricky because a Diplom is an Adelsbrief and there's simply nothing like it in English. These things keep repeating themselves and it would be great if there was a guide that suggested translations for all these typical phrases.

For academic titles I usually just say "he joined the faculty of xxx in 18xx" instead of listing ten sentences of every single title he had with a university and the years he held it. German can get so hung up on this type of thing: ten sentences of titles, one hinting at why person is actually important, and nothing about the person's style/influence/critical reception/etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalFailure (talk • contribs) 06:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the sections referenced here Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Titles needs expanding.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A very redundant category

A new category has been created called "Category:Agencies administered by Heinrich Himmler" with every SS agency added into this category. Heinrich Himmler was the Commander of the entire SS...of course he oversaw the various agencies. In addition, the category itself is very misleading as it suggests Himmler directly commanded the agencies. While he was head of the entire SS, some of the agencies Himmler did not in fact administer on a day to day basis. I would recommend deleting the entire category as overly redundant. -OberRanks (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion for the reasons stated above. -OberRanks (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisted

We are also seeing the inserting of the broad category Heinrich Himmler to SS organization articles. I recommend this too be halted. I fear we are headed into an edit war situation, so would like to bring the matter up here. -OberRanks (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's fine to delete the agencies category. However, the category strictly on Himmler should stay. I'm still confused as to whether you have nominated Category:Heinrich Himmler for deletion/discussion? OberRanks, you have not answered this question.

Regarding the Category:Heinrich Himmler, I do believe that the following articles should be added to it:

• Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS, Himmler's personal staff
• Army Group Vistula, the first army that Himmler directly commanded
• Army Group Oberrhein (Germany), the second army that Himmler directly commanded
• Ahnenerbe, the Nazi ideology "think tank" that Himmler founded
• Schutzstaffel, the organization of which he was the Chief and leader, and minister to virtually all departments

I do not think that any of these additions are debatable save for SS.Hoops gza (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Agencies Administered By" category was nominated for deletion. The broader "Heinrich Himmler" was brought up by another user on the delete discussion as also being redundant. I agree we should get clarification on what needs to be deleted and what can stay. -OberRanks (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not look like the broader is really being discussed. In any event, the broader definitely should not be deleted and I hope that I would be notified if it were nominated or that a warning would be placed on the category's page. It takes a lot of work to put together a good category. I plan to make a navbox eventually for Himmler.Hoops gza (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Redundant" and not correct for some articles, yes; with that said, IF specifically limited in its app then the category "Heinrich Himmler" could be kept. BTW, the former discussed category of "Agencies administered by Heinrich Himmler" clearly has enough positive votes (so to speak) to be deleted/removed at this point, as it should be for reasons stated therein on the nominated deletion page. Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Crime in Germany

I ran across this article while doing NPP. It seemed kind of strange that such an article would only have been created less than a month ago, as it would seem to be a fairly high-level concept to have started covering years ago. I suspect it should be redirected somewhere, but not sure where, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. I won't be watching this page, so if you need me to comment please ping me on my talkpage. Danke. → ROUX ₪ 20:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, not so strange. Even the German Wikipedia is likely very muted on the subject. When I recently got involved with the German legal stuff I thought I was going to simply be able to Google Translate the German articles on some pretty major high level articles, like the Judiciary of Germany... Nope. To my dismay, they often do not even exist. For instance, they seem to have spent alot of effort documenting every court building, taking their pictures, etc., but not a broad overview article of the actual judicial system. Int21h (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Municipal association

I just came across Municipal association - did we not have a more extensive artice on the subject? If not this needs attention otherwise a redirect. Agathoclea (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Titling discussoin for list of Saxon dukes/kings

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:List of Dukes of Saxony#move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming discussion regarding article Wilhelm II, German Emperor

The proposed renaming being discussed at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor#Requested move: To "Kaiser Wilhelm II" may be of interest to members of WikiProject Germany. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cascada

The article Cascada gets over 2000 pageviews a day, but has a Refimprove tag. Personlly I see a lot of references so we might be able to remove the tag and even upgrade the rating. A few more eyes would be of benefit. Agathoclea (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who this is, but it would appear the article is well cited, with only one or two "citation needed" tags. Most articles need more citations, really, but most articles don't really need the "refimprove" tag. It just makes it look bad; it should be reserved for egregious cases. I will support any action to remove the "refimprove" tag in the article's current state. Int21h (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added 1 reference. I think we probably need citations for evaluative statements like " are widely considered one of the leaders in popularising euro-dance music in America and in recent years worldwide, aiding in the transition to a more electro-pop oriented mainstream sound". The article could also do with some copy-editing. --Boson (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, those statements are so subjective to the point of being POV. "Widely considered" and "popularising" shout "says who?", and "transition ... to a ... sound" sounds like a TV ad. Int21h (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Rape during the occupation of Germany

I think Rape during the occupation of Germany and its talk page could do with a few more eyes.--Boson (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

West/East Germany v Germany

An editor is changing references to East and West Germany to Germany on the grounds that "there is no East and West Germany any more". They have however, changed this on the notes re the date of birth of Heidi Klum and Angela Merkel, both of whom were born well before the unification era. I believe that our policy is to record these things as they were at the time, and have left a note on their talk page to that effect. You might wish to keep an eye on this without being too bitey ( seems to be a newbie not understanding the system rather than anything else). Britmax (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Johannes Ronge and Bertha Ronge

Just a heads up - a thread has been started on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about the article Johannes von Ronge. The same issue regarding the name appears to affect the Berthe von Rönge article. Please weigh in and help resolve this issue. 75.13.69.146 (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Betriebssportgemeinschaft

This page has recently been moved to this location from Betriebssportgemeinschaft (GDR). While I understand the rationale behind that (no parentheses if there is no need for disambiguation), it fails to consider that the article only deals with the specific situation in East Germany, but that there are Betriebssportgemeinschaft-like structures in unified Germany and that there have been such structures in West Germany as well. Thus, the article needs to be expanded in that direction so as to show the whole picture. Additionally, the article has been marked as needing an infobox. Which infobox would be suitable here? Thanks for your feedback. Madcynic (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Made in Germany entry

Although it's been repeated again and again in German sources, the requirement that all foreign articles be marked, in English, with the country of origin (and as a result, "Germany" or "Made in Germany") does not come from the UK's Merchandise Marks Act 1887. It comes from the (US's) McKinley Tariff Act of 1890. Those who do claim the MMA 1887 should please quote the requirement in the Act.

It is most unfortunate that the 1887 belief continues to be spread.

〜〜〜〜 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogielein (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to post this at Talk:Made in Germany or just edit Made in Germany (this is a wiki, so if something is wrong, you can correct it). —Kusma (t·c) 11:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Musings on Silesian people and categories

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Musings_on_Silesian_people_and_categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Open moves

• (Discuss) – Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen → Emich Kyrill, Prince of Leiningen

This individual is pretty obscure, but a precedent can be set regarding article titles for detitled German nobility. Kauffner (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Munich air disaster

There was a short edit war on Munich air disaster. Members of our project might have some input. Agathoclea (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig question

See here. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about Korean Air office location

An der Welle 4, 60322 Frankfurt am Main is where the Frankfurt office of Korean Air is. What districts and subdivisions within the city is it located in? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This address is located in the district "Westend".  Cs32en Talk to me  19:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Actually, the address is located in "Westend-Süd", meaning "West End - South". ("Westend", consisting of "Westend-Süd" and "Westend-Nord", is not an administrative subdivision of Frankfurt.)  Cs32en Talk to me  04:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, where is Gutleutstrasse 80, 60329 Frankfurt? (China Airlines office)

Thank you

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Gutleutstraße is in Frankfurt-Gallus, I believe. Jared Preston (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - When I looked at the maps, the maps suggested Gutleutstrasse 80, 60329 Frankfurt might be in the district below Gallus - But I'm not sure... WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then it could well be the Gutleutviertel, matching the street name... Jared Preston (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not, as the Gutleutstrasse is a rather long street. It's located in the Bahnhofsviertel.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The districts of Frankfurt can be found here.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FAOL

For info...

The current DYK item List of deaths at the Berlin Wall was one of several translations inspired by German Featured Articles that don't exist at all in the English language version. All the rest are identified here: Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/German. violet/riga _^[talk] 13:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Prussian reforms

Could I have some help translating this featured page from its French and German versions? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you still on this? I can help with German to English translation. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

France invasion ?

Hi!

I'm wondering why I see the Project Germany settling into French territories articles: at least Alsace, Lorraine, Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin and Vosges are now scoped.

How far is it trying to go ? Papatt (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

these areas are integral to German history as borders have significantly moved back and forth. It is quite common for more than on WP to have an interrest on such articles and does not need to be contrued as as a modern invasion. Agathoclea (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can understand the interest on territories more or less included in such current administrative subdivisions, designated as such and object on international treaties (like Alsace-Lorraine) but I find at least clumsy that the Project Germany, which I think should cover more or less only current Germany, scopes French departments or, why not, current countries that were, once or for a while, part of any former German Reich.

Should the Project France scope Algeria or Cameroon as former French colonies or Saarland as a former French department ? I don't think so (but maybe I'm ill-minded).

I think the Project Germany has (or maybe not) enough subprojekts to show its interrest on such territories and keep its basic scope in a reasonable range. HTH, Papatt (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us here to decide what is and what is not in scope for WP:FRA. On the other hand WP:GER can decide what is in scope for itself. If there is a specific article you feel that has been mistagged, feel free to mention it here. Agathoclea (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I sometimes do tag articles when the obvious geographic WP is missing or mistagged but not because I want to impose my view, just to support them by adding the article to their workflow for further classification Agathoclea (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Ekki01 (talk · contribs) has been tagging or assessing quite a few articles lately. It looks as if he/she is working from an alphabetical list, so it might be based on categories or mentions of Germany in the articles. So I would suggest talking to Ekki01, as a matter of courtesy, before just removing the project banner. I think it's up to each project to decide which articles are within the scope of the project. Apart from the history, one reason for including some French border areas in this project would be that a German language (Alemannisch) is spoken there. --Boson (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is totally up to individual WikiProjects to decide the exact demarcations of their scope. If WikiProject France decided that all regions that were once covered by a Napoleonic state (e.g. most of Belgium and the Netherlands and parts of Germany) are in scope, I would be surprised if anyone complained. In fact, it seems a bit weird that even Mont-Tonnerre, an article on a former French département with capital Mainz, is tagged only by WikiProject Germany. Most likely this only reflects the fact that someone has been going around systematically searching for articles to tag for WikiProject Germany, and this has not happened (yet) w.r.t. WikiProject France. Or WikiProject France is using a narrower scope than whoever is doing the tagging for WikiProject Germany. One extreme case is WikiProject Mathematics, which leaves most mathematics articles intentionally untagged, restricting the tagging to rated articles only. I think the current tagging is going to far in the other direction, but I would be surprised if this was for political reasons, and I don't think seeing it from that angle is at all helpful.

I remember only one real conflict on project scoping on Wikipedia, and that was when articles about living people were tagged by WikiProject LGBT studies, not because they are gay (some of them are not), but because they are considered important to the project for other reasons such as notable anti-gay activism. Hans Adler 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed been assessing a number of articles. I have been using the non-assessed articles list from WPGermany project page as a base. I only ever tag articles for WPGer when they are without a doubt (in my opinion at least) within the project's scope. The ones in question were already tagged when I came across them. I do agree with Agathoclea in that those area's were an integral to German history. Whether modern administrative divisions are within the scope of WPGermany is indeed a matter of discussion (see Haut-Rhin where Papatt has already removed the tag). However, historical regions like Alsace etc. are in my opinion definitely within the scope of WPGer (tags removed as well) and should therefore be included.--Ekki01 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the articles Alsace, Lorraine, Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin and Vosges all go into some detail about German history, culture and/or language (Haut-Rhin somewhat less so), I would propose retaining them within the scope of the project. Anybody disagree? --Boson (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, agreed. Perhaps it's an idea to inform our collegues from WPFrance of this in order to avoid any future discussions and irritations.--Ekki01 (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A prior and explanatory notice should actually be less clumsy. But please examine this other solution: add these articles in a (new) appropriate category (to be) scoped by the Project Germany. That's why Mont-Tonnerre isn't directly linked to Project France. More explicit and more efficient, isn't it ? Papatt (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not think a category would do the trick as content categories cannot map the project. Often it is easy to to work down the catergories to tag the project, but that is not foolproof either(remember tons of WP:Spain articles when there was a tiny error in the category tree and the bot tagging blindly plowed on). Often it is a case by case decision. Some Brasilian footballer played one game for Bayern Munich. Should he be included? In the grand scheme of things I would not - but several members might think he is relevant to Germany. WP Brasil will not be unduly worried maybe even happy to have a few more editors watching over the article and removing the occational "poop" dropped off by some bored highschooler. Maybe projects differ - some prefer efficiancy others worry about content. :-) Agathoclea (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw this edit - due to that any proposed changes to the category would never by posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Article alerts while they would show on Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article alerts. Maybe you should go and read up a little on why projects where started in the first place (hint not to get likeminded people together but as a vehicle to ensure subject coverage and a reasonable standard of main topics) and the workflows involved. The tagging is no just about "this is our article", it is about workflows. Some look at high importance articles which are only stubs to improve. Articles tagged get watched by bots and project members are alerted. The WP1.0 uses the classification of the individual WPs to assess which articles are to be released in the DVD releases. (So an article in the scope of more than one project might actually be deemed more important overall) Agathoclea (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please then consider both markings, one will be the explanation of the other. Papatt (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your last comment at all, but I have a vague feeling that maybe you still don't understand the following: WikiProject templates are not a sign of ownership, but serve three main functions: (1) They indicate which WikiProjects care about an article. E.g., when an article is at AfD or has other serious problems, notifying the WikiProjects that have templates on the talk page is a good way to inform editors who may be interested. (2) They are used for classifying articles in terms of quality and completeness. This is done on a per-project level because articles that are in the scope of several projects may be of uneven quality (e.g. an article on a medical controversy may omit vital medical, political or historical information while being complete in other respects). (3) There is infrastructure in place for supporting the WikiProject in taking care of articles, which requires the templates on the talk pages. E.g. at WP:FRANCE, see the boxes "Article Status" and "Article Alerts".

The tagging for WikiProject France seems to be incomplete. E.g., Category:Former departments of France in Germany and 9 of its 13 member pages are not currently tagged by WikiProject France. (Many are also not tagged by WikiProject Germany.) Presumably that's just an omission. I would consider the case of Lippe (department) to be the normal one. It is tagged by both WikiProject France and WikiProject Germany. But maybe WikiProject France doesn't want to tag such minor articles because they feel they don't have the resources to handle them and want to focus on the more important articles first. That's why it is traditionally left to project members to do the tagging. In any case, articles such as Roer (department) do not currently appear on the WP:FRANCE page under "Article Status" and "Article Alerts" and are not counted in the statistics. Hans Adler 08:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Schraplau is not in Ohio

I will be gone for today. Can someone look at Schraplau - see also this message. User insits on exchanging the infobox and argueing that in Ohio a settlement of 500 people is a city therefore Schraplau must be as well. Also introducing the term "lost home rule". In the process destroying auto-categories and autoupdates of population. Agathoclea (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The user in question is a vandal who I actually spoke to on the phone quite some time ago. You can safely apply WP:RBI in this case. Saying anything more would out the user, so I will send you the supporting information by email. Hans Adler 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Interresting stuff. That also makes the modus operandi quite transparent. Agathoclea (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fascinating case. It's very rare that we get such excellent insight into the motivations for persistent vandalism. Hans Adler 22:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery needs a German speaker

Howdy. I'm in the process of migrating the tools used by the Red Link Recovery project to other languages. These tools extract lists of red links from the Wikipedia databases and suggest alternate targets for them - for example it might suggest that a link to Björn_Melhus be changed to Bjørn_Melhus. As the German-language Wikipedia currently has no equivalent project (that I know of), I'm looking to recruit one or two Wikipedians of a generally gnomish nature with reasonable German-language skills and experience editing on the German-language Wikipedia to:

1. Spend an hour or two fixing red links on the German-language Wikipedia using the tool to ensure it works
2. Assist in translating instructions for using the tool into German.
3. Potentially setting up an Wikiproject on the German-language Wikipedia and/or finding some 'native' users there to continue the work.

All assistance much appreciated, - TB (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Prussian King Frederick the Great's erotic poem, ITN nomination

• I've nominated the recently re-discovered and published Frederick the Great's erotic poem to be featured in the news on the Main Page: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Prussian_King_Frederick_the_Great.27s_erotic_poem_found. Could anyone help in updating Frederick the Great and creating the article on the poem, La Jouissance? GreyHood ^Talk 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of tunnels in Germany

Hi. I imported this but it needs some cleanup of some German text and formatting, Can somebody help?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's looking better and more of the links now work. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Herdecke

There is a lot more information on my beloved hometown in the German wiki so I will start to (not literally of course) translate all the stuff that's in it and try to add more information than what's already there.

CaptainWorf (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sebastian Strasser

Notification of a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Strasser - which might benefit from input from German-speakers.  Chzz  ►  01:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

District titles

I know this has been mentioned before, but we still have Kreise articles and their categories variously named "FOO (district)", "FOO district" and "FOO District" (mainly on Austrian articles). Since, in German, the "FOO" and "District" are variably used inseparably as a proper name (not least to distinguish them from the actual town e.g. "Kreis Celle" and "Celle"), my suggestion is we settle on "FOO District" for consistency and accuracy. Views? --Bermicourt (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current situation ("Foo" and "Foo (district)" for the ambiguous cases) for Germany. Markussep ^Talk 08:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

People categorised by district

In the wake of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern I started adapting the Category:People by district in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to the current situation. As I was doing this, it struck me as rather silly to put someone like Frederick VII, Margrave of Baden-Durlach (born in Ueckermünde in 1647) in the Category:People from Vorpommern-Greifswald, since Vorpommern-Greifswald was only formed in 2011. Before, he was in the Category:People from Uecker-Randow, which is equally silly since this district existed only between 1994 and 2011.

I looked around for how it's done for other countries, and saw for the UK (e.g. Category:People by county in England) "This category groups English people by current ceremonial county. People from areas affected by boundary changes are categorised by the county at the time they were alive.". On the other hand a category like Category:People from the Province of Verbano-Cusio-Ossola (Italy, province was created in 1996) also contains people who lived in the area in the 16th and 19th century. What should we do here? Markussep ^Talk 09:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Minister-president vs prime minister consistency (what to call a Ministerpräsident in English)

on manny different english wiki article german Ministerpräsidenten are called differently. it doesn't make any sence (to me but mayby i'm dunb) to call some Ministerpräsidenten minister-president and some prime minister or premier or govornor or what ever or lord of the land;). i don't really care which one it is but can't wiki be consistent consistency?10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)85.195.69.112 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusion with many people over this. Because of this, I tend to use the direct translation of Ministerpräsident. Kingjeff (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Minister-president, while a direct translation, is not really an English word. The most literal translation that is an established English word is prime minister. I guess many people think this can't be the proper translation because in the other direction, the title Prime Minister in a UK context is translated as Premierminister. But it is actually quite a normal phenomenon that one language has a choice of two words where another language has only one, so this doesn't prove there is something wrong with the translation.

I have confirmed with the European Union's dictionary at http://iate.europa.eu/ that prime minister is in fact the European Union's preferred translation for Ministerpräsident. So this translation is definitely correct. I believe it is also the most common in English books and media, so I propose standardising on it. Hans Adler 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Archive 14#Ministerpräsident. --Boson (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Even in German they seem to be inexact words used to describe hard-to-describe situations. The British made a word "prime minister" over the centuries which seems to fit the bill. Otherwise I would called them what they usually were: interior ministers or police-rulers. Because they seem to usually be (in the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary) interior ministers, ie. the guy with responsibility for wielding the police power and compelling obedience to the state and church. But the person before me created the List of Ministers-President of Austria article with the names all very neat and orderly and I saw more important things to do than go there. (Like find the few Minister-Presidents of Austria that weren't Interior Ministers of Austria/Minister-Presidents of Austria, which I find more intriguing than the oddities of translation and new word formation in International Engliſh.) Int21h (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a new discussion. See Ministerpräsident where one of the polls gave the following scores for usage:

• Prime Minister (523)
• Minister-President (506)
• Governor (162)
• Premier (146)

So the most common English terms are "Prime Minister" and "Minister-President" with almost nothing to choose between them. Official websites of the states are also divided between these two terms. I would say either is acceptable. A minor argument in favour of the latter is that "Prime Minister" is normally thought of as a national head of state; "Minister-President" is only used for states of Germany. Both terms however have their staunch supporters on Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. But the question to me is whether the correct German word is even Ministerpräsident. An interior minister which was president of a council (committee in American English) of legislators is not really the same thing. Int21h (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Minister-President" is only used for states of Germany" - en.wiki uses min-pres for Belgion regions and communities, too see Minister-President; but the question was not what should be used, but rather whether wiki should be consistent or if eberybody should just do what ever they want that_consistency_guy08:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)46.5.184.243 (talk)

Just to clarify a few things, "Ministerpräsident" is the correct term for all executive heads of area states ("Flächenländer") in Germany - that is the leaders of each separate state government. Leaders of city states use varieties of "Mayor" (First Mayor, Governing Mayor, ...), though technically they fill in a similar function as a minister-president (when all 16 heads of states are mentioned in the news, they are usually just called "Ministerpräsidenten" or "Ministerpräsidenten der Länder" together). A "Ministerpräsident" in Germany today has nothing to do with a "minister of interior", he/she is the head of all ministers of one state. I would use "Minister-President" to avoid confusion with the Prime Minister in other countries. GermanJoe (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Following discussions elsewhere- I am keen to establish a norm that can be traced back to today's most authorative source. To me, that must always be the EU commission and the EU Manual of Style. The technique of polling 'what editors have used in the past' appears deeply flawed compared with establishing what the most reliable source actually is. If we can establish a definition of EU English- that is the national English of each of our states we will avoid hours of time wasting explanations to editors who edit in other dialects. Lets call that the political route. The only other way forward is the acadedic route and to decide on the most reliable pubished source- and we can see the dangers of that when we use a book that another editor hasn't heard of.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• The above survey, showing a 0.2% preference for "prime minister", was based on Google Scholar, while a survey based on Google books since 1950 shows a 3.6% preference for minister president".
• In addition, it is possible that the term sometimes refers to a different position in former independent states (e.g. Bavaria), which is why I selected books at least published after 1949.
• While IATE gives "prime minister" (with minimum reliability), the Terminological Service of the German Foreign Office (which I would regard as authoritative for foreign language names of German institutions) gives "Minister President".
• As far as I can tell, the English Style Guide of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission is silent on the matter, as is the Interinstitutional Style Guide.
• So it's six and a bit of one and amost half a dozen of the other.
• Establishing consistency would probably mean checking a couple of hundred articles and 14 categories.
• I believe the majority of articles currently use "minister president", but I haven't checked thoroughly.
• The categories should probably be changed to something like "heads of state governments", anyway since the top category also include the states of Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg – which have mayors (or similar). One would also need to check categorization of people serving in former independent states of the same name (e.g. Bavaria).
• For German institutions, as a general rule I would follow the translations given in the book German Institutions, by the Terminological Service of the German Foreign Office—except where that would be clearly against Wikipedia naming conventions.
• English "reliable sources" may prefer "prime minister" for Lower Saxony" and "minister president" for Saxony-Anhalt, which presents a general problem when interpreting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Any attempt to be consistent may meet opposition at specific articles. A similar problem of consistency vs English reliable sources arises with the use of diacritics: a German person who is mainly talked about in the sporting press may be usually written without diacritics, but a notable politician of the same name, who is talked about in the quality press, may usually be written with diacritics.

--Boson (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Minister President" is both accurate and unconfusable (to coin a new word). It's down side is that most people don't know what it is. "Prime Minister" is a well known term, but normally only for the head of a national government, so people are likely to get confused and start wondering whether e.g. Saxony has just declared UDI. Both are better than the other terms occasionally used. Why don't we just ensure for now that only these 2 terms are used and no others. That will at least reduce the confusion until the EU makes a ruling! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Germany is a federation, and the heads of governments of the German states aren't actually so different from heads of governments of sovereign states. (The states would have been sovereign before the federation, had they not been under Allied control, and their predecessors were sovereign before the Reich was founded.) Hans Adler 18:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree Boson's statement: The German Federeal Foreign Office translates "Ministerpräsident" as "Minister President". I am of the opinion that this should be regarded as the official translation, which is designated by the German government. Easymichi (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)