Talk:Potsdamer Platz
 | Germany Start‑class High‑importance  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
I think that the latest changes to the article are very good. Example that Wikipedia works. hhc2, 8 june 03, 16 h
- Thanks. :-) djmutex 14:35 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I am thinking about an article "Berlin:Architecture" or such. I'd like to give an overview about some buildings I I find interesting. I'll make a list that I will submit to discussion. hhc2 9 june 03, after matrix reloaded
Thanks for going through the street names and making them look like they should in German. I was going to do this myself but you beat me to it!
Sourcing that Potsdam Square is the prevalent English name
User:Rex Germanus has moved this article from Potsdamer Platz to Potsdam Square citing that that is the prevalent name used in English. Initialy Google-testing, as flawed as it is, showed only 993 hits for Potsdam Square to 2 million hits for Potsdamer Platz. So can we get a source for this? 84.145.229.26 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I ran a search through Google Books and Google Scholar to see how the topic is referred to. I limited the Books search to publications since 1950 and included "Germany" within the search to cut down on German-language texts.
- Google Books
- Potsdamer Platz (several hundred)
- Potsdam Square (34)
- Google Scholar
- Potsdamer Platz (several hundred)
- Potsdam Square (5)
"Potsdam Square" is an accepted name for the square, but "Potsdamer Platz" is used overwhelmingly more frequently in English language publications. With WP:COMMONNAME in mind... Olessi 15:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I already reacted to the IP on my talkpage, but I'll do it again. I do not recall having used predominant, and I still stand by my move. Potsdam square is its English name, the fact that its German equivalent has more google hits is irrelevant, not because google isnt a valid source per se, but because this is the English wikipedia, and English names (if established) are prefered over foreign ones at all times. The English name is established and hence, in theory - if there weren't so many Germanophiles, this discussion ought to be closed.Rex 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Rex. Please read WP:COMMONNAME - or are you intentionally violating those naming conventions? (In related matters, as you seem so eager to purge all German names from this - as you said - English encyclopedia, why do you seem so hesitant when it comes to Dutch article names? Why do you not move Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal to "Dictionary of the Dutch language" or Zuid-Gelders to "South Guelderish", Stelling van Amsterdam to "Defense line of Amsterdam"? Those are established English names for those things. Why do you not add several dozend fact-tags to Dutch articles? (I know a few that could use better sourcing) Admitting your bias does not allow you to indulge it. And your anti-German bias is becoming rampart again.) 84.145.246.227 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to use some pretty awkward "logic" there. So basically you're saying the following: I'm not entitled to move article names, or even complain about them because, wikipedia has some articles with a Dutch title too? (Are you implying I'm respondsible for those articles?!) I don't care if you move Zuid-Gelders, Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, Stelling van Amsterdam. Go ahead, have fun. You see, I don't add cite-tags or move pages because I enjoy getting ridd of foreign article names or like to bugg people by asking to reference their claims, it's because it makes the English Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, to its target audience: English speakers. It might make perfect sense to you to write "Potsdamer Platz", but an English speaker doesn't know what platz is, and might just barely (if at all) figure out that potsdamer is the inflected form of Potsdam. So what do you think makes more sense to him/her? Potsdam squar or Potsdamer Platz? You need to learn to think in wikipedias best interests, rather than imaginary national/linguistic prestige for your own language.Rex 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- No Rex, I won't move those articles with dutch names, and do you know why? Because I figure they are better known in English under their original name than in their translated one. "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" vs "Serenade for strings in G major". The chances that both - random people on the street as well as the people that are closer to the subject - know the name of the former are much higher than that the know the latter. And that's the core of the issue: People are more likely, as shown by the various sources, to know that this place is called "Potsdamer Platz" than they would associate "Potsdam square" with it. And the naming guidelines explicitely say "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine". Would they type in "Potsdam square"? No, I don't think so, because that name is not very well known nor well-used. They'd type in "Potsdamer Platz". And thus this is where this article should be. 84.145.255.237 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Prove it then. All you do is assume, meanwhile I have logic on my side, and you have nothing.Rex 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't believe Google or Book Search (via Google), how about [www.lonelyplanet.com Lonely Planet]? 10000 mentions of "potsdamer platz" 41 mentions of "potsdam square". I seriously doubt that there is somewhere specific scientific report titeled "Potsdamer Platz vs. Potsdam Square. The name of a specific place in Germany and it use in the English language.", but it seems you are demanding to see this kind of thing. Also please prove that logic is your side here. I can only appeal to you to use common sense, otherwise I'd suggest a Request For Comment, if you are so certain that you are right and all the rest of us are wrong. 84.145.255.237 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright try to grasp the logic then. This is the English wikipedia, this article is written in English, there is a English name for the topic in this English article on English wikipedia. So use the English term on the English wikipedia.Rex 15:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I couldn't hear you cite any policy while trying to prove your logic. Please try again. Also you did offer nothing to prove that Potsdam Square is an accepted and widely used name for the place. In the meantime, how about this little gem from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "Please remember that many local names, like Paris or Berlin, are widely accepted in English. Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon." and regarding widely accepted names criteria: "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits". So, let's think for a bit... if X is the widely/almost exclusively used name for an place in the English language and policy says "use the the widely accepted names" then we should... hmmm... I dunno, translate the name and use its rarely used translation? 84.145.252.58 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright try to grasp the logic then. This is the English wikipedia, this article is written in English, there is a English name for the topic in this English article on English wikipedia. So use the English term on the English wikipedia.Rex 15:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't believe Google or Book Search (via Google), how about [www.lonelyplanet.com Lonely Planet]? 10000 mentions of "potsdamer platz" 41 mentions of "potsdam square". I seriously doubt that there is somewhere specific scientific report titeled "Potsdamer Platz vs. Potsdam Square. The name of a specific place in Germany and it use in the English language.", but it seems you are demanding to see this kind of thing. Also please prove that logic is your side here. I can only appeal to you to use common sense, otherwise I'd suggest a Request For Comment, if you are so certain that you are right and all the rest of us are wrong. 84.145.255.237 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Prove it then. All you do is assume, meanwhile I have logic on my side, and you have nothing.Rex 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. Clear to me. Rex 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- No Rex, I won't move those articles with dutch names, and do you know why? Because I figure they are better known in English under their original name than in their translated one. "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" vs "Serenade for strings in G major". The chances that both - random people on the street as well as the people that are closer to the subject - know the name of the former are much higher than that the know the latter. And that's the core of the issue: People are more likely, as shown by the various sources, to know that this place is called "Potsdamer Platz" than they would associate "Potsdam square" with it. And the naming guidelines explicitely say "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine". Would they type in "Potsdam square"? No, I don't think so, because that name is not very well known nor well-used. They'd type in "Potsdamer Platz". And thus this is where this article should be. 84.145.255.237 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to use some pretty awkward "logic" there. So basically you're saying the following: I'm not entitled to move article names, or even complain about them because, wikipedia has some articles with a Dutch title too? (Are you implying I'm respondsible for those articles?!) I don't care if you move Zuid-Gelders, Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, Stelling van Amsterdam. Go ahead, have fun. You see, I don't add cite-tags or move pages because I enjoy getting ridd of foreign article names or like to bugg people by asking to reference their claims, it's because it makes the English Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, to its target audience: English speakers. It might make perfect sense to you to write "Potsdamer Platz", but an English speaker doesn't know what platz is, and might just barely (if at all) figure out that potsdamer is the inflected form of Potsdam. So what do you think makes more sense to him/her? Potsdam squar or Potsdamer Platz? You need to learn to think in wikipedias best interests, rather than imaginary national/linguistic prestige for your own language.Rex 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Rex. Please read WP:COMMONNAME - or are you intentionally violating those naming conventions? (In related matters, as you seem so eager to purge all German names from this - as you said - English encyclopedia, why do you seem so hesitant when it comes to Dutch article names? Why do you not move Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal to "Dictionary of the Dutch language" or Zuid-Gelders to "South Guelderish", Stelling van Amsterdam to "Defense line of Amsterdam"? Those are established English names for those things. Why do you not add several dozend fact-tags to Dutch articles? (I know a few that could use better sourcing) Admitting your bias does not allow you to indulge it. And your anti-German bias is becoming rampart again.) 84.145.246.227 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I already reacted to the IP on my talkpage, but I'll do it again. I do not recall having used predominant, and I still stand by my move. Potsdam square is its English name, the fact that its German equivalent has more google hits is irrelevant, not because google isnt a valid source per se, but because this is the English wikipedia, and English names (if established) are prefered over foreign ones at all times. The English name is established and hence, in theory - if there weren't so many Germanophiles, this discussion ought to be closed.Rex 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)