Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany


ProjectDiscussionOpen tasksAssessmentFeatured ContentMembersPortal

Meßstetten mess[]

This article is a buildup of text scraps, most of them hardly understandable and not relevant. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I've made a start by restructuring the article into something more like the normal sequence and adding the section on Geography from German Wikipedia. But it needs a lot more work. Bermicourt (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stadtbezirk, Stadtteil, Ortsteil[]

I'm looking for a consistent way to translate these German terms for parts of cities, towns and municipalities: Stadtbezirk, Stadtteil and Ortsteil. The English Style Guide of the European Commission, page 66 of 150 uses "borough" for a Bezirk that is part of a town or city, so it's probably best to use "borough" for Stadtbezirk as well. The style guide offers no suggestions for Stadtteil and Ortsteil, and they redirect to "quarter" and "village" respectively. I think Ortsteil doesn't mean the same as "village", do we have better suggestions? If we can decide on the best translations for these terms, I think we should add them to the WP:Naming conventions (Germany). Markussep Talk 10:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

IIRC I've used "quarter" or "municipal district" for Stadtteile and for Ortsteile. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
"Quarter" is probably OK for many "Stadtteile" (like the ones in Cologne), although literally "quarter" is the translation for "Viertel". Some "Stadtteile" do not form a continuous built up area with the central city, for instance Liebertwolkwitz as part of Leipzig, so maybe something like "municipal district" or plain "division" would be better for all. Markussep Talk 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a tricky area which I had hoped to research thoroughly to tie down the nearest English equivalents, but haven't had time. It's not helped by the fact that there are various usages in different English-speaking countries, although the EU goes with British and Irish practice. Nor by the fact that dictionaries etc often translate everything as "district". In Britain, London is divided into boroughs, but Birmingham has council constituencies, while Poole is both a town and a borough and has "suburbs and neighbourhoods". So Stadtteil could be translated as borough, quarter, district, neighbourhood, suburb or ward (= voting district). On Wikipedia I usually divide cities (Großstädte, population > 100,000) into boroughs or quarters and towns (Städte, pop. < 100,000) into districts, but it depends on the context. A Stadtteil that is largely residential on the edge of a town or city could be a "suburb". But sometimes Stadtteil is even used for a separate village outside of the main town e.g. Garßen. You'll see at that article that I've avoided translating Stadtteil (too confusing) and just said that it is a village which is part if the borough of Celle (using the analogy of the borough of Poole).
The nearest English equivalent of an Ortsteil is a (civil) parish; both are administrative areas comprising a main village and the surrounding countryside within a clearly defined boundary. But there's no way to indicate that it's not independent like a Gemeinde, but is part of a larger unit. Taking Bergen (Celle) as an example; it has 13 Ortsteile which are all separate villages apart from Bergen itself which is a small town. Here you could translate Ortsteil as parish and say they're part of the borough of Bergen. Or just say that the borough of Bergen comprises the town of Bergen, 13 villages and a number of hamlets, which is also true. Bermicourt (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't use "borough" for an independent town ("Stadt") like Celle or Bergen, since the EC translation guide recommends using that for a "(Stadt)bezirk". I'd like to stay as close to the original German as possible, but "city part" (as I've seen in the Districts of Cologne) or "local part" seems a bit ugly. "parish" would be "Pfarre" in German, which has only a religious meaning AFAIK, I wouldn't use that for "Ortsteil". Then there's also "Ortschaft" (often used for former municipalities, see for instance the subdivisions of Annaburg), which we could translate as "locality". Or we could call all of them (Stadtteil, Ortsteil, Ortschaft) "division", which matches the "teil" part of the word. Markussep Talk 07:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
So should we add the following terms to WP:Naming conventions (Germany)#Administrative units?
  • Großstadt: city
  • Stadt: town
  • Stadtbezirk: borough
  • Stadtteil, Ortsteil: division
  • Ortschaft: locality
Maybe we should also mention quarter as option for Stadtteil, and village for Ortsteil. Markussep Talk 19:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. I would definitely give a thumbs up to the first three, so we should add those unless anyone else has a major objection. Clearly there are many times when Stadt is used in German for a Großstadt, but we should still translate it as "city" otherwise there will be confusion. Also when Stadt is being used in the context of Stadtbezirk, we should translate it as "borough". What I'm saying is we have to look 'behind' the actual word to what the author means. We can add a sentence to the convention to explain that it is not a rigid word-for-word substitution. Stadtteil and Ortsteil are very tricky. I think "division" or, better, "subdivision" works e.g. in the sentence "Celle has the following administrative subdivisions:" - see {{Municipalities in Celle}} which is titled "Subdivisions of the borough of Celle". It could also be "Municipalities in/of the borough of Celle" since all administrative subdivisions are Gemeinden i.e. municipalities. But I don't think "division" works so well in the case of "Altencelle is a division of Celle", where it would be better to use "Altencelle is a municipality in the borough of Celle" or "...village in the borough of...". The former refers to the whole Altencelle jurisdiction; the latter to the actual built-up area only. Alternatively, where the nucleus is a village it's okay to use "parish". We have thousands of civil parishes in Britain which are not religious and which consist of a village and its surrounding land. So as long as no-one translates it back into German as Pfarre by mistake, we're fine. See parish. I think parish is a better translation of Ortschaft than "locality" which is quite vague, like "place", and certainly not an administrative unit. I think we're making good progress considering, that this is not an exact science. Bermicourt (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The principal problem with an over-prescriptive preference for "borough" (apart from the fact that I can never remember how to spell it) is the one that someone pointed out above. It doesn't really convey the same things in English English as it does in Australian English or in US English. (And where are our "customers" coming from anyway?) There are times when "(city) district", "region", "administrative district", "(city) quarter" or, as you wrote, "division" / "city division" work better. So, as I think some people here are thinking, its important to consider carefully (1) which term works best in the context of the article on which you are working and (2) whether most of the readers for the article will have mother-tongue American English or English English or Indian English or or. Town or city for "Stadt" also suffers from the extent to which (writing, at this point, as English born and in cheerful defiance of all my stateside kinsfolk) our American cousins mis-use the term "city". On wikipedia I tend to favo(u) city over town in cases of doubt simply because I tend to anticipate more American readers than English ones. But it is nevertheless one more example of where one size does not fit all situations. When you start looking for "a consistent way to translate" something you imply that there is a perfect one to one synonym for the word pair you have in mind. If our languages had been invented by computers, that might be how it worked. And between languages of similar ancestry that have been extensively "improved" by government agenciess - I guess I'm thinking German-Dutch - you generally come close. (Though I am advised that many Dutch people would not agree.) But in the interests of accuracy we should not pretend to some simplistic 1:1 relationship between some version of English and (?post-Rechtschreibung) high German simply to make life easier for the computers. IM(H)O. B well. Charles01 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
You're right, we should not apply a rigid relationship and the guidance should state that. Re city and town, in Germany at least they have this definition that any Stadt with a population of <100,000 is a Großstadt, so that gives us a useful threshold and avoids us getting into a, quite understandable, debate about what we English speakers mean by "city" and "town". According to the Wiki article "borough" is defined and used differently as you suggest, but in general it conveys the sense of a relatively large municipal area such as that belonging to an independent town or an official subdivision of a city. It doesn't sound small, like a parish, village or community.
I've found though that German Wiki settlement articles tend to have a standard-ish format that it might also be good to agree on e.g.
  • Altencelle ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Celle in Niedersachsen.
  • Stadt Elbingerode (Harz) ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Oberharz am Brocken im Landkreis Harz in Sachsen-Anhalt.
  • Berghaupten ist eine Gemeinde im unteren Kinzigtal (mittlerer Schwarzwald) in Baden-Württemberg (Deutschland) und gehört zum Ortenaukreis.
My usual formulation, having looked at the map, is something like:
  • "Altencelle is a village in the borough of Celle in the German state of Lower Saxony." So I avoid trying to translate Ortsteil and just refer to the settlement, having made sure it's not contiguous with the town of Celle, otherwise it would be a suburb, [town] quarter or the like.
  • "The town of Elbingerode (Harz) is part of the borough of Oberharz am Brocken in the county of Harz in Saxony-Anhalt." That gets around the "town within a town" problem, but actually Oberharz am Brocken is not a town anyway. It's a municipal area in which Elbingerode is the biggest settlement but includes two other towns (Benneckenstein and Hasselrode) that are not much bigger than villages but have town rights. That's why we have to look at the map! I tend to use "county" not "district" for Kreis as that is what the British Embassy guidance for the Forces in Germany. Either works, but "district" tends to be slapped onto so many levels of government that it can become meaningless. And they are the equivalent of a "county" at least in the UK and US i.e. formal subdivision of a state/nation. But I don't go around slavishly changing "district" to "county" to avoid stressing other ors!
  • "Berghaupten is a municipality in the lower Kinzig valley (Central Black Forest) in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It is part of the county/district of Ortenaukreis." Where Kreis is compounded I tend to leave it unchanged which technically is tautologous but I'm trying to help the reader. It would also be perfectly okay to say "Berghaupten is a village..." Bermicourt (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't quite agree... I think it's only professional to use the same terms in the same contexts. I have difficulty with using "county" for "Kreis". A county in German context is a "Grafschaft", an area (formerly) ruled by a count. The EC uses "district", that's also in the naming conventions, so please let's stick to that. The same for using "borough" for "Stadt". Of course not all places referred to as "Stadt" are independent municipalities ("Gemeinden"), as your Benneckenstein example demonstrates. But Oberharz am Brocken is a "Stadt", and hence a "town", even if there is no populated area or historical place with walls called Oberharz am Brocken. The EC uses "borough" for "Bezirke" that are part of a city or town, so for instance the Stadtbezirke/boroughs of Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt etc., similar to the boroughs of London and New York City. Let's use "borough" for city divisions only, not for independent towns like Celle or Oberharz am Brocken. And if we can't agree on a consistent translation, maybe we should leave them untranslated and create articles explaining the administrative details, if they aren't there already. Markussep Talk 18:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree there. A consistent translation is important, especially, as we have an EU translation guide to go by for the most part. There are edge cases where we have municipalities (or even towns) where we have no main urban area with the same name. My translation woud be "Altencelle is a village belonging to [the town of] Celle in the German state of Lower Saxony.", or maybe even cuting the German state part and relying on the linking of Lower Saxony. Agathoclea (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Ortsteil and Stadtteil seem to be more or less interchangeable, Gemeinden obviously don't have Stadtteile, but for intance Leipzig has Ortsteile, that can be both outlying villages and city quarters. I'd say we use "village" and "quarter" for both of them, depending on the context, and "parts" or "divisions" in general, or where a heterogeneous group of Teile (like for Leipzig) is referred to. What shall we do with the "Ortschaften"? Markussep Talk 11:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for IG Farben Building[]

I have nominated IG Farben Building for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where ors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Baden-Württemberg#Requested move 25 October 2021[]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baden-Württemberg#Requested move 25 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Warsaw Concentration Camp[]

There is an RfC of interest to this project at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp regarding whether or not an article in Haaretz on significant errors and distortions of the article's portrayal of the camp and a connection of said errors to historical revisionism in Poland can be cited due to Haaretz's use of globally banned user Icewhiz as a source.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

RM: North Rhine-Westphalia (change hyphen to N-dash)[]

Information.svg

An or has requested for North Rhine-Westphalia to be moved to North Rhine–Westphalia. Since you had some involvement with North Rhine-Westphalia, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

There is also an alt-proposal to move to Nordrhein-Westfalen. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Italian War of 1521–1526 Featured article review[]

I have nominated Italian War of 1521–1526 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where ors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Italian War of 1521–1526[]

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate ors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger Proposal "RfC"[]

I have made a proposal to merge Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, and am seeking more opinions on the matter to contibute to the discussion. Given the proposal is within the scope of this Wikiproject, I thought it'd be a good place to start. You can view the discussion here. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

New article on VW worker organizations[]

I created Volkswagen worker organizations and would love more eyes/feedback given it’s complex/technical and historic nature. I’ve primarily stuck with English sources, but German sources are likely necessary in some places. The structure of article is modeled after other transnational worker organizations like IBM worker organization, Apple worker organization and Amazon worker organization ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

SS General von Steuben[]

Hey there! I started a discussion at SS General von Steuben, about the problem of diving to ship wrecks, and whether the article advocates it. Any input would be appreciated! Renerpho (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking up a German court case[]

Hi, I was wondering if anybody know how to lookup a German court case. I've not been able to make any headway against it at at. The number is Case 8K 5055/94 under judge Kohlheim. It is to verify information regarding German diplomat Rudolf von Scheliha and whether he took any money off of Soviet intelligence for the reports he was providing to them. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 11:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion at talk:Zürich[]

There’s a discussion about moving Zürich to Zurich of interest to this project—Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The current policy at WP:PLACEDAB specifies that Placename, Germany is the disambiguation standard. I note that many (most?) articles are not currently disambiguated this way, so if there are other considerations that I am not aware of, I invite everyone to join this discussion.[]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § WP:PLACEDAB and disambiguating by state/province. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Leo-Baeck-Medal#Requested move 25 December 2021[]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leo-Baeck-Medal#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Bolduanus[]

Obscure bibliographer from Pomerania who I stumbled on. I don't read German, but a bunch of the hits in this search result and on Google Books (eg [1]) are in German. Would love some help with finding and reading German-language sources if anyone has time and inclination. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. This is extremely My Thing so I'm embarrassed to have never heard of him (or at least, I'm currently unable to remember knowing anything about him at any point), but I'm somewhat reassured by the ironically extended discussion here [2] on how completely obscure he really is. You weren't kidding! I don't think that Google Books result is very useful for expanding this right now (at a skim, looks like it's mostly interested in how he classified things as part of a larger argument, so it seems a bit undue-weighty, topic-wise, for an article at this size) but I'll put it into External Links for now. Ping me if you think there's likely to be anything especially good in one of those German-language Internet Archive sources? A skim is all I had time for right now and nothing jumped out at me as particularly promising. But it was a really quick skim. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

2G-Regel[]

Hello, guten tag, everyone. I have started this article 2G-Regel. It is largely translated directly from the de wikipedia, using Google Translate, as my German is very basic and rudimentary. Any improvements would be most welcome. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Please consider including the date of birth for Dr Guy Stern in the BIRTHS section of the Wikipedia page identified as 1922 in Germany. Dr. Stern's date of birth is January 14, 1922 as verified/confirmed on his own personal reference Wikipedia page.24.127.32.201 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A taskforce for Nazi associations?[]

I recently find more and more articles in both German and English Wikipedia that either gloss over/completely ignore the Nazi associations that various prominent politicians, business men have for example Parliamentarian Hermann Conring (politician) who was in charge of deportations, or a more nuanced/debated cases like VW CEO Heinrich Nordhoff. Are there guidelines/any potential taskforces to go through such articles systematically? My suspicion is a mixture of lack of English sources, and recent resurgence of examinations of the past contribute to why Wikipedia/sources are only recently analyzing more critically the past deeds. I'm inspired in general by the work User:K.e.coffman has done on counter on wiki Myth of the clean Wehrmacht revisionism ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve had a similar thought about scholars and other Mitläufer, see [3]. I think it’s a good idea.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed this myself. Companies, too - I came across an article on a company whose "history" section involved WWII but completely failed to mention, for example, that the factory had employed slave labourers during the war. I don't think we can blame it on lack of availability of English-language sources, for two reasons: not only is the problem also present on German Wikipedia, but the (biography) pages I've noticed have clearly stated at least something about Nazi associations in their Deutsche Biographie entry. Which shows up in the "authority control" template, so it's not an obscure source that's difficult to locate for an or who doesn't read German. Not that I'd advocate that ors use sources they can't read, but it's not like "joined the NSDAP in 1932" is going to be ambiguous through Google Translate; you'd at least be tipped off that something is there. As for guidelines or taskforces, I don't know of any. -- asilvering (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll create a task-force later this week and notify people in WP:MILHIST, WP:WikiProject Jewish History, WP:COMPANIES and WP:LABOUR. Would be good to also create a list of what are highest priority companies/individuals etc.. and any guidelines/advice how to spot whitewashing of history ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that's fine as long as we don't give undue emphasis to this issue. Some ors involved in this area are just as hard over in demonising all wartime Germans as the Holocaust deniers are at the other end of the spectrum. And there are sources out there which are just as biased. Hard though it is, we need to find a balance. In the same way that we would not necessarily fuss about every Russian who was a Communist during Soviet times unless we could show that the role was significant in some way. Bermicourt (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Trying to forget about the Nazi past is a common German sin, although a lot of Vergangenheitsbewältigung has taken place, not just looking at Hans Filbinger or Kurt Waldheim. But even things like local commemmoration of concentration camps like Osthofen was controversial in the 1970s, and apparently Nohra still is. I agree about checking what is due and undue, but neutrally mentioning Nazi organisation membership should be fairly uncontroversial, and certainly profiteering from forced labour should be mentioned in company histories. One thing to look out for is companies "founded" in the 1930s, which were often from buying out Jews who were fleeing the country. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we need to keep balanced, @Bermicourt: - I think my recent work at Werner Conze shows basically the sort of neutrality I'm aiming for (particularly for individuals who were important in West Germany after the war). We need to openly discuss Nazi involvement and any attending controversies without ignoring whatever else the biographical subject may have done after the war (or trying to paint post-war actions as bad if that's not the consensus of the sources). I've certainly encountered at least one source that seems more interested in discring Conze than in fairly appraising him as a historian, and that appeared to be the view of the Conze article before I started ing it. Simultaneously there are other scholars such as Hermann Aubin where nothing about his Nazi past is mentioned. This is obviously a larger, systemic problem on Wikipedia that needs addressing.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
By having a central place to alert people to possible issues, whether whitewashing or WP:UNDUE I am confident we will find consensus and overall improved articles. A Taskforce category talk could also allow us to keep track of such articles in the long term even if it’s undue to include something in the content space about membership in the NSDAP people etc ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering about how to handle taskforce Talk page templating and if that itself wouldn't be undue in some cases. Maybe that's jumping a bit ahead of things and I shouldn't worry. I'm just remembering everyone in Anglophone news going "omg! The new pope was in the Hitler Youth!!" like that meant anything at all. (Yes, of course he was. It was legally required.) Obviously that's a deliberately over-the-top example of context collapse, but if this hypothetical task force is going to be flagging articles for improvement, presumably some articles will stick around for a while with no reference to their subject's Nazi-associated history while they wait for someone to come by and fix them, and anything that makes that visible to someone who isn't familiar with the aims/context of this task force (a non-Wikipedian reader, an or who doesn't normally read history articles, etc) could have some unintended effects. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Asilvering agreed with the concern, which is why Article/mainspace categories would be inappropriate, whereas even now...anyone with a massive COI can slap a Wikiproject template/ask any questions. Of course they can be removed if excessively bad faith. But having a template slapped on the pope's talk page and making sure it's due weight, would be preferable to subtle insertions that go undetected for a long time. Any such tag should reflect that, e.g. 'Taskforce:Possible Nazi associations' may be more neutral than 'Taskforce:Nazi Associations' etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I created the task force Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation Task Force . We can worry about categorization later, but first let's see if there's interest from participants signing up and also examples of topics people would like to improve. I included mainly IBM/VW related ones and some known examples. I will alert the other WikiProjects and also see if we can get a mention in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding lead image on Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy[]

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in this article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from this project's members. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion. Thank you! —AFreshStart (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD[]

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Prehn. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

More generally, please watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany to hear about all AfDs in the scope of this project. —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)