Talk:Hanover/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Additional information - Hanover

Concerning the correct spelling: "Hanover" vs. "Hannover"

"Hanover" is the correct English spelling according to: a dictionary (Cassells Wörterbuch, twelfth edition, 1976), the online dictionary LEO, http://babelfish.altavista.com and an Oxford dictionary.

Note though that Germans spell it "Hannover". Perhaps the following excerpt of a posting in the usenet (alt.california) sums it up:

"Similar issues arise with spelling. The German city Hanover has this spelling in English, and Germans who know English use it when writing English. It is important in English history, because it is where the present English royal family comes from. However, the German spelling is Hannover. Many Americans learn the word from German contacts and therefore use the German spelling. There is no unique correct answer."

mkrohn 17:21 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Well, what's the Wikipedia convention? If cities are generally given their English name (ie, Brussels v. Bruxelles, Dunkirk v. Dunquerque, The Hague as opposed to Den Haag) then I guess Hannover ought to be spelt Hanover. I still prefer the German spelling, though. Dandelions 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Put Germany towns map

14-Sep-2007: I haved inserted a quick map of Germany (extended from the CIA map), to show Hanover (as "Hannover") with other towns. Most maps out there are not readable in a wiki article, due to tiny lettering. An entire wiki map-subculture has grown around blank, jigsaw ink-blot maps showing an unlabeled region with a shaded jigsaw area. In fact, readable maps are so rare in WP, they almost seem magical: the trick is font-size, with 1-pixel thickness for EACH 250px of map width, when full-size. As a map is down-scaled, the lettering tends to blur; however, a 750px map can be scaled to 250px as readable, when lettering has 3-pixel thickness. Shaded lettering could also appear visible with a similar 2-pixel + gray-pixel shading. However, map labels of 1-pixel thickness are almost always unreadable when resized onto a WP article page. To improve map readability, label the towns with wider fonts, such as the 2-pixel thickness or more. -Wikid77 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable residents

I am proposing creating its own page as the list is getting too long for this article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling, grammar

This article still contains many small spelling/grammar mistakes and some incorrect translations from German to English. I fixed a few of them but it needs (IMHO) a lot more work. Hohenloh (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. While Hannover may become the most common name in English in the future, there is no consensus that it has clearly become so. Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hanover → Hannover — The spelling with double n has become more common in English:

Meriam Webster [1] lists "Hannover" as the main entry, with "Hanover" being a variant.
Encyclopædia Britannica also lists it as "Hannover". It says "English Hanover" but uses "Hannover" in the prose.
Microsoft Encarta gives the primary spelling as "Hannover", too.
A Google search for "Hannover Germany" lists more pages than a search for "Hanover Germany.

— 3247 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

- I think the google test depends where you search from. Are you testing from Germany? I am in the UK, and I get 2,910,000 hits for "hanover germany", but only 1,420,000 for "hannover germany". Sam⁵ (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The results also seem to depend on the time of day: At around 00:00 UTC, it was 2,400,000 to 1,400,000 (in favour of Hannover), at around 12:00, it was 800,000 to 1,400,000 IIRC, and now I've just got 4,100,000 to 800,000. Each time I used the above links. — 3247 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Strongly oppose If there were doubt, we should in any case incline to Anglicize for the benefit of other WPs. But disputed raw Google scores don't even amount to doubt. Use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Essentially it's easier to leave as is because there is a re-direct from Hannover and changing the pagename would likely necessitate lots of sp changes within the article itself (yes?). My preference in general would have been a policy of "native" names (eg. Munchen, Firenze, Warszawa) with re-directs from the English/common forms for all articles but ... --RCEberwein | Talk 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing links and texts is not a problem. — 3247 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Hanover has been the English name for a couple of hundred years, with Hanovarian is its adjective. Leave it as it is. Hohenloh⁺ 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose Britannica says that 'Hannover' is the German spelling while 'Hanover' is the English spelling (puzzlingly, it then uses Hannover in the text). To the extent that wikipedia prefers English spellings, we should stick with Hanover. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Some more observations:

Google seems to be very problematic. It list sites spelling the city Hannover when you search for Hanover and vice-versa. The number of results seems to differ from server to server (Google transparently forwards your query to different servers); I did not expect the numbers to differ by magnitudes, though.
A search for Hanover lists exactly four pages relating to the German city within the first 200 results (I have not looked at the others): this Wikipedia article, the article at Wikivoyages, Hannover Messe (it's spelt Hannover on the site) and an entry from Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 (which reflects historic usage). All other 196 results are related to organisations and towns in other countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia…)
Organisations based in Germany tend to use Hannover on the English versions of their websites. This includes the official website of the town. (However, most of these sites were probably written by people speaking English as a second language.)
Dictionaries, databases, and weather sites tend to use Hannover. (However, individual pages on these sites are usually not written by humans.)
OED 2nd ed. (1989) only has an entry for "Hanover". (However, this might be biased towards the historic usage.)
AHD 4th edition has Hanover as the main entry, with Hannover listed as a variant. (However, this might be biased towards the historic usage.)
Most things deriving their names from the modern city are more commonly spelt Hannover, eg Hannover Airport vs. Hanover Airport or Hannover Fair vs. Hanover Fair. If the city remains at Hanover, the names of the articles would be inconsistent.

The case of Hannover vs. Hanover seems to be less clear than I originally thought (and I did not expect it to be crystal clear in the first place). The references show that English usage is divided. It does not seem to be a case of WP:ENGVAR, though (unless “German English” is considered a national variant). — 3247 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be, however, that the recent use of Hannover is British, since they are the most likely to go there and see the German name. It is also possible that it is usage by germanophones, who do not know - or as with one anon edit here, do not care - about English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a pondial difference. It's more likely an instance of the recent trend to favour endonyms over exonyms. The official sites were probably written by germanophones, that's right. However, they certainly do know the traditional English spelling but decided against it (for whatever reason)

Well, to sum up the reasons I still favour Hannover:

The Google results for Hanover are odd. With other exonyms such as Munich, Cologne or Vienna, there are much more relevant results and the official site tends to be on the first page.
The city's official site says Hannover. While official sites should be taken with a grain of salt (they often push an official name), virtually all official sites of organisations based in Hannover also use the double-n spelling (in the English version, that is). That's also different with the official sites of Munich, Cologne or Vienna, which use the English exonym.
Article names for organisations based in Hannover are currently inconsistent. For some of them, WP:COMMONNAME clearly mandates the use of Hannover.

— 3247 (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2.0

Per above. Needs more discussion. Here from Princeton: [2] Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Usage in historical contexts

What is the basis for the claim in the footnote about names that "Hannover" should never be used in a historical context. That seems blatantly absurd to me, as you will, I suspect, find an increasing number of historical works that use the German name for the place. "House of Hannover" remains uncommon, but if that is unacceptable, we should find a source which says so. The whole sentence seems to me to be OR, and, more than that, it is an actual prescription for usage that is not sourced at all. I'm not sure we should be prescribing usage at all, much less without a source. john k (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

I think that the modern German city, and topics associated with it, should be referred to "Hannover"; while the former independent or semi-independent state, and topics associated with it and its dynasty, should be listed under "Hanover". I think that would more-or-less mirror actual usage. RandomCritic (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cycling as a mode of Transport

... or bicycle traffic is not at all mentioned. Only a cycle race event. I expect this is valid for many other articles about cities, too. --Helium4 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please?

I'm currently researching Hannover and I found that the information under "Nazi Germany" includes no sources. I tried finding the sources that I needed by checking out the other articles in that section, but their sources don't corroborate what this article states. This entire section is currently without citation and doesn't cover much information about that very critical time of German history.

217.227.23.72 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hanover --> Hannover

on the talk page dgg suggests to add the move request here. two years later than the above request. google.com returns 21 mio pages for "hanover germany", and 81 mio pages for "hannover germany". additionally, it would facilitate renamings on the german wikipedia, where hanover is often cited as example (something like en:wp uses an english name for hanover, so de:wp use a german name for kolkata). --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Section "People and residents of Hanover"

Said section made me - being born in Hannover - smile! I know Per Mertesacker and Lena Meyer-Landrut, but I had never heard of that biochemist and that drummer - let alone that casting show participant... Well, I guess that's my fault, but shouldn't some of the more famous "people and residents of Hanover" appear on such a list? Like for example: the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the political theorist Hannah Arendt, the politician (and former Chancellor of Germany) Gerhard Schröder, the artist Kurt Schwitters, the architect Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves, the caricaturist, painter, and poet Wilhelm Busch, the astronomer William Herschel, and the Scorpions (band) - to name but a few who are all way more famous/important than said biochemist, drummer, and casting show participant ... Cheers -- 194.95.117.68 (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

district=Kreis=Region, region=Bezirk? Strange translation!

The district's name is "Hannover Region" in German and "Hanover (district)" in English. But, is a German Bezirk really called "region" in English, since Region is the name of the merged two Kreises ... 82.82.126.247 18:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What would you translate Bezirk as? Books on the former GDR translate it as region. Secretlondon 18:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

You cannot compare GDR-Bezirk and German ones. 82.82.126.247 18:41, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So how would you translate Bezirk? Secretlondon 18:42, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

what about area? 82.82.126.247 18:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is a little bit difficult. Normally Kreis is translated to "district"; a Kreis is subordinate to a Regierungsbezirk, which we do translate to "administrative region" on Wikipedia. Now it is somewhat unfortunate, that the district of Hanover decided in 2001 to call itself "Region Hannover", thus resulting in the admittedly confusing situation, that the Region Hanover is a district being a part of the region of Hanover. But be careful before changing the translation of Regierungsbezirk here, because then you should do it in several hundred articles here in Wikipedia. My proposal: leave it as it is now, and let the text clear up possible misunderstandings. -- Baldhur 21:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is a name, the name of the town Hannover, not some place called Hanover or Hangover. I know, US-American shpelin is difrent. [3] [4]

I really got a kick out of US TV shows like the "History Channel" and "Discovery". Needless to say that I no longer pay for this BS. They routinely screw up everything. "Hanover" is just one example. Oh yeah, they show it over and over again. In one show the "History Channel" present an "expert" who talks about the terrible German Autobahn. The guy was sitting infront of an imitation of an Autobahn sign that read "Dusseldorf". The correct spelling would be Düsseldorf or Duesseldorf, but by no means "Dussel"-dorf. [5] What kind of "expert" would want to talk infront of that? Then there is the Neander"th"al. On those shows they make sure the "th" is pronounced as English "th". Besides that the "th" was changed into a simple "t" more than a century ago, it was never pronounced Neander"th"al. The German language has no English "th". Another show, another joke. This time it is all about WWII and the German Volksjäger (or Volksjaeger if you will). The Volksjäger was spelled "Volksjager". US-American shpelin, eh? No, it gets better. The "V" was pronounced as "W", as if it were an English word, and then the false "a" was actually pronounced as German "a". Too funny. I could go on forever with these example. Hey, you gotta see the maps made by CNN. [6] [7] I call that an attribute to a reliable source.

What is wrong with "Hanover"? Nothing, I love it! Look at all those pseudo-journos who sell every year copies of press releases as news from the Cebit in "Hanover". It is such a wonderful tag!

I have no idea how old this ridiculous post is, but let me just give you a few words (or rather names) that should make you think about what you wrote: Brüssel; Kalifornien; Mailand; Prag; und so weiter, und so fort. 217.93.184.185 (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, if anything, it's British "shpelin", not US-American. If you're trying to be funny, do your research. And to everyone, I realize, this is a really old comment, it just really annoyed me! 217.93.184.185 (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The shows you are talking about are for English audiences. English does not have ü, ä or ë in its alphabet, so English speakers who do not know German will have no idea how to pronounce them. The two letter alternatives wouldn't work either. Ae would probably be close enough, but "oe" probably be just be pronounced ironically similar the unadorned German "o" (as in "foe", "Roeder", etc), and when faced with "ue" they would probably make a noise like they had just discovered a toenail in their soup. US residents have no more civic duty to learn accurate German pronunciation than Germans have to learn accurate Korean pronunciation, and UK residents have no more civic duty to to learn accurate German pronunciation than Germans have to learn accurate Russian pronunciation. In your ziel to condemn linguistic arrogance you've better exemplified it than a thousand lazily researched documentaries ever could. "Every year" would go at the end of that CeBIT sentence, by the way. Get your time-manner-place out my goddamn face. --Jemimallah (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Hanover

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Who removed the demographic section?

That needs to be put back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.53.90 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hanover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hanover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Those supporting have not been able to provide compelling evidence that the spelling "Hannover" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources, as noted by opposers. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hanover → Hannover – Seems to be by far the more common name now, Hannover with the double n has more than 50 million more hits on Google than Hanover. Kiev was moved to Kyiv despite still having less hits on Google AND on Ngram so what good reason is there to not move Hanover to Hannover? PaleoMatt (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose – Please make sure you limit your Google hits to English results. At the very least, Google Ngram viewer suggests that Hanover remains the the dominant spelling. To clarify, I inputted 'city of Hanover/Hannover' rather than just 'Hanover/Hannover' to filter out stuff about the kingdom, &c. I also oppose the move per WP:TITLECHANGES, as I don't see any benefit whatsoever to moving between two very similar spellings, especially from a long-established English spelling to a German one that is relatively rarely used in English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That Ngram of Gbooks ends in 2014 and will include history books. BBC News current practice about the modern city is a far more reliable source than that old Gbooks Ngram. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Support BBC now use the German spelling for the modern city rather the old English spelling. Difficult to sift out other English Hanovers from results, but BBC stylebook has clearly shifted to Hannover. Evening Standard, LBC, Guardian, Telegraph seem to have made the same shift. As far as I can see BBC appears to have made the change sometime between 2010 and 2014. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Support. I always clash in articles such as Staatsoper Hannover, Hannover Airport, and many more that would look more consistent without the difference by one letter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Support. It makes sense to use the modern spelling for the modern city, just like many news agencies (the BBC has been mentioned) and encyclopaedias (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica) do. --Fippe (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I will have to say the following: 'Hannover' is not the modern spelling, but the German spelling. You should be aware of this, since you are a native German speaker. There is nothing 'non-modern' about the spelling 'Hanover'. As I have presented above and below, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of English sources, whether books or news sources, seem to refer to 'Hanover'. Even if this is disproved by some data that has yet to be presented, we can say with certainty that the spelling used by CNN, by The New York Times, by Reuters, is indeed perfectly 'modern'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Support with that strange Kiev move in mind I see no reason to not move Hanover. --Denniss (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment – No one seems to be putting actual data on the table in this discussion. It'd be nice if we had such data, rather than mere claims. I have found that Reuters uses 'Hanover'. So too do The Daily Mail, The New York Times,Deutsche Welle, Bloomberg, Voice of America, Slate, and CNN. This was a cursory search, and not conclusive. When I have time, I will consider looking for more. At the moment, though, I basically see a bunch of supports with nothing backing them up, other than mere emotion. I won't be surprised if the opinion of the supporters is passed merely on this basis, but this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. There is, at present, no evidence of a broad and universal shift to 'Hannover' in RS, as there was in the case of Kyiv. RGloucester — ☎ 00:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That Reuters article is from January, this Reuters article is from March and uses Hannover. That Daily Mail article is from last year, this Daily Mail article is from today and uses Hannover. That Deutsche Welle article is from 2017, this Deutsche Welle article is from 2020 and uses Hannover. That Voice of America article is from 2019, this Voice of America article is from 2020 and uses Hannover. That Bloomberg article is from 2020, this Bloomberg article is from 2021 and uses Hannover.

Your comment diagnosing everyone who doesn't agree with you as emotional is weird. I don't know if you did not read the discussion or if you are attempting WP:GASLIGHTING, but hard sources have been cited before you made that comment. In case you require links: Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Encyclopaedia Britannica --Fippe (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude. No hard evidence was provided, at least none that was verifiable. Mere claims without links to back them up are not sufficient grounds to move an article, or do Wikipedia articles that lack citations get treated as acceptable?. In any case, I can easily challenge you with additional, more recent sources. Daily Mail 27 April 2021, The Guardian 26 April 2021 (newer than your Guardian link), Reuters 26 March 2021 (newer than your Reuters link), 29 April 2021 Los Angeles Times, Deutsches Welle 1 May 2021 (newer than your DW link), Financial Times 31 March 2021, The Daily Telegraph 30 April 2021, 3 February 2021 Sky News, 20 April 2021 BBC, The New York Times 19 April 2021.

I hope these are 'recent' enough for you, and as you might notice, the same sources are often inconsistent in their usage. If sources are split, then there certainly are no grounds for a move per WP:TITLECHANGES, as there is no benefit to moving between two potentially acceptable titles. Not to mention, I'd argue that if we consider academic sources, as seen in the Ngram, Hanover retains are healthy lead, as it has a historical advantage that 'Hannover' cannot easily overcome. There has been, as we see here, no immediate mass shift to 'Hannover' as there was to 'Kyiv'. Hanover was used in throughout the past couple of weeks and days, in a wide variety of the most reputable news sources on the planet. Furthermore, 'Hanover' remains more recognisable and natural than 'Hannover' simply because of its historical advantage, and again, in a situation where news usage is all over the place, there is simply no benefit to a page move at this time. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: After i see all arguments about whether the city should be spelt as Hanover or Hannover, the usage in English-speaking publications are more divided because there is no official authority of correct spelling of place in English. If you see Nippon/Deutschland/Zhongguo, etc. English speakers are very easy to identify their name in English as "Japan", "Germany", "Greece", but the German city is a special case. English-speakers have a different directions about how to pronounce or spelt the correct name in Hanover/Hannover because there are influx of German words or German diaspora. One source like Reuters, CNN, Daily Mail, i believe use the original "Hanover" spelling but BBC, 9 News, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and German official websites in English like Hanover official website use more "modern" Hannover.180.244.190.119 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You make me smile because the German official site in English is - of course - https://www.hannover.de/en - of Hannover, not Hanover. - In case of doubt of how to call something, be it a person, a city, a composition: why not call it the way the thing is identified originally? We had A Boy was Born, and I learned that Wikipedia formatting has to be respected more than how the composer called his creation. I think something basic is wrong in that argument, and if I had more time, would perhaps challenge Commonname, as leading to strange results. Per Commonname, we moved a composer, just because someone usurped his name and got also famous under the "stolen" name taken from the other who was the primary topic until the move. End of listing disappointments. I studied in Hannover, not in Hanover, so am biased, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, I actually agree with you in that I do not like COMMONNAME as a policy, and think it gives us many bad article titles. However, in as much as it is a longstanding policy, which consensus has not yet modified or overturned, we need to follow it in line with the usual Wikipedia way of business. We don't use official names, unlike for instance, the Japanese Wikipedia, which always prefers official names. We use common names...you know this! And in this case, if we follow Wikipedia policies, there is literally no way anyone can come to the conclusion that 'Hannover' is the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 12:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Project Opera follows The Grove, more or less. I like to see Hannover in the Encyclopedia Britannica. What's common and less common is subject to fashion, but some encyclopedias (should) have a bit more weight than other sources, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica is at present no different from Wikipedia, in that users can basically edit it in Wiki form. It has long ceased to have the sort of gold standard reliability that it was once known for, unfortunately. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per RGloucester. The balance of the concrete evidence tips towards "Hanover" being the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Rublov (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per RGloucester and Rublov. I believe the issue is more like debate about "Ganges" vs "Ganga" debate (see the talk page), when English-speakers differ each other about the naming convention. The difference is no preferrable English spelling on Hanover vs Hannover issue. 182.1.22.204 (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the usage in reliable sources demonstrated by RGloucester. I don't find the Kyiv/Kiev comparison particularly compelling, because that involved substituting one transliteration for another. -- Calidum 15:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Support per In ictu oculi with regards to usage by sources. feminist (+) 17:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Support per consistency with yogurt - that is, once the page is moved, there will be no reason to move it back here Red Slash 21:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of blog as source

Seeking to verify that the Old Town Flea Market (Altstadt Flohmarkt am hohen Ufer) is really the oldest in Germany, I picked two citations. The second is a blog (here), but as it is supplemental, and the blogger credibly professes to be familiar with the city since childhood, I kept it. The primary cite is a news photo of what purports to be the market's 50th anniversary. (We're not dealing with ancient history here.) A more substantial source would be welcome. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)