Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
ProjectDiscussionOpen tasksAssessmentFeatured ContentMembersPortal

Proposed deletion of Annett Renneberg[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Annett Renneberg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

Unreferenced article about German actress

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.

CFD notice[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_29#Years_in_the_Holy_Roman_Empire which may of interest to this project. Tim! (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Knollenberg[edit]

Hi, what does this surname mean in German? I'd like to add the meaning to the Knollenberg article, but I can't find it anywhere. Also IPA pronunciation would be nice. Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Might I recommend using a Dictionary? Break up the words when you look them up. I can tell you right off the bat that "berg" is "mountain," and I think "Knollen" is plural so I would try just "Knoll." Whatever it means, I'd hedge my bet on the surname originating from somewhere hilly. –Vami_IV✠ 05:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You need to be careful. The present spelling of a surname may be quite different from its original spelling or the words it came from. I'd check it in reliable sources first. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bermicourt, yes, exactly, can't be naive about it. I left my message here after searching for sources unsuccessfully :( DrVogel (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The singular is Knolle, which describes a tuber, especially a potato or a (manganese) nodule ("Manganknolle"). The spelling stays the same when you connect both words. Both words are very common and so is the combination of the two words. There are several hills and streets with the name in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. The surname is not very common in Germany. Most (5 out of 26) of the telephone book entries are located in Vechta (district). The politician Friedrich Knollenberg (de) (1878–1950) was born there. -- Reise Reise (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Reise Reise, that's very helpful, I've been able to make a number of improvements thanks to your suggestions. Are you a native German and are you familiar with IPA-de ? Would be nice to have the IPA DrVogel (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm from Germany. I'm not very familar with IPA, but looking at de.wiktionary entries "Knolle", "Berg", "Kapellenberg" and "Galgenberg" the IPA [ˈknɔlənˌbɛʁk] should be correct. -- Reise Reise (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, cool. That would have been my guess, but I wasn't sure if any of the sounds change when you join up the 2 words. That happens in many languages and I don't know about German. I've added the IPA now! DrVogel (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't read IPA, but I think the stress should be on the first syllable. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The version given by Reise Reise has primary stress (the one on the first syllable) and then secondary stress at the start of the second component. To my untrained eyes, that looks more or less correct. DrVogel (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Kühl. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Project Coordination[edit]

For a while now, I've had the idea of really organizing the WikiProject in the image of WikiProject Military History via a Coordinator or team thereof. I thought about theming it after German politics (IE the head coordinator is the Chancellor), but decided against. Now I wonder if having a coordinator for every State is workable, but probably not. In any case, I would advise for a Coordinator staff myself, Gerda Arendt, GermanJoe, and Bermicourt, with honorable mention to Auntieruth.

Coordinators would be responsible for the management and policy making of WikiProject Germany and would be elected yearly by voting within the WikiProject. They would throw their hat into the ring by making a section on an Election page with why they think they're qualified and there answer questions posed to them by other editors, and could withdraw themselves from the running by removing their section from the page. Very briefly, Coordinators would be the nucleus of the WikiProject.

Also to be considered is a Librarian or Librarian in Residence role for the WikiProject (inspired by Susan Barnum aka megalibrarygirl so that the Library page on our WikiProject is maintained and so editors without their own library could receive the guidance of the Librarian.

Vami_IV✠ 08:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for naming me, but have no extra time for coordinating functions. I do the project's DYK, voluntarily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In my view, the Coordinator(s) are just the people who show up and do the project's maintenance work. I don't know how we can "elect" somebody to volunteer to do work for the WikiProject. As this is a wiki, there is no need to be "elected" to do policy making -- if a policy needs making, we can just come up with one. We could ask people to state what work they regularly do for the project. (These days, I only regularly check the article alerts and this project talk page, but I used to maintain the portal and the project template and can still be called on for any project-related admin task). Then we could find out which tasks are most understaffed, but then we still need volunteers for those tasks. If anyone wants to do some tasks, they should just boldly start doing them -- being "elected" will give them no special privileges or powers anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I do appreciate the thought and would be glad to help out where I can - although I have spent most of my Wikipedia time in other areas lately. But similarly to Kusma I believe it might be better to collect some more ideas on possible project-level activities instead of holding formal elections. It would also be useful to get a simple headcount of how many regular and semi-regular editors would be interested in more project-based activities. I am estimating that we have about 1 or maybe 2 dozen regular editors here (+ an unknown number of occasional contributors), but I could be totally wrong about this guess. Anyway, I do think it's a good idea to talk about the current status and discuss possible improvements in specific areas. Thank you for bringing this topic up. GermanJoe (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma and GermanJoe that elections and the position of "coordinator" is unneeded. The project is large enough that many active members do not even know each other. There is plenty of bot-generated output releated to the project to keep all of us busy for a very long time, so even more editors active in the field never even look to this page. Many years ago we had the idea of a newsletter. That died as there was not enough input. Agathoclea (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I will take onto myself the role of Coordinator, then. I am already behind the scenes fighting our assessment backlog and editor cooperation could eliminate the other assessment backlog. –Vami_IV✠ 08:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Be careful with sports seasons though, they might contain a list of teams or games but are not a "list" in themselves. Agathoclea (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Noted. I will take note for future reference. Pinging Jhall1 to notify him, too. –Vami_IV✠ 10:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, as you are looking for work :-) a few watchlist suggestions:

strictly voluntary. Agathoclea (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added these to my watchlist and created a special bookmarks folder for them. –Vami_IV✠ 13:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic[edit]

I've just posted this comment on the talk page of this article:

I've made two substantial changes to this article. The first is that I've removed as much of the contributions of the editor HenryGarden1000 as I could, since their edits are suspect - one particular one I removed the source did not support the claim made. Secondly, I've removed the material based on the writing of a single historian, Thomas Weber, which appears to me to be promoting WP:FRINGE theories which are not accepted by the community of historians.

I suggest that those who have a good amount of knowledge about this subject matter take a very close look at the article and continue to chip away at material which is not well-sourced, is fringy, or outright incorrect.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Importance Ratings[edit]

Not a terrible important matter, but as there is some activity here at the moment: As the article base is growing the increase in percentage terms of "Low-importance" articles is rising disproportionally. Should we address this by tweaking the assessment rules or is everyone ok with that? E.g. so far we rate municipalities as "Low" and towns as "Mid". Agathoclea (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been seeing this as well. As Coordinator, I would like to propose a change to Importance assessment: Where the Germans live shall be marked Mid-importance. –Vami_IV✠ 10:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that is, that most municipalities are not even known within Germany and do as such not contribute to an understanding of the general subject Germany. I am more looking for a marker that would would help us to identify those municipalities that stand our from the rest and while not being towns are on an equal perception. This goes equally for other fields - what could be seen as being known within Germany. Agathoclea (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Traditionally, the Importance rating was assigned to how well something was known outside of Germany, for example my currently only Good Article, Lichtenstein Castle (Württemberg), is marked Mid-Importance because of its imitator castles. –Vami_IV✠ 22:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
That one is borderlining to a 'High' importance I would say. Agathoclea (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Agathoclea What do you propose for the exception(s) you mentioned? It isn't clear to me what you meant when you mentioned it on my talk page. –Vami_IV✠ 07:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Changes[edit]

Project changes[edit]

I got back to filling in the WikiProject sidebar and so building the WikiProject last night. I remodeled the Members page and added our Coordinator section to there, and built a few bells and whistles to go along using WikiProject Military history's example. On the Users page, I again used WPMILHIST to build the Userboxes section with all the userboxes associated with the Wikiproject that I could find. As I write this, I consider adding language userboxes given the nature of our WikiProject. –Vami_IV✠ 02:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(Personal) Goals[edit]

Since there's a bit of activity about the WikiProject, I have a goal in mind that I want some help in accomplishing: I want to eliminate our Quality and Importance backlogs and keep them empty or below 100 articles so that further goals can be set and taskforces or special projects devised.

Here's the links to both:

  1. Category:Unassessed Germany articles
  2. Category:Unknown-importance Germany articles

If enough interest manifests, I think we can, in an organized manner, knock out these backlogs rapidly and hopefully keep them six feet under. –Vami_IV✠ 02:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Confusion between Germany and the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

I've just been looking at the categories covering the history of Germany and those covering the history of the Holy Roman Empire and there appears to be a degree of duplication and also confusion about which to use when.

For example, we have:

...however, Category:Military history of the Holy Roman Empire is a sub-category of Category:Military history of Germany, the latter otherwise generally confining itself to the period from the First World War onwards.

This results in inconsistency, e.g. the Battle of Andernach is in Category:10th century in Germany, Category:10th century in East Francia and Category:Battles involving the Holy Roman Empire, but not in Category:10th century in the Holy Roman Empire.

German Wikipedia largely avoids this duplication. For example, we have Kategorie:Deutsche Geschichte (10. Jahrhundert) (Category:German history (10th century)), which is subordinated to both Kategorie:Deutsche Geschichte (Heilige Römisches Reich) (Category:German history (Holy Roman Empire)) and Kategorie:Deutsche Geschichte nach Jahrhundert (Category:German history by century).

We could do something very similar; the main difficulty being to find a category titles that aren't too unwieldy. "Category:German history (Holy Roman Empire)" seems to combine the two quite neatly. Below that we could have "Category:10th-century German history" etc. Any thoughts? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I support this idea. Wikipedia Categories are knotted mass of wires on a titanic scale. Then comes the problem with renaming and/or deleting and creating new categories and tagging hundreds of articles hundreds of times. Back to topic, I like your idea but simplified to just "10th century German history" with subcats as necessary. –Vami_IV✠ 04:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
We need to be prepared to convince the history project and category buffs that using "10th-century German history" makes more sense than "10th century in Germany" because we're really talking about the history of the German peoples during the period of the HRE and not about the history of Germany, which did not exist as a country and does not cover the geographical spread of the Germans in the period in question. So although you and I can see this makes sense, we may face opposition from those who don't understand the background. Bermicourt (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
What a hill to die on. I'm ready when you are. –Vami_IV✠ 01:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe ask the colleagues at WP:POLAND. They should face a similar problem. Agathoclea (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That is a very good idea, actually. –Vami_IV✠ 14:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Modelling on Poland[edit]

Alirghty, I posted an invite on WP:Poland's talk page. While we wait for a response, I decided it would be good to look at Category:History of Poland and compare it to Category:History of Germany, and I noticed that is a bit more extensive than our own. For starters, it is generally larger than our own - it has a filled out History by Region section, for example. It even has a Treasure section. –Vami_IV✠ 14:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that a Templar cross I see?(also insert hamburg joke here) ⌤TheMitochondriaBoi⌤(Wanna talk?)(My stats) 21:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Jimbo vult –Vami_IV✠ 22:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
One of the issues we need to be aware of is that the geographical boundaries "Poland" vary hugely over time. Large swathes of what is now Poland used to be Germany and, before that, various states (e.g. Brandenburg, Lusatia) of the Holy Roman Empire. Equally a large chunk of what was Poland went to the Soviet Union and is now, I believe, White Russian or Ukrainian. My sense is that there may need to be greater clarity about the history of e.g. a place in present-day Poland that once belonged elsewhere. The simple solution would seem to be to include all the relevant historical categories. For example, Wrocław (Breslau for much of its history it seems), was historically in Bohemia, Poland, Silesia, Hungary, the HRE, Prussia, the German Empire and Germany. It would seem to make sense for it to be in the history categories of all those states, but currently it's only in Category:History of Silesia, and thus the Category:History of the Holy Roman Empire, and Category:History of Poland. No mention of its time as part of Bohemia, Prussia or Germany... But that is easy to resolve. I think the confusion over Germany/HRE above is more tricky. Bermicourt (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation Request[edit]

Would anyone have an interest in translating the featured article Elcor, Minnesota for the German Wikipedia? Since many of the immigrants who settled here were from Germany, I think having the article translated in this language is important, especially for any relatives of former residents who may be looking for information about the town. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I would personally recommend posting a request to the German-speaking Wikipedians' board. –Vami_IV✠ 03:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I've begun a Peer review of my article, Ludwigsburg Palace, here. I would appreciate some commentary and/or suggestions. –Vami_IV✠ 03:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Databases with scholarly articles?[edit]

Are there any German websites that collect freely available scholarly articles like Persee in French? I can read some German and would like to access German scholarship on Buddhist Studies.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure, but maybe some of the links or information at de:Wikipedia:Recherche can be helpful to find German-language information. Most of the links are not topic-specific though and would require more in-depth research. Hopefully others have better ideas. GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Joe! Appreciated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I am also interested in finding more German-language databases. Here's Zeno.org. –Vami_IV✠ 04:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice, Vami_IV!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals[edit]

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging German speakers and readers[edit]

We have a need on the ANI board for German readers specifically, since an issue with the German magazine "Spex" has come up, and since neither side can read German, neither side can properly evaluate whether or not it can be used as a reference for certain musical generes. You participation is greatly appreciated! ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 14:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Wikirictor: and @Gerda Arendt: for their fluency in German. Godspeed. –Vami_IV✠ 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for L 20e α-class battleship needs attention[edit]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for L 20e a-class battleship; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)