Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß

Use of material translated from German/written by Germans[edit]

Hello, the idea behind this page is to collect material written by English language writers, to find out how the ß and umlauts are used in good, native English (of a kind Wikipedia should use). That's why, when I started this page months ago, I wrote that examples should be "by native speakers of English, from reliable, well-written sources such as printed newspapers or books".

If we include material written by German speakers or translated from German, then I'm worried that people will take no notice of the results, as they will be able to say that it is badly translated or written by someone who does not know how to write proper English. Obviously, in the case of material originally written by native English speakers, it is not as easy to make that accusation. Not impossible, of course, but less easy.

Today I removed two examples which did not fit in with the description at the top of the page, as they were written by Germans (and one, the Gazetteer, on a private webpage). This has been described as "arbitrary", which I disagree with for the reasons above.

I thought I'd discuss the topic here rather than addressing people individually, to see what others think. Saint|swithin

We need a wide sample from the literature. A lot of material on German topics in English is written by native German-speakers. That's fine and there's no reason to assume that they aren't done competently. One could as well object to sources that are not written by native German-speakers on grounds such as "oh, that author probably just didn't know how it's written" but I'm not going to do that. Haukur 11:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last point - there are many English writers who just don't know, and after all, the language is changing :-). That's why I referred to reliable, printed sources (i.e. not that private website I removed): even though I have seen all sorts of nonsense in print, too, perhaps the standard is still a little higher on average! Saint|swithin 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally many people are native speakers of both English and German and most books published in English on German subjects will involve native speakers of both languages at some stage in the editorial process.

More generally I just don't see any reason to throw away data which people have made some effort to get here. If a pattern emerges that material written by Germans treats these things differently than material not written by Germans then that's also an interesting conclusion. Haukur 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, as long as it is marked as being written by Germans I guess it can't do any harm. Still, as there is so much available written by English speakers, and we are interested in learning how the matter is dealt with by native English speakers, I can't really see what material written by Germans has to contribute. Saint|swithin 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should be remembered that a lot of Germany-related content on the English Wikipedia, particularly obscure or specialized content, is primarily read by Germans or people with at least some knowledge of the German language. Books published in English by Germans seem to me as relevant as any. I don't have any objections to you marking it specifically if you're sure that you have a publication which had no native speaker of English as an author. Haukur 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who added the books in question, may I may it clear that I was very impressed by the quality of the English, which was much better than the quality of English often produced by German speakers (ÖBB, are you reading this?). It had clearly been at least checked by a native English speaker, and the editors must have made a conscious decision to retain the ß spellings. It is by no means bad English. I must also reiterate Haukur's remarks above that the articles about German-language places and people will be largely written and read by people with some knowledge of German, if not native German speakers. The practice followed by competent translations is of prime interest here, and absolutely cannot be dismissed, since our articles on German-language topics are often translated from the German Wikipedia. --Stemonitis 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to add dates to the references. If hundreds of old sources avoid the ß but a majority of newer sources do use the ß, Wikipedia should use the ß. -- ３２４７ (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelin Guide[edit]

A separate issue: when, in the Michelin guide, is says "Meißen - see MEISSEN", is this merely a question of capital letters, there being of course no majuscule form of ß? (Is ß the only Wikipedia article at a title beginning with a lower case letter?) --Stemonitis 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I shall remove the example at once! Saint|swithin 09:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related poll[edit]

A suggested move and related debate about whether to name an article "Meissen" or "Meißen" is ongoing at Talk:Meissen. Interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again now; sigh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in related RfC 2013[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]