This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
Bremen (state) → Free Hanseatic City of Bremen – Disambiguation with Bremen per WP:NATURAL: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Since the Free Hanseatic City is also a historic state, which existed long before the foundation of the Federal Republik of Germany, this name is well established. GirasoleDE (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this name works well for disambiguation. It is simply too counterintuitive to use a name containing the word "city" to indicate that we mean the state, not the city. This can only lead to confusion. I have seen this confusion at play with the articles Leeds and City of Leeds. Guess which one is about the city and which is about the bigger local government district! The readers have never really understood the distinction. Besides, even if this natural disambiguation were feasible, it would introduce unwelcome inconsistency among the articles on German states. Currently they are all named by their customary short names. Hans Adler 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The example Leeds shows that there are similar solutions in Wikipedia to the one that I proposed (another one is Lübeck and Free City of Lübeck) And why should there be any problem with an inconsistency, if this is not a problem in the German wikipedia, which also uses short names for the other federal states? --GirasoleDE (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why the German Wikipedia is inconsistent, if it is. I am not very motivated to find out. In general, though, the German Wikipedia has a higher tolerance for unpractical, rarely used official names. WP:COMMON exists there in much the same way, but is not as rigidly enforced as on the English Wikipedia. Here such a name is a big surprise.
For Leeds there is no better solution because Leeds, the city, no longer exists as a legal entity. It's ultimately a matter of POV whether the settlement is the city or whether the much larger legal entity with a lot of rural area, a 'mayor' and the word city in its official name (because it inherited the city rights from the settlement) is the city. That's why "Leeds (city)" would not disambiguate. And "Leeds (settlement)" would look ridiculous. Your Lübeck example is quite different because it's about a historical states. For historical states it's common to use official names even on the English Wikipedia, as generally the only way to distinguish them from their predecessors and successors. Hans Adler 15:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the website's title is "Land Bremen", which can be rendered as Bremen (state). (It also says "Pressedienst des Landes Bremen" and "Reportagen, Meldungen und Geschichten aus dem Bundesland Bremen") The "Freie Hansestadt Bremen" is historic and not identical. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Freie Hansestadt Bremen" is historic... No. It is the current and official name - see the constitution: Artikel 64: Der bremische Staat führt den Namen "Freie Hansestadt Bremen" und ist ein Glied der deutschen Republik und Europas. --GirasoleDE (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose because a) it is not the common name b) it's inconsistent with Wiki practice and c) it's confusing. Full, official titles can be included in the lede and infobox. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose almost noone refers to the state of Bremen as "Freie Hansestadt" in everyday speech, exceptions are very formal occasions, some official documents or in a historical context. WP:COMMONNAME applies, and adding "(state)" is a good solution to clarify the distinction with the city proper. GermanJoe (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.