Talk:Lauffen am Neckar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I would be happy to collaborate in the editing and proof-reading of this page.Mikeo1938 08:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC) It's a splendid article about a small place. Mikeo1938 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) The editing process is on-going but the results thus far should not be considered as the final draft. There will need to be a final edit and, in due course, further translation from the article in de/Wiki. Mikeo1938 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Prompted by a visit to Lauffen this afternoon, I've translated some more from the German entry. This duplicates in part what is already present in the English version, but any deletions can wait till all is done.Mikeo1938 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My revision / retranslation of the entry is now almost complete. Does anyone know how to remove the banner about "copy editing required"?Mikeo1938 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that I've done the easy part - checking and translating into my own language. The hard slog had been done earlier by those who translated from German into English. I'll be moving to Lauffen soon, and am looking forward to seeing all the places "on the ground". Mikeo1938 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Thank you Boson for reading the entry and for your comments, which I'll be addressing once I've got in touch with those who wrote the German. When I'm in Lauffen at the end of the month, I'll get some standard reference books. I've followed the link to the Heraldry page and asked for assistance. Is it the case that a special format is required to describe the arms? Mikeo1938 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Wikipedia requirements are regarding descriptions of coats of arms. Although I have dabbled in Heraldry, I am not an expert A quick look at the Manual of Style didn't yield anything, so I took the easy way out and marked it for expert attention. I do know that, for English coats of arms (not specifically in Wikipedia), the emblazonment usually uses a special language influenced by Norman French. For instance the "tincture" (colour has a special meaning in heraldry) that is depicted as white actually represents the metal silver, which is called "Argent" in heraldry. So if the German uses "silver" (rather than white) the English should probably say "Argent". If it is a plain (non-heraldic) language description, the German would probably use "weiß" rather than "Silber. Other conventions are the use of the words "azure" for blue, "gules" for red, "courant" for running etc. When objects ("charges"?) are shown in their "natural" colours (like the envelope?) this is, I believe, described as "proper". Though it is, I believe, frowned on in heraldic circles, for a translation it might be appropriate to make a reference to the (presumed) "pun", which an English reader might not be aware of: a running messenger, or "Läufer" (runner) is used to represent "Lauffen" ("laufen" = to run".). The borderline between translation and original research is sometimes not very clear. --Boson 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
A fine example of a blazon for a complicated coat of arms can be found here. --Rosenzweig 20:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen below, we have had some expert help and the section about the CoA has been changed.Mikeo1938 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blazon of the CoA[edit]

Here's my attempt, it will probably need some polishing though:

Argent a messanger in vestments Vert and shoes Gules, holding in his dexter hand a letter of the field sealed of the second and in his sinister hand a spear of the same tipped Azure.Kpalion(talk) 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much for the prompt reply. I'll put it into the entry now; if someone comes forward with polishing at a later date that can be added. I must say that the language of heraldry is new to me and has opened my eyes to a whole new subject. Renewed thanks and best wishes.Mikeo1938 10:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Forgot to ask: what is meant by "sealed of the second" and "a spear of the same tipped"?Mikeo1938 10:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In English heraldry, it's better not to repeat the names of tinctures (colors) once they were mentioned, so instead you use terms like "of the field", "of the first", etc. In this case, Argent (white) is the color of the field, so "a letter of the field" means "a letter Argent". Gules (red) is the second tincture of a charge (an object) mentioned in the blazon, so "sealed of the second" means "sealed with a seal Gules". "A spear of the same" means "a spear of the last previously mentioned tincture ", i.e. Gules. And "tipped Azure" means (or I hope it does) "with a tip Azure". There might be a better word to substitute for "tip" though. BTW, if a the coat of arms depicts an object which alludes to the name of the armiger (in this case the town), it may be described as canting arms. — Kpalion(talk) 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my second attempt:

Argent a messanger vested Vert in shoes Gules, holding in his dexter hand an envelope of the field sealed of the third and in his sinister hand a spear of the same headed Azure.Kpalion(talk) 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, Gules is actualy the third, not the second tincture (the tincutre of the field is counted as the first). I also changed "tipped" to "headed", and "in vestments" to "vested". I'll go ahead and update the blazon in the article. — Kpalion(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is all VG indeed. Thank you for your help. I'm really psd that the entry now appears with the appropriate terminology. Mikeo1938 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about the colour of the envelope. Since it on the field, can it really be "of the field?; In the depiction, it seems to be silver-grey (and has a border?). Possibly this is "proper" rather than a normal heraldic tincture. The German does say "silbern", which would presumably be Argent, but wouldn't that be against the rules of tincture? Not that it is really for us to do the German heralds' job, but the English does seem to highlight a violation of the normal rules! --Boson 22:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The blazon seems to violate the rule of tincture, but it's not our job to correct it. — Kpalion(talk) 09:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) VMT again for your continued interest. Mikeo1938 09:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments all noted. I hope that my posting on the Heraldry site will continue to bring forward those with expert knowledge. Renewed thanks to Kpalion and Boson.Mikeo1938 05:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Boson for checking in again. I note that you have removed the template about references. I now have reference material and will continue to add footnotes. However, it will be a while before I finish. Mikeo1938 11:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision[edit]

I'm now comparing my edit of the original translation with the current text in the German article and making changes accordingly. Mikeo1938 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rated this article be, although there are some minor issues:

  • not all refs are in the {{citation}} style.
  • the intro is far too short.
  • A complete list, together with links, is published on the town's official website at [10]

this is IMHO not good.
  • a gallery should not be used, there is commons.

Nevertheless, this is an very good article and on its way to a GA. Sebastian scha. (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lauffen - assessment[edit]

Thank you for assessing the article about Lauffen; it was a nice surprise to see the "B" when I logged on this morning.
  • I will lengthen the introduction, as you suggest.
  • With regard to the list of clubs and societies, do you mean that it would be better to give some examples? It would not be possible to include them all, I think.
  • How about the 'Gallery'? What is your suggestion in this respect?

Thank you again.Mikeo1938 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

- Give some short examples, and use the link [10] as your ref.
- I don't like <galleries>, as I don't like embeded lists in articles most of the time. I would have deleted this gallery and used the pictures in the article where appreciated. And the rest img? Goodbye ;-)
As I said, good work at all. Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving the article name[edit]

LauffenLauffen (Neckar) or Lauffen am Neckar

Hello!

I appeal to move the article to "Lauffen (Neckar)", or at least "Lauffen am Neckar", because it's the German official name. "Lauffen" can stay as a redirect. --80.129.103.115 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I would suggest that we call it "Lauffen am Neckar" ... just like the German name. If other people agree (or have no objection), perhaps you can arrange the redirect from "Lauffen". Mikeo1938 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there would be opposed opinions. --80.129.122.4 (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment As there is a redirect from 'Lauffen am Neckar', please fill in a move proposal. The redirect need to be deleted to move this article. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made a minor change to the introduction of the article. However, I must confess to being a little nervous of initiating this move ... the page about moving articles carries dire warnings. I really don't want to make a dog's breakfast of things! If you are sure about what needs to be done, pse go ahead. Mikeo1938 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
@Sebastian scha.: Now there's a notice in move proposal. What's the further procedure? I guess that we already made a consens?! Sorry, but I'm not really familiar with the English Wikipedia. ;o) --Dionysos1988 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No, now you've notified WP in general, you wait about five days to see what everybody else thinks; then an admin will close. (As it happens, an admin may not have been necessary, since the redirect Lauffen am Neckar has not been edited; but now you've asked, it would be polite to wait.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If we need to move, it is almost certain that Lauffen am Neckar is the most familiar disambiguation; but do we need to? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Our question, always, is "What do English-speakers call the place?" Thus, for example, we use Munich, not Muenchen or München. If the common name is ambiguous, we should disambiguate by the most common and intelligible means in English; but do we need to? We don't have an article on any other Lauffen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I take your point about Munich. It's true that people in Lauffen usually call it just that. But the official name is indeed Lauffen am Neckar: both forms appear on the town's website. A new re-direct can point from 'Lauffen' to 'Lauffen am Neckar'. There is another place in en.Wiki called Lauffen, Germany [1]. In similar vein, there's a place in France called Six-Fours-les-Plages, but everyone calls it 'Six-Fours'. However, the full name is given in both en.Wiki and fr.Wiki. Also, most people talk about 'Bexhill', but the official name is Bexhill-on-Sea and the article appears as such in en.Wiki. I support the proposal to change the name to Lauffen am Neckar.Mikeo1938 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you all. I think, in this case a move doesn't depend on whether you have to disambiguate between two towns. I prefer this move, because it's the official name (as I wrote). Besides I don't think there's a special variant on this name by English-speakers. --Dionysos1988 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the move is really necessary, as stated above not all places are under their official name (my example is Hamburg: Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg). On the other hand I think some places should be listed under the official name, not only to distinguish them. IMHO the shorter a article or page name is the better, but this is no policy or guideline. As you see, I've got no clear opinion and think it should be decided by case. So, if there is a urge to move this page, do so. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
What about this, this, this and this? ;o) Well, I think the move has to be carried out as soon as possible. --Dionysos1988 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think we have a consensus. As I say above, I'm just a tad nervous of initiating a move in case things go pear-shaped! If you know what to do, pse go ahead. I would suggest that the article be called 'Lauffen am Neckar' and that a redirect be created to move people from 'Lauffen' to the new title. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do it on Monday at the latest - unfortunately there's a set length of time you have to have had an account for. I've just registered here yesterday. ;o) --Dionysos1988 (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As for Dionysos's exempla: Esslingen, Rottenburg and Oberndorf are all demonstrably ambiguous; we have an article on the other settlement of the same name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a Lauffen in the Salzkammergut ([2], [3] that could probably do with an article at some point - I might even get round to it myself - so I'd be in favour of a move ready for creation of the new articles and a dab page if necessary. Knepflerle (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we can reach an agreement by waiting with this move until there's a further Lauffen article. Admittedly this matter is not very important for me. If one feels called to carry it out in due course he may do it. --Dionysos1988 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In my view, we should wait another week and then change the name to 'Lauffen am Neckar'. I would do it myself but I don't want to mess things up ... alles verpfuschen! It's not necessary to wait until there is another article. If Dionysos1988 or Knepflerle feel competent to make the change, I would ask them to please do it. Mikeo1938 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
When all this started, it never occurred to me that such (as I had thought) an uncontroversial proposal to change the name from 'Lauffen' to 'Lauffen am Neckar' would have produced any opposition at all. I will continue to contribute to the article, but can't be bothered with this nit-picking any more. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've just moved the title. Let's finish this discussion now... --Dionysos1988 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done that man! Mikeo1938 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so happy about this; some objections were raised and completely ignored; this is a strange form of consensus. This town is clearly called Lauffen in English. How do you square this move with Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Contemporary_placenames and Lauffen, Baden-Württemberg, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Disambiguation? --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any problem, do I? According to [4], it says:
German placenames often employ a native disambiguation system where the name of a river or region is added to a town name. These names should be spelled out in full in Wikipedia, because the various German-language abbreviation systems (parentheses, points or forward slashes) are not understood in English, e.g. Linz am Rhein, not "Linz/Rhein" or "Linz (Rhein)", Dillingen an der Donau, not "Dillingen a.d. Donau".
As you see, it also says Linz am Rhein. And like this case, Lauffen am Neckar also has a second place with the same name in Austria, as you can see here.[5] Sry but I can't share your doubts... --Dionysos1988 (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the point made above, few English speakers have heard of Lauffen; yet the river Neckar is more widely known. It is helpful for the casual visitor to the article to see Lauffen am Neckar. Mikeo1938 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)