Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Template:German_Reich[edit]

I added a question about the contents of the Template:German_Reich template on Template_talk:German_Reich. This is a historical project and the hypothetical 'Fourth Reich' seems out of place.

Agree with the IP's concern and boldly fixed. Please discuss, if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Pullach[edit]

Hi, I've left a message on the German page too. I hope you don't mind but I thought I might be able to help with translating into English. I've only just started (Saturday at the workshop at Wikimania). I'll pop back to review the page as I haven't translated everything and I'm not entirely happy with it yet. However, I need some help. I think there needs to be more references and I'm not well placed to find these e.g. references to the dates given. Also a few photos would be great, especially as it's difficult to understand the concept of a high bank, if you can't see what is meant. Thanks.

German Unity Day[edit]

This national day is in two days, and the article is start class with three references. George8211 / T 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup[edit]

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Germany articles that would be affected by this action are these:

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Germany's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

German citizen?[edit]

See Talk:Björn Werner and "German-born" in lead. BLP issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold claims in the Kirsten Heiberg article[edit]

"Heiberg was a Nazi, but was not punished by the Norwegians, as she was a German citizen". (This is from the Kirsten Heiberg article.)

Are there any other articles that claim that Germans did not get punished for crimes in Norway? --Faltjingle (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please make sure to avoid spam links and information. Information from reliable, independent sources about the new book are OK (though it would be better to wait for official publication). Information added by the author himself or his self-published website are most certainly not OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Party finance in Germany[edit]

Can anybody who is in charge please re-check the quality status of that article? After putting a lot of work into it some months ago I asked for a re-evaluation. However, the quality status is still unchanged. If the quality of the article really is C-Class I would like to know why? And what could be done to move it to B-Class? Thank you for your efforts!Khnassmacher (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not meant as a full assessment (I am most certainly not in charge :) ), but the article has 4 main flaws in my opinion:
  • The lead, especially its first paragraph, doesn't provide a clear succinct definition of the article topic and of the article's intended scope. The list of questions in its second half should be converted to plain encyclopedic information (i.e. "Reports include data about ...") and moved further down in the lead. The lead's second para contains tidbits of several different aspects (history, international comparison, revenues) without forming a coherent common theme.
  • The whole article uses a lot of essay-like textbook phrases and fails WP:NOTJOURNAL, especially points 6-8 (as a sidenote, de-Wiki and en-Wiki differ somewhat in their approaches here: essay-ish text elements are more common on de-Wiki).
  • The article's main text lacks some kind of introduction for casual readers and immediately jumps into a complex analysis of the presented data. Together with the usage of academic phrases and lots of statistics this probably makes it difficult to follow for non-academic readers. "History" may be better split in 2-3 subsections and eventually moved further up to provide early background information for the topic (just an idea, would have to see how it works out in the final article).
  • Bolding of keywords (all keywords, except the lead's article topic) should be removed. Structure of the reference sections and header titles do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines (MOS:LAYOUT).
Points 1. and 4. should be relatively easy to improve, however improving the other 2 points would require rephrasing throughout the whole main text. The main concern is not the accuracy of the content (this looks great on a first quick read), but its structure and presentation for a wider audience. Hope those points are helpful (unfortunately I don't have time for a more in-depth review). GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@GermanJoe - Hi, thank you very much for some helpful advice. I will consider points 1, 2, 4 and re-work some paragraphs.
What really bothers me is point 3: Unfortunately I have no idea what a "casual reader" would expect to find in an article. The reader I have in mind looks for concise, but detailed information - and that is what I try to offer as someone who has lived with the subject for more than 30 years (especially in my own country but also in the U.S. and in Canada).
As I am an academic (and likely to stay one till the end of my days) I got used to run into the formula "academic language" whenever folks have difficulties to comprehend the complexities of everyday life. However, the term is not too helpful for me because my personal career began in adult education. There I learned to try to speak and write as "non-academic" as I possibly can - always working to stay comprehendable to non-academics. Nonetheless I will go and double-check my wording after your warning.
To talk about funds raised and spent to influence the outcome of political competition (in particular elections) will be hard without giving amounts of money or "data". However, the data tables have been inserted after someone suggested that some statistics were needed to meet B-class criteria. The text should (as I feel) still be readable for people who just ignore the tables.
By the by, I contributed articles on the same subject to the last (and final) paper edition of Brockhaus' well-known Encyclopedia - at least, their standards should not be less rigid those of Wikipedia. Khnassmacher (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No need to agree on all points (some of them are certainly influenced by personal view and preferences) - I am glad, you found some of them helpful to improve the article. Just for clarity, I did not ask for removal of all statistics, but mentioned them as one possible factor among others, where non-academic readers may find it difficult to access the article content. I wouldn't focus on this single point too much, perhaps another editor is able to offer more advice, after the other three points have been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

German translation[edit]

Not sure if you can help me and if it's the best place to ask but I'd like a help with a translation from German. In fact, the newspaper is Swiss (should I go to WP Switzerland?) but I wonder if someone can help me. The article by Neue Zürcher Zeitung can be found here: http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/article7KAAY-1.462597. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like some (rather random) essay to me. What do you want it translated for? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Horst-schlaemma, I forgot to explain... (facepalm). I was searching about Brainstorm, a Brazilian film, when I found it. I was hoping it would have some kind of useful info in the paragraph that star with "«Bicho de 7 cabeças» (Brainstorm), das Langfilmdébut der 35-jährigen Brasilianerin Laís Bodanzky". Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of the central points (from the author's point of view):
  • The movie is too eager for (trivial) effects - a disconcerting freak show.
  • It fails to present deeper insight in the underlying emotional conflict.
  • Sam Fuller's "Shock Corridor" and similar Cinema Novo movies present the topic a lot more "realistic" and better (see above points).
The points are a bit paraphrased, as the author really doesn't present a clear chain of arguments - only some general observations. Disclaimer: if you find a more in-depth review, that would be preferable. This review is riddled with tabloid snarks and only semi-funny puns (be glad, you don't read German). It may give a first quick judgement, but cannot be considered a thorough review. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, GermanJoe! Well, I was looking for reviews in English at first but I came across it (probably because it has "Brainstorm" on it). I thought it would be good to give a more global vision or at least expand the second paragraph of "Critical reception". Do you think this is not an advisable source? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You could note, that this reviewer criticized the movie for its over usage of effects or something like this. But I would just mention it very briefly and describe it as one reviewer's opinion (not necessarily representative). It's an almost typical newspaper review: trying to be funny and hip instead of offering some balanced, thoughtful insight (/small rant off). GermanJoe (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hm, thanks. Yeah, a brief mention is fine for me. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Neuschwanstein Castle Article; Architecture; Interior[edit]

" The total floor space of all floors amounts to nearly 6,000 square metres (65,000 sq ft).[36] "

Can someone doublecheck this conversion? It is done by a formula in the html of the document but I, who is not a math-person of any sort, checked it at a conversion website because it looked wrong to me. It came up with a number closer to 19,000 sq.ft.

This is the first time I have made a suggestion, please forgive any errors in my format or placement. Please correct them as needed.

Jeanjaz (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The conversion is correct. 6000 meters are approximately 20000 ft, but 6000 square meters are approximately 65000 sq ft. —Kusma (t·c) 09:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Kusma! I'm afraid my ignorance was showing.
Jeanjaz (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Munich Metropolitan Region article missing[edit]

Hi, one major article within this project's scope is still missing: Munich Metropolitan Region. It could be created using information from the German article. Do you think you can do something about it? Thank you and prost, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The "old" article was deleted due to notability concerns, not sure if this still applies - User:Explicit was the deleting admin. Maybe you can ask to get it restored for expansion? (in my opinion all recognized Metropolitan Regions are de-facto notable, but other editors seem to disagree) GermanJoe (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It was deleted via WP:PROD, which allows undeletion if somebody asks for it. I take the above as an undeletion request and will restore it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It's really strange how this got deleted without any concerns. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank's GAR[edit]

European Central Bank, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Manor houses in Germany[edit]

Category:Manor houses in Germany has only eight entries. Is it under-populated, or duplicating another category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

+3 now (maybe a few more are hidden in other subcats, but not many). GermanJoe (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of manor houses in Germany. However, many of them are called Schloss Foo which the unaware often translate as "castle"; so they may be categorized as such. A schloss may well be a castle, or indeed a palace, but you generally only have to look at them to realise that they are really just manor houses or mansions. This contrasts with Burg which is almost invariably a medieval castle. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The German wiki category lists 400 or even more manor houses (haven't checked all subcats). But a lot of those houses have only regional or even local notability - probably only interesting for a German readership or specialists in German architecture and regional history. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review Otto I[edit]

An article about Otto I, one of the most influential (and fascinating) early German kings, is up for peer review. Feedback from interested editors would be greatly appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thuringia[edit]

Some further updates are needed for the new government. I only did some of the most basic nav template work on Bodo Ramelow. Is there anybody who wants to give him an infobox? (too little wikitime these days). —Kusma (t·c) 11:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, I was really surprised that Michael Müller (politician) was a redlink until this morning. —Kusma (t·c) 12:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Benno Orenstein[edit]

Can someone who speaks German/English fluently please translate this page? But please do it yourself--don't just use google translate. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are able to add inline references as well, that would be very good. And add parents/children ideally. But a good translation would be a good place to start. Please keep me posted on my talkpage. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Link to most popular articles[edit]

I have added a link to last month's top 100 most popular project articles on the project's main page in "Scope" (mostly to get more experience with Wiki markup). The specific month is variable, calculated from CURRENTMONTH and YEAR. This could be a useful tool to check interesting high-traffic articles and do some improvements in spare time. Formatting and placement can be improved, if necessary. GermanJoe (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Readability[edit]

I am posting this as (it seems to me) a number of articles under the purview of this project are bordering on the unreadable. I recently read this, for example, and there are others I have encountered, and it feels like they are written in denglish. I assume the editors for this project will have German as their first or second language and maybe these pages will seem unremarkable, but from the point of view of someone with English as their first (and I expect more so for someone who has English as a second and something other than German as a first) these pages are hard going. We have Mark Twain's observation on how little the language has to be altered to become opaque; and pages like this one, or this, also make the point. If the reader has to mentally change gear every sentence or so to work out what is being said they will rapidly lose interest. I don't know if there is some purpose in insisting on using German terms when English ones exist for the same thing, but the present situation really only suits German -speakers who wish to read about German subjects on the English WP. If we want other people to actually read and learn stuff about German subjects these pages need to be more user-friendly. My two pennies worth... Moonraker12 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My 2 pennies: if I translate an article from German (as the example), I find the German terms, and often am not sure about the proper English equivalents, therefore better keep the German ones, - help and collaboration is always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a common problem of translations done by people who are not native speakers of the language they are writing in. (Google Translate is such an example; most of our translators here at Wikipedia are significantly better). If you have successfully managed to understand a poorly translated page, please help everyone else by copyediting it so it becomes more readable to native English speakers. If there is a sentence somewhere that makes particularly little sense, please point it out on the article talk page or to the person who wrote the hard-to-understand bit. It is difficult to me as a German native speaker to see what you may find problematic, just like I find your other example Galois theory to be quite easy to read (but I teach mathematics at a major university), while m:Help:Parameter default just requires a bit of concentration to follow. So please tell us what exactly is difficult and perhaps we can fix it together. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda and Kusma. Translation is also an art not a science, so there is a range of views on whether and how to translate, especially, proper names. If I'm not sure of the translation I will give it my best shot so it makes sense in English but give the original German in brackets. If, later, I discover the correct translation, it's easy to go back and re-edit. I also try and search the sources to get the most common English version. E.g. The article on the Pfälzerwald is called the Palatinate Forest, because that is its more common English name even though Palatine Forest is a more accurate translation. But we do not always have consistency: for example, the consensus was to translate the word "station" in railway station names, but not the word "central station" so we have München Hauptbahnhof which doesn't even use the English word for the city of Munich!
My suggestion with this article is to use English names with the German in brackets. I'll have a go if others are happy, but I don't want a war over it! --Bermicourt (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
General problem: Hochschule has no true equivalent. Some institutes call themselves University (Folkwang University), then use English of course, others don't , then I hesitate. - The HFBK names itself in German on their website, and the logo which is the abbreviation makes no sense in combination with an (invented) English name. Just one example. I want praise for saying Bayreuth Festival, although we loose the playful aspect of festive games in translating Festspiele ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This is often the problem with translation; in the end it depends how important understandability is vs. accuracy. In some specialist topics e.g. geography we use a lot of foreign words from e.g. French (crevasse), Spanish (mesa) and German (karst, graben, inselberg). But those terms will be found in an English text book, unlike most of the German names in the article. So I've added an English translation for those names that don't already have one and italicised the German in line with the WP:MOS. I haven't changed the basic format though, so it still reads bilingually. This is where the blind use of WP:COMMONNAME falls down. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)