Talk:Baron Munchausen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Baron Münchhausen)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Baron Munchausen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2016.


Mit Umlaut oder ohne Umlaut? --MacRusgail 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mit Umlaut: ü !


Mit umlaut indeed! Should this page not be moved to Baron Münchhausen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ampersand777 (talkcontribs).

Nobody has commented on this for a week and a half; I'm gonna move itAmp 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Consistency[edit]

It appears that all three accepted (?) spellings are in use throughout this article: Münchhausen, Munchhausen, Munchausen. Where titles of literary works etc. are being referenced, the spelling appropriate to the work in question should of course be used, but the article's narrative itself should choose one spelling and stick to it. Given the umlaut-related discussion above, I would guess that "Münchhausen" should be the spelling of choice. JanRu (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Münchhausen Trilemma[edit]

It would be nice to have a small summary of this use of Münchhausen's name (under the heading of "Philosophy"), similar to what was done with Münchhausen Syndrome in Psychology. JanRu (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Robin Williams' Pseudonym[edit]

Does anyone know why Robin Williams is credited as Ray D. Tutto in this film......I notice at IMDB he has used several names in film.... has he used this name in other films? R. Silver 25 July 2007

Question is more relevant to Talk:The Adventures of Baron Munchausen -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

Sections tagged for no sourcing for nearly a year. Please feel free to reincorporate into article with appropriate sourcing! Doniago (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the article without a section regarding his life is a pretty strange thing to do. Maybe it is lacking sources, but at least it can be cross-checked easily, for instance in the German wikipedia. Removing would only make sense, if the section is likely to be wrong. I will reinstate it. -- Zz (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would rather see the material left here until sourcing can be established (and other Wikis are not reliable sources) than reinserted while still lacking sources, especially as the article has been tagged long-term. Per WP:BURDEN, please either source the material or leave it here until there is a consensus as to its ultimate disposition. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have mentioned a variety of possible sources. You have picked the one you could dismiss, even at the price of a sweeping statement. And I repeat, it is a pretty strange thing to delete an entire section that you could have checked easily. Münchhausen is neither unknown nor undocumented. Yes, there are guidelines on Wikipedia, but there is also Use Common Sense.
You thank me at the end of your prose. I guess it means that Münchhausen being well coumented is all news to you. For that reason and since Münchhausen is well outside your expertise, I ask you to refrain from editing the article. You are welcome. -- Zz (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
But at least you're not being dismissive or sarcastic. When you can cite policy supporting the addition of unsourced material, or other editors come here to form a consensus, I'll accept that re-adding the material without sourcing is appropriate, at least according to those who are concerned with the article. Until then, whether or not the article's content is within my realm of expertise is immaterial. Per WP:BURDEN if you wish to add it, the onus is on you to provide sourcing when re-adding the material, not to simply say it exists. Doniago (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
When material is disputed or controversial, that is... Are you disputing the basic biographical details, and if so, why? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm disputing them because no credible sources are being provided to back them up, and I removed them because that fact was pointed out months ago and no editors saw fit to do anything to resolve the situation in that time. If my moving the information here inspires editors to find proper sourcing, I'd say it was worth it. Hell, strictly speaking the information could have been removed much sooner, but I believe in giving editors time to provide sourcing in cases like this. Doniago (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your actions with respect to the "Life" section are such that some might see them more as being technicalistic wikilawyering, rather than appropriately and usefully serving the cause of article improvement (i.e. disputing for the sake of disputing, rather than because you have concerns about factual accuracy etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If editors have concerns regarding my motivations for making changes to articles they are welcome to approach me with their concerns (though unfortunately it seems many editors fail to assume good faith when they do so). In any case, I doubt there is any Wikipedia policy supporting the viewpoint that removing unsourced material is disruptive. As noted, policy permits an editor to delete unsourced material immediately if they so choose, but in this case I believe that would be precipitous; hence the waiting until the material remained unsourced for a significant length of time, followed by moving it here for archiving/discussion (and hopefully sourcing and reincorporation). Doniago (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You may be well-intentioned, but unfortunately others may perceive your actions to be basically holding a section of the article hostage until your sourcing demands are met, rather than either contributing to or legitimately questioning the factual accuracy of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That strikes me as kind of silly, since, as I stated earlier, if other editors form a consensus that the information should be reinserted into the article in contravention of policy, I won't be happy about it, but I'm not going to remove it again at least until I can get some support for my viewpoint. Right now, though, there doesn't appear to be a consensus to reinsert the material without sourcing. In any event, I think any material that isn't reliably sourced is always legitimately open to question, and policy supports challenging/removing unsourced material.
I am worried that we're getting rather off-topic here though; to my mind this discussion should be about the merits of the specific material and whether it is appropriate to include it in the article without sourcing, not my motives for removing it...focus on content, not the contributor, as they say.
Actually, ideally editors should source the material and reinsert it, rendering the discussion moot. Doniago (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, ideally editors should Use Common Sense. Since the facts about Münchhausen's life can easily be cross-checked and you are not challenging them in the first place, we can add the part about his life again. Oh, and yes, your template that it is unsourced will remain. -- Zz (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense to me. Based on your assertion that the information can be easily cross-checked, why are you unwilling to source said information? How is inserting it with a tag that the information is unsourced preferable to providing sourcing or omitting it until sourcing can be provided, especially if it can be "easily" sourced? Also, "use common sense" is part of an essay and does not trump WP:VERIFY, which is a policy. Doniago (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if removing unsourced material doesn't constitute a challenge to the reliability of the information, what does? Doniago (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The part about common sense addresses the point "but it is a policy". And what you do is not just the policy, but your interpretation of it. You have some automatisms in your work on wikipedia, and you do not cross-check, if they are actually reasonable. As far as I see, the opinions here are 2:1 against you. And your attempts at wikilawyering have been called as that. The deletion of the part about life should not have happened in the first place. If nobody speaks out in your favor, I will re-instore the life section with the tag (not the other one, however).
Marking something as unsourced helps others. For instance, they can see that there might be work to do, right? -- Zz (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that Anonmoos is necessarily opposing the removal of material, and would like clarification from them rather than having us interpret their position on the matter. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making less-than-good-faith statements as to my motives as well; please discuss the situation, not the editors involved. Doniago (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have requested additional opinions at the various project pages, and would respectfully request that you refrain from reinserting the unsourced material pending additional feedback. As noted, I do not believe Anonmoos has clearly indicated that they feel the material should be reinserted without sourcing. I also remain curious as to your resistance to providing sourcing given your assertion that the material "can be easily cross-checked". Doniago (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


From the references section of the article: (in German) wikisource:de:ADB:Münchhausen, Hieronymus Freiherr von (Erzähler) – all you ever needed to know about Baron Münchhausen. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite reading Münchhausen in my early youth, I still have a wonderful illustrated book somewhere of his most famous tales, and his marrying Latvian, I regret to say that I did not have this article on my watchlist and only came to it through the above-mentioned request. There is a small community of interested editors; a better way to handle dormant articles with issues is to revive conversation at one of the Wiki projects pages. Removing content simply because it has remained uncited for a long time is not constructive--energies would, IMHO, be better spent on finding a citation or two rather than demonstrating one's interest in an article by whacking off bits. Maybe it's just me. PЄTЄRS J V TALK 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Grimm's "The Six who went far"[edit]

(I'm not very familiar with the wiki editing, so I beg you pardon for possible mistakes in the formatting.)

I just want to point out that the little passage about the Grimm's Fairy Tales Adaption of Munchhausen seems to be nonsense, because "the six"-story is - besides being very similar to Munchhausen (and several stories originated elsewhere) - just also an original Grimm's story. So Munchhausen isn't left out for any other reason than the fact that he doesn't appear in the Grimm-version.

you can look it up here in the German Wikipedia: (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

G. Dore's caricature[edit]

This portrait looks very much alike Napoleon III. Sketched in 1866 this was maybe some political irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

This topic is of considerable literary importance, and is worth a lot of work, but I'm far from certain that "Baron Münchhausen" is an accurate name for it. As far as I can tell from the writeup and related links, we're actually dealing with two people here:

  • Baron von Münchhausen, the real person.
  • Baron Munchausen, the fictional character. The simplified spelling (no umlaut, one H) has been used in almost every English-language version, from Raspe to Gilliam. Other languages have different spelling conventions for the character (French: Baron de Munchhausen; Czech: Baron Prašil; Lithuanian: Baronas Miunchhausenas; etc.), none of which affect the real nobleman's name.

With that spelling issue in mind, the article name "Baron Münchhausen" seems inaccurate, or at least misleading. Thoughts?--Lemuellio (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is that. We could always use the full name, Hieronymus Carl Friedrich von Münchhausen (per WP:DE, whereas we show Karl Friedrich Hieronymus, Freiherr von Münchhausen in the article lead). BTW, in Latvian, Hieronīms Kārlis Frīdrihs fon Minhauzens, so I think the word order here in English might need some adjustment as well. Baron M. with/without umlaut should probably direct to a correctly titled article. VєсrumЬа TALK 20:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Good catch! I hadn't noticed the problem with the full name. We can therefore sum up by saying:
  • Baron Münchhausen is the German name for the fictional character.
  • Baron Munchausen is, by long tradition, the English equivalent.
  • Hieronymus Carl Friedrich von Münchhausen was the original inspiration.
As for the article title, I'm not sure what to think. "Hieronymus Carl Friedrich von Münchhausen" would certainly apply to the real person, but judging from Special:WhatLinksHere/Baron_Münchhausen, nearly all mentions in the English Wikipedia refer specifically to the fictional version, who's never referred to by that name. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, and my own paper copy of the Columbia Encyclopedia, both solve the problem by calling their articles "Baron Munchausen" and then giving the Baron's real name later on. I don't know whether this would be suitable for Wikipedia, but it's one way out of the difficulty.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Pseudologia fantastica[edit]

Was Münchhausen a case of pseudologia fantastica? Should we mention this in the Münchhausen article? Notice that Münchhausen is mentioned in the pseudologia fantastica article... Kintaro (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that enough is known about the historical Baron to support a psychiatric diagnosis. In any case, we would need reliable sources... AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Making article concise[edit]

There was a box at the top saying that the article did not conform to wikipedia's quality standards, so I went ahead and trimmed the article. I removed excessively flowery language, which made the article seem derived from a sensationalizing book about the Baron. And I removed excess detail, which also makes the article seem derived from some detailed biography about the Baron. Such information would be more interesting for someone looking to dive more deeply into his history, but its distracting in this encyclopedic context.

In particular, here's some explanations for edits I made:

  • Intro - There were too many details that were going to be explained in later sections.
  • Life - There were too many details about his extended family. I left the most notable. I also removed other details about his military career. I removed language like, "contested, ruinous" divorce and "dying childless" as it seems like they are part of a sensational bio.
  • Adaptations - All that's really needed is the basic history of how literary adaptions started, and then a list of some major works that followed. --Philosophistry (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for more content[edit]

I would like to see more content with some examples of the tall tales that are attributed to Munchausen. I've combed through the article to edit it and make it more concise, and yet I still have no idea about what kind of stories he told or the nature of any of his adaptations. --Philosophistry (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Baron Münchausen radio show[edit]

There was a comedy radio show in the 1940s based loosely on the Baron. My high school English teacher in the 1950s would sometimes quote from it when anyone questioned one of HER stories, "Vas you dere, Charlie?" See, e.g., DABbio (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Achievements[edit]

He wrote a six volume work entitled Der Hausvatter (Hanover 1765) online here: A section on microscopy (of fungal infections of wheat/barley) is highly praised by Linnaeus in a dissertation Mundus Invisibilis (Amoenitates academicae vol. 7 395ff. online at The whole 6 volume work is said by Linnaeus to be about "Oeconomia". I don't know any more about it but if his scientific work was highly regarded by Linnaeus it surely merits dealing with.

See also Marc Ratcliff: The Quest for the Invisible: Microscopy in the Enlightenment 2009 231. R says that M corresponded with Linn.

Northutsire (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The scientist is a different man: Otto von Münchhausen, rather than Hieronymus Karl Friedrich. Otto's WP article is a stub, so please do expand it if you have the time and wherewithal!--Lemuellio (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Baron MünchhausenBaron Munchausen – This article is about two people: a fictional character called Baron Munchausen, and a real-life nobleman named Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen. I think it's appropriate to handle both figures on one page (take a look at the Fictionalization and Fictional character sections to see how the two are connected/different), but it inevitably raises the question of what to call the article.

It's beyond reasonable doubt that the fictional Baron is notable by Wikipedia standards: plenty of significant coverage in subject-independent reliable sources. The real Baron is probably notable as well, but he's predominantly known for being the inspiration for his fictional counterpart. And, of the two, the fictional one has pretty clearly gotten more attention: Special:WhatLinksHere/Baron_Münchhausen suggests that most references in the English Wikipedia are specifically to the fictional Baron. Given those circumstances, to name the article after the real Baron would make it something resembling a WP:Coatrack: the article would seem to be about a real person, but most of the focus would inevitably fall on his more famous fictional counterpart.

So, in accordance with the WP:UCRN policy, and following the precedent set by most paper encyclopedias (including the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and the Columbia Encyclopedia), I strongly recommend that we name this page after the fictional character, using the standard and recognizable English-language spelling: Baron Munchausen. The historical figure's name can still be a redirect, of course (and will be very useful as such, since his biography will remain on the page). Lemuellio (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • A few additional points. First, if this is to be an article primarily about the real person, the title should be some form of Hieronymus Karl Friedrich Freiherr von Münchhausen and not the current title, the format of which is not used for Barons of Germany. Second, the article did start nominally about the real person but from the first few edits the content most of the content has been about the stories; it has been a coatrack from the beginning. (The German Wikipedia article [at Hieronymus Carl Friedrich von Münchhausen] is much more a biography of the real person.) Finally, the stories were published in English first and not translations from a text in another language so the "Munchausen" spelling (no umlaut, one h) is original to the fictional character. —  AjaxSmack  23:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The original (German) orthography must to be saved. We don't rename "Michael Schumacher" to "Michael Shumaher"! The same is now--Unikalinho (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Unikalinho: Could you clarify what you mean? For the fictional character, the original orthography is the English spelling, as User:AjaxSmack notes above. (And even if it weren't, the WP:COMMONNAME policy is to use "the name that is most commonly used … in reliable English-language sources," which is the English spelling.) And, as User:AjaxSmack also points out, "Baron Münchhausen" isn't an acceptable article title for the real Baron either. So I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    The orthography of the name of the language with Latin alphabet is saved by tanscription to English, no? Michael Schumacher (not Shumaher), Renault (not Reno), Giancarlo (not Jancarlo) etc. The German name (Raspe was German!) of the baron is Münchhausen -- must to be saved--Unikalinho (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, Raspe was German, and it was Raspe himself who chose to spell the name as "Munchausen." (See the Fictionalization section for further details.) In any case, because of the WP:COMMONNAME policy, the orthography for an English WP title isn't necessarily the original spelling; that's why, for example, we have an article called Christopher Columbus rather than "Cristoforo Colombo."--Lemuellio (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "The original (German) orthography must to be saved" is not a policy-based argument. That's quintessential WP:JDLI. --В²C 02:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, i.e. per WP:UE and WP:UCN. No arguments for keeping the current title have been put forth. If the article is to be about the fictional character, it should keep the original English name of that character which also happens to be the most common name ( AjaxSmack  05:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)) but I oppose a split as an unnecessary content fork. The real H.C.F. von Münchhausen is largely notable due to the stories and the dearth of biographical info in the current article means both topics can easily be dealt with as one.  AjaxSmack  00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per WP:COMMONNAME for now, and WP:SPLIT the articles as soon as possible, unless it's determined that the real historical figure is non-notable except for being the namesake of the fictional one.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It's confusing that this proposal is actually for a split, not a simple rename... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal explicitly advocates a rename, and rejects a split ("it's appropriate to handle both figures on one page"). --В²C 18:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
However, some of the "support" votes seem to presuppose a split, giving a confused result... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, for example, clearly supports the move as proposed. In addition, he also supports a SPLIT. This is not a referendum on the SPLIT idea, but might give us an idea if there is a consensus for that too. That's not unusual. It should not be confusing. --В²C 02:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Right. There's nothing "confused" about any of this. It's routine for splits or merges to be proposed in the course of RM discussions, both as alternatives to the requested moves, or as further actions in addition to them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. As for the split, I don't know if the real life Baron would retain enough notability for his own article, as it puts him awfully close to WP:BIO1E. 1bandsaw (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baron Munchausen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 03:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article, which I can say from the outset looks excellent and certainly in no danger of quick failing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. Well-written:check
    1. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  1. Verifiable with no original research:check
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelinescheck
    3. it contains no original research.
  1. Broad in its coverage:check
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  2. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.check
  3. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.check
  4. Illustrated, if possible, by images:not yet checked
    1. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

  • Images: I am not entirely convinced by the copyright rationale for the image "File:Cliff_Hall_and_Jack_Pearl_1952.JPG". It seems weird to me that pre-1978s images should be in the public domain simply because they don't have a copyright sign on them. I think it ought to be removed from the article. It also doesn't really illustrate anything about the topic of the article. The other images are fine as far as I can tell.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • American copyright law is definitely weird, but that is indeed the way it works. Literally thousands of images have fallen into public domain by that path, and many can be found on Wikipedia—including as illustrations for Featured Articles, such as the infobox image for Bette Davis. So, no need to worry about this image from a copyright standpoint.
As for whether it illustrates the topic—well, I'd say it does. The image accompanies text about a very popular and successful radio adaptation of the Baron Munchausen stories; Hall and Pearl were the original stars of that radio production. A nice public-domain image of the two of them together seems like the perfect visual accompaniment to the text, so I can't see any reason not to use it. If you feel strongly the other way, though, I'd be happy to discuss the matter further.
And thanks so much for the GA review!--Lemuellio (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will trust you on that one, since I am not a copyright lawye and have little interest in becoming one. I usually don't like to pass articles without somehow making myself feel that the article was somehow improved by the review process, but I don't think there is much I can do here. I will pass it shortly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Philipp Adolph von Munchausen[edit]

LB Namier "The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III" indicates (second edition pp 189, 191, and elsewhere in the same volume that the Hanoverian Resident in London late in the reign of George II was a Baron Philip Adolph von Munchausen who between July and October 1760 received from the Treasury the exceptional sum of £79.490:15s and fivepence three farthings for"his late Majesty's special service". No doubt he too would have had some remarkable tales to tell. Perhaps he should be exposed to disambiguation , at least, since I genuinely turned to Wikipedia in the hope that the Treasury was funding the subject of the article. No such luck, but one is still curious.Delahays (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

On the German wikipedia we find his brother de:Gerlach Adolph von Münchhausen, and here we find an article about his predecessor as head of the German Chancery in London, Ernst von Steinberg. But Philipp Adolph von Münchhausen does not yet have an article written about him.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baron Munchausen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The first link is not dead, so I've reinstated it. The second link has changed its URL but still exists on the website, so I've put in an updated URL. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Is there a native Germanophone who could confirm or correct the pronunciation guide in the lede? Since the root of the surname is Münch, and that city is roughly pronounced "moonk", rather than the "munch" given in the guide, I doubt that the Anglocentric rendering of "munch" is correct. And before anyone points out that this wiki is about the fictional character, I would ask if the book (which was, after all, the source for the films) actually states the preferred pronunciation, or if Hollywood imposed its own (possibly incorrect) pronunciation upon the character. Bricology (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The lede includes two pronunciation guides: one for the fictional character and one for the historical figure. The pronunciation for the fictional character is sourced from a reliable dictionary, so, per WP:V ("content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors"), it wouldn't be advisable to replace it with original research. Lemuellio (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)