Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

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

Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6


Collecting data on the use of umlaut and ß in English language publications

Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß Saint|swithin 11:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Informational pages on Germany's Bundesländer are cited frequently throughout Wikipedia, be it on a historical page, or a footy page. The problem is, this is done with inconsistent manner, placement, and style. Those not familiar with Germany's political system, and, indeed, even those who are, can be easily thrown off by the inconsistent terminology and level of detail provided when linking to Bundesländer. This seems to be an issue that could be completely resolved with minimal to moderate effort from the German speaking community on Wikipedia.

I propose that a universal style for this topic be developed and applied. Ideally, a small group could do this in an efficient and dedicated manner.

Thanks, and please be sure to tell me if I'm missing some huge detail on the issue. Also, I am more than willing to volunteer myself to be involved in this project in the event it is acknowledged as necessary. Lebewohl! --Mitglied von die Elektronischenzyklopädie Schriftleitung 07:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Germany-battle-stub proposed

Here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Deutsches Museum

Added a translation from german page! But still needs native speaker.--Stone 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Teutonic order charge.jpg proposed for deletion

I think some people may want to comment on that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

German-English dictionaries

I started re-working an article translated by a native German speaker and found that some words were not translated. Assuming good faith, I imagine this is a result of the person not knowing the words... for which there is a fix:

  1. German <-> English Dictionary - A simple dictionary from the TU Chemnitz. Contains over 680,000 entries.
  2. Another German <-> English Dictionary - A dictionary from the TU München.
  3. Babel Fish Translation - An electronic translator - named after the translating fictional animal in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
  4. Eurodicautom - An excellent multilingual dictionary that covers, among others, medical terms and technical terms. Aside from the Siemens' dictionaries, there is nothing I've come across that comes close for things technical.

Cheers, Nephron  T|C 01:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image request

Can someone get some nice photos of Juniperus sabina (de:Sadebaum) please? - should be easy to find in the Alps (mostly at or around tree-line/de:Waldgrenze). All there is on wikipedia at the moment is one of those very dated-looking 19th century illustrations. Danke, MPF 10:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with translations

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. Languages includes German, Low Saxon/Low German and Luxemburgish. Thanks, --Soman 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Curiously not announced here

Alternative words for Germans - seems good faithed, but likely needs attention.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but you needn't have worried; Germans are not quite as touchy about being called names etc. than editors of certain other nationalities. There's likely not going to be a "German blackbook". (Is that hint broad enough? ;) ) I'll add szwab, szkop and fryc right away... 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

RM on umlauts

Please see the requested move for Enrico Kuhn -> Enrico Kühn; the article was moved to the umlaut-free title by User:Gene Nygaard because no redirect from there existed. Comments, queries and opinions invited. Aquilina 23:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Berlin

Should this category be split so we can separate the current boroughs (or whatever the terminology we use is) from all kinds of historical districts and more informal neighborhoods? Kusma (討論) 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. It's not such a big category, why not keep it as general as possible? User:Angr 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DELAG needs references

This article about the world's first airline, just translated from de:DELAG by Gif32, would many a fine Main page DYK. Unfortunately I was told at T:TDYK that it needs more references. Any goof sources would be appreciated. Kusma (討論) 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Army atrocities

The article Red Army atrocities needs some attention from German speakers, particularly since most of the sources given besides Anthony Beevor are German. Those with access to German sources could probably flesh it out a bit. User:Irpen has added a noncompliancy tag and requested that the article be renamed "Berlin - The Downfall 1945", the title of Beevors book, and (presumably) to only deal with Beevors book. This would in my opinion be a shame as the topic merits its own article. --Stor stark7 Talk 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for information on Liechtenstein--EU relations

For the article list of European Union member states by accession, I'd need information on the current stance of Liechtenstein's parties and politicians on EU accession -- are there any which advocate it? Has it been ruled out decisively? Any kind of information would be welcome. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well here's some info from the official website of the government of Liechtenstein in German: [1]--CarabinieriTTaallkk 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Mh. No information about whether they've considered accession, and no definite statement that they're not interested, either... —Nightstallion (?) 08:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello. I'm having a bit of trouble with this template. An anonymous user insists on the version linked to above, but I want this revision because it shows who headed Germany between 1945 and 1949 while making clear that there was no Chancellor in that period. Which version do you prefer? Biruitorul 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Definately your version.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's been reverted and I asked the IP editor to make his case here if he insists on it. Biruitorul 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion

The following articles have been listed for deletion.

Please contribute to the discussions, especially if you can help with locating and citing German language sources. Uncle G 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


According to some stats from the toolserver, Germany is the fifth largest contributor to after US, UK, Canada and Australia in terms of edits. I rarely see any German stuff down at DYK, so it would be good to get more German contributions. If you have created an article or expanded a stub in the past five days, then it is eligible at Template talk:Did you know to be considered for featuring on the main page as long as it is referenced and NPOV. The vast majority, 80%+ are serlf-nom so please don't be shy. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea! Btw, could you link those stats? I'd be interested in looking at them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And if your DYK should get rejected at the Main Page (and more so if it gets accepted), don't be shy and just add it at Portal:Germany/Did you know. Kusma (討論) 13:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested

At Talk:Erika Steinbach, where the discussion is going seemingly nowhere, or even worse, off-topic, while the article remains protected.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Germany/Germany news

This is woefully out of date. Please be bold and add links to interesting news stories. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments appreciated

At Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Rename_or_merge. I think every article from the Polish-German borders series we can merge is one less confusion for the readers who currently have to deal with close to 10 articles about the same issues (POV forks, anyone)? This one, whose title seems to be OR, looks like a good candidate for a merger to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started a poll of proposed solutions to find the most popular.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Can somebody please verify this: NITYA SEVA? Google search is confusing, because "Nitya Seva" is a widely-used Sanskrit meaning "Always at Service" and is widely used by many organizations. utcursch | talk 14:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

living in Germany I can say I never heard or read of this org anywhere. The article is of a german org and has no German Interwiki? The article was written by the founder of this charity. Kind of dubious. No mention of a Claus von der Fink being awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz (as alleged). --Tresckow 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Could someone take a look on the text? It is currently on {{prod}}. Pavel Vozenilek 13:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not any more, it's not. It didn't even look that bad. One statement was a bit dodgy, but that's easily removed. It's on sale everywhere at the moment (in Germany at least), so I think it even counts as notable, but then that wasn't the complaint. --Stemonitis 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added a reference, but more would be nice. It is certainly notable enough. Kusma (討論) 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks right, tried Sturm last year and have tried Sauser this year. It should be mentioned that the high yeast conc. can lead to digestion problems if you are not used to it.--Stone 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The widespread detestation of ß

I think we need to do something to shore up the position of the poor hard-done-by ß on the English Wikipedia. In particular, I would like to see a statement somewhere that this is an instance where our idea of common usage may be biased. Many authors circumscribe "ß" as "ss" either due to technical restrictions, or because it's easier to type "ss" than "ß", especially when coding a website (who wants to have to type &szlig; when ss will seem to do?), or because they think English-language readers will be confused. For all these reasons, ß appears in English-language texts much less commonly than it probably should.

As a prime example, one ß-phobic editor has recently moved "Federweißer" to the ill-named "Federweisser", on the basis that the one cited source called it that (there are, incidentally others, even in English, that spell it with ß). This in turn relates to the Wikipedia policy of favouring English language sources wherever possible, even though foreign-language sources are often much more informative and accurate about topics outside the English-speaking areas of the world (40 Google hits for Federwei[ss/ß]er from .uk sites, compared to 17,600 for .de sites).

A limit must be drawn. The word "seperate" is commonly typed into Wikipedia articles, and is not tolerated, being regularly replaced by a bot with "separate". Evidently in such cases, even though a usage is common, it is not worth mentioning and is treated as a mistake, which of course it is. "Separate" is still commoner than "seperate", but "seperate" is still very common; nonetheless, no-one expects to see an article begin:

"Separation (often spelled seperation) is…"

Similarly, we should not have to tolerate mis-spelling of German-interest articles just because many people are either unaware of the correct spelling or ignore it. I realise that I am, in effect, asking for an undermining of the principle of following common usage, but I think it makes sense. Would anyone support me in my efforts to create a [section of a] naming convention along the following lines? (Feel free to tweak this for greater clarity or acceptability or whatever):

Where the majority of sources for an article of German interest [there must be a better way of phrasing that] are German-language sources using "ß", they may be considered to outweigh the commonest usage in English-language texts where that commonest usage differs only in its circumscription of "ß" as "ss".

Perhaps more importantly, would it have a snowball's chance in hell? It seems to me to be consistent with everyday practice on Wikipedia, in applying accents in general where they are appropriate, but I'm not sure I could convince enough of the community; for some reason ß is disliked to a much larger degree than other, equally innocent characters. --Stemonitis 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, and I'd support it, but as for having a snowball's chance in hell, I doubt it. Every time this issue has come up the community has been split nearly 50/50 on it, so consensus can be reached. It's true that ß (along with ð and þ) is disliked more than familiar letters with diacritics like á ê ö etc., probably because monoglot English readers can more easily wegdenken the diacritics than they can resolve letters that don't look like anything familiar. That's no excuse for lying to our readers, though, by saying things like "Vossstrasse is a street in central Berlin". Angr 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Unfortunately, streets are frequently written in English publications as strasse (Wilhelmstrasse, Vossstrasse), thereby making the usage of "ss" valid over "ß" to proponents of such. I wish there was a set policy for the usage of the Eszett; the varying usage at Category:Streets in Berlin, for instance, looks ridiculous. Olessi 18:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
For the record, it should be noted that ß seems to be "detested" in Germany itself, too. The ill-fated spelling reform has led to a great deal of confusion about ss/ß - even though the change from ß to ss under some circumstances was one of the few logical and consistent things about the reform. Suddenly people spell things with ss that should be written with ß according to both the old and the new rules. I'm receiving e-mails ending with "Gruss" or "Grüsse" (not "Gruesse"!) all the time. In fact, I spotted such a mistake on the website of a German government (!) page today... -Thorsten1 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) PS: I support Stemonitis' idea, of course.
You're completely right about that, many Germans don't know anything about the proper usage of this letter, and "Strasse" is often written this way by many Germans as well. But it is wrong, of course—except in Switzerland, where the "ß" actually was de facto abolished some decades ago, which results in articles related to Switzerland in the German wikipedia missing that letter. They are even specially marked as <!--schweizbezogen--> to prevent bots from correcting the "mistakes". --Rosenzweig 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[In response to Stemonitis's comment "Similarly, we should not have to tolerate mis-spelling of German-interest articles just because many people are either unaware of the correct spelling or ignore it." above:] It is not a "misspelling" to use the English alphabet when writing in English. There are, for example, very, very few English-language newspapers and general-circulation magazines which choose to ever use the ß, and they are perfectly withing their rights to make that choice. Of course, people seeing that legitimate usage, and looking for information in Wikipedia, ought to be able to find the articles which do exist. Gene Nygaard 01:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're using names like "Weißwasser" or "Wilhelmstraße" in your writing, you're not writing exclusively in English; that's the point. If you were, you would be calling them "Whitewater" and "William Street". "Weisswasser" and "Wilhelmstrasse" are misspellings, and the only justification for deliberately misspelling words in this way is the fear that your readers won't recognize the letter ß for what it is. In paper media like newspapers and magazines that's forgivable because they don't have hyperlinks that allow their readers to discover what ß is. But Wikipedia does. We can quite easily put the {{foreignchar}} template at the top of articles and provide a link to our excellent article ß where they can learn all about that letter. For an encyclopedia of all things to deliberately lie to its readers merely because (1) previous English-language reference works have done so or (2) because we think our readers are too stupid to understand what ß means is not forgivable. —Angr 08:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
False. It may well be deliberate in many cases, but that does not make it a "misspelling". Quite the contrary, in fact: it is evidence that it is not a misspelling.
You are using a name, but how much of it is actually the name itself and how much a descriptive term? There are different ways of looking at that, too. And it is quite acceptable to use the English alphabet when writing a name, too (see, e.g., the Wikipedia articles on Romania and Ho Chi Minh). Sure, it is possible to separate the German name that is all run together in German into two or more parts, and to translate one part of that name into English (e.g., Weiss Street and Wilhelm Street in your example), and it certainly is possible to translate the name part as well as the descriptive part (e.g. Munich Agreement). In addition,
  1. The propriety of using the English alphabet when writing in English does not depend on not having "wikilinks that allow their readers to discover what ß is".
  2. Nor does it hinge on any "fear" of what you think your readers might recognize or not.
  3. It is always a valid choice to use the English alphabet when writing in English. Not a necessary choice, but a quite legitimate one that any writer can choose to follow, either in whole or in part.
  4. There are also legitimate and valid distinctions between different foreign letter forms when choosing the appropriateness of their use in any particular English-language context. There is no need to treat ß the same as é, nor to treat ß the same as ñ, for example.
  5. There are legitimate differences in which might or might not be used in reference to theoretical physics, to major league baseball players, to Biblical history, to the names of various makes of automobiles, etc.
  6. Furthermore, we do have interwiki links, in case anybody cares how the Germans do spell it. So we really don't need to do that in our articles at all, do we? Those links are more useful than hypothetical, potential links from some template that was never used in this article even when it could have been, aren't they?
  7. Having hyperlinks does not mean that what we do have doesn't remain hidden from view, for example not found in various searches, not only in the numerous search engines available, but also in the page search features available on most browsers.
  8. Another thing, the use of one's own language in spelling is not something unique to English. It is also done in German, for example. Just go look at de:Thorvald Asvaldsson, then follow the interwiki link to see how that differs from the silliness of not using our own language in the English Wikipedia, where the intro itself starts out "(English: Thorvald Asvaldsson)" (coincidentally, the same as the normal German spelling).
Gene Nygaard 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, "It may well be deliberate in many cases"? It's always deliberate, no one could accidentally type "ss" instead of "ß". Ho Chi Minh and de:Thorvald Asvaldsson are both misspelled and ought to be moved to the correct spelling. "Romania" is a red herring, as that is the English name of the country. Your argument about people finding what they're looking for is also a red herring, since redirects will always be available to make sure people find what they're looking for, and search engines find redirects as well as articles' actual names. Saying "when writing in English" is also a red herring, since we're discussing what to do when writing about a topic that has no English name. "There is no need to treat ß the same as é, nor to treat ß the same as ñ, for example." Why not? They are all equally foreign characters unused in English words, but used in foreign names when writing in English. "There are legitimate differences in which might or might not be used in reference to theoretical physics, to major league baseball players, to Biblical history, to the names of various makes of automobiles, etc." What are you talking about? This sentence bears no discernible relation to anything that precedes or follows it. "Those links are more useful than hypothetical, potential links from some template that was never used in this article even when it could have been, aren't they?" When a German article exists, sure. But German Wikipedia doesn't have as many article as English Wikipedia does. And I don't know which article you're talking about when you say "some template that was never used in this article" (since this is the talk page in the Wikipedia namespace); every article I've encountered that used ß in the title does have the {{foreignchar}} template on it. I agree that writing "(English: Thorvald Asvaldsson)" is silly, since he doesn't have an English name. That parenthetical ought to be removed. —Angr 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not always a deliberate choice, but if it were, that would reinforce my case, not weaken it.
Redirects are of no help for a Google search for all the terms "Ichijodani chess"[2] in finding the quite relevant Wikipedia artigle at Shogi (except, of course, by going through the Wikipedia talk page on with that fact has been discussed before, and following the links on that page, something that wasn't possible when I first posted on the talk page about that article). Just borrowing an example I've used before, the same could easily be done for thousands of possible searches involving ß instead. Gene Nygaard 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
And, of course, remember that redirects don't just happen. Witness: Bernauer Strasse, Steinau an der Strasse, Warschauer Strasse, Gotaplatsen, Piata Romana, and a zillion more. Gene Nygaard 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Note further that if the "-strasse" redlinks were fixed by redirecting rather than moving, the articles to which they would redirect do not contain the controversial and little-used template you are so enamoured with. Gene Nygaard 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Aslo, Ho Chi Minh and de:Thorvald Asvaldsson are no different from Romania and Munich and ca:Bou Assegut and is:Sitjandi Naut and de:Sitting Bull. Gene Nygaard 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI here's some information about German spelling:

The letter ß is a proper letter and not using it when appropriate is indeed considered a misspelling. It may and should be replaced by double s only in cases when ß is not available, for example when typing all upper case (as ß exists in lower case only), on ancient ASCII-only computer environments etc. The recent spelling reform did not abolish ß nor decrease its frequency, but merely altered the rules on when to use ß and when to use ss (confusing to some, a clarification to others, but in any case not an issue for en:wikipedia). An exception is Switzerland, where the ß has been abolished and using double s all the time is the norm, sanctioned dictionaries such as the Duden, and the official rules both ancient and reformed.

IMHO the ß should be spelled corectly when appropriate, except in Swiss-related names/topics where Swiss spelling is to be preferred. Otherwhise there's no reason to treat ß differently from umlauts, accented letters, Icelandic runes or other "ethnic" characters. Either you want to reflect correct spelling, then please do, or you don't care at all about all those funny characters, then please do away with accents & umlauts as well. Anorak2 22:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And the sılly dots people lıke to put over theır lower-case I's and J's as well? No, Gene is quıte right that redirects don't just happen, but the fact that people sometimes forget to put redirects and {{foreignchar}} templates where they belong is of course not an argument against spelling article names correctly. Neither is the fact that other people apparently refuse to set redirects they know are missing just to prove a point. —Angr 08:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the undotted ı and the double-dotted ï that cause all the problems in searching and sorting, not the single dotted ones.
I must have forgotten to remind you of the other thing that doesn't just happen. Things don't just get automatically sorted correctly in categories, either. You could just as well have fixed that as you were adding your template; Götaplatsen should be listed before, not after Gothia Cup, for example.
But, do you ever fix that problem? Doesn't look like it. You are a big part of the problem there, not part of the solution.[3], [4], [5], what else? Gene Nygaard 11:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. Ö comes at the end of the alphabet in Swedish, not at the same place as O. —Angr 11:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, duuhhh! That's fine, if you are only considering the position of those two articles, and the big if—you are on the Swedish Wikipedia. We aren't. We sort our categories according to English sorting rules on English Wikpedia. See Wikipedia:Categorization. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) and some other places such as WP:MOS-JP. Furthermore, Unicode number order sort doesn't result in sorting according to anybody's sorting rules. The letter ö, for example, comes not only after z but also after å in the Swedish sorting rules, but before z and also before å in the Norwegian sorting rules, but before z in both English sorting rules and German sorting rules.
Furthermore, your moves such as this one resulted in an category missorted according to anybody's rules.
Note also that Städel would come after State Museum of Ethnology in Swedish indexing rules, and before in German indexing rules, but neither of them matter. It is English indexing rules that apply in Category:Art museums and galleries in Germany, and it is missorted there. Gene Nygaard 12:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; where a category is linguistically limited (i.e. all its contents will be in one language, or one language plus translations into English) then we should sort diacritics arising in it as they are sorted in that language. I think this is also the method that is mostly used. When writing about foreign topics, it helps to have a little sensitivity towards foreign customs. But this is all getting rather off-topic, isn't it? Problems of category sorting are not a necessary consequence of using "ß". Problems with redirects are not a necessary consequence of using "ß". Let's stick to that which is relevant. --Stemonitis 12:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not a method used. It is not in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. And it is not useful. This has nothing to do with "foreign customs". Rather, your attitude is a serious lack of respect for the rules of the English language. This has to do with the normal way things are alphabetized in English, in categories in an English-language encyclopedia.
And yes, problems with category sorting are indeed a necessary consequence of using ß in article names. Problems with redirects are a necessary consequence of using ß in article names. Gene Nygaard 13:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
They are not necessarily problems. We must simply advise people that articles with an "ß" in the title should be sorted as "ss" in categories, and request that a redirect from the title with "ss" also be made. That is what I do (when I remember), and that is what should be done. Arguing that people might not do so is not helpful. Frequently, people forget that biographical articles should be sorted as [Surname, Forenames], but that doesn't make it right to sort them as [Forenames Surname]. It's just another little complication in life's rich tapestry. --Stemonitis 14:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, you are getting somewhere. I still characterize it as a problem, always. Something that must be dealt with, something that is and can be dealt with in a variety of ways; how well that problem is resolved in actual usage is the issue, and the problem is often only partially alleviated by actions that are taken by editors. So where do you envision this "advising" is going to be done? That's another thing that doesn't just happen. A notice on Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board might be a good place to start, if you want to take on that project. Gene Nygaard 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A notice on the German-speakers' noticeboard can't do any harm, but I suspect most of the people who forget to make redirects and forget to add sort keys to categories (or don't know they should in either case) are the newer users, and they might well not be aware of the noticeboard. I know it was a long time before I stumbled across it. The only idea I can come up with is that the presence of an accented character in the title could be automatically detected, and lead to a message saying "Remember to add a sort key to any categories, and create a redirect from the appropriate unaccented form!", but I don't know where to ask for such a thing, or if it's really the best course of action. --Stemonitis 07:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We could also just try to make sure new pages are listed on appropriate pages like Portal:Germany/New article announcements and then checked for the presence of {{foreignchar}}, category sort keys, and redirects by experienced users. This just assumes somebody helps check Special:Newpages to help newbies announce their articles. Kusma (討論) 07:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stadt - city or town?

The dividing line between when to refer to Polish localities as cities or towns on the English Wikipedia is 100,000 inhabitants (see Category:Towns in Poland), although administration in Poland does not differentiate between the two. Is there an established policy here on when to refer to a Stadt as a city or a town? The issue came to mind with this edit. Olessi 16:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Germany follows the same, population-based distinction, if that helps. --Stemonitis 16:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Olessi 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm, city status in the United Kingdom says that being a city is something granted by the monarch. That's analogous to being granted Stadt status in Germany. So maybe we should use city=Stadt and town=other municipialities, esp. market towns. --  (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Another hmm... I have been wondering about this for some time. Should we categorize German towns/cities according to the number of their inhabitants or according to what they are allowed to call themselves? No place in Germany is allowed to call itself city if it had not been granted a city charter at some point in its history. Ekki01 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's only true for the German term Stadt. Whatever we chose to call it in English is just a translation. But it seems that the English termin city, which is defined by the OED as: "2. spec. A title ranking above that of ‘town’", is very similar to that of a Stadt.
I also think that town can be applied to any settlement that is a Gemeinde in German. OED defines town as: "4. a. In general English use, commonly designating an inhabited place larger and more regularly built than a village, and having more complete and independent local government (esp. one not created a city); ...", which also includes sub-municipiality settlements.
IMO the best translation for the German terms is:
German English comment
Stadt city a town with a special legal status
Marktgemeinde market town a town with a special legal status, historically the right to hold markets
Gemeinde town borough ("incorporated town") would also be acceptable but inconsistent with the term "market town"
Gemeinde municipiality used as a legal term only; normally, "town" should be used
--  (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Our translation guide says to always use "municipality" for "Gemeinde". Kusma (討論) 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move request

A request has been made at Talk:Pennsylvania German language to move Pennsylvania German language to Pennsylvania Dutch language. Angr 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-German (ideology)" article

Please take a look into Anti-German (ideology), mostly anon's activity without seasoned German wikipedians. `'mikka (t) 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess I could be called an "expert" - as the template at the top calls for - on the topic without any academic credentials, of course. It looks ok to me. There are however a few problems: 1) the article ends at the end of the 1990s and doesn't take events since into account. 2) Anti-German ideology is simplified a lot in the article (the following two sentences, for example: "The KB also distinguished itself from other extra-parliamentary groups through a decidedly pessimistic analysis with regard to the potential for revolutionary change in Germany. Known as the "Fascisation" analysis, this theory held that due to the particularity of German history and development, the endemic crisis of capitalism would lead to a move towards the Right and to a new Fascism.") 3) It needs to be copy-edited. 4) Although I can't provide any sources to prove this (I'll see if I can find some), I disagree with the article, when it claims that "many sections of the German Left" support Israel, this still seems to be a minority position to me - "Wertkritik" is definately not a large section of the German Left. And only some not most Antifa groups, advocate solidarity with Israel. 5) There are very little academic works about the anti-Germans, most of what is written about them, is either by people, who would consider themselves to be anti-German, or polemical attacks on the current by the rest of the Left. I do not have the time right now, but I will try to improve the article this weekend.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 18:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I found a Deutsche Welle article Strange Bedfellows: Radical Leftists for Bush from August 25, 2006 with a Google search. Also, I did find the the German article on the German Wikipedia. That said, I'm skeptical that it requires an entry in the English language Wikipedia. I regularily read Der Spiegel and I've never heard of the Anti-Germans as an ideology/conglomerate of far-left political groups. Also, I'm certain they haven't been in the news in North America in any big way. IMHO, it doesn't meet the criteria for notability--see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Any thoughts on the matter? Nephron  T|C 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. "Anti-German" denotes an opinion (I hesitate to call it an "ideology" or a "movement"), not an organization, so Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) does not apply. A Google search for "antideutsch" spawned 90,000 hits, at first sight all seem to refer to the meaning at hand. The opinion has also been the subject of a dissertation at the University of Cologne (cited in the article), which can be found here [6]. The phenomenon may attract little attention outside the German radical left, let alone anywhere outside Germany, but is notable anyway. If we were to limit ourselves to what's "in the news in North America in any big way" (or in mainstream media elsewhere (such as Der Spiegel)), 90 per cent of Wikipedia must go... Having said that, I can't vouch for the quality of the article as it stands now. --Thorsten1 12:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the different language projects should have different notability standards. If the movement is notable enough for an article at de:, it's notable enough for an article at en:. However, in both languages, the information must be verifiable by means of reliable sources, and de:Antideutsche (like, unfortunately, most de-wiki articles) has a vague bibliography at the bottom, but no information on what claims are taken from what sources. Angr 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad interwiki check?

Does Adhocracy equivalent on de-wiki is really de:Konfiguration von Mintzberg? I think that German wiki article describes something like 'taxonomy of organization forms of Mintzberg's', out of which adhocracy is just one discussed - but my German is too poor to be certain.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You read correctly DE discusses Mintzberg's theories as a whole while EN takes one management form and expands on it. Agathoclea 20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case interwiki links need to be removed, I think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Is there a set policy on when to use "von" when referring to someone by their surname? For instance, Otto von Bismarck is almost always referred to as "Bismarck" and not "von Bismarck" in English. Same with Ernst von Mansfeld with "Mansfeld" instead of "von Mansfeld". However, WWII generals usually seem to have "von" included in English publications- von Manstein, von Kluge, etc. I am partial to removing "von" when only using the surname, but want to check here first. Olessi 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The only exception I can come up with ATM is John von Neumann, rather commonly referred to as von Neumann, perhaps to distinguish him from Carl Neumann, another famous mathematician named Neumann. Kusma (討論) 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Herbert von Karajan is often called "von Karajan" in the English-speaking world, though he's just "Karajan" in the German-speaking world. Which brings up the age-old Wikipedia debate: do we use what's "common" in English, or do we use what's right? Angr 19:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Skimming through some Google Book searches, it seems English is split.[7][8] [9] I would prefer to go without "von" unless there is a need to disambiguate (as in the Neumann case). Curiously enough, it seems that de:Ludwig von Mises uses "von Mises" consistently. Olessi 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Inspired by a conversation on my talk page, I checked several books in my personal collection to determine how "von" is used. In practically all instances (I can't recall any exceptions), the format was (using Gneisenau as an example) "Field Marshal August von Gneisenau", "Gneisenau", or "Field Marshal von Gneisenau". I did not find any instances of simply "von Gneisenau".

With these in mind, I suggest that "von" should be used when referring to the full name (August Wilhelm Antonius Graf Neidhardt von Gneisenau), standard short name (August von Gneisenau), and with a title (Field Marshal von Gneisenau), but not as a "surname" (e.g. "Gneisenau liked The Hobbit", not "von Gneisenau liked The Hobbit"). Exceptions can be made for cases like the aforementioned Carl von Neumann or Herbert von Karajan. Thoughts? Olessi 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Memel / Memel (disambiguation)

There has been an ongoing discussion about what "Memel" should be. Some users prefer that "Memel" be a disambiguation page describing the different meanings of the word. Other users (including myself) prefer that "Memel" redirect to "Klaipėda", which would then use Template:Redirect as a disclaimer for "Memel (disambiguation)". Currently, "Memel" redirects to "Memel (disambiguation)", which goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). There are discussions at Talk:Klaipėda#Memel town? and Talk:Memel (disambiguation). Further input would be helpful. Olessi 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that its also a relatively important river. disamp is the best soulution.--Tresckow 19:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Austrian Holocaust Memorial Award?

There is an AFD for Austrian Holocaust Memorial Award. I've never heard of it before; the German wiki has it at the English name... Olessi 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you know...

Please add interesting facts from newly written or expanded articles there, whether they meet the requirements for the Main page Template:Did you know or not. Kusma (討論) 09:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany

This project has just been started. You can sign up and help with the organization. Kusma (討論) 07:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help with sources for Treuenbrietzen massacre

I added the following text to the article on the German city of Treuenbrietzen.

During the last days of April and first days of May, 1945, Red Army soldiers executed approximately 1000 civilian inhabitants of the city, mostly men.[10] They were taken into the forest and shot. A memorial commemorates the fate of the 1000 civilians executed by the Red Army, as well as that of the 127 Italian POWs executed by the Wehrmacht.

I sourced it with two copies of the same article, used by two online newspapers.

All evidence of my edit were removed, with the explanation that: “for such stuff a more solid ref than an article in a popular press is required” : diff 1, diff 2

I realise that the references might be borderline, since they are in German, and both point to the same article. I have however been unable to find an English article dealing with the subject. Is anyone here aware of any other sources that could be used on the subject? --Stor stark7 Talk 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. The fact that the articles are in German does not make them borderline or anything else. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources," even though "English-language sources should be provided whenever possible".
  2. Since when is a newspaper not a reliable source? As far as I know - although I don't live in Berlin - Der Tagespiegel does not have a bad reputation or anything, so I do believe it is reliabe, although I don't think it's necessary to list the same source twice even if it can be found on different websites, since the article does not gain it reliability form being in different archives, but from having been published in this newspaper, which generally includes a fact checking process.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Is Void (law) the corresponding article for de:Unwirksamkeit? I'm not quite sure if I used add an interwiki link.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC) PS. There is also the English-language article void contract; would that one be a better match?--CarabinieriTTaallkk 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW Cornelsen Wörterbuch Recht has the following translations for "void": (Klausel) hinfällig, kraftlos, nichtig, (rechts)ungültig, (rechts)unwirksam. Of these, only Nichtigkeit on German wikipedia has the legal reference, and that is a redirect to Unwirksamkeit. For "Unwirksamkeit" the translations Cornelsen suggests are: (Nichtigkeit) nullity, ineffectiveness, inoperativeness, voidness (Ungültigkeit) invalidity ... Of these, only void (law) in the English wikipedia is about the legal concept. As Unwirksamkeit can apply to other things than contracts, I'd make the link to void (law). Saint|swithin 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Prussia (region)

This article's subject is confusing to me; I have suggested changing its focus at Talk:Prussia (region)#Province?. Input or clarification would be appreciated. Olessi 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


I copyedited and streamlined Silesian and Silesian German, but both articles are still unreferenced and have potentially confusing text (and titles, IMO). Please correct if I made any errors while editing them. I also created Silesia (disambiguation) and Silesian (disambiguation). Olessi 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


How would you guys translate the word Wahlverein as it is used in the article about de:Hans Vogel. I used electoral association for now, but I'm open for suggestions how that could be translated better.--Carabinieri 11:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Buß- und Bettag

Does anyone know of any independently verifiable English translation for Buß- und Bettag (which is coming up tomorrow)? Public holidays in Germany calls it "Penance Day", but that might be just one Wikipedian's idea. —Angr 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC) gives "Penance Day" and "day of repentance". The US Department of Commerce gives "Repentance Day" [12]. Mostly it seems that every author comes up with a new translation: "Day for Penance and Praying" [13], "Day of Prayer and Repentance" [14], "Repentance and prayer day" [15]. I might go so far as to suggest that there is no single widely-accepted translation. --Stemonitis 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't hoping for a single widely accepted translation as one with some sort of authority to back it up (like the EU). Eurodicautom gives "Repentance Day", so it looks like both the EU and the U.S. government agree on what they want to call it. —Angr 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've most often heard it as "Day of Prayer and Repentance." It's used by the Lutheran church, at least sometimes([16]).  ProhibitOnions  (T) 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt

I also posted this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles).

What would be the correct article title for Christian Ludwig of Brandenburg-Schwedt? de:Brandenburg-Schwedt mentions three margraves of Brandenburg-Schwedt: Philipp Wilhelm (1688-1711), Friedrich Wilhelm (1731-1771), and Heinrich Friedrich (Friedrich Heinrich; 1771–1788)) as ruling margraves. This link mentions "Charles" (Karl), a son of Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, as an earlier margrave. This link mentions an "Albrecht Friedrich" (1711–1731) as ruling between Philipp Wilhelm and Friedrich Wilhelm. I haven't found any links starting that Christian Ludwig actually ruled Schwedt like his brother Philipp Wilhelm, but he definitely has been called the "Margrave of Brandenburg(-Schwedt)". Would this be a substantive or courtesy title? Other variations I have considered are Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt and Margrave Christian Ludwig of Brandenburg-Schwedt. Olessi 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any differences between the regions, but one example from round here is Dietrich, Margrave of Meissen, see also List of Margraves of Meissen. The Meißen ones all seem to be named like that. Does that help ..? Saint|swithin 22:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be the convention for Philipp Wilhelm, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt, who actually ruled in Schwedt, even though the cadet branch was confined by the electors. As far as I can tell, Christian Ludwig never actually became the monarch of Schwedt like Philipp Wilhelm, however. He seems to have been given the title of margrave as he was a son of the Great Elector, but this was more honorary (unsure about substantive or courtesy) than anything. Unless we hear otherwise from the Naming Conventions board, I think we should keep C.L. at the current location for simplicity. Thanks for helping, though. Olessi 23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody at the Holy Roman Empire taskforce have an idea how to deal with cases like this. Kusma (討論) 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Polabian Slavs

I am uncertain about the title and content of Polabian Slavs. Clarification and/or feedback at Talk:Polabian Slavs would be appreciated. Olessi 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


de:Staatsexamen is linked to Professional degree, which is odd. Does anybody have a better interwiki link (or can write article explaining the concept)?

Individual transportation

is Individual transportation an English expression? I found it as a header in Munich and it smells to me like a literal translation of de:Individualverkehr. Better expressions to use? Agathoclea 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mario, Duke of Bavaria

Someone added Mario, Duke of Bavaria. Is it a joke? Can anybody check? Kmorozov 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no Mario listed in List of rulers of Bavaria. --Stemonitis 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
But User: several times tried to add him to the List of rulers of Bavaria but I reverted it. I need an expert opinion. Kmorozov 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Definite hoax. No evidence of a person with that name having been Duke of Bavaria, especially not in that period. Ekki01 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The entry has just been deleted by john k. Ekki01 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankfurt (Oder)

Please keep an eye on Frankfurt (Oder), folks. There's a revert war going on with one user (User:Pmanderson, aka "Septentrionalis") adding the likes of "Frankfurt-on-Oder, as it is known in English" to the lede. I've no objection to variant iterations being mentioned, as there have been many (Frankfurt/Oder, Frankfurt a./Oder, Frankfurt an der Oder, Frankfurt a.d. Oder, Frankfurt/O. etc.) but this is against consensus and OR.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 17:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Former districts

The current naming system for Kreise is to disambiguate where necessary with Name (district). Is there any reason not to use this style for the former districts east of the O-N Line? Regarding Landkreis Trebnitz, for example, we would use Trebnitz (district) instead of Landkreis Trebnitz. "Trebnitz" could then be turned into a disambiguation page listing the former district and Trzebnica. Olessi 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Johanniter Order

There is a discussion about rearranging Order of St. John (Protestant Continental Europe) at Talk:Order of St. John (Protestant Continental Europe). Olessi 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Germany at Wikipedia:Peer review

Any comment how the article can be improved is appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Germany/archive1. Kusma (討論) 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Now it is at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Germany. Please help fix the remaining objections. Kusma (討論) 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

German nobility names

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) about wether or not a Karl of Württemberg should still be anlicized into a Charles in our days. Please contribute.--Tresckow 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

History Line: 1914-1918

I created an article about a German game, it's DYKable alraedy but on de-wiki there seem to be some info that looks interesting - but I cannot translate it; perhaps somebody could take a look and see if there any useful facts or hooks for DYK there?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Siegert

A joke right? Unknown in Germany. He has no German Wiki entry. Even his Fan-Gage seems deserted.--Tresckow 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

All I could find about him is at He put out an album and three singles, but nothing in the past three years or so. Probably his voice changed (he's almost 16 now), which often puts an end to a singing career. I'm not sure if "Grand final winner of Star Search Kids in Germany, 2003" is sufficient to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. —Angr 20:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I also found this "where are they now" column about him. Doesn't look like he's headed for stardom. —Angr 20:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New translation page

I asked a couple of questions at Wikipedia talk:Translation/*/Lang/de as I don't have the energy to try to get to grips with the format of the new translation page:

  1. Is there no longer any way to sort requests into topics? It seems a real shame if we are going to go back to a massive, unsorted list without topics (especially after all the time I spent sorting the old translation page into topics :-S)
  2. I can't see how to add these links to the box at the top: Wikipedia:German-English translation requests/biographies and Wikipedia:German-English translation requests/Translation guide. Saint|swithin 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


There are currently move requests regarding Talk:Palatinate and Talk:Palatinate of the Rhine. Olessi 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

County of the Mark

There is a discussion of what the ideal title for this state is at Talk:County of the Mark. Further input and/or clarification would be helpful. Olessi 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Research translation request

Could anybody translate at least a brief summary of de:Wikipedia:Wikipedistik/Soziologie/Erhebungen? How was it done, by whom, when, and what were the results? Is it related to the Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

big 1848 project

Hello Germans! I wanted to let you know that I have proposed a WikiProject on the Revolutions of 1848 here. Come join if you're interested! K. Lásztocska 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New moves

Trentino-South Tyrol Requested move

A move has been requested at Talk:Trentino-South_Tyrol#Requested_move anyone who is interested may become involved, and/or give suggestions.

South Tyrol Requested move

A move has been requested at Talk:South_Tyrol#Requested_move anyone who is interested may become involved, and/or give suggestions. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Teutonic-Estonian War

Talk:Teutonic-Estonian War - The article's title seems to be original research; I have proposed alternatives on the talk page (including an expansion to Livonian Crusade). Olessi 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request from a problematic (?) user

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Piotrus two users (so far) have mentioned that "many German users have problem with my behaviour" and "German editors have all shown the huge frustration from [my behaviour]." I'd appreciate comments - here or there - on whether this is the case and this sweeping generalization is indeed true. I ws not aware of any behaviour of mine which would have been negativly perceived by the German community on en wiki, but if this is the case, I'd appreciate any comments on how this may be fixed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the many German users, yet I did not add a statement to your RfAr which by now is accepted as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus. I'm convinced that most Germans (Wikipedia editors or not) stay away from sensitive topics related to German history and geography in the first place, and those who dare to get involved are mostly very careful regarding possible conflicts with e.g. Polish sentiments. Thus it should not be taken for consent if German editors shy away from disputes with Polish editors.-- Matthead discuß!     O       15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthead is correct in his statement from May 1. Piotr is just one of many like-minded problematic or disruptive Wikipedia editors, who constantly enter distorted POV opinions. An observer, who stays away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Although Eastern European history isn’t really my field of interest, Piotrus asked German Wikipedians for comments, whether he was a nuisance to them or not. Given the huge amount of edits by that assiduous user it is almost impossible to overlook him, and I appreciate his contributions which deal with my areas of interest. His work on Max Weber e.g. is excellent and so is History of Solidarity or Historical demography. On the other hand I cannot ignore that the Eastern European history project here is caught in a jingoistic quagmire: Many people want the name of their countries appear here as often as possible and spare no effort on correcting each other whether it is Danzig or Gdansk, if Kopernikus was Polish or whatever, if it is Historical Eastern Germany or Recovered Territories - etc. Those unenlightened debates are almost always infinite, irrelevant and never provide any intellectual insight other than that some people have strange hobbies. I don’t waste my time with that - and honestly, I don’t care. Having said that, I think it is just not fair to single out Piotrus and create a case pars pro toto that might drive an otherwise respected contributor, who is just as über-patriotic as all the others involved, away. But then, I have no idea how to talk with Turkeys about Thanksgiving. Teodorico 12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who frequently edits Central/Eastern Europe-related articles, I can personally attest to the oft-frustrating disputes which are commonly nationalistic in nature. While Piotrus edits from a Polish point of view, I have not noticed him being nationalistic or uncompromising in my dealings with him. On the contrary, our interactions have been productive and harmonious. Olessi 14:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Is there indeed such a dialect of German language or it is a hoax? Alex Bakharev 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero Google hits, very unlikely German spelling - I'd say it's a hoax. - 52 Pickup 07:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly have meant Neudeutsch(New German), indicating recent trends in spoken German, including a frequent use of anglicisms, developing into something called Denglisch? samwaltz 11:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a hoax. This is the content of the deleted hoax article: "Unduetchër is a dialect of the German language, and is likely the least spoken dialect. It greatly differs from the other speakings of the language. Unduetchër comes from the early German tribe of "Unduetchë." The tribe was located on the early German/Russia bored before WWI (now poland)." Kusma (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fußball ist unser Leben

Der König ist tot, lang leben die Könige Westdeutschland und Deutschland! Please have a look at the vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Germany national football team. This article should be deleted as Germany national football team should cover also the history of the DFB team from 1949 to 1990. There are people claiming that West Germany and Germany were "2 very different tams. The only reason why FIFA granted Germany the 3 World Cups West Germany won is because they didn't want those titles to be wasted. The article right now is very specific oriented and many people are quite pleased". [17] -- Matthead discuß!     O       22:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)