Talk:Weißenburg in Bayern/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move (as of 23-Oct-05)

The correct name of the town in Weißenburg in Bayern, not Weissenburg, Bavaria or Weissenburg in Bayern. See also Debate on Talk:Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen. Gryffindor 00:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please place your new vote here off the 23 October 2005 to move article to Weißenburg in Bayern. The votes at the bottom are from another vote.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support, for exactly the same reason as a few days ago -- I think this is just to confirm my vote there. Edinborgarstefan 01:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support to move to the correct name Weißenburg in Bayern. This follows logic of the naming of the district as well. Gryffindor 22:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. My opinions have not changed during the last weeks. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Haukur :-)) Gryffindor 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose unnecessary use of non-English language characters. It is sufficientto provide the German-language gloss in the first sentence. older≠wiser 00:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Bkonrad said and for gaming the system/ignoring previous votes/whatever you want to consider the recurring voting here. Rmhermen 04:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why are we voting again so soon? Jonathunder 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The previous vote was on whether to move the article to "Weissenburg, Bavaria", which was based on the proposer's admitted misunderstanding of the current article name. Silverhelm 06:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Strongly support. It's beyond me why a vote is considered necessary: the place is called "Weißenburg in Bayern", and in the absence of a commonly-used English alternative (such as "Nuremberg" for "Nürnberg"), that's what the article should be called. Incidentally, the head of the article for Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen does a nice job of quietly drawing attention to the "unusual" character and giving a pointer for those unfamiliar with it, and I suggest that this is used here (although I don't quite like the wording used). Silverhelm 06:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Support a move to Weißenburg in Bayern, as I said abovebelow. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support use of ß. Silverhelm talks sense. --Stemonitis 07:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Markussep 07:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mark 12:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What again, so soon. Isn't there some sort of waiting period before another move is made? – Axman (☏) 12:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, normally I think we wait 6 months. In this case the earlier vote had only three participants and was started around the same time as the one on Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen - but went in the other direction. The idea now is to harmonize the title of the city and the administrative region it is in. While I think that's a good idea I also think we should suspend all WP:RM ß-related votes for the time being. It's clear that the people who vote on this are split in such a way that a 60% majority for moving to or from a name with an ß will be very difficult to obtain. It is thus pointless to try to force the issue through individual votes. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep it at the English version of the name. Tree&Leaf 16:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support to the move to Weißenburg in Bayern. -- Brego 21:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support to Weißenburg in Bayern. --Schubbay 23:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary use of non-English alphabet. As silly as changing it to "im" would be. Gene Nygaard
Is that your profession? Eliminating non-english characters in every article? Have fun! ;-)--217.247.7.44 18:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It would genuinely be a silly suggestion to change 'in' to 'im'. It would be very similar to suggest moving Stratford-upon-Avon to Stratford-upon-the-Avon. Edinborgarstefan 16:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Spanish and French use the Latin alphabet as they are derived from Latin. "ß" is not of the Latin alphabet. Quintusdecimus 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The term "Latin alphabet" is conventionally used to describe the writing system for the English language. What characters the Latin language itself used are entirely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion; and, incidentally, Latin didn't distinguish between <i> and <j> or <u> and <v>, and didn't have the character <w>. Oh, and Spanish uses the character <ñ>, which is not found in Latin, either, and Latin doesn't use the accented vowels found in French and Spanish. Silverhelm 20:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Oppose move. STRONGLY oppose this practice of running the vote again and canvassing for votes, Haukurth, until you get the result you want. Scroll down just a few lines and look at the proposal to move to Weißenburg in Bayern which failed only a month ago. It's exactly the same as what is proposed now, and it will fail again. CDThieme 17:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not initiate this vote and I have not canvassed for it. In fact I think it is almost certainly pointless as I note above. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, it was my mistake to even initiate this. To any administrator who is reading this, I would like to point out that the district has been agreed upon to be named Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen, with the ß. It cannot be that the capital city of that district, which shares the same name, is named differently. This mistake should be corrected. Gryffindor 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it would be nice to have consistency. But to say that it was "agreed upon" to keep Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen at its current location is putting things rather charitably. Several of those who commented there were in favor of a move and, in any case, those who want to keep this article here at the 'ss' rendering no doubt feel the same way about the other article so they might as well call upon us to yield Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen to them for consistency. But if everyone feels consistency is important maybe we can ask a trusted outsider to flip a coin deciding the fate of both article titles :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It's no different from using a German spelling for the title of an article about any town in Germany (only redirect from Deutschland) or in Austria (only redirect from Österreich). I don't think you really want to go there. Gene Nygaard 09:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused by this comment. Currently, the situation is that we generally do use the German spelling for places in Germany which do not have an English name, if you know of some examples which don't follow this strategy I would be interested to hear them. So, in your words, we have already gone there. And once again, Nuremberg, Munich and Germany are where they are because these are genuinely English names. Edinborgarstefan 12:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as there is no English name for this town. For anyone interested in German geography, knowing what ß is will be useful knowledge, and looking it up takes less than a minute. Uppland 05:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If I didn't know what it was, how would I look it up? I don't have any squiggles that look like ß on my keyboard, and there is no link to in in this article, if I somehow got here by using a search engine, maybe looking for "Roman bath" or whatever. At least when it is just squiggles attached to a letter of the English alphabet, I can look up that English letter and find links to and sometimes other information about the squiggly variants. Gene Nygaard 09:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. See Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen for one attempt to tackle this problem. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The town's website even states the town's name is Weißenburg in Bayern. Olessi 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am German, but I think using ß (and other non-english characters) on the english Wikipedia is not approproate for article names. They should be mentioned within the article, however. -- Chris 73 Talk 17:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In general, adding diacritics to a name when it is not normally done in English is no problem as long as the letter is still recognizable, as people who don't know the diacritic can easily ignore it. In this case, someone who does not speak German (after all, it's not the German wikipedia here) will probably read this name as Weibenburg. Eugene van der Pijll 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Call it "Weißenburg im Bayern" or "Weissenburg in Bayern" but not a mish-mash of German and English. Via Egnatia
    • The correct German name really is "Weißenburg in Bayern". "Weißenburg im Bayern" would translate as "Weissenburg in the Bavaria" (which is wrong, both in English and in German). Eugene van der Pijll 16:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ß should be an acceptable character for inclusion in article titles. –Hajor 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not an English letter. Are not article titles to be in English? Longboat
They are indeed supposed to be in English when there exists an English name, e.g. Nuremberg, Munich, Germany. When there doesn't exist an English name the proposal is to use the local name, provided that it uses the Latin alphabet which Weißenburg clearly does. Edinborgarstefan 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
But ß isn't part of the Latin or Modern English alphabets, of course. It's only in the German alphabet.
É, È, & Ô are used in French, not in Latin or English. Would you therefore prefer that Côte-d'Or, Corrèze, and Pyrénées-Atlantiques be at Cote-d'Or, Correze, and Pyrenees-Atlantiques? See Silverhelm's explanation about the alphabets above. Olessi 19:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Not neccessarily. Those aren't extra letters, they are ones shared with English, just with extra marks, unlike ß which is totally foreign to English.
This is getting to be quite hair-splitting. These "extra marks" are there for a reason, they change the properties of the character, e.g. it will be pronounced differently and so on. But if this is really supposed to be an argument which holds some ground, then no, ß is not totally foreign, it is just two esses crammed together but it is a distinct letter from ss. (Just as W is just two V crammed together but still a distinct character). Furthermore, to people with some knowledge of German, who will be much more likely to read the article, the ß will give very useful information. For readers who have no knowledge of German we will of course add the template foreignchar to the article, if it will ever move. Edinborgarstefan 22:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the more English form with ss. No Account 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The spelling with ß is the correct one, I can't move it due to 2-line edit history. Markussep 11:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It was suggested that this article be renamed to Weißenburg in Bayern. The vote is shown below:

  • Oppose move. Weissenburg is more common in English, and in general the English Wikipedia avoids the ß character in article titles. Jonathunder 02:35, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
About avoiding ß in titles, that may have been so before the latest software update, but now it's no problem. See for instance the district around Weißenburg (Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen), or the mountain Großglockner. Maybe "Weissenburg" is more common in English than "Weißenburg" (for instance in reference to Wissembourg or Alba Iulia, or Weissenburg in Switzerland), but I'm pretty sure "Weißenburg in Bayern" is more common than "Weissenburg in Bayern". Markussep 07:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Wissembourg is different, anyway, as it's the French name for a formerly German town that's now part of France. Silverhelm 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Oppose. – AxSkov (☏) 09:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Joolz 11:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Should use the English spelling of "Bavaria" and the standard "town, state" format. From the entry on the WP:RM page. Mark 14:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. Mark 14:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the name of the town is "Weißenburg in Bayern"; "in Bayern" is as much a part of the name as "-on-Sea" is a part of the name "Southend-on-Sea". But it should be changed to Weißenburg in Bayern with the ß. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for exactly the same reason as Angr and explicitly also support the move to Weißenburg in Bayern, which should be obvious from my contribution to the article Edinborgarstefan 21:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC) -- updated Edinborgarstefan 14:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is the German preposition "in" rather than its English counterpart. I also support a move to Weißenburg in Bayern. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, supporting move to Weißenburg in Bayern. Uppland 16:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should be reluctant to force the "city, state" convention on places where local usage offers us an acceptable (and natural) alternative. That "comma convention" doesn't seem to prevail among the German articles: the various "towns in Germany cats" are a mess of "City, Land", "City (Land)", "City (Germany)" and even (shudder) "City, Germany", No opinion on ß vs. ss in this specific instance: that should be set by global policy consensus elsewhere, not on a case-by-case basis. –Hajor 22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted by others, the correct full name of this city is "Weißenburg in Bayern", and the article should be moved to that. Silverhelm 22:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Oppose. This is not a case of a disambiguated placename: it is not simply the Weißenburg that is found in Bavaria, but rather its name is Weißenburg in Bayern. To change it to "Weissenburg, Bavaria" would be cultural imperialism of the worst kind. Note that Stratford-upon-Avon is called "Stratford-upon-Avon" in French [1], German [2] and other wikis, and not Stratford-sur-Avon, Stratford-an-der-Avon (or worse, Straßenfurt-an-der-Avon) or anything stupid like that. --Stemonitis 07:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't realise this when I made the move request, thankyou for enlightening me. There was no cultural imperialism meant in the slightest, it is just a misunderstanding. I still oppose any use of ß in the name though. Mark 07:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak support. We say Moskau in german, I do not think this is imperalism. English people say Moscow. I don't think this is imperalism. It is adoption. Why do the ß-supporters do not use chinese symbols for Beijing? Maybe because this is english WP? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because it is the correct way of writing for this german city. Because we have this strange letter ß ("Rüssel-s") in our language let it in the lemma and make a redirect. --Markus Schweiss 17:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Markus, Weißenburg in Bayern. Darkone 01:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's Weißenburg in Bayern. That's what you expect if you travel through Germany. Oh, and yes, we sure have the Weißwurst ;-) --Brego 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Clear cae of existing English name, more so than the town part. Contrary to the claims of those who say this is "part of the name", if it were webd be using "Weißenburg im Bayern", wouldn't we? Gene Nygaard 16:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Strike that last part, looked at interwiki. Gene Nygaard 16:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Descision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of article

I have expanded the article based on the German version and on a tourist history booklet I brought home with me from my trip there. It's a nice city and if it is to become a pawn in an argument about spelling I think it deserves more than a three-line article. It would also be nice to include the pictures from the German version. Edinborgarstefan 09:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job! I added the picture of the city hall. We should probably add the others as well. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The current edit war

I reverted the anon's edits because he is making weird changes like inserting   here and there and because I feel he should discuss it on the talk page before changing the spelling of the principal author - who is now User:Edinborgarstefan.

He does, of course, have a point that while the article is located at the 'ss' spelling it would be most natural to use that spelling throughout. See the ongoing edit war at Ubeda for more thoughts on this.

Currently I read three votes on this talk page for moving the article to the native spelling (WP:RM suggests we use approval voting). - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, currently there are only three votes opposing move to Weissenburg, Bavaria. Mark 13:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
And all of them say it should be at Weißenburg in Bayern so following the principles of approval voting the statement of Haukur is correct. Edinborgarstefan 14:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Lets just concentrate on one vote at a time. Mark 05:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of current move debate

No-one is actually supporting a move to "Weissenburg, Bavaria" anymore. That was an innocent misunderstanding. The question now is whether we should move it to Weißenburg in Bayern in accordance with the article title Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weißenburg_in_Bayern/Archive_1&oldid=1105819128"