Talk:Impressum

Comment
The entire second paragraph, though possibly well-intentioned, is unsourced and does not belong on Wikipedia as this is not a tutorial for translators. Moreover, the words-worth.de link is an unreliable source for anything, and should also be removed.

Where is the Wikipedia Impressum?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.186.32 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am removing words-worth.de external link, not least because it is a 404. I would also propose removing (or perhaps renaming?) the Mistranslation section as this appears to be a matter of opinion rather than fact. Imprint is indeed used as the name a print publisher uses to issue a work and it could well be argued that an Impressum is precisely the identification or "imprint" which a web publisher is obliged to provide as an internet publisher. Murmeltier (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Impressum
Where is it, you ask?

Here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Impressum

Note there's no equivalent for the english-language Wiki.

US comparison
It seems to me that the U.S. does have a very closely analogous concept, although so far as I know it doesn't have a name, just a form number. The United States Postal Service requires all periodicals to publish, within their pages, a semiannual (?) statement of ownership and circulation to qualify for second-class mailing privileges (at subsidized rates). This is not quite the same thing, as it only applies to publications that are sent in the mail at the discounted rate, so Web sites and suchlike are exempt, but it is at least comparable. 121a0012 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Business vs private
According to German websites, the Impressum is ONLY obligatory for companies. Should this not be included in this article, too? BuzzWoof (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi BuzzWoof, the requirement covers more than just companies or professionals. Cf. e.g., , or de:Impressum (if anyone needs translation I'd gladly help). --dealerofsalvation 17:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but the English text implies that it is required for all websites, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.74.7 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the case: Telemediengesetz mentions in the list of what must be in an Impressum:
 * den Namen und die Anschrift, unter der sie niedergelassen sind, bei juristischen Personen zusätzlich die Rechtsform, den Vertretungsberechtigten und, sofern Angaben über das Kapital der Gesellschaft gemacht werden, das Stamm- oder Grundkapital sowie, wenn nicht alle in Geld zu leistenden Einlagen eingezahlt sind, der Gesamtbetrag der ausstehenden Einlagen,

It mentions additional information to be displayed for entities, which means that the Impressum in general is something you have to have on personal sites, too. --FNek (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

UK Comparison
I would have thought there was an extremely close equivalent under UK law - namely the printer's imprint - as referenced under the Printer's Imprint Act 1961. Martin Tod (talk) 14:20, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Some example links:
 * http://plc.practicallaw.com/2-100-4850
 * http://www.britishprint.com/stream.asp?stream=true&eid=2331&node=1220&checksum=D5B0932CC311D72C2A03CE0D8D419507

Requested move 31 March 2017

 * 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Impressum → Imprint (printer or publisher's details) – The name for this article should relate to the commonly used English-language term "Imprint" - which has existed for over 100 years under English law and continues to be used today. Impressum should be listed as a German example of the same principle (and as a highly random Facebook use of a German word when an English word will be clearer and more specific). The OED has this as its 2nd noun definition Martin Tod (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Looks like this one is lost! I'll take the advice from Station1 and clarify the article, and next time I'll take the advice from Steel1943 and propose something like Imprint (printer's imprint) or Printer's imprint as the name for the new article. Martin Tod (talk)
 * Oppose. This article is not about publishing imprints in general. It is specifically about a legal requirement "in Germany and certain other German-speaking countries", where "no consistent legal term is used in English-language media" and several different possible close English equivalents are noted. It states that the German impressum is close but not equivalent to the UK law. If that's wrong, the article needs to be edited, but as it stands it seems like a distinction. We already have Imprint (publishing), which redirects to Imprint (trade name). Station1 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Imprints and Impressen are two different things.  The latter have no real equivalent in English.  —Psychonaut (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Opposed proposed move solely on the fact that the proposed disambiguator is too bulky to be useful. I'm neutral otherwise. Steel1943  (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2017 (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.

Capitalization
I capitalized Impressum throughout the page because it is a German noun. It had been italicized as a non-English word in some instances but not others; I italicized all instances. This orthography is consistent with the fact that I did not find this word in the first four English dictionaries that I checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrevan (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)