Talk:Unsere Zeit

Bold rename
I moved the history of the redirect to Talk:Unsere zeit/deleted history before overwriting the one or two versions that showed on the history of Unsere zeit. And the two entries i saw are now there, below the entry for the move i made. I dunno it that was useful, but it was easier than i feared, and i think can do no harm. I ignored the argument that de: wp has the other casing bcz i have information on neither when getting an unser zeit fully outfitted became possible here, whether it is yet possible there, nor whether they even know it's now possible here. Until that is known, i (if for no other reason) repect the effort that's been invested in making possible here, and will argue at least until more is known, that it makes sense everywhere that it's feasible.--Jerzy•t 11:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style/Trademarks:
 * Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names.
 * avoid: nintendo
 * instead, use: Nintendo
 * Even the official website capitalizes this title (at the bottom of the page):
 * Unsere Zeit ¤ Hoffnungstraße 18 ¤ 45127 Essen ¤ redaktion@unsere-zeit.de
 * Sorry, I don't understand the need for moving Unsere zeit to Talk:Unsere zeit/deleted history. Couldn't that move to Unsere Zeit, i.e., just exchange the pages? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Casing (was part of "Bold rename")
--Jerzy•t 05:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just examined Google's 10-per-page previews of the first 100 hits for the G-srch input >> site:www.nintendo.com nintendo <<, and "Nintendo" appeared in nearly all of them, with that casing (and downcased only in URLs and e-mail addresses). "unsere zeit" does not parallel that guidance, bcz "nintendo" is made up by fanboys whenever they feel like it, while the "u... z..." variant was made up by the holder of the trademark in a systematic and sustained fashion. In fact the evidence at hand suggests that the intent of the trademark holder is that "Unsere Zeit" is the name of the publishing company and "unsere zeit" the name of the publication; they are either closely related variants of a single trademark or two closely related trademarks, but in either case, applied in respectively appropriate contexts. If you want to write an article primarily about how the paper's production is financed and managed, you should name it Unsere Zeit (or probably Unsere Zeit (company)).     It also seems relevant that "unsere zeit" is ein Doppellstoss im Gesicht des Herrn Prof. Dudens, not only omitting upcasing of the first word but even down-casing a noun (which, if you don't know, is something that is supposed to never happen in German without a preceding noun being jammed right up against it, let alone in a phrase that is the proper name of something).   Did you cherry-pick from the MoS? Or is it just that the MoS is silent on names where the trademark-holder's MoS calls for downcasing in some situations that don't correspond to the common-sense approach to "vanilla" situations that you want to apply well outside vanilla.   In fact, i expect that iPhone is the "death by chocolate" situation, where AFAIK the trademark holder never upcases the first letter. I've tested the vanilla case for you; will you muster a more plausibly relevant argument by examining some cases that aren't so far from what could be considered a borderline case, and tell us whether the guideline addresses any meta-vanilla cases, or just documents our putting our foot down solidly in the cases where there is no explanation for the down-casing but slacker or grunge nose-thumbing at received wisdom.   The reductio ad absurdem is that the evidence you just presented would suggest that we have IPad as the article and iPad ... [something]  only for redirects.

Talk-subpage scratch-pad (was part of "Bold rename")

 * Do whatever you want with the harmless subpage, and don't delude yourself that i own it. My intent was simply to avoid my obscuring, any more than necessary, the summary that made the argument that i was taking exception to. My commentary on that intent is that the software gods rightly focused on preserving the attribution of the new content, and attribution of the new arrangements of old content, but that's not always all that matters. My role in that "case" was already closed. --Jerzy•t 05:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)