Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Archive 24

Two Deaf / Nazi Germany articles and two drafts
At WT:AFC we have been alerted to two articles and two drafts which seem to be four different ways of presenting similar / overlapping / complementary material:


 * Sterilization of deaf people in Nazi Germany
 * Deaf Organizations during the Holocaust
 * Draft:Influencers and Cultural Players of the Deaf During Nazi Controlled Germany
 * Draft:Deaf Sterilization and Nazi Coverups

These four contain material that should not be lost. However, they require a careful hand to work out how and what to achieve. I have left comments on the two drafts, but I think members of this Wikiproject are best suited to take this forward. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red translation contest: April to June 2022
At the beginning of April, WikiProject Women in Red is launching a three-month translation contest focused on increasing our coverage of women's biographies. As the German version of Wikipedia is one of the most popular sources for translation, members of WikiProject Germany may be interested in participating.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Largest Fair on the Rhine
For an event that boasts 4 million visitors a year, this article has gotten little attention from editors. I could stub the article but wanted to drop it here first to see if the subject matter experts can do any cleanup.Slywriter (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel → SS
An editor has opened a move discussion as to whether the article Schutzstaffel should be moved to SS. Your feedback would be welcome at Talk:Schutzstaffel. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Better name for "Category:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust"?
See Category talk:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust. I suggest that a more appropriate title would be something like, "German officials who resisted the Holocaust", to better reflect the stated scope of the category, which is: "This category is for individuals with official positions or official membership in the Nazi Party, the German government, or the German military, who showed resistance to the Holocaust by the National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945." The current title suggests that all fo those who were in government or who were drafted into the military, etc. were Nazis, when many weren't. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear and respect your point; however, during the era of Nazi Germany, service to the state was equivalent to allegiance and membership in the Nazis. So the phrase "Nazi personnel" simply refers to being a member of the official personnel of Nazi Germany.
 * As you know, all other parties were prohibited and brutally suppressed by the Nazi regime. Membership in the government or the military did not make one an ardent Nazi; however, it did make one part of the official personnel of the Nazi regime, regardless of one's individual opinions, or political beliefs. since the adjective "Nazi" applies to Germany itself as a whole, i.e. "Nazi Germany," it is useful and valid to refer to any official employees as "Nazi personnel."
 * that is precisely why the category name uses the phrase "Nazi personnel; " it deliberately suggests a formal relationship, instead of using less-suitable phrasing, such as e.g. "Nazi adherents," "Nazi ideologues," "Nazi organizers," "Nazi leaders," etc etc. I do appreciate your good-faith comments on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Service to the state was not equivalent to "membership in the Nazis", which is party membership. How about "Nazi German officials"? That would make it clearer that they are officials of Nazi Germany, not personnel who were Nazis as in the current name. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for responding constructively here. There are distinctions to be made. The name of the government at the time was the Deutsches Reich or "German Empire". The name of its combined armed forces was the Wehrmacht. So, while we recognize that all this was under the control of one party—the Nazi Party—it's wrong to imply that individuals living or working under the regime were "Nazis". Additionally, some of the people in the category were industrialists or local officials—not part of the national government.
 * "Nazi Germany" is our linguistic construct. The German Wikipedia article uses nationalsozialistischer Staat, which means "national socialist state". It's an affront to the actions and legacy of many of those who opposed the Holocaust to associate the name "Nazi" with them, so "Nazi German officials" is an unfortunate turn of phrase. I am looking for a description for the category that dissociates Nazism from individuals who resisted its policies. "German officials who opposed the Nazi Holocaust" or "Officials of the Third Reich who opposed the Holocaust" would achieve this. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've moved this discussion to Category talk:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust. Please continue the discussion there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Finnish Civil War
I have nominated Finnish Civil War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Easter traditions of Germany
We've recently created Category:Easter traditions in Germany but it's being considered for deletion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_24. I think it has scope for expansion. Comments appreciated (at the CfD thread, they won't be noticed here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding article to list to be translated
Hi! I'm new to serious Wikipedia contribution and having some difficulty figuring out how to add an article to the list of articles to be translated. I'm hoping to add to Geography articles needing translation from German Wikipedia. How can I accomplish this? Trogyssy (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Trogyssy That category has a bit of a misleading name - have a look at WP:PNT for some of the various tags that add an article to those categories. As far as I know there's no way to tag an article on another wiki for translation. You can also start a stub and tag it with Template:Expand_German. There is a really tremendous backlog on that category though (over 7k articles, nearly 5k of which are geography specifically), so I don't really recommend creating a stub solely in the hopes someone else will translate it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm glad to have a better understanding of this system to which I'd like to contribute. Trogyssy (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

As German-English translator of articles on German history, I've found many articles flagged for expansion / translation that aren't listed in the category "History articles needing translation from German Wikipedia". How is that category updated? Is it possible for the update to be automated? GHStPaulMN (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

New MdB stubs by Lovemankind83
User:Lovemankind83 has been creating plenty of stubs for politicians that were newly elected to the Bundestag in 2021. I’m sorry to say that these stubs are of very poor quality: I’ve already fixed invalid syntax; typos in city or town names, years, and subject names; unsourced information; and more spaces before references than I care to count. I would appreciate some help in cleaning those up. Galaktos (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, @Galaktos. Here is a link to his/her contributions: Special:Contributions/Lovemankind83. Kiwipete (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What should I say? Someone has to do this stuff, because its a shande that all the good politicians of the Bundestag get the attention they deserve Lovemankind83 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that’s an excuse for writing a mass of poor-quality articles, though. If these politicians deserve such attention, then surely they deserve articles that don’t misspell their home towns or are mistakenly added to categories that don’t exist. Galaktos (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alexander, Prince of Saxony
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alexander, Prince of Saxony that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for Ulm campaign
I have nominated Ulm campaign for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Duino Elegies Featured article review
I have nominated Duino Elegies for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Who said this quote?
Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power stated that Theodor Wolff made a quote translated as "It is a hopeless misjudgement to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the German nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy."

However the source in German states: A Google Translate of this quote suggests that it was Reifensberg and not Wolff said it. The translation could be wrong and it would be nice to confirm this.
 * "Wie Theodor Wolff bezeichnete es Reifenberg als "eine hoffnungslose Verkennung unserer Nation, zu glauben, man könne ihr ein diktatorisches Regime aufzwingen": "Die Vielfältigkeit des deutschen Volkes verlangt die Demokratie.""

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @WhisperToMe You're correct. Wolff's quotes are in the paragraph above that one. -- asilvering (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I fixed the attribution and added the German quote for extra verification. It was important to fix this as it's such an influential and high traffic article. BTW did the Zeit source state where Reifenberg made his quote? Was it directly in a German newspaper? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a newspaper, the Frankfurter Zeitung. I assume on 31 January 1933 if you want to look for it (that's the date of Wolff's editorial, and it doesn't specify any other date for Reifensberg). -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! On DE Wiki's embassy I de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Botschaft made a request to see if someone can fish out copies of the two editorials. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Ceresole
I have nominated Battle of Ceresole for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Cryptomator translation help needed
I am trying to translate the article from German as well as trying to use some of the press kit sources. But I can't rely on Gtranslate anymore So, I need help translating and verifying everything is correct:
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomator
 * https://cryptomator.org/presskit/#reception Greatder (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Question of typography
Dear all,

I am in creating a contribution for the English Wikipedia. See: User:Alexander Peren. The subject of this article is for a recently installed museum in Germany (Place of Remembrance Badehaus), treating the special place Camp Föhrenwald from its beginning to its change towards a "regular" living quarter. It is mainly the translation of the same article of the German Wikipedia "Erinnerungsort Badehaus". However, I face some problems with typographic questions.

In my contribution appear names of associations/institutions and groups, so what is normally called "proper name". Addtionally, it appears names of books, films, exhibitions, which are as well "proper names", but s.th. completely different. And finally it appear some German expressions, for which no "official" counterpart exists in the english language.

I would like to distinguish these three typs of "proper names" (associations/institutions; titels; German expressions) with typographic medium.

My first idea was to put associations/institutions in italic, the titels in 'apostroph' and the German expressions in "quotation marks". You can see this version in looking older versions of my draft.

But then, with the help of Adakiko, my attention was attracted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Inside this link I found (citation) ''When       not to use italics Shortcut MOS:NOITALIC Italics are generally used       only for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works     should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). This particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of     a larger work. These include but are not limited to: Articles,     essays, papers, chapters, reference work entries, newspaper and      magazine sections or departments, episodes of audio-visual series,      segments or skits in longer programs, short poems, short stories,      story lines and plot arcs; songs, album tracks and other short      musical works; leaflets and circulars. (See WP:Manual         of Style/Titles § Quotation marks for details.)'' (citation end) This means for me: titels belonging to a serie/sequence have to be written in quotation marks

In the same link it is written: (citation) ''Quotations Further       information: MOS:QUOTE and MOS:WORDSASWORDS Shortcut MOS:NOITALQUOTE It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They       should only be used if the material would otherwise call for        italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English        words. Quotation marks alone are sufficient and the correct way       to denote quotations. Indicate whether italics were used in the       original text or whether they were added later. For example: "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night         sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy          rest!" (emphasis added).'' (citation end) means for me, that German expressions (like Hitlerbeton) also have to be put in quotation marks.

And italic, as far as I believe having read in this link, is exclusively for standing-alone titels of books etc.

Per consequence, I face now the situation for my contribution that mostly the quotation mark is used, rarely the italic and not at all the apostrophe.

Can someone of you help me with my difficulties to distinguish the three different "proper names" in my contribution by help of typography? Which way is acceptable for not to viol against the Wikipedia rules? As I already wrote, my preferred solution would be apostrophe for titels, italic for associations/institutions and quotation marks for German expressions without official english counterpart.

Furthermore, my contribution is - with the exception of these typographic questions - more or less ready. Might it please be possible for someone of you to have a look to my article and to make suggestions for improvement, if necessary, or if the article is already good enough to move it towards the regular Wikipedia.

This would be great. I already thank you in advance so much for all your help and your proposals.

Best regards, take care and stay healthy

--Alexander Peren (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Alexander Peren, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your user page is not an appropriate place to draft an article, and I have moved it to Draft:Erinnerungsort Badehaus. You can move it to Erinnerungsort Badehaus when it is ready, or if you prefer to ask for review, paste {{subst:submit}} at the top. (I have not answered your question because I find it difficult to get any interest in questions of technology typography. I'm sure somebody else will do so). ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This rather technical issue must be something that's been discussed before by members of WP:WikiProject Germany, so I suggest you post on their talk page and also look at their archive. The draft article seems to be coming along well, although I did notice several Wikilinks to disambiguation pages rather than the best targets. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alexander Peren Titles of books go in Italics. For German-language text, you can use Template:lang-de. This template has the added bonus of helping text-to-speech programs read the words more correctly. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Alexander Peren (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in advance to all for any help with my question(s)

Best regards and have a nice day

Alexander --Alexander Peren (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems that my question was overlooked by you. Might it please be possible to get any answer towards my questions? This would be great as at the Tea House, I was adviced to address my issue here. Thank you so much in advance for any answer and have a nice week-end. Best regards. Alexander --Alexander Peren (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * asilvering already said everything important I think. To summarise: German expressions are usually in lang or lang-de, das sieht dann so aus wie dieser Nebensatz (so it is automatically italicized if you don't do something against it). Quotes use quotation marks or blockquote, book titles are in italics, with exceptions for non-Latin scripts where this looks stupid and so Chinese 中文 is typically never in italics. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There is quite a lot of guidance about translating proper names at Naming conventions (Germany). However, places like the Erinnerungsort Badehaus are always tricky. Leaving it in German is no help to an English reader as it is unintelligible, but a literal translation "Place of Remembrance Bathhouse" is not abundantly clear and is a poor English construction - we always put the name first and the description second - the opposite way round to the standard German word order.
 * But if we look at what it actually is, other options may be possible. Essentially it was a public bathhouse that has become both a museum and a memorial site. So it could be called the "Badehaus Memorial", "Badehaus Memorial Site" or "Badehaus Museum". And although Badehaus is generic for "bathhouse", using "Bathhouse Memorial" or "Bathhouse Museum" may be too general even though it's clearer.
 * I notice on the English version of their site they either use the German name or just "the Badehaus", which means "Badehaus Museum" might be an excellent compromise. Of course, we would always put the German name in the lede as well. Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Cluedo – Das Mörderspiel
Hi all, I wish to create an article on the German version of the Cluedo game show, but the only sources I can find are from these press clippings that won't go through image-to-text software. Are there any volunteers who could help? The sources are from "Bild + Funk" and "TV Serien-Hits" so perhaps there is a cleaner version of these pages that can go through translation software?--Coin945 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Works Constitution Act 1972
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Works Constitution Act 1972 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Update for WiTricity at German Wikipedia
Hello! On behalf of WiTricity and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've submitted a request at German Wikipedia to update the article's text re: funding. The German Wikipedia entry is essentially a translation of the English Wikipedia article and I've proposed specific text (in German) for consideration. Perhaps someone here speaks German and could review the proposed text and update the article appropriately?

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alte Synagoge (Aachen)
I recently created a draft for Alte Synagoge (Aachen). Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kamenáč
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kamenáč that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox German place mayor link
Requesting feedback on whether the infobox link for mayor should go to Mayor instead of Burgomaster. Please comment at the infobox talk page. Thanks. MB 22:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Caroline of Hesse-Homburg
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Caroline of Hesse-Homburg that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to review sentence at Zwei Friedenssäulen
Could someone who speaks German review the sentence at Zwei Friedenssäulen which mentions a "redesign". I'm not convinced "redesigned" is the correct word to use. (I don't speak German.) Thanks in advance! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the text as it seems the source is talking about a different column in Hanover, not Berlin. And the article is now at Siegessäulen since that appears to be their German name and in any case they are victory columns not peace columns. Bermicourt (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right, this article is about a (much higher) column in Hanover, see de:Waterloosäule. I found a reference for the two Charlottenburg columns, which calls them Viktoriensäulen. Markussep Talk 08:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge request at Munich Massacre
There is a merge request at Talk:Munich Massacre that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Any input would be very welcome! Felix QW (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:France-Germany border
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:France-Germany border that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bermicourt (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alte Messe Leipzig
I've bemusedly spent a couple of hours tinkering with Draft:Alte Messe Leipzig, a translation of de:Alte Messe Leipzig (which itself was largely the creation of its later translator). I'm confident that I've made it easier to read. I'm not confident that I've avoided misinterpreting what I've then "improved" (?). What the draft needs is a run-through by somebody who can understand the original. Any takers? (It is, I think, an interesting and a very worthwhile subject for an article.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Auschwitz trial
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auschwitz trial that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User Gim709
The edits of this user -- the vast majority of which involve various German polities and subjects -- need to be closely examined. I have caught them using a false reference on an edit to German Empire, I suppose in an attempt to have the information they added not be deleted from the article. A quick look at some others of their edits did not disabuse me of the thought that their edits need to be monitored, a task the members of this project would obviously be ideal for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That edit of mine on German Empire is based on an information on Otto von Bismarck from which I also copied the source, sorry if I don't know the source is problematic. Gim709 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Der/die/das order ... or is it der/das/die?
If you are interested in that sort of thing, please have a look at Talk:German articles, where I attempt to reopen the question of revising that article so it works in der/die/das order rather than its current der/das/die. On the other hand, if you are not interested, then please have a nice day anyway. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Related requested move
To get things clear (and wider discussed) I have started a formal requested move: Talk:Hartheim Killing Facility. The Banner talk 17:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Names of districts

 * We have three different types of names of German districts:


 * Groß-Gerau (district)
 * Main-Taunus-Kreis, Wetteraukreis
 * Waldeck-Frankenberg
 * I would prefer a unification.

Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The first example needs "(district)" as a disambiguator because there is also a town of Groß-Gerau. The third example does not need a disambiguator because there is no town of Waldeck-Frankenberg, they are still separate municipalities. That leaves the second example. The practice seems to be that, where "kreis" is part of the name, we don't separate it and call the article e.g. "Wetterau (district)" or "Main-Taunus (district)", the "(district)" being needed in both cases to disambiguate from other articles. There's no particular reason why we couldn't, just as we usually split e.g. Rheintal and call it Rhine valley. However, the latter works because it's the WP:COMMONNAME whereas I'm not aware of English sources calling e.g. Wetteraukreis anything other than that. Bermicourt (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I spoke too soon. There is an official site called "Wetterau District" here and another called "Main-Taunus District". So maybe worth thinking about. That would probably mean changing all district articles to "Foo District" for consistency e.g. Groß-Gerau District and Waldeck-Frankenburg District. That would then follow the practice with Austrian districts. Bermicourt (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are also X Land district names. Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In German there are the following forms (see the subcategories of de:Kategorie:Landkreis in Deutschland):
 * Landkreis X (e.g. Landkreis Waldshut, Landkreis Stendal, Landkreis Berchtesgadener Land, Landkreis Havelland)
 * Kreis X (e.g. Kreis Borken)
 * Xkreis (e.g. Wetteraukreis, Main-Tauber-Kreis, Oberbergischer Kreis, Eifelkreis Bitburg-Prüm)
 * districts with a disambiguator (e.g. Landkreis Rotenburg (Wümme), Landkreis Lindau (Bodensee), Landkreis Nienburg/Weser)
 * districts with special names (e.g. Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim, Kreis Herzogtum Lauenburg)
 * special cases (Region Hannover, Städteregion Aachen, Regionalverband Saarbrücken)
 * Since many of the districts are named after towns and hence by definition ambiguous, I could support moving all to X District. Except the districts that have "kreis" in their name, I prefer to keep those at the German name. I'm not sure what to do with the special cases, "Herzogtum Lauenburg District" sounds a bit awkward. Markussep Talk 08:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that there is no consistent system in the original German names (there are probably thirteen different systems with different exceptions), I do not think we should invent our own. Is there a system commonly used in reliable sources in English talking about German districts? If not, I would go for official names, which means German names (none of the links provided by Bermicourt are official sites of the districts), or translate "Kreis X" and "Landkreis X" but keep others in German. —Kusma (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good points and happy to leave it as it is. I'm not even a great fan even of the translation "district", simply because several other German levels of administration are also commonly translated "district" including Bezirk, Stadtbezirk, Stadtteil, (Stadt)quartier, Gemeindebezirk and the older Distrikt. The German Liaison Services of the British Forces in Germany, as well as the British Embassy, avoided this confusion by calling all the Kreise, "counties", which roughly corresponds to similar divisions in Britain and the US (fitting neatly below "state" as it would in Germany) and frees the term "district" for other levels of administration. The term "county" is also used on English language websites and in some English language books, so it is entirely valid. Of course, the official EU term is "district", but AFAIK they don't give any guidance about translating the other terms. Bermicourt (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are EU translations for some other divisions, see pages 58–59 of 160. For instance Bezirk as part of a town or city is "borough". I'm fine with leaving the titles as they are. Markussep Talk 12:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Fachschule für Luftfahrzeugführer
✅This draft has been submitted at Articles for creation, and after looking at the sources I concluded it needs to be reviewed by an editor fluent in German who also participates using WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Thanks for considering this request. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:IIII (album)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IIII (album) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Southtyroleans
This is not strictly a German topic, but it's German adjacent: the article Southtyroleans needs more eyes on it, for reasons that will immediately be obvious if you read it (or look at the spelling of the article title). See also talk:Southtyroleans and talk:Southtyroleans.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have nominated it for deletion. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Inner German border
User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Battle of Schellenberg
I have nominated Battle of Schellenberg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Third Reich NSDAP cabinet 1925

 * According to the 2nd template; "Feel free to improve the article". In the past 5 days I have made 10 such improvement edits of apx 5000 bytes. My intention is to clarify the article in reference to the deletion discussion.


 * There are 4 sections of this article. 1. Opening text describing the theme of the article in direct reference to 22 numbers. 2. A block of the 22 numbers, containing the published references by 22 authors who published the 22 numbers, with names allotted to each number. 3. A block of the 22 names (linked to their individual articles), with images. / 4. The 22 section headings containing, my clip notes from the 22 articles of these names. Of these 4 sections, section 4 is already accessible in section 3, and therefore redundant. If I leave section 4 in the article, the clip notes may be expanded to the length of 22 articles! It is my intention to put these clip notes into section 2, for quick, basic references on 22 known individuals, using section 2 for access to fuller details. Section 4, will be used for two new (relevant to section 1) section headings. Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat.


 * As such, would there be any objection to deleting the 22 redundant section headings, putting the clip notes in 2 block, (what it was created for), and replacing these with the more-relevant Reichskanzler' and Bundesrat sections. If I am not allowed to do this, are there any objections/comments/discussions, to deleting the 22 sections in 4.
 * I believe that the/my final draft will be self evident, and hopefully acceptable to any critics of my starting draft, and final draft. Any constructive help will be appreciated. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Riesling
Riesling has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
See Village pump (proposals). This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in WikiProject banner shell, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ISBN for a German book?
Can anyone provide ISBN for the following citation, and ideally, a page range?

Jauss, Hans Robert. Preface to the German translation of Vade Mecum, München: Fink, 1981 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ISBN 3-7705-1776-8 (from ), page 11 (guessing from GoogleBooks). -- Reise Reise (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on general & party elections
An RFC about intros of general & party elections, is being held. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Archbishopric of Cologne
Could you help to disambiguate links to Archbishopric of Cologne. It is generally better for the reader to link to the specific article which could be: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne, Electorate of Cologne or Archbishop of Cologne but I do not have the specialist knowledge to know which one. The list of articles including the link is at Disambig fix list for Archbishopric of Cologne. Thanks for any help.&mdash; Rod talk 11:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 16:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite a few of them have unfortunately been incorrectly disambiguated before (many now go to the diocese that should go to the country). —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They have been reverted and re-disambiguated, I hope more correctly (wasn't as easy as it looks). —Kusma (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Etymology of the Eppstein name?
Please see my question / proposal at Talk:Eppstein. --CiaPan (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at MFE - MediaForEurope
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MFE - MediaForEurope, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. &#x0020;Since ProSiebenSat.1 Media is currently owned by a subsidiary of MFE, I think this is relevant. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Memorial to the German Resistance
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Memorial to the German Resistance that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Material Works   (contribs)  16:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Improving German Empire
I'm thinking of improving German Empire to GA status, and the folks at the Teahouse said to add some sections as part of their answer and directed me here. Are there any extra sections I could add (I have an idea of subsections but not full sections to add)? Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 13:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl and assessing it? The article was created back in 2013, but never seems to have been assessed in the years since then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeking advice for German manager draft
Hello, editors! I'm posting here to see if members of this WikiProject can give me any advice about a draft for a German manager. My name is Allison and I work for the global commercial real estate company JLL, so I have a conflict of interest with topics related to the company. Last year, my colleague submitted a draft to the German Wikipedia for JLL's CEO, Christian Ulbrich and more recently, I have been trying to establish an English Wikipedia article for him. The draft was declined twice at Articles for Creation, due to editors feeling that there are not enough in-depth sources about Mr. Ulbrich.

Since Mr. Ulbrich is the CEO of a large public company, and I see other similar articles for managers of his status on Wikipedia, I looked around and saw this guidance that editors should typically keep a page if it is for a Fortune 500 CEO even if the coverage is fairly light, but I don't know if that applies to creation of such a page, too. Also, it seems editors are more comfortable with a very short article for an executive, if the notability is not as clear. With that in mind I made a short version of the draft for Mr. Ulbrich. Before I submit again, I wanted to seek out advice from editors who have experience with articles for German executives. Would anyone here might be willing to look at the short draft for Mr. Ulbrich, and share any advice? Thanks, AHatJLL (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Is it possible for you to work on the "original" draft article that was already twice declined? Especially since you have a COI I think it will be easy for AfC reviewers to conclude that your fresh start is an attempt to game the system. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

newish, question about submitted draft articles?
Hi folks, I'm still fairly new to wikipedia, and I'd like to contribute more to the WikiProject Germany. Although I've searched and read through quite a bit of Wikipedia guidance, I'm still not sure what to do about draft articles. I've written a couple of draft articles by now and submitted them, but they seem to sit a long time under the "Review waiting, please be patient" template. It seems like a worthwhile thing to do to figure out how I can review other people's drafts to relieve this kind of problem in general. Can someone point me in the right direction to learn how to work on this? Snowflakedivertor (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Snowflakedivertor, the place you're looking for is WikiProject Articles for creation. AfC reviewers need to show that they understand notability guidelines, so a history of accepted drafts will help, as will participation at WP:AFD. I recommend lurking at AfD for a little while, then joining some deletion discussions. When you're confident that you understand what articles tend to survive deletion debates, then apply to be an AfC reviewer. AfC would love to have you! -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I'll check this out. Snowflakedivertor (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adelindis von Buchau


The article Adelindis von Buchau has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "three different topics (person/festival/spring), none of which seem particularly notable"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Free University of Berlin
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Free University of Berlin that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   09:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Timeline of Kaliningrad
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Timeline of Kaliningrad that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

An RfC of interest
An RfC of possible interest to this WikiProject can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Improving Angela Merkel
Hi everyone! I've been working on Angela Merkel for a while now, and hopefully, it will soon pass it's GA nom. If that does in fact happen (or if it unexpectedly does not), would someone be interested in collaborating on further improving it? My goal is to bring it up to FA, but it would be my first FA, so it'd rather not do it alone. Let me know :) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Menno Aden
Hi, would appreciate it if someone could have a look at Menno Aden. I've just copyedited it but don't know anything about this person, and am not sure whether the article is a decent summary of his career. In particular, he was described in the lead as "the author of the Neue Rechte". I have changed this to "founder", but the political movement is not mentioned in the rest of the article on Aden, and Aden himself is not mentioned in the Neue Rechte article - so I'm not sure that this is accurate. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

University of Heidelberg articles
Please refer to the below navbox. I discovered while editing an AFD nomination for Heidelberg University Faculty of Philosophy and History, that much (but not all) of what is listed in the navbox, has little-to-nothing in the way of sourcing. — Maile (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Landkreis Freystadt i. Niederschles.
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Landkreis Freystadt i. Niederschles. that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Operation Desert (German fuel project)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Operation Desert (German fuel project) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Princess Frederica of Prussia (1796–1850)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Princess Frederica of Prussia (1796–1850) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad map at Cuxhaven (district)
What is the map at Cuxhaven (district) supposed to show? Kk.urban (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon
 Hello WikiProject Germany:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there! Grnrchst (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Name of Germany in article: see Talk:MV Missourian
There is a discussion of the name of Germany at Talk:MV Missourian (1921). Anyone who is interested is invited to join the discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

German elections: "Zweitstimmendeckung"?
The lead in Overhang seat says, "The electoral reform in Germany removed the overhang seats, and replaced with Zweitstimmendeckung." The lead in Leveling seat says, "The electoral reform in Germany 2023 removed the leveling seats, and replaced with Zweitstimmendeckung." This is not actually useful information; not only do we need a translation for "Zweitstimmendeckung" (which Google Translate says means "second vote coverage"), we also need a link to an article that explains what it means. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of former German names of places in Poland by Materialscientist using AWB
I have posted this at WikiProject Poland and am now also posting it here. A recently indeffed user posted at Wikipediocracy about a series of edits performed by using the semi-automated tool AutoWikiBrowser (edits are tagged "AWB"). Materialscientist has been removing the German names of settlements in Poland that were previously in Germany (particularly in East Prussia). The example that I looked at at random was Końcewo, a village formerly in East Prussia, which appears to be fairly typical: the edit summary is "unsourced/poorly sourced/unnecessary, removed: {{lang-de|, has a population" and they also removed the population from the article text, leaving it in the infobox. I discussed these removals with them at their user talk: User talk:Materialscientist, but although they grant that I make good points, they have declined to self-revert as recommended by the rules for use of the tool when edits prove controversial. They did subsequently update the population at Końcewo and add a reference, and their only additional similar edit after I started the discussion (also with AWB) appears to me to be Osiniak-Piotrowo, also formerly in East Prussia, where at the same time as they removed the former German name, they updated the population figure, adding a reference. But in that article, the former German name had a reference, albeit to a genealogy.net website. Previously at Nowy Probark, another village formerly in East Prussia, Materialscientist removed a former German name sourced to this book. Is this not a reliable source?

I was initially unsympathetic to the complainant, who is indeffed as a sock of a user banned for POV. But I cannot see how removing all mention of the historical context from places that were in Germany prior to World War I, in some cases for centuries, is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I disagree that the former names are WP:UNDUE, and I believe this is minimal information that a reader should be able to search by. I imagine there are settlements in Silesia that were Polish- or Lusatian-speaking prior to the Nazi era (we do not appear to have ever had the former German name at Ogrodzona, Silesian Voivodeship, where Materialscientist only removed the in-text population; compare Rakowice Małe, in Upper Silesia, where they removed only the former German name although the edit summary also refers to removing a redundant population that was not present), and I'm not sure about Pomerania. But checking Polish Wikipedia reveals that (in addition to having images of all these places, which we really should add to our articles), they usually do have the former German names. For example, pl:Końcewo, pl:Nowy Probark, pl:Rakowice Małe, also pl:Ogrodzona (województwo śląskie) (Polish Wikipedia has the former German name, English didn't) and pl:Budzieszewice (Pomerania), but not pl:Osiniak-Piotrowo.

{{U|Yakikaki}} posted at Materialscientist's talk page saying that they had added historical information to some articles that had been removed to their surprise. {{U|JBW}} expressed general agreement with my points, and {{U|Lourdes}} supported my argument that Materialscientist should self-revert under the policy governing semi-automated edits (currently the last post in the talk-page section). However, there have been earlier edits also removing information on the past from the mostly very short articles on these settlements. And in April 2022, the bot operated by {{U|Qwerfjkl}} was approved for the task of removing sentences of the format {{tq|Before 1945 the area was part of Germany (East Prussia)}} that had been present when the articles were bot-created. I would argue that it would have been preferable to reference that statement as context for the former German names. The argument for removing it appears to have been UNDUE, and in February 2022 {{U|E-960}} was removing referenced former German names with that rationale, for example at Budzieszewice (which as I noted above, has the former German name in the Polish Wikipedia article; someone else has since restored it here, but without the reference). {{U|HerkusMonte}} added some of these names, and references for them, and apparently restored the sentences after a previous removal; discussion at their talk page started by E-960 and hatted after it became a debate between E-960 and someone else over POV. So I am bringing the issue to the two relevant WikiProjects to gauge consensus on the removals of the former names, especially the automated removals performed by Materialscientist. (I won't further repeat my position or my responses to Materialscientist's arguments.) My other reason is that since Materialscientist has declined to self-revert, and used a semi-automated tool, reverting the removals will be a big task, especially if references are restored or added at the same time and/or if something other than simple restoration is done about the unsourced and outdated population figures, and would be best done as a coordinated effort. (I have not tried to establish when Materialscientist began doing this; the person posting at Wikipediocracy referred to a couple of months, but that may not be correct. Nor have I tried to establish what categories they were working from. So I don't know how many articles are affected, and haven't looked at how many removals E-960 did.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir, I think you are mixing two different things (when referencing me in this discussion). One is including old place names in an article (and I don't really have an issue with that, and agree with Piotrus). The other is having a stub article saying "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany" (now this is blatant POV), for one these lands were now part of Poland (after 1945) for a longer period of time than under Germany (from 1871 to 1945), and many of those lands even before that were also part of Sweden, Denmark, Bohemia, Austria, etc. So, it's not very neutral when you only have two sentences in a stub article and the second sentence says "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany". This is not a be all end all fact for those locations, and you don't see similar statements in municipality stub articles for France, Denmark, Belgium, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc. (in instances when those municipalities were part of another country in the past, and for some countries like Ukraine or Belarus you could really have it for every single place, "Before 1918 the area was part of Russia", however that's not the case). --E-960 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Same response as at WikiProject Poland) Thanks for responding, {{U|E-960}}. I'm very glad to see we're in agreement about including the former names. I had the impression you regarded all mention of the history as undue weight; at Budzieszewice, as I noted above, your revert of HerkusMonte also included the former name, which HerkusMonte had added with a book reference. An IP had previously added both the name and an added sentence on the expulsion and flight of Germans from the East; HerkusMonte's edit restored that version with a reference for the former name, but we now have just the name. I would personally prefer to have the history paragraph as well, at least the single sentence "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany (Pomerania); it became part of Poland in 1945."—with a reference, possibly the same one as for the former name. I think readers should be able to find the place by searching on its former name, and I also think the name of the historical larger government unit is important information. ({{U|Kotbot}} originally created the article with the clunky "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany. For the history of the region, see History of Pomerania.") I agree that adding the flight and expulsion to these articles is undue, but the reader shouild also be informed of when it became part of Poland. However, while I disagree with the removal of the "formerly in Germany" sentence and regret the bot run, I can accept it; Pomerania, East Prussia, and Silesia can be found by following the links to the Polish regions. But I believe the former name is essential to restore. It's context that the reader can't find anywhere else on English Wikipedia, and it's needed for those looking up these places by their former names. And it's particularly regrettable to have lost them where someone had provided a reference. {{pb}}"Germany" as a country came into being in 1871, but these regions became part of Prussia much earlier: the Prussian Province of Pomerania was formed in 1815; both Prussian Silesia and the Province of East Prussia date back to the 18th century. Unless a source gives a good reason for inclusion, I don't think we should be listing Nazi-era names, either for places incorporated into the Third Reich and not previously German-speaking or putative renames like Warnold at Końcewo (in that case I suspect confusion with Warnowo, "Gut Warnold" in German). But we should include the names by which the places were officially known for well over a century. (And I agree, we should do likewise for other places where the borders have shifted; such as the formerly eastern Polish places now part of Ukraine.) Since we appear to be in broad agreement regarding the names, can I ask you to look back at your 2022 edits like that at Budzieszewice and partially self-revert to reinstate the former names, especially where there was a reference? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't really have an issue with including historical place names, and that means all historical place names not just German. So, for example if towns in Pomerania also has a Swedish name it should also be listed, etc. not cherry pick languages. Also, when you say "but these regions became part of Prussia much earlier" you are just singling out only a portion of the entire history, because these regions were part of Poland even before that. Pomorenia and Sląsk were part of Piast dynasty Poland before German colonization and inclusion in the Holy Roman Empire. So, if full history is not included in the article just saying "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany." is blatant POV. Btw, there is more to a municipality than history, if this is a stub article I would be more inclined to include information on road and rail link, hospitals, etc. not just history (and partial history for that matter). --E-960 (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Yngvadottir, for Budzieszewice I have an issue with how this is written (formerly German: Luttmannshagen), why not just "German: Luttmannshagen", municipality articles for other countries (where territories changed hands) do not say "formerly". The city of Strasbourg does not say "formerly German: Straßburg". --E-960 (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just reverted for Radziejów this text "German 1943-1945: Rädichau", occupation place names should not be included . --E-960 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Minior note: it is not a good idea to split the discussion between multiple projects/fora. Please chose one project as the main discussion venue, copy all other comments there, and close/redirect the discusions. (Note: I replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland). I suggest hatting this discussion here with a note it is continued at WT:POLAND. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to leave that to the members of this WikiProject, since it affects both. So I've copied my response to E-960 here, as I said I would in my edit summary. But if after another day there are still no responses here that aren't also over there, I agree this section should probably be hatted with a pointer to where the discussion is happening. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here I would also agree with Piotrus, we can't have a this conversation in two places at once, rest of the discussion should take place on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, responding over there. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Simon Petermann
Trying to review this draft for notability but most of the references are in German and I am not a native speaker unfortunately. I tried to use Google Translate but that only shows context and I am unable to evaluate if the sources are reliable. Could someone assist and let me know if it meets notability guidelines? You can ping me here on the draft. CNMall41 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC related to this WikiProject
There is an ongoing RfC to determine whether Germany qualifies as a belligerent in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. You can participate in the discussion here: Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. &#x0020;This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kidnapping of Shani Louk
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kidnapping of Shani Louk that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sugest deleting de:Justyna Zander
See Articles for deletion/Justyna Zander and pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:31:Justyna Zander. Likely not notable, very promotional, on pl wiki the creator states the article was created as some form of AI experiment, and on en she claims she wants it removed... perhaps someonehere can help clean that spam from de? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Any Germans coming to New Zealand soon?
In case you do (say because you'd like to enjoy the Southern Hemisphere summer), here's a suggestion. Why not add Golden Bay / Mohua to your itinerary and join other Wikipedians and Wikimedians for a two-day edit-a-thon? Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka (from 1250!) or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case (180 years and counting). Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington until 21 November and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  23:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:23 March 1933 Reichstag speech
The user who created this draft was indef blocked so just leaving this here if anyone wishes to adopt it. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 02:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Horst Wessel
There is a Request for Comments concerning the lede of the article on Horst Wessel at Talk:Horst Wessel, a Nazi who was murdered in 1930. Your participation is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Geräte- und Akkumulatorenwerk Zwickau
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Geräte- und Akkumulatorenwerk Zwickau that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Berlin Stadtbahn
Berlin Stadtbahn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Telecom Telecommunication Tower Heidelberg: Title
Hello,

I’m coming from the Talk page of Telecom Telecommunication Tower Heidelberg and I’m a little bit confused because of the title. In German the article is just called Fernmeldeturm Heidelberg, what would be just Telecommunication Tower Heidelberg in English. If the goal is to include the name of the tower’s operator, the title should include Deutsche Telekom or Telekom (with a k instead of the c).

Maybe I’m missing something here? Molekularbiologe (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Molekularbiologe, if you look at this category you will see that there seems to be a variety of styles with regards to the names of these structures. Personally, I would prefer to stick with the German name, Fernmeldeturm Heidelberg, as has been done for Fernmeldeturm Koblenz and others. Kiwipete (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Neff GmbH
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neff GmbH that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hildegard of the Vinzgau
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hildegard of the Vinzgau that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fools revolt
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fools revolt that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Center of Advanced European Studies and Research
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Center of Advanced European Studies and Research that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Emmy Noether
I have nominated Emmy Noether for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Scholz cabinet
The article doesn't seem to have a section on this topic. I am aware of other relevant articles, such as Foreign relations of Germany, but they don't specifically cover the foreign policy of each cabinet. --Pegasovagante (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The most likely way that you'll get this written is for you to write it yourself, on the basis of reliable sources. Whether this should be a separate article or a section of Scholz cabinet or Foreign relations of Germany or something else depends on what and how much the sources say, but I'm sure that there are some. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Peer review of historic German Nobleman
Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was a strange, footnote-of-history type character. A British prince who became a German duke and later a Nazi leader. I have put it up for peer review (See:Peer review/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/archive1) in the hope of getting it to featured article status. Any contributions would be greatly appreciated. Llewee (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Parsifal
Parsifal has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Frederick William IV of Prussia
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Frederick William IV of Prussia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Rides and inns? Translation, please
I encountered the term "rides and inns" today, and I couldn't decipher what "inns" meant. The term is used in 4 Wiki articles: Hanover Schützenfest, Hanover, Oktoberfest celebrations, and Schützenfest. I know "rides" means carnival ride. Does anyone have any idea what "inns" means? Or a better word or term we can use in English? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Black Horror on the Rhine
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Black Horror on the Rhine that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Category:GA-Class Nazi Germany articles== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Category:GA-Class Nazi Germany articles. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 03:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maus
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Schierbecker (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rhein cabinet
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rhein cabinet that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of David Irving as a source
I've started a discussion on the use of David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe  in the Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89 articles at WP:RSN - here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the discussion
Hi everyone. I invite you all to participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes to come to a common interpretation about the infobox image format for the city related articles. It would be of a great help. 456legend talk  16:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

FAR for unification of Germany
User:Buidhe has nominated Unification of Germany for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Skirmish of the Berlin Schloss
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Skirmish of the Berlin Schloss that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. GHStPaulMN (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
An article relevant to this Wikiproject is being considered for FA status (See Featured article candidates/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/archive1). Any comments would be appreciated. Llewee (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hans Julius Wolff (jurist) is not the same thing as Hans Julius Wolff (administrative scientist)
Currently, the only article on "Hans Julius Wolff" is the one on the jurist. There is no article about the administrative scientist. The problem is, under 1898 births/1976 deaths, there is the Hans Julius Wolff article. Remember, the Hans Julius Wolff article on (English) Wikipedia is about the jurist, NOT the administrative scientist. And, taking into account the previous knowledge, it is disheartening to learn that the admin. scientist was the one who was born in 1898 and died in 1976. Also, (admittedly, the more Germany-related part of this) the English Wikipedia "Hans Julius Wolff" article is under the People from Elberfeld and Jurists from North Rhine-Westphalia categories. The jurist was from Berlin. Check out Hans Julius Wolff (Rechtshistoriker) vs. Hans Julius Wolff (Verwaltungswissenschaftler) on German Wikipedia. Cheers, Helminths Hooray! (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Helminths Hooray!, the stub Hans Julius Wolff is about the 1898–1976 Hans Julius Wolff (Verwaltungswissenschaftler). To write an article about the different person Hans Julius Wolff (Rechtshistoriker), who lived 1902–1983, please use a new title, for example Hans Julius Wolff (legal historian), do not overwrite the old article. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Kusma, the stub quite literally says "German jurist (1898-1976)". If it was changed to "German judge (1898-1976)", it would be better, but it should (like the German Wikipedia article) say "German administrative scientist and judge (1898-1976)". Thanks for the reply though, Helminths Hooray! (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kusma! I now created an article for Hans Julius Wolff (legal historian), and it is pending review! I do have a suggestion, though. Don't just change the description of the original article, change the title, too (from "Hans Julius Wolff" to "Hans Julius Wolff (administrative scientist)", or something along those lines). Thanks a billion times, Helminths Hooray! (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the draft: Draft:Hans Julius Wolff (legal historian). Feel free to critique and edit it all you want. I'm sure it needs the help! Forever grateful, Helminths Hooray! (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Helminths Hooray!, we don't disambiguate titles if there are no other articles on en-wiki with the same title. So we won't change it to Hans Julius Wolff (administrative scientist or whatever until there's actually a problem where we have two articles both called "Hans Julius Wolff". Even once your article is in mainspace, we'll probably just put a Hatnote on it to link to the other Wolff. -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it! Helminths Hooray! (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

General advice
I have been meaning to start this discussion for a while but just now getting around to it. Hoping someone is active on German Wikipedia that can advise. We have had a persistent sock farm on EN Wikipedia that has attempted to create a page for Jishnu Raghavan. They have threatened to keep coming back until the page is created and have attempted it dozens of times from multiple accounts in different name variations to avoid detection. You can see the SPI here which goes back to 2022. While we have been playing whack a mole with them on EN Wikipedia, they have created the page in about 20 other language Wikipedia projects (including German). Does anyone know if DE Wikipedia has the same G5 policy as EN Wikipedia? CNMall41 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * would be the person who could know. I lost track of what is policy on deWiki. Agathoclea (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, there are no speedy deletion criteria similar to WP:G5 at dewiki unfortunately. Unless there are huge quality issues (or if notability is questionable) it's not really possible to delete such articles at dewiki.
 * I've deleted the article at multiple small wikis, you might want to raise the issue at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam to notify larger wikis. Johannnes89 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice and the deltions. I will look into the meta link you sent as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Johannnes who helped out with this topic when I was travelling. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Zwetschgenkuchen
Hello everyone, I'm cleaning up Category:Cakes right now and I came across this German dessert. Can anyone let me know if this is thought of as more of a pie or a cake? It currently has the Category:German pies category, but it looks like a cake to me. Cheers! BaduFerreira (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @BaduFerreira: German cakes are usually not thought of as desserts, but are eaten at a separate meal ("Kaffee und Kuchen", coffee and cake) in the afternoon. Germans don't really have a concept of "pies" (a pecan pie looks like a cake to me), but according to our article on pie, it makes some sense to classify Zwetschgenkuchen as a pie. I can't understand why apple cake isn't classified as a pie, though, so take my words with a large helping of salt. Bienenstich doesn't seem like a pie to me at all. Overall, I think you are asking a question about the usage of the English word "pie" more than one about German culture. —Kusma (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Might be helpful to check with our expert food editors: @Valereee, can I ask you for your opinion on the cake/pie boundary? —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping! Always interested in food. :) Hm...in the US, we wouldn't consider that a pie. To me it looks like a coffee cake or cobbler, both of which are generally considered US dishes, although coffee cake was developed in areas of heavy German immigration and cobbler much earlier, it throws back to England and variations are found across the Commonwealth. I looked at Category:German pies, and the only ones that have their names rendered in German are Zwetschenkuchen, Bienenstich, and Kuchen, none of which look at all like pies to me...it's almost like someone decided if it was cut into triangles and it's known in Germany, it's a German pie. Same with Template:German_pies...the only inclusion that looks like a pie to me is cream pie, and again I'm not sure why it's marked as German both in the infobox and the nav template.
 * The category German pies looks like it was created by who only made 45 edits and hasn't edited since 2018. The nav template was created by, who hasn't edited much lately, looks like they've been busy, but maybe they'll have time to respond to a ping for insight on their rationale for the template.
 * In absence of any input, my strong feeling is that if German editors think there's no such thing as a German pie, and if no one who isn't German thinks any of these look like pies, the category and nav template might not be needed. Valereee (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And from a look at their contributions, it does look like GerPiesger created the cat and added all of these to the category and for some of them included it in the infoboxes, etc., all on their first and only day of editing. I think this is probably an inexperienced editor who maybe thought if they had ever seen it in Germany, a food item must qualify to be considered German. I'm guessing AA88 might have just followed that lead, thinking if there was a cat, a nav box would also be helpful. Good catch, @BaduFerreira. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the pies from both the cat and the nav template, as there's no evidence in any of those articles that the dishes are German. I'm a little less sure of the remaining entries, probably needs more research on whether in Germany these are ever considered "pies", but based on the comment here by Kusma and the fact Apple pie, which has an entry in ~40 languages but is not present on de.wiki, I suspect both category and nav box should be emptied and deleted. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Two pictures of things you probably consider apple pies are visible at de:Apfelkuchen, which is linked to apple cake. Lemon meringue pie and Key lime pie are classified as "Torte" in German. Pecan pie is described as a "Kuchen", while Bündner Nusstorte is called a "Torte". "Pie" as a concept is something foreign to Germany, anything called "German pies" is either WP:SYNTH original research that takes German Kuchen/Torte and puts it into a British or American classification system, or just a claim that some American pie is "German" because it was popular with German immigrants. According to de:Pie, "Pie" in German always denotes British or American pies. I will nominate the template and category for deletion. —Kusma (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Kusma, that is hilarious that on de, the Apfelkuchen article is using a photo of an apple pie that seems to have been taken by an English speaker...hahahahaha! Valereee (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

German language in the United States
Please could someone familiar with the topic take a look at German language in the United States, which has a very large, and old, cleanup notice? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)