Talk:German Wikipedia

Music

I've noticed of late that the German wikipedia seems to have flabbergastingly better coverage of music than the English wiki does; they've thousands more articles on art-music composers and jazz figures, and have even beat the English wiki to the punch on a rather large number of American and British pop musicians. I wonder whether this has been noticed by the outside world. Chubbles (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Better just call it, the superiority of German Wikipedia in general. Less-ridden with pop-culture, more in tune with the real classics. -`WikiSkeptic (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean, the Germans were the first to music, why give that title up on any other website amirite? Angerxiety 20:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

references needed

The German Wikipedia is different from the English Wikipedia in a number of aspects.

• There are stricter rules of encyclopedic notability for deciding if an article about a topic should be allowed. For example, rules about (especially contemporary) fictional creatures are extremely strict. E.g. individual articles about characters in Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc. are largely deemed undesirable and are in most cases deleted or alternatively merged into a single article; for example, where there are articles like Gandalf and Frodo Baggins in the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia tolerates only a single article describing the characters in Tolkien's fictional world: Figuren in Tolkiens Welt. Articles dealing with future events or publications (e.g. computer games) are also more likely to be deleted wholly as crystal balling. For example, as of mid-2007, there was no article about the upcoming German computer game Crysis, as opposed to the other large Wikipedia languages; the article was deleted and blocked after several discussions, restored and unblocked only a month before the game's announced release date.
• There are no fair use provisions. Images and other media that are accepted on the English Wikipedia as fair use may not be suitable for the German Wikipedia.

Ranking

The revert of my changes concerning the ranking of the German Wikipedia was undone, bacause the permanent graph of the 12 most important wikipedias shows that by now three wikipedias (English, Swedish, Dutch) are ahead of the German Wikipedia, as far as the number of articles is concerned. --~~

Three wikipedias - Cebuano, Swedish and Dutch - contain many bot-generated articles. --87.162.170.171 (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Interview mit Sue Gardner (Audio und Transkript). In: On the Media. WNYC Studios, 14. Januar 2011, abgerufen am 30. Juli 2019 (amerikanisches Englisch): „I think it’s fair to say [LAUGHS] the German Wikipedia is the best language version. It’s accurate, it’s comprehensive, it’s well maintained, the articles are longer, the articles are well referenced, and so forth.“--2003:CB:2F12:E346:8110:25B4:1D31:8C66 (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Strike

Today the German wikipedia is not available. --87.162.170.171 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's partly usable if you select Reader view, or select Page Style = None. -84user (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Quality

I added the lack of quality in many articel of de:Wikipedia. This is not my personal oppinion - this is a critic by the public and refered to media reports. --Bestof2022 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Admin actions in dewiki

An advanced example of admin actions in dewiki: [1] Lugioner (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Proper Mental Hygiene

To inform our community of the lack of volunteer -friendly hearted curriculum structures and to cease ill-fated educators from regurgitating poison instilled in them in others. 173.95.51.78 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Change to content assessment class

@AwerDiWeGo recently changed the content assessment class from C to start, commenting with the edit that the article has "more than a few unsourced statements" and "it has a template message at the top of the article saying that it needs updating". I want to solicit views here, because I would have assessed it a C as, per Wikipedia:Content assessment, it has more than one reliable source and several substantial sections, and issues warranting banners are within the description of a C article. Bsherr (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

You are probably right as a much more experienced editor in Wikipedia than I am. Besides, after reading again the first paragraphs and subsections of the article, I realize that they are of better quality than a rating of Start-class would imply.

I am currently looking for the typos that I had seen when I read this days ago and they must be in later sections. As I wrote then, I didn't correct some perceived typos before because English is a foreign language to me, so I should be shy with this. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)