This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, this brief article needs the sources used to be cited wherever possible, and maybe to be expanded a bit by adding the usual sections. I'll try to find out additional references for this task. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm slowly working my way through the German battleship and battlecruisers, and will eventually get here. It just takes time to get everything done, you know? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I am currently involved in a discussion with another editor involving the use of a German place name, namely Heligoland. The original wording in the article used Heligoland, which is the most common English-language name. However, the editor in question changed the link to Helgoland (the native German spelling), which redirects to the English name. Per the MoS (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Place names), I believe that the wording should be changed to reflect the most commonly-used English name, which is Heligoland. In his edit summary, the editor wrongly asserted that the MoS makes no preference regarding place names, which is clearly countered by the page linked in the previous sentence. In addition, other English-language names are used in the article, including Bavaria. Since the MoS is very clear and rather explicit in this context, I propose that the name Heligoland be kept, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and common sense.-RHM22 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Per my comment here, the use of "Helgoland" is well attested in English-language sources, at least as far back as the early 19th century, before the islands came under the relatively brief British ownership. Please provide evidence that "Heligoland" is more often used in English than "Helgoland".
You'll note that my edit summary refers to policy, which is (generally) hard and fast; the MoS is not.
As for the original spelling in this article, you have no idea what you're talking about. The article, before I started editing it, was a stub that did not reference the island. And as for your assertion of what constitutes "common sense", I humbly submit that your perception is not objective fact. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
(ec) By "original," I meant the wording used before you changed it. It matters not that 'Helgoland' is used in English; we rely on what is the most common usage. The "Heligoland" spelling is used in The Guardian, The New York Times, The Daily Mail and numerous books and other references. Besides that, all Wikipedia articles relating to Heligoland use the English spelling, because we are an English-language encyclopedia. Your last comment does not reflect either of your edit summaries. In the first, you said (quoting verbatim, with explanation added in brackets): "German topic, should use the German spelling for the location" and "no policy or MoS prescribes that [the use of English-language names] and you'll note that throughout this article the German is used first." You'll note that all three statements you made in those summaries are incorrect, and in fact, you have now contradicted your own statements in the edit summaries by what you've said above.
Anyway, this is not my area of study, so I have no interest in pursuing this any further. The decision regarding which spelling to use is up to the editors who choose to weigh in here.-RHM22 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
As I said, there was nothing for me to change. Why you seem intent on insisting that I changed the spelling is beyond me, as it simply isn't the case.
As for usage, sure, "Heligoland" is used in English, but the more important point is that so is "Helgoland". Your assertion that "Heligoland" is more common does not seem to be borne out by the evidence, as Ed pointed out above. And as for what other Wikipedia articles use, who cares? Completely irrelevant.
No, my edit summaries are mostly correct. This is a German article, and German words are used where appropriate (hence why we have, for instance, "Kapitän zur See (Captain at Sea) Max Hahn"). Second, you have yet to point to a policy that supports your argument, which I pointed out above and you have continued to ignore. Third, I stated that there was no MoS page that supported your argument. A ha, you got me there. That does not invalidate my position, however. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply