Talk:Scholz cabinet

Content dispute over the names

Moved from WP:ANI--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User:FellowMellow Keeps on changing Cabinett ministries names on Scholz cabinet without providing sources that back his claimes and straight up ignored sources that backed the previous translation. also he does non-edits to misuse the changelog for chatting and wrong accusations against me or an IP user. he was told to stop by me and the ip user and keeps on vandalizing. Norschweden (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

first of all, you provided only one "source". The coalition agreement. I left building in place, until there was a name change. My German government source does back the name change, the name is "bauwesen" which everywhere translates to construction and never to building by the verified sources. FellowMellow (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

that's simply wrong."bauwesen" was never translated to construction by the ministries, it was always building. when it was it's own minstry, and when it was part of the transport ministry Norschweden (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And you did not leave building in place you ignored already given sources and changed it back multiple times until i told you to look up annother source. also you changed climat action back againt given official english speaking government sources Norschweden (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually did leave building in place when you provided a source, after numerous times of repeating it which I don’t know why you didn’t provide one from the start. However there was a news source that there was a name change, which I had provide, which you blatantly ignored. Your claim to have provided numerous sources is false you can look back at the edits, you provided nothing until I had to tell you to provide one. FellowMellow (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Norschweden actually is the one that’s changing Cabinett ministries names on Scholz cabinet without providing sources that back his claims. I provided him with an official German government source and attached it to the ministry’s name, which he disputes. The user straight up ignored sources that backed the previous translation, which I explained numerous times. As you can see above, he accused me of using non-edits to misuse the changelog for chatting and wrong accusations against me or an IP user. As a matter of fact, he and one other IP user has done the same thing. I repeatedly told him and an IP user to stop editing without sources. I told him and the IP user to provide me with a source, which on numerous occasions they failed to do. He keeps on vandalizing and ignoring my request. FellowMellow (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

first of all, the source backing all my edits was there from the beginning (nr4) and the coalition agreement, while your "source" doesn't back anything, it just gives the german name 2bauwesen" which was always transated to building and never to construction by the official sources. Norschweden (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You did not provide any source but one, that’s all you had to do was provide one source for building and I did not revert it after until there was a new source saying that the name was changed again. You’re not telling the truth and you should look back at the edits. FellowMellow (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

the other one was the one used for the whole cabinet (nr4) Norschweden (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

that’s what I provided you with, The entire cabinet look at the source which you clearly have nothing. FellowMellow (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

you did not, source nr.4 (as well as the coalition agreement) clearly backed my edits, the ones you reverted Norschweden (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I did, you didn’t. Alongside, the government source, I also provided DW source. Both sources that back my claims and reject yours. FellowMellow (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

the source backing my edits was already in there and i gave you the primary source. also your "governmet source" still doesn't back your claims, it doesn't provide an offical translation, just the german word "bauwesen" which was always officailly translated to building. so your source supports my edits, not yours Norschweden (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the source that you provided, which unfortunately took a long time for you to provide, said "Bau". However, the name was changed. I asked specifically, numerous times for you to provide an English translated source. Like this edit does [1][‎https://www.bmwi.de/SiteGlobals/BMWI/StyleBundles/Bilder/bmwi_logo_en.svg?__blob=normal&v=12]You failed to do that. My government source actually does provide and backs my claim. Your source is outdated and doesn’t prove your claim. The official translation for "bauwesen" is construction, not building. So your claims that multiple users… "one other user" actually that somehow you two proved me wrong and that my source backs your edits is nothing, but a bizarre and ridiculous claim. FellowMellow (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You fail to understand that your source doesn't back your claims. it doesn't give the english name being changed to construction. Bauwesen was always transalted to Building, just as bau was. when the building part was part of the transportation ministry, the name was also "bauwesen" yet the english name was building. and thus your source, which just gives "bauwesen" doesn't back your "construction"-claim the slightest. it supports the name being building, as that's how bauwesen was alwys translated officially. Norschweden (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If there are any failures to understand, that’s all on you. Your source does not back the claims that this is the correct english translation. I gave you an example of what the source needed for this edit looks like. Take a look again. The proper translation of "bauwesen" is construction. The building-claim you’re spearheading doesn’t add up to your sources. Not at all. No support for your translation at all. FellowMellow (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that there is no current official translation because Germany is notoriously slow at updating web presences and the official English website still lists the old government and has no information on the new ministry that was only created on 8 December 2021 (or recreated, since it existed from 1949 to 1998, see de:Bundesministerium für Wohnen, Stadtentwicklung und Bauwesen).

For what it's worth (WP:OR), as a native German speaker, I would probably translate it as "construction" or "building industry" but not just "building" (cf. [2]). However, as is preferable on Wikipedia, we should see what secondary sources have to say and not try to translate it ourselves. From those sources I can find, the term "construction" seems to the preferred translation, e.g. [3] [4] [5]. Only the NYT calls it "housing and urban development". As such, I think at this time the current usage "Federal Minister for Housing, Urban Development and Construction" is in line with the translation secondary sources use for "Bauwesen" and thus should be used until our (as in German) government is able to decide on an official name (which might take some time since the new ministry doesn't even have a website yet). Regards SoWhy 07:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

But there is nothing implying they won't use official translation from before. and that was Bauwesen = Building. and that's also why Fellowmellows fake source doesn't back his claims which are unsourced by definition that a source needs to back the claim it s used as reference for, but it doesn't provide the information he claims it does 80.156.219.243 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

btw SOWHY, your Leo.org source actually backs building as translation, as the bundesamt fur bauwesen uses building aswell, and not construction. while it doesn't sho just "construction" as translation for bauwesen at all 80.156.219.243 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

actually you are quite wrong @80.156.219.243, SOWHY’s source is pretty spot on and doesn’t favor your claim at all. I read through it multiple times and what you were saying is bizarre. Your + Norschweden’s source on the hand is not only outdated but doesn’t prove a thing. Your argument that since the previous Cabinet used building it must be used in this one. That argument is beyond flawed and no proof of that whatsoever. FellowMellow (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

no, the IP-user is right the BBR, which has Bauwesen in it's german name, uses Building as translation see here [6] also if you want to paoint to an actual literal translation of Bauwesen it's either Building industry, or construction industry. not construction alone. Building was used in the past and is used by the federal office beneath the ministry, construction was never used and is not even a correct translation. Construction is simply wrong. and your refernce doesn't supprot your claims at all Norschweden (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

no, the IP-user is incorrect, however user SoWhy is correct because as he said " that there is no current official translation because Germany is notoriously slow at updating web presences and the official English website still lists the old government and has no information on the new ministry that was only created on 8 December 2021." You have no evidence whatsoever and your sources don’t support your claims that the previous cabinet’s name of "building" remains the same. Your sources are outdated and don’t prove a thing. Construction is the official translation of "bauwesen." I already provided you an example of a source that you need to provide an order to make your claim correct and I won’t dispute it if you will, but you and the IP user have failed to provide those sources on numerous occasions. FellowMellow (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

NO, Construction is not the translation of bauwesen. the official translation used by the bundesamt is building. the closest literal translation is either uilding industry or construction industry. and no you did not give an example for a source, the link you posted there does in no way back your false claims Norschweden (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

WRONG! Construction, not building is the correct translation of bauwesen. I actually did give an example for the source, I attached a link above of how another user provided a source with an English translation for the Climate Action ministry that Robert Habeck is holding. You clearly haven’t looked at it. So you’re the one that had the false claims. FellowMellow (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

the correct transation of bauwesen is neither building nor construction, as bauwesen means bullding industry, but the officially used translation by the BBR, just look up the source i gave is Building Norschweden (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I already looked at your source, the claim you are pushing us not backed by it. There is no English translation in your source. You are pushing "building" because you believe that the previous cabinet’s ministry, which had building stayed on to the current cabinet. There is no proof of that and your source does not back the claim. You are arguing from the perspective of the previous cabinet. This is the source that is appropriate for this case. Follow the footsteps of this user. [7][‎https://www.bmwi.de/SiteGlobals/BMWI/StyleBundles/Bilder/bmwi_logo_en.svg?__blob=normal&v=12] FellowMellow (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

there is an official english translation in his source... 80.156.219.243 (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh really? Then please do point it out… I read his source and the source is not in English translation. If you find an example of a source, like I showed above, then the edit is certified. FellowMellow (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

the source is in english, man Norschweden (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

so when i add his english source, the edit is ratified.. fine i'll do it 80.156.219.243 (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If you both can’t tell the difference between English and German, then there is a another whole problem, but anyways, your original source, that you both pushed were inaccurate. You need to accept that and saying that it’s is bizarre. Now this source [8] is more believable. That’s all you had to do. I’m not sure why you had to keep arguing and providing sources that don’t back your claims. You should have just provided this one. It really wasn’t too difficult to do. FellowMellow (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

why can't i edit

why can't i edit, this page needs an update, BMI and building ministry don't have their correct logos and there is still this strange construction name, for building. the building ministry was always called building in english afaik 80.156.219.243 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The page was protected against editing to facilitate a discussion (see the section above). Feel free to participate in the discussion above but remember to provide reliable sources for your claims. Regards SoWhy 08:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

the ministry always used building as translation for bauwesen, just look at the official english logos from before it was part of the bmu 80.156.219.243 (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That was 23 years ago. There is no indication that the new ministry will use the same translation. Do you have any reliable sources that use this translation for the new ministry? Regards SoWhy 10:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

2005 is not 23 years ago 80.156.219.243 (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The ministry last existed in 1998 (see de:Bundesministerium für Wohnen, Stadtentwicklung und Bauwesen). But then again, 2005 was 16 years ago, so my point stays the same (actually, it stays the same regardless because prior naming does not predict future naming). You need to provide reliable source on what this ministry (the one that exists since Wednesday) is called in English. Regards SoWhy 14:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because the ministry lost it's independence, the name doesn't vanish. as part of the transport ministry, it was still called bauwesen and that was still translated to building, never to construction. in 2005 they changed the german name just to bau, the english name stayed the same, building. construction was never used 80.156.219.243 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)