Talk:Voßstraße

Merge and Redirect

As per Germany Wikipedia, which has no separate article on Voßstraße, I suggest to merge the content to Wilhelmstraße, Reich Chancellery, Topography of Terror or other articles, redirect, and call it quits here. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And carry on the ß-debate at Wilhelmstrasse? Unschool 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It would return there. Anyway, having one article less should be one battle field less. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a debate, anyway? Writing Vossstrasse is not the English version of the name, but just plainly wrong in German. There's a reason why there's ss and ß. Nobody would try editing out a 'ñ' out of a Spanish article, I suppose.. Something Wicked (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Wicked, the debate over the use of ß is a rather old one, and sadly, it has caused some very hard feelings. There are intelligent arguments for both sides. You may want to look around at some other articles to get a better understanding. Unschool (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a legitimate article - I don't think it should be merged and/or redirected. There are people here who have no cultural awareness and, nonetheless, don't wish to recognize the character. "sss" is an improper translation - and there is no harm using the character, as the turks do with their names, and the spanish do with theirs, and the portugese, etc, etc, etc. Rarelibra 23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I don't think this article so vital it cannot be merged. The Chancellery is a good part of the importance of this article, such as it is; Wikipedia still isn't a street directory, even for Berlin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Someone please merge the content to anywhere, and everybody please get over with it. -- Matthead  DisOuß   05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the ß like the & symbol?

I can choose to say, "Mary, Tom & I" or I can say, "Mary, Tom and I". Neither is correct or incorrect; it's just a matter of whatever I feel like typing. Isn't that same true for the ß symbol? - Theaveng (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In German, ß and ss are used differently. For example, Maße and Masse are two different words: Maße means "measurements", while Masse means "mass". Likewise, Schoß means "lap", while schoss means "shot" (past tense of "shoot"); Floß means "raft", while floss means "flowed". They're not interchangeable. —Angr 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Awwww. They never taught us that in German class. I thought the "ß" was the same as "ss". Writing shorthand. - Theaveng (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My favourite is the difference between Wilhelmstraße and Wilhelmstrasse, the one being William Street (Wilhelm-Straße), the other being William Route (Wilhelms-Trasse) (albeit the two would be eerily similar in meaning). Blur4760 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To write it correctly, You must use "ß", cause it's a name. Redlinux (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, in Germany, "ß" and "ss" are used (now) differently (but: Straße -> STRASSE)
• Yes, in Suisse. There is no "ß" and german "ß" is always the same as "ss".

--46.115.22.103 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it isn't the same, like Angr already said. Vossstraße would be correct regarding the new German orthography from 1996. Voßstraße is just the "historical" term. 178.5.118.232 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The spelling of names wasn't changed in 1996. —Kusma (t·c) 07:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag

I see by the edit history that writing in English on this English Wikipedia is described as inaccuracy. The way to deal with such complaints should be to add a tag, and discuss here. I await the discussion with some interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing in English is not described as inaccuracy. The inaccuracy is misspelling a German name that has no English equivalent and then referring to that misspelling as "the English equivalent". "Voss-Strasse" etc. is not the English name of Voßstraße (the way, for example Vienna is the English name of Wien); it's just a misspelling. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

False; this street is widely discussed in English and hardly ever spelt with the eszett, and then only by the sort of sources which also use München, for example. Copious instances of this will be found in discussion; some more in this collection of evidence In this, btw, it differs from Swedish names, and from many German names using the umlaut; diacriticked vowels are demonstrably more acceptable in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Vossstrasse is routinely used in English publications more than is Voßstraße. Per WP:UE, we should not be using the "ß" here. It doesn't matter whether people think that Vossstrasse is a transliteration or not, or whether it's a "misspelling" or not. It is the usage normally found in English, and that is what the spirit of WP:UE is all about—making this a comfortable read for most English speakers. It is the height of arrogance to demand that Voßstraße be used. (The vast majority of English speakers will think that it says "Vobstrabe", anyway.) Unschool (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Object per the common sense approach User:Angr is trying to get across. Consider this: A Google query (yes, yes, spare me the commonplace objections) for vossstrasse -vossstraße -voßstraße -voßstrasse -wikipedia yields ~950 hits, while a query for vossstraße -vossstrasse -voßstraße -voßstrasse -wikipedia yields ~50. Unless someone brings up a better indicator to the contrary, this unambiguously indicates that the ß is substituted with ss both in the named part (Voß) and in the generic designation as a street (Straße). So, it's Voßstraße, often incorrectly spelt as Vossstrasse in English sources. Move on. User:Dorftrottel 19:46, January 15, 2008

I get 2890 hits, not 50, for the second search here. The "commonplace objections" may explain away some of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just some hints about the ß/ss-thing, followed by my own opinion:

• Since the Rechtschreibreform, the letter "ß" indicates long pronounciation of the previous vowel, the letters "ss" indicate short pronounciation of the previous vowel.
• This does not apply to Switzerland, they use "ss" in both cases.

Thus, a street is "Straße" in, e.g., Austria and Germany, and "Strasse" in Switzerland.

• Of course, the Rechtschreibreform does not apply to proper nouns like August Graf von Voß-Buch.
• "ss" can be used as substitute for "ß", mainly used in the following two cases:
  • In the pre-computer-era, typewriters without a "ß"-key existed. I this case ss was used as substitute.
  • No uppercase-"ß" exists, therefore one has to write AUGUST GRAF VON VOSS-BUCH.

Given this, the fact that many english readers don't know how to pronounce a "ß", and comparing the 1,170 hits from vossstrasse -vossstraße -voßstrasse -voßstraße -wikipedia with the 1,090 hits from voßstraße -vossstraße -voßstrasse -vossstrasse -wikipedia I think "Vossstrasse" should be used in the Englisch Wikipedia.see my contribution below--Cyfal (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

--Cyfal (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more info:

• Depending on circumstances, "sz" is or was the correct substitute for "ß" (nonwithstanding "ss" under other circumstances)
• Ever since the use of the long s character was discontinued, and the round s was used everywhere, there was the rule that never, for whatever reason, a triple s was to be typed or written. This held even if the 1st or 3rd "s" was part of another letter combination and thus not pronounced. It was only in the 1996 incepted governmental spelling reform, which became effective in some schools in 2005 and in all schools in 2006, and is still not very widely accepted by the public, that this rule has been given up for most, not all, instances.

Since Voßstraße is the correct spelling, I strongly suggest to use it as the page title. Since Vossstrasse is the officially correct substitute today, I suggest make it a redirect to Voßstraße. Since Vosstrasse was the officially correct substitute spelling for centuries, and is the most widely used and accepted substitute of today, and is likely to be found in literature for the next century or so, I suggest to let it redirect to Voßstraße. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "correct name" in English is the name English uses; this English Wikipedia should use that name, per guideline and policy. The German government does not determine what correct English is, any more than they determine what correct Switzerdeutsch is. We anglophones do not have an Academy to determine it for us, unlike more ordered nations; we determine correct English by what most of us do actually do.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When any English source writes "Vossstrasse", it's not a misspelling but a perfectly legal replacing of ß with ss because no ß is available on an English keyboard. It makes it easier for them to write the name. It's some sort of transliteration, but not a different name. It's the same way of writing Serbian names with c in the end instead of ć. - Comartinb (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be true for people who don't know how to make an ß on their keyboard or who might run into problems with various fonts. So that is a convention which makes sense in those cases. Writing ß on Wikipedia, however, is simple and possible and works for everyone. We shouldn't repeat the mistake of the Encyclopædia Britannica and spell names incorrectly. Serbian people are usually spelled with their ć as well, so why not Voßstraße? Besides, we're talking about a proper name here, not an English word. You shouldn't forget that. — N-true (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't repeat the mistake of the Encyclopædia Britannica and spell names incorrectly. This error is the hall-mark of the non-English newbie, so I will explain again: English spelling is determined only by English usage; when the Britannica agrees with the normal usage of English speakers, it is spelling things correctly. This, of course, goes both ways: Duden is being correct, in German, in using de:Kalifornien; English speaking editors would be wrong to claim that that article should be moved because it's "about a proper name here, not a" German "word". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus! Why can´t you at least agree on one (!) spelling then (even the wrong one for that matter!)?: Voss Strasse, Voß Straße, Vossstrasse, Voß Strasse and many more (wrong!) combinations of the streetname can be found in the article...That´s ridiculous and a disgrace. If you state at the beginning that the German letter ß is used in the text why not use it coherently then? The name of the street is "Voßstraße" (look at the streetsign!) - very simple: One word (oh yes, there is a rule for it in German whether it should be one word or two..) and "ß" in Voß (Name of the guy) and in Straße for street. What a stupid argument that Anglophones in general might mistake it for a b or that some dumbheads don´t know how to handle a keyboard with foreign fonts. Is that the British/American idea of an educated nation?! What about the Spanish ñ or ll (which is not a double L but a J), all the German Umlaute like ä,ö,ü, or many other letters that the English language simply doesn´t know? I find it hard to believe that there is actually an argument about the question how something should be spelled properly in the 21st century (with the true information easily accessible) if there is so much clear evidence about the correct way (and that is correct in England as much as it is correct in Germany or Timbuktu). As a German who spent many years in England I find that the whole argument reveals a (for me) very typical British/American almost imperialistic arrogance and lack of respect when it comes to foreign languages. (Visible in both pronunciation nd spelling.) It´s not the "German government" which wants to "determine what correct English is". But if we turn the argument around: Who are the Anglophones to disfigure Names and words in other languages? So please: At least be consistent: Stick to one "Anglo-German" spelling (wether it be Straße or Strasse, Voß or Voss). And if you decide that one can´t expect an Anglophone to understand the concept of different and more letters than the ones he knows from English then forget about the hint "The title of this article contains the character ß." The present orthographic chaos is a complete farce--92.225.84.92 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In case already an established english spelling variant exists, I think we should use this one. (That's not only my own opinion but also seems to be consens on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English.) I've now checked the online accessible references in this article: Its mostly spelled "Voss Strasse". (Perhaps someone should check the newspapers and books cited, too.) Thus, I now suggest to move the article to "Voss Strasse". --Cyfal (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Posted today. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Support This is also William Shirer's usage, and Elonka's well-founded suggestion at the last move request; let's settle this and maybe strike it at WP:LAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ASCII titles are always better for usability anyways. 70.51.9.166 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Unschool (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proper names should not be localized at all, here's no transcription issue, ß is a regular latin letter. However, ß is as well an ASCII character (ALT+0223), so IP 70.51...' argument is void. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a clarity issue; "Latin letter" or not, eszett will not be understood or recognized by a large number of English-speakers; we are edited for lay readers, not for specialists. As for the anon's point, using actual letters rather than code in the URL is a very minor advantage, but it is real. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Voßstraße is original name. it is in Latin script and only 100% accurate. --Anto (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, again. You can't keep holding the same poll over and over again until you get the result you want. I say, again, merge this article into Reich Chancellery; this street is not notable by itself. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong on both grounds. This is a novel proposal, and even if weren't, it has lain here unobjected to for three months. Proposals to settle a matter on which there has been no consensus are always in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, quite unnecessary to do a transliteration of the ß, quite unnecessary to write a German composite noun as two words. And always, when in doubt about what the English name should be (this version wasn't even proposed in the last couple of move requests), use the local name. Kusma (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment' Voss Strasse seems to be the worst of all alternatives. Straightforward tranliteration yields Vossstrasse, which might be objectionable bcs of the triple sss, and that's maybe why it has not been chosen by the mentioned authors. I think that Voss-Strasse (with hyphen) could resolve the ß problem and the sss problem, without causing eye cancer for people who know German. But then Germans' eye cancer is not the problem of en:wp. Anyway, I think this page is at WP:LAME for a reason. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

As said in section "Merge and Redirect" above, there's no need to keep this as a separate article as its title is subject to endless discussions about spelling variants. It even had been created to make a point about English spelling. I would have merged it long time ago, but hesitated due to the discussions and strong oppinions shown here, and due to the fact that the use of ß remains a matter of controversy anyway. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That would also be acceptable, although Adam did a lot of work, and it's not clear to me where all of this should wind up; it won't all fit in the article on the Chancellery. (Much would be anachronistic for Topography of Terror, and I'm not sure we need that article anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I am insufficiently knowledgeable to comment on this either way, but I would be open to persuasion. Unschool (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As am I. In line with WP:NC and WP:UE what are the usages in reliable English language sources for "Voßstraße", "Voss Strasse" etc. ? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Gilbert and Hoffman books in the footnotes divide one each between Vossstrasse and Voss Strasse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The ignorance of mine to which I make reference is as to the notability of the article and its appropriateness for possible merger. I am quite satisfied with either Vossstrasse or Voss Strasse, either one of which is in accordance with WP:UE. Unschool (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lameness

Just in case anyone wasn't aware, the "debate" over the article title was mentioned last year in Der Spiegel, and can be read here: [1]. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy" subsection

The widespread story that the walls in the Mohrenstr. Underground station were faced with red marble slabs from the Reichskanzlei after the war is disputed, for example by geologists at TU Berlin, who have studied the matter and consulted expert masons. They could not have been salvaged from the ruin in a way that would have permitted their reuse for such a purpose. At best perhaps a storage depot containing these slabs (leftovers kept in case needed for repairs) somewhere could have survived the bombing et al. and been used. But there seems to be no evidence of such a store or its location or the subsequent use of anything it may have contained. The article "Mohrenstraße (Berlin U-Bahn") denies the rumor and cites evidence for the GDR source for the marble used. Unless anybody has strong objections, I would like to soften the assertion in the article a bit. Any opinions? --Remotelysensed (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)