Talk:German Empire
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the German Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 18, 2005, January 18, 2006, January 18, 2007, January 18, 2008, and January 18, 2009. |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Name in German
[edit]In the Infobox it mentions the name of the German Empire was "Deutsches Reich" in German. However, above in its introduction, it mentioned the German Empire in German was "Deutsches Kaiserreich". Unless I'm wrong, both would be correct, but in that case shouldn't both be side by side in both instances?
Thanks to anyone willing to answer. Sandjaar (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Displaying the two names side by side is clunky and adds minimal extra information, they are largely in free variation. Maybe there should be some additional consistency in how they are presented, but having them next to each other seems pointless. Remsense聊 17:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- These terms are not equal and are properly used in this context, throughout 1871 to 1945 Germany had the same official name, Deutsches Reich, though in English the official name used was "German Empire" until 1918 and "German Reich" onwards to 1945 (since the "Empire" translation denotes a monarchy). Today, German historiography differences the Imperial period by calling it the Deutsches Kaiserreich, since Kaiserreich indisputably means Empire (unlike Reich, whose usage depends on the context). Point is, Deutsches Kaiserreich is a modern German term to name the period, but Deutsches Reich was the official contemporary name used by the state in question. (See also the references and notes attached to the name Deutsches Kaiserreich in the lead.) Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree we should be using the word "Kaiserreich" instead of "Second Reich". the word Kaiserreich is more commonly used by German Historians, and in my POV its used more by normal people. Also people don't really use the word "Second Reich" when talking about the German Empire. also in my POV, using terms such as "First, second, third, and fourth Reich" only serves to legitimize National socialism. Zyxrq (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Coat of arms in infobox
[edit]In almost every country page I've seen the greater coat of arms is the one used in the infobox. Therefore that should be how things are done here. OddHerring (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Coat of Arms you are actively removing from the infobox is cited in a reliable source. All content on Wikipedia needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If you can supply a WP:RELIABLESOURCE that substantiates the usage of the Coat of Arms that you are trying to add (See WP:UNSOURCED, then it will be acceptable. However, trying to bruteforce the change will not avail you. Policy is crystal clear on this subject
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)- Also consensus needs to be attained first. It appears his new edit included a citation, however he also removed a sourced addition. Should we just add both as a compromise? Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 users objected to your edit. How did you attain consensus? Usually consensus building takes time. @OddHerring Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only person here who is actively objecting is you. Brocade River Poems's complaint that it was unsourced, so I sourced it. Can you explain your objection now? OddHerring (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- That’s now how consensus works. Remsense clearly disagreed with you. So did I. Even if there is just one person(lets say me in this case) reverting you, if you’re adding disputed content then ONUS is on you to attain consensus. You didn’t even wait until brocade voiced his opinion on your changes.
- My problem is that you replaced long-standing content that was sourced with disputed content. Sure you cited it, but that doesn’t change the fact that you replaced sourced content. If I were you, I’d wait until all parties can come to an agreement on how coat of arms should be presented.
- As a compromise I’d say maybe we can leave both coat of arms in the info box. But even before that edit gets made, I’d like to listen to the opinions of other editors prior to making any final changes, just so we are all on the same page.
- Regardless, you didn’t reach consensus yet. So the edit should be removed until some sort of agreement can be reached. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Remsense agreed to stop disputing elsewhere. I started this section to bring them here and they refused to talk.
- Also... your complaint is that I edited the page and you liked how it already was? Unsure how I am meant to reach consensus when your issue is that the edit happened at all.OddHerring (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- What you should have done was use the talk page and ask if the involved users were okay with you replacing one sourced addition with another. Which is why I suggested the compromise. Because both cost of arms are sourced. So why replace one when we could just add both. You went ahead and made the edit without reaching consensus.
- Im also waiting for @BrocadeRiverPoems opinion on the matter. Waiting for her input before making the edit is another thing you should have done.
- ONUS is on you. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- So, what presently confuses me is that in your edit you uploaded a Coat of Arms that you recorded as your own work[1], but the exact same image was uploaded by a different user in 2011[2], I'm confused as to why you didn't just use the Wikicommons? That said, MOS:IMAGEQUALITY says
Pages using seals, flags, banners, logos, or other symbols to represent governments, organizations, and institutions should use the version prescribed by that entity when available. These are preferable to amateur creations of similar quality
suggests to me that we shouldn't use either one. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only person here who is actively objecting is you. Brocade River Poems's complaint that it was unsourced, so I sourced it. Can you explain your objection now? OddHerring (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 users objected to your edit. How did you attain consensus? Usually consensus building takes time. @OddHerring Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also consensus needs to be attained first. It appears his new edit included a citation, however he also removed a sourced addition. Should we just add both as a compromise? Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Selected anniversaries (January 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (January 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (January 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (January 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (January 2009)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class European history articles
- High-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- C-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- Top-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles