Talk:Voßstraße

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmanderson (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 5 August 2007 (→‎Compromise?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconGermany Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article was previously considered for deletion on July 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Talk:Vossstrasse/archive1

In summary

I hope everyone is pleased with themselves for wasting so much of their time and mine on this stupid argument, for no outcome whatever, as could have been predicted from the start. I suggest everyone go and write one original article to redeem themselves. Adam 05:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I wrote an article about a subject that I was genuinely fascinated with, maybe did it as a labour of love, wanted to share that knowledge with others, and then got embroiled in weeks of codswallop on how to spell the name of a street, when mine was one of several quite acceptable versions in the first place, and stuff about whether the article should remain on Wikipedia at all, then I'd start to wonder a. just what do people want from Wikipedia and b. was it all worth my while right from the start? We have to be prepared to see our work changed by others, but if a better article emerges at the end of the process then so be it. But when some people get carried away by small matters where it's not even the actual information content of the article that's being questioned, it's enough to make you lose heart. Keep up the good work. As someone who regards Berlin as the most fascinating city on the planet, and Voss Strasse (however it's spelt), one of its defining locations, I believe your work has an important place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.217.153 (talkcontribs) on July 13, 2006 (UTC)

Voss-strasse-krieg II

Since ProhibitOnions has chosen to reopen hostilities on this front, I am going to seek a formal policy determination that "ß" be banned from all article titles. Adam 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you on that one. --Elonka 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First I will have to figure out how to do it. Adam 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bush has declared war against a word, and now you guys declare war against a single letter? What next, war against pixels? -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this war, but since it has become an issue, it needs to be resolved one way or the other. If Wikipedia in its collective wisdom decides that "ß" is acceptable in article titles, I will accept that. My view, however, is that non-English letterforms should not be used in the titles of English articles. If "Voßstraße" is acceptable, why not 北京 or القاهرة? Adam 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's put aside Adam's "war" talk. We can agree to disagree regarding special characters such as ß. However, Elonka immediately reverted someone's good-faith rewriting of the article because it happened to use correct spellings.
Regardless of the ß issue, the onus is still on Adam to answer the following: Can you point to any source, anywhere, that writes this street name with a hyphen and lowercase "straXXe"? Any other street name, German or otherwise, that is written in lowercase? Otherwise, the recasting of Voßstraße or Vossstrasse as "Voss-strasse" falls under original research.
German has very specific rules regarding hyphenation and casing. "Voss-strasse" is wrong. So is "Voß-straße", for that matter. Since neither Elonka nor Adam speaks German, it's a little hard convincing them that these things are more than just fine details or a desire for edit warring. However, Germans writing in English often make the opposite mistakes with English names ("Downing-street 10"), which is about how "Voss-strasse" looks.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been over this many times, but I will say it one more time. This is not a dispute about spelling. The German word for street is strasse, spelled S-T-R-A-S-S-E, and that is how I spell it in all the articles I have edited or created. The only question is how the double-S is to be written. In both Germany and England there arose a custom of using a double-S ligature: writing the two Ss with one character (see here for examples). In the English-speaking world this usage died out in the 19th century, but it persisted in Germany and is now standard for the lower-case double-S. This, however, is the English Wikipedia, and article titles must be written in the Roman alphabet according to English rules of usage. Thus we write Beijing rather than 北京 and Cairo rather than القاهرة. The principle here is exactly the same. "ß" is not a letter of the English alphabet, and cannot be used in English article titles, since it is not recognised by the great majority of English-speaking people. What is done in Germany, what the German rules of orthography might be, and what German-speakers might think about the matter is, with great respect, totally irrelevant - just as my opinion is irrelevant if the German Wikipedia wants to say that the British Prime Minister lives at Downingstraße 10. As for the hyphen, I have said that I will accept Vossstrasse if that is prefered by majority of interested editors, although the triple-S looks odd to English-speakers. I have set this position out several times already, and I don't intend having another endless circular argument with ProhibitOnions about it. I will seek a firm policy decision on the matter, I will abide by whatever the verdict is, and I will expect him to do the same. Adam 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Adam 10:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you still going on about the ß?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 10:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you moved the article back to "Voßstraße", thus reopening the dispute. Adam 10:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was Elonka's revert; if she's going to pretend there was ever a consensus, then anything goes. And, despite your assertion above, ß is considered a letter of the German alphabet, not just a way of writing two letters; it is similar to, but not identical to, the former practice in English and other languages of a compound final double s; and more importantly, it still exists. It was a big part of the German spelling reform of 1996, in which, I should add, I strongly supported its abolition (as well as the abolition of capitalizing nouns), which many people expected to happen. However, instead, the pointy-heads instead came up with a new and illogical set of rules for using it. Be that as it may, we can't wish it away, except in Switzerland, where a vastly different form of German is spoken. As I also mentioned, hyphenation is also far less free than in English, because it is used to build compound nouns that would otherwise be declined.
I propose the following: Rename the article "Vossstrasse." This will eliminate the objections regarding the hyphenation and capitalization issues, and leave the ß/ss issue aside (and in your "favor") until a consensus regarding special characters can be reached.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (cur) (last) 21:56, 10 September 2006 ProhibitOnions (Talk | contribs) m (moved Voss-strasse to Voßtraße: The version with the hyphen is original research, not found in any literature. We have the full character set here; spell it as the street signs spell it.) I will be charitable and assume your memory has failed you.
  • Whether or not it is a letter of the German alphabet, that is irrelevant because we are not writing German here. How many times do I have to make this simple point?
  • Be that as it may, I accept your proposal to move the article to Vossssssstrasse. Adam 11:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this matter can be cleared up using logic. You can explain the use of ß with logic, and you can explain the non-use of ß with logic, as has been demonstrated across several miles of Wikipedia discussion. Perhaps it would be more constructive to take a different approach: Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß - at the moment this seems to show that the ß is more often avoided, but not always. I think a little more evidence would be useful. If anyone has any paper English language encyclopaedias they could consult it would be nice of you to contribute. Saint|swithin 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Britannica, Colliers and Funk & Wagnall - all give Rudolf Hess and not Rudolf Heß. Adam 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could look up Grosse Füge, Strauss, Vossstrasse etc. and add some to the list, it would be marvellous. Saint|swithin 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should have a unified policy on the ß - it just seems to anger people when their articles are moved, and doesn't help much. Changing ß to ss is usually a much smaller error than changing Polish ł to l or French ç to c. Current practice seems to be to use the ß in articles written by German speakers about topics of mostly local interest (like the names of places or people without a large impact in English-language newspapers, for example Aschersleben-Staßfurt) but to drop it for really famous subjects (like Rudolf Hess or Michael Gross (swimmer)). Actually, most foreign Wikipedias seem to follow the same convention, probably governed by the principle of least surprise. Whether codifying this would actually help prevent arguing about article titles is not clear to me, though. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move of the article to "Vossstrasse", since that seems to be the more common spelling in the English-language sources that I've checked. --Elonka 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Potential policy change

In order to seek a formal determination that Wikipedia articles should not include a "ß", you need to ensure that it's written up on a "guideline" page. To get something to guideline status, you start with a "proposed guideline" page.

I'd recommend that you start by reading WP:UE, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (thorn), along with their associated talk pages. The closest to what you want to do, I think, is the "thorn" discussion, which was a proposal that never made it as far as official guideline status. If you still want to take on the project though, I would read the "thorn" page carefully, including its talk page, try to analyze what they did and didn't do right, and then create a Naming conventions page as a "proposed policy", like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ß) (or does the character have another "English" name?), and include some of the data from Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Umlaut and ß. Once the wording of the proposed guideline is nailed down, you'd want to get community consensus to make it a "formal" guideline. The next step past that is policy, but I think that formal guideline status would probably be sufficient. --Elonka 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I will proceed as indicated. I will include the thorn and the other Icelandic letter whose name I forget. There ought to be a general ban on non-English letterforms in titles. In this I do not' include accents and diacriticals such as the Polish "Ł" Adam 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we haven't had a proposed policy for outlawing Þ for almost a week now, [1], it was sorely missed. Stefán Ingi 00:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the problem at this page (and no other pages have been moved recently to my knowledge) is based on the hyphen, not the ß, a policy on ß seems not to be the best solution. Perhaps a policy decision on triple letters and their (un-)acceptability would be more relevant. All parties have declared their acceptance of the title Vossstrasse. --Stemonitis 09:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we also have Bernauer Straße, Bundesstraße 2, Bundesstraße 5, Friedrichstraße, Straße des 17. Juni, Motzstraße, Wilhelmstraße and probably others. All need to be moved to conform to English usage. Not to mention a monstrosity like Björn Þórðarson (just to keep Stefan happy). Adam 09:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter for a separate discussion. Again, there seems to be some sort of consensus regarding the hyphen-followed-by-lowercase-strasse issue, because lowercase "strasse" is wrong. FWIW, in German triple letters have only been allowed since the controversial 1996 reform. If there's an objection to that, then "Voss-Strasse" (hyphen and uppercase S) or "Voss Strasse" (separate words, uppercase) have precedents in German usage, though this particular street is written together.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Adam thinks that calling someones name a monstrosity will make me happy. If Björn were still alive I would have removed this comment citing WP:LIVING but for some reason the policy on Wikipedia does not give the same respect to dead people. Stefán Ingi 10:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ProhibitOnions, for about the 25th time, what is right or wrong, or what is or was done or not done, in German is totally irrelevant to this discussion. All that is relevant here is what facilitates English-speakers being able to read article titles. I have agreed to Vossstrasse not because of any usage past or present in German but because it gets rid of "ß", which is my objective here. (Actually my objective is to write encyclopaedia articles, but since you persist in wasting my time with this nonsense I will have to deal with this first.)
Do you know what "FWIW" means, Adam?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In English, German or Icelandic? Adam 11:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have agreed to move the article to Vossstrasse, so why doesn't one of the people who advocated the move now carry it out? Adam 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move, still against consensus, should be reverted

Archive 1 shows a no-consensus naming poll on suggested alternatives to the Voss-strasse name then used, closed 13 July 2006. So why was this article subsequently moved by User:ProhibitOnions, twice on 10 September 2006 eventually ending up at [[Voßstraße], reverted by User:Rebecca early on 11 Sep (UTC) to Voss-strasse, then moved again by User:ProhibitOnions on 21 September to Vossstrasse?

The brief discussion, without notice to interested parties through WP:RM, in the discussion above is not sufficient to override the previous lack of consensus after extended discussion. Gene Nygaard 01:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, the predominant usage of the term in English-language sources, is "Vossstrasse". This corresponds with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Elonka 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more common English usages haven't even been considered here, either in the archived discussion or since. And ProhibitOnions makes a silly claim above about Voss-Strasse being original research; in fact, that particular form is more likely to be seen in German language usage than in English-language usage, though it is seen in the latter. But where is the consideration of, and where are the redirects from, the common English-language forms? Why are Voss Strasse, Voss strasse, Voss street, and Voss Street still all redlinks? The unhyphenated form is more common in English. The variations in capitalization of street/strasse may be in part a national varieties of English issue; there certainly are differences in how common capitalization is, both geographically and chronologically. Gene Nygaard 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said that "Voss-strasse" was not right, and possibly OR. If you read what I wrote, I mentioned the hyphenated version ("Voss-Strasse") as a secondary non-ß choice only if "Strasse" is in uppercase. You will not see "-strasse" (lowercase) in German, a language in which nouns are always capitalized. Silly me.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And should this not also logically apply to Friedrichstraße, Straße des 17. Juni, Wilhelmstraße etc? Adam 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in large part. But there is one huge, significant difference—Friedrichstrasse is never written with a triple s. And triple letters in one word definitely are avoided in English usage. Gene Nygaard 10:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The triple S is a minor matter. The use of "ß", which very few English-readers recognise, is a much more important question. Adam 10:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Gene Nygaard can point us to sources that back his claim that Voss-strasse or Voss Street or whatever is more commonly used than Vossstrasse. Because we have an English language source that spells it Vossstrasse. Furthermore, I find it interesting that my view is diametrically opposed to Adam's. For me, ß or ss was always a minor question. On the other hand, and it may be because I am a native German, I find making up street names like Voss-strasse makes WP look stupid (pardon my choice of words). Blur4760 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That little word "an" speaks volumes, doesn't it? Gene Nygaard 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One is more than zero. Plus, for instance, the Canadian embassy writes it all kinds of way, but always without a hyphen. (Or a space, for that matter. They write Voßstrasse on their website.) Blur4760 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the poßible variants of spelling not using the "ß", we have settled on Vossstrasse as the variant least objectionable to all interested parties. I see no point in canvaßing that ißue further. The real ißue here is the use of "ß" at the English Wikipedia, to which I remain adamantly opposed. It is only Wikipedia's lack of a workable proceß for agreeing on policies that prevents me from getting it banned. Adam 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adam, it's also the large number of people whose opinions are different from yours that prevent that step being taken. There is no consensus in either direction: that's why the issue keeps cropping up. --Stemonitis 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, Adam is absolutely right; of course all people who disagree with him, like me and Angr, must be complete and utter idiots out of principle. Oh, how could we ever not notice our own ignorance. </sarcasm> —Nightstallion (?) 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Nightstallion. I award you the title Hero of Socialist Self-Criticism, First Class, with oak leaves and diamonds. Adam 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am not worthy. </sarcasm> —Nightstallion (?) 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to dispel such displays of true Socialist modesty; but Adam is right; we did have a poll on this, which can be found in the archives, and the Germanist position did not prevail. I have moved back accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Germanist position did not prevail because others believed the usuage in Adam 01:02, 30 October 2006(UTC) to be neither sarcastic nor stupid, but correct. Barliner 15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

I am sorely tempted to put {{Hoax}} on this article. I live in Berlin and can assure all readers that there is no street called "Vossstrasse" here. There is a street called Voßstraße, however, but for some reason we're not allowed to have an article about it. The fact that there is a poll in the archive indicating a lack of consensus to move this article to the correct spelling of this name is irrelevant. Polls are evil, and at Wikipedia, accuracy takes precedence over ochlocracy. —Angr 07:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The recent renaming is an embarrassment. -- Evertype· 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poll was about a year ago, thus the Frankensteinish assembly of letters was on public display long enough. Let's go ahead and make the request to move the article to the name which is on display on the actual signs in the street, Voßstraße. Are there some humor archives on Wiki where the odd construct "sss" can be mentioned? -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's move it back. Haukur 13:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to do so. ProhibitOnions (T) 15:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content updated to Voßstraße, too. -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was fast! ProhibitOnions (T) 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same for half a dozen redirects. Seems all articles had used Voßstraße anyway. -- Matthead discuß!     O       15:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was there some RM discussion that I missed? The article should be at Vossstrasse, per the majority of English-language sources. --Elonka 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, but my recent additions of web links might be of interest to you. Voßstraße is used in English-language sources by native speakers of English like Iain Boyd Whyte is professor of architectural history at the University of Edinburgh (okay, so he is probably a Scotsman). Being exposed to the odd Umlaut (diacritic) now and then may be appreciated by some of those who "would like to be able to speak many more languages". -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for such a clearly controversial move. I recommend that the article be moved back to Vossstrasse, and that proper WP:RM procedures be followed. --Elonka 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it has been, twice now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

In text, I have attempted the following compromise. The street is the Vossstrasse, as we agreed (see the archives; those who wish to change that agreement should go to WP:RM.) Note that omitting the is an idiom violation. The addresses are Voßstraße 1 and so on; the italics being proper to a foreign word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if anyone chooses to make a move request, fine; the last move request discussion is at Talk:Vossstrasse/archive1. I thank Avraham for intervening, and note that the MoS on Ireland is only one of the places we agree on following what English does to foreign names; there is another discussion at WP:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS on Ireland is of course completely and utterly irrelevant, since Ireland has places with both English and Irish names. Where a place has an English name, we use it. Where a place has no English name, we use the native name. Voßstraße has no English name, therefore we use the German name, which is Voßstraße. "Vossstrasse" isn't the English name; it's just a misspelling. It never should have been at this name in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't remain at this inaccurate name. —Angr 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. I suggested this barbaric spelling only because it was marginally more acceptable than the hyphenated version used by User:Adam Carr, which was his own invention (and even then, triple-s has been allowed in German only since the German spelling reform of 1996, which is widely disregarded). There is no reason whatsoever to not call this article by its real name, and that is Voßstraße. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Angr. -- Evertype· 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It remains both guideline and policy, however, to call articles by what English calls the subject. Those who disagree with policy should go to WT:NC; those who disagree that this is the English spelling should present evidence, and go to WP:RM. Evidence may convince me; a wider appeal may find people who agree with you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I speak both English and German, and there is no English name for this street. There is no earthly reason for the sharp esses to be used in the name of this article. -- Evertype· 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar appears to disagree. Unfortunately for our purposes, they quite sensibly regard Vosstrasse as a hit for Voßstraße, and there's another one in Heidelberg, which appears to be Vossstrasse in the usage of the University Medical School; but including Berlin (and street, to ensure we get English) gets a number of returns in both spellinss, even when searched only with eszett. The results suggest Vossstrasse is spoken of in English, and is normally spelled with ss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's simply because Google searches for variants on special characters, treating ß and ss alike (just as, for example, it treats l and Polish ł alike, although they are not interchangeable letters). The reasoning is pretty obvious; it makes it easier to search for a phrase without having to type all variants, and allows searches for foreign words without having to have the right keyboard installed, and so on. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much seems obvious; the combined sample, however, favors Vossstrasse.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, one more thing...
Nationalist? Moi? Very funny, Anderson. BTW, it's common courtesy to mention it when you go to WP:ANI. Perhaps you'll remember to do so next time. ProhibitOnions (T) 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not as much as the editor I named; but certainly: a narrowly focused account, with a nationalist agenda, who will neither comply with our policies nor argue to change them; but movewars.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]