Battle of Honey Springs

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Idunham, Zevan Solomon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GB or US English?

Which one, and why? What do we have as clear evidence for one or the other? Applying Americanisms like "downtown" and "railroad" to a European article seems bizarre. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thrilled to answer this question. We follow WP:ENGVAR, especially WP:RETAIN, which says that we follow the variety of English used in the first non-stub version (which is American English, as it happens, for this article). The only exception is in WP:TIES, which is for something that has strong national ties to a native English variety--in other words, if I started the article about London and how the river is a grayish color, that should get changed to colour because London is in the UK, which speaks UK English. There is nothing in WP:TIES about countries that do not speak English natively, so if a Brit is the first to write an article about Cuba, then the article will be about how nice its harbours are, even though Cuba's just 90 miles from the USA. Therefore, this article doesn't go by British English just because it's European, but rather it goes by the first non-stub version, which I am pretty sure was in American English. Red Slash 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for discussing, by the way, Andy Dingley. Good form, I appreciate the quickness to head to talk pages!) Red Slash 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RETAIN is really a nod to convenience and lack of argument, more than a guide to relevance. Despite that, I have no wish to trawl the history of what is surely an ancient article to read just what a version some years ago used – and even worse, decide which was a "first version".
I don't care about colour/color. That's just WP for you. However "downtown" grates. Is there a way to simply avoid such terms in blander phrasing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"City center" is probably fine. Edit summaries like this and this indicated to me that Mtmoore321 was going to edit war if we didn't use entirely Americanized/Britishized terminology, even extending to such marginal examples like "downtown" for "city center". You'll get no argument from me about "downtown" getting removed, it seemed weird to me (unless, as occasionally is the case (NYC and Chicago certainly, much less so Paris), "downtown" really is the city center and vice-versa. Red Slash 23:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I edited this page back in 2011, my American spellings were reverted to UK English and I was told the page was in UK English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leipzig&oldid=450840132. So since then I've used UK English and I don't see any pressing need to change it. I'm also happy to use US English but there are differences between the usage of 'city' and 'town' that would probably have to be changed to be consistent, as well as railroad/railway. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Vocabulary and probably a few other things. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown (talk) , 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I also dispute that the cited non-stub version was entirely in US English, because it had 'railway line', not 'railroad'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmoore321 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first non-stub version was probably authored by a German who used neither purely British nor American English, but just his German school English. The discussion is pointless and per WP:ENGVAR "disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged". The main point is consistency. The current status quo ist that Br.E. is used consistently and no one will be hurt if we just retain it. --RJFF (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the greater part of the first non-stub version was almost certainly authored by an American English speaker who nevertheless did not exhaustively go through and switch over all prior British spellings. (i.e., in the stub versions, a couple Britishisms were used; then the main contributor to the non-stub version wrote his additions in American English, but did not replace the Britishisms still in place.) Look at "center" used a kajillion times in that version. No self-respecting Brit (or BE speaker) would ever do that, and clearly that's our main original contributor.
In other words, Mtmoore321, the editor who reverted you was wrong, because the original variety was primarily American English (I readily concede that of course it was not 100%, rather something like 90%). Yes, disputes over which ENGVAR to use are strongly discouraged and consistency is what we want. That's why we have the retain policy. The original version was largely American English, which is where this article should stay. (And where it would've stayed all along were it not for presumably well-intentioned editors who switched all those "center"s to "centre"s at some point.) Last point for RJFF, WP:ENGVAR does not say "go with the status quo" but rather, with few exceptions (WP:TIES, etc.), "go with the variety used by the first major (non-stub) contributor". Which is AmE. The arguments will cease if we follow the guideline. Red Slash 20:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is actually the first non-stub http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leipzig&oldid=9768574. It has the word 'center' one time, not a kajillion times. It also has the word 'railroad' used twice. 'Railway' is used once and 'democratisation' is used once. 'Linden' is also American usage. To say it is 90% American is an exaggeration. I'd suggest exaggerations like these leave you open to accusations of being disingenuous, if not dishonest, and don't help your cause. mtmoore321
WP:ENGVAR is a guideline, not one of the 10 commandments. It says that it should be applied with common sense, not enforced for all one is worth. And who decides which version is still a stub and which is the "first non-stub version"? Again: this discussion is pointless and a complete waste of time and authors' productivity. We should all drop it. --RJFF (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

David Brebis (ed.), Michelin guide to Germany, Greenville (2006), p. 324. ISBN 086699077417

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Many editions of this guide exist, but I could not find an edition with David Brebis as editor, and WorldCat does not list an edition for 2006. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk vote

Gdansk Vote Notice clearly states that the vote applies for locations in Germany. Reread it if you plan to revert again. Thank you!

2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lipsk is mentioned as the original root of the name in the first section under the introduction. I don't see any reason why the Polish name should be given in the introduction. Dresden and Chemnitz are relatively near border regions or Sorbian areas so it might be debatable in those cases but in the case of Leipzig any linguistic links date back to early historical times afaik and therefore the correct place to mention it is in the early historical or history of the name section. Mtmoore321 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leipzig was part of a state in a personal union with Poland (Electorate of Saxony) and is a location that shared history between Germany and Poland and should include Polish name as per the vote(read the template above). Why some editors persist ignoring and violating the vote? Any excusing reason?2A02:2430:3:2500:0:0:B807:3DA0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to learn to understand is that Wikipedia rules aren't articles of law but descriptions of consensus practices based on a shared general understanding of verifiability and encyclopedic best practice. Where the Gdansk vote speaks of "shared history", it means places that have historically changed hands between Polish and German domination. And it doesn't speak of them in order to establish a rule, but in order to state an empirical observation: it is those places of "shared history" (i.e. places like Danzig, Stettin or Breslau) where real-world naming practice out there in reliable English-speaking sources will typically vary. English-speaking sources will often refer to those places by their Polish names when speaking of Polish periods in history, and German names when speaking of German periods. It is only this empirical observation that gives the Gdansk vote its justification and its motivation. Leipzig doesn't fall within this observation: no English-speaking source ever refers to it as "Lipsk". For this reason, all your rules-lawyering over whether the fact of the personal union between the Saxonian and the Polish crown constitutes "shared history" is useless nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Hello @Kgfleischmann: The speaker in the sound file (File:Leipzig.ogg) clearly does not show standard pronunciation. The last sound is a /ɕ/ (which does not even exist in standard German phonology) instead of the /ç/ that it should be. The "l" sounds quite dark, approximating an /ɫ/ instead of the standard German /l/. The /ɪ/ does not sound very clearly either, it approximates an /ɪ̈/. All in all, this is not a good example of the standard German pronunciation of "Leipzig" (and not the Leipzig local variant, either) and therefore should not be embedded in the article, because it teaches users an irrelevant, non-standard variant instead of informing them of the "correct" German pronunciation. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am German native and have no problems with that Leipzig.ogg. If you have a better one, replace it. Deleting is not necessary. Greetings --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are very tolerant vis-a-vis non-standard pronunciations or you use a non-standard pronounciation yourself. But that is irrelevant for Wikipedia. The sound file does not render the standard pronunciation as it is transcribed in the IPA symbols. Therefore it is confusing to readers who will ask which one is correct: the sound file or the IPA transcription? All information in Wikipedia has to be correct, no matter if it is written or spoken. Lots of city articles do without a sond file, this is not a necessity. But it is a necessity to avoid incorrect information in order not to misinform our users. --RJFF (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lateral is fine. To my non-native ears it sounds within the Standard German range, I cannot detect any significant velarization that'd mark the pronunciation as Colognian or Swiss. I cannot comment with confidence on the final two sounds, especially the consonant - /ɪ/ is possibly a bit too central indeed, but the word has only one stress (it's not a compound, which would be [ˈläɪ̯p̚#ˌtsɪç] in very explicit phonetic transcription, where ⟨#⟩ marks a morpheme boundary and ⟨ˌ⟩ secondary stress ascribed to the second element of the compound noun), so it's not that surprising you'd hear a more central vowel in an unstressed syllable (compare lit [lɪʔt] with rabbit [ˈɹabɪʔt ~ ˈɹabɪ̈ʔt] in Southern England English). In the recording, the second vowel is still nowhere near the schwa /ə/ and can be readily identified as /ɪ/ due to its unroundedness. This leaves the realization of the final /x/ as the only (potentially) problematic sound in the recording. I cannot distinguish [ç] from [ɕ] in actual speech of other people. I think I articulate the ich-laut as [ç] or at least [xʲ], which is close enough to get by. Sol505000 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics, Turkey with German citizenship have wrong figure

in the Table Demografics, 8th (Turkey)

the figure of German Turkeys is printet as 218. In the linked source it is 918.

As test: 2,467 (all) minus 1,549 (without citizenship) isnt equal 218, please change it, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.27.234 (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

The article cites a book that, apparently, says the liberation involved fierce fighting, whereas http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html says the liberators were greeted. I don't have access to the book, and the Web site gives no citation. Maybe someone could check. Kdammers (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leipzig