Jump to content

Talk:Bannwald

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

Article title

[edit]

copied from Anthony's talkpage:
As I suggested on the article's talkpage before it was deleted, I think if the article is worth having, the only workable title would be the German term, de:Bannwald, because there is no English term that encompasses the German word's multiple historical meanings, though today it mostly boils down to "protected forest" or "forest preserve". So I'm wondering if I should just move it to "Bannwald". Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for your input. Eric talk 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be moved to a more appropriate title. "Bannwald" is ok, except that very few people would think to search for it, were they so minded, under its German title. Neither "protected" nor "preserved" are entirely accurate; how about "German forests with restricted entry"? Cumbersome I know, but reasonably accurate and searchable in an encyclopedia context. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for pondering about a more appropriate name. That is difficult, because the meaning differs. However, a Bannwald is not a forest with restricted entry, but where certain restrictions are in force. One definition given in the English wiktionary for "ban" in the paragraph about its etymology is "to command", i.e. to give orders or directives which in itself is a privilege and comprises the right to grant privileges. However, a lengthy explanation is not a good title, and I'm still deliberating. Perhaps something like "privileged forests". --Zaxevi (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copied from Eric's talkpage:
In A brief history of forestry I found "forest under ban". --Zaxevi (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Forest under ban" is not an established, common term, so it does not make a good encyclopedia entry. As far as I know, we just don't have an English term equivalent to Bannwald, and we aren't in the business of inventing terms here. I'm not convinced that we need an article on en.wiki that seeks to translate a German term that groups together a few common forest restriction concepts into one word. Eric talk 19:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One option might be to merge a synopsis of this article's content somewhere into the Forestry article. Eric talk 20:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for this article & discussion. Perhaps Bannwald would be a better name. The current name, though it does not quite make sense in English (lost in translation), may be okay, too. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @DASonnenfeld. I think if it is to be retained as a standalone article, and not merged into another, we should go with Bannwald. The current name is an awkward invention resulting from an ambitious attempt at translation. Then we'd have to fix the body text translation so that it makes sense. Eric talk 15:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support both retaining this as a separate article & renaming it as Bannwald. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I moved it. Now we just have to fix the article text translation. Eric talk 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

@Zaxevi, I saw your recent edit to the Etymology section. I do not see any occurrence of Bannwald in the Forest... book you reference. Did you? Note also that the Google Books links were faulty--I fixed those. I cannot find any mention of either bambois or banbois in any French reference book, nor can I find any mention of an Alsatian forest called "Dreieich", searching in both French and German. The link you put on the word bambois is to the fr.wp article on a French village of that name that mentions nothing about forests. So I deleted those parts. Sorry, but I think we should delete the rest of what you added if it is not supported by the references. Eric talk 20:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the links. As to "Dreieich", on page 35 of the cited book, the third paragraph consists textually of the following: l In Alsace, a royal ban forest existed at Dreieich (from the heathen worship of three Oaks) for a very long period, and its charter was one of the most primitive. Although it is therefore supported by the reference, you are obviously right that the mentioning of Alsace is wrong and that the Dreieich really meant is that in Hesse, as Alexander Porteous seems to have cited Jacob Grimm, namely the end of the first paragraph on page 75 of the English translation of his book about Deutsche Mythologie. This is why I allowed myself to add the remark again, including the reference to Grimm's book. As to the French bambois, references are given in the article in the French wikepedia. --Zaxevi (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Dreieich reference on page 75 of the Grimm book, but not in the Porteous one. It seems Google Books isn't letting me search that far into the book. Thanks for adding the bambois references and changing the fr.wp link. I changed the Google Books refs from .de to .com so they'd point to the English site. Eric talk 20:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bannwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bannwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bannwald&oldid=1205707459"