Jump to content

Talk:Großmarkthalle

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

Name

[edit]

I'm dubious about the move from Grossmarkthalle to Großmarkthalle. ß and ss are interchangeable in this case, and looking at the discussion about, say Voßstraße (or Vossstrasse), using ß is not, apparently, generally acceptable. athinaios (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voßstraße is not a run of the mill issue. The main issue would be if current English sources use Grossmarkthalle. In absence of such sources Großmarkthalle will be used. Agathoclea (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is used in English with a double ss at times, mainly in the ECB context. Since the ss-spelling now redirects here, I think we can leave things as they are for the time being, unless there are objections. athinaios (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English sources hardly ever use ß, and no evidence of any English use of the ess-tset for this particular marketplace was ever offered in support of that spelling. Furthermore, when Athenaios created the page he/she failed to add proper sort keys, and when Nightstallion (talk) moved it, he failed to complete the move and do it properly by fixing it so that it would sort properly in its categories. That's one good reason to fix it with normal English orthography. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction; it wasn't the creation of the article by Athenaios, but rather the uncompleted move by User:Carabinieri which first caused the problem. Sorry I got that mixed up. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed the default sorting. —Nightstallion 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes and revert

[edit]

I have reverted the recent series of changes to the text and illustrations, which took place without any discussion. Detail:

  • There is no reason why all illustrations should be stamp-sized. After the alterations made, the Grossmarkthalle was virtually invisible on most images. Illustrations serve the purpose of providing striking and informative pictures of the article subjects.
  • The German term Gemüsekirche has an umlaut (ü). There is no wikipedia policy that advocates replacing it with "ue". Note that the term is not the title of this article, but merely a German word quoted within it.
  • Kalbach is a suburb of Frankfurt, not a district. (In German, the sentence would be: "2004 gingen die Funktionen der Großmarkthalle an das "Frischezentrum Frankfurt" im Stadtteil Kalbach-Riedberg über (...)", but not "(...) im Kreis Kalbach-Riedberg (...)".

athinaios | Talk 07:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

das ist (natürlich) unsinn, weil vorort und stadtteil 2 paar schuhe sind. also entweder vorort (suburb) - wie eschborn oder oberursel - oder stadtteil (city district) wie rödelheim oder kalbach usw.! alles andere ist "rubbish"! (und das nachplappern von argumenten - bezüglich der änderungen - anderer deutscher user, ist ebenfalls überflüssig!) Dontworry (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Dictionary: Suburb (noun): an outlying residential district of a city. That's what Kalbach is. I have no idea what "Nachplappern" you refer to, but I find the term extremely uncivil, the same for "rubbish". Is it possible that your command of English is not quite fluent enough to make this kind of judgement on semantics? I certainly don't think any discussion is "superfluous", but then, I have tried to discuss things here without just changing them. athinaios | Talk 07:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

[edit]

Dontworry just returned to his (in my opinion inferior) version of the article with the summary "if you're not agree with this edit,, you should discuss before reverting!". For the record, I had done exactly that above. I repeat my objections:

  • Dontworry's preference for very small images is not wikipedia policy. Since images serve to effectively illustrate the subjects of an article, the preference for miniature pictures is unhelpful.
  • Dontworry's replacement image for the panorama picture shows the Grossmarkthalle only as a small part of a larger image. It is not suited to illustrate that building.
  • The German slang term "Gemieskersch" is dialect for "Gemüsekirche", not "Gemuesekirche". There is no anti-umlaut policy for wikipedia.
  • Kalbach is a "Vorort" (eingemeindeter Vorort) of Frankfurt, and best translated as "suburb".
  • User: Dontworry has been uncivil (albeit in German), instead of discussing his changes.

athinaios | Talk 07:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

langenscheidt dictionary (2000): suburb = vorort; district = (2. von stadt:) bezirk, viertel; unsinn = nonsense o. rubbish. Dontworry (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you only answer one of my points, the one regarding Kalbach. Perhaps you should look up Frankfurt and Vorort: in both those articles, Vororte are explained as "suburbs". The Langenscheidt German dictionary is less relevant here than the Oxford; in fact it is entirely irrelevant on English-language wikipedia. In any case, Kalbach is an "eingemeindeter Vorort", i.e. a Vorort. You entirely ignore my points regarding the illustrations and your unwarranted removal of an unmlaut. To be honest, I have always been polite on this project, and I am really not in the mood to discuss with anyone who feels free to describe my contributions as "nachplappern" (for non-Germanophones: this translates as "to parrot something or someone", but is ruder in tone) or "rubbish". athinaios | Talk 11:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about my english, it should be sometimes a little poor. but now i've found "a little help from my friends": "...many districts of the city, such as Bornheim, Sachsenhausen, Bockenheim and Höchst, as well as the village atmosphere, for example, of Seckbach or Bergen-Enkheim show the other endearing and charming side of the city that often remains hidden from visitors..." [_id_inhalt=177784]. if you not agree with these text on "frankfurt.de" give - before we're discuss endless - you note on the authority of frankfurt that they can eleminate this mistake! Dontworry (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dontworry again gives English lessons for native speakers on English Wikipedia. We just had this on Talk:Traffic#Definition some days ago. --EvaK (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please, look also there: [1]! Dontworry (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't actually doubt that Kalbach is a district of Frankfurt in the technical sense. I know it is. I just think the term is misleading here, as it may create the impression that it is a part of the city in the same sense that districts such as Westend or Bornheim are (i.e. part of the continuous built-up area of the core city). As we both know, Kalbach is not that, and is, in fact, rather rural in character, which is why I think the term "suburb" more useful. In my sense of English, Kalbach is a rural or semi-rural suburb of Frankfurt. I am, in any case, not very concerned about this, so keep it any way you like. In contrast, I really am unhappy with what you did to the images, as I think it makes the article worse. athinaios | Talk
i'm disagree with your opinion. because it's not any logical reason, to change "district" with "suburb" (frankfurt isn't a city like sao paulo, nyc or london - it's a small town). the images you could otherwise enlarge, expand, blow up or what ever you want, irrespective of it's (indicate) size in the artikel! Dontworry (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better not climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. --EvaK (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make it short: Kalbach was a district of Frankfurt until 2006. Now Kalbach is a suburb and part of the district of Kalbach-Riedberg. --EvaK (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's nonsense, because that: [2] is total different to that: [3]+[4]+[5] or that: [6]! Dontworry (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[7] This link you give clearly states that many Vororte (suburbs) have been made part of urban municipalities and are thus suburbs and urban districts (Stadtteile) at the same time. The article suburb also states that suburbs can have differing degrees of political independence. I have explained above why the simple use of district is misleading to readers unfamiliar with Frankfurt. Could you perhaps react to that point? athinaios | Talk 10:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "in a district of Kalbach-Riedberg"? Does Kalbach-Riedberg have several districts? If so, what is the name of the one that contains the new market? Also, please do not change the picture sizes unless you have arguments and agreement as to why tat should be desirable. athinaios | Talk 10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i've tell an shown you enough arguments and links for such edits, now is finish and end of this discussion! Dontworry (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Once again. A) You have offered no argument regarding the image size at all. In my opinion, the article is less informative in your version. B) The image you offer to replace the panorama is not appropriate as an illustration for this article. C) The term "Gemüsekirche" as an explanation for "Gemieskersch" should be included, as it is useful information. D) The formulation "in a district of Kalbach-Riedberg" is directly misleading, as it implies that Kalbach-Riedberg has several districts, which is not the case. E) Your insistence on obscuring the fact that Kalbach is in a semi-rural area outside urban Frankfurt (partially caused by your mediocre grasp of English) is also unhelpful. F) You appear to insist on measuring the retail space of the new market in cubic feet? G) Essentially, you insist on making this article worse-looking and less informative, but also on weakening the quality of its English, for reasons that are entirely unclear. You ignore all arguments against your changes, and you insist on technical definitions over common sense and comprehensibility. You also use insulting language about other editors and their actions. Could you please stop? athinaios | Talk 11:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but that's not true (about image size discussion) my arguments above: "...the images you could otherwise enlarge, expand, blow up or what ever you want, irrespective of it's (indicate) size in the artikel!..."!! Dontworry (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that relevant. By that argument, even a link to any image would suffice in an otherwise unillustrated article. The images, in the miniature form you favour, do not efficiently illustrate what is described in the article unless the reader makes the extra effort to access them directly so as to see detail. Since the larger sizes do not interfere with text flow and composition, but merely make it easier to understand what is described, there is no good reason to insist on your own preference (note that the German article also uses larger sizes, as do the Italian and Norwegian ones). There is certainly no agreement that your version is preferable. Your disrespectful tone does not help. athinaios | Talk 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cut it out.

[edit]

I don't want to have to protect the article because of an edit war, or block people for disruptive editing, so here's a suggestion. either file a Request for Comment, or ask for a Third Opinion. But let's not continually add/revert/revert/revert here. We are at the Discuss stage of Bold, Revert, Discuss. Even though I'm not familiar with the area in question, (the only experience I have with Germany is watching the Bundesliga on TV, and my great-uncle Hans lived there most of his life so far), the fact that one of you asked me to take a look at this probably disqualifies me from being neutral in this in at least some eyes, so I won't say what I think. However, I won't hesitate to take action if the edit war continues. SirFozzie (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have listed the issue on Third Opinion as an active disagreement. I have no desire to be drawn into an edit war. athinaios | Talk 11:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion - I came here to provide a third opinion, as requested on the WP:3O project page. First thing I'd suggest that you calm down on the revert war - the edits in case are somewhat minor in any case - I'm somewhat confused that they can cause such a heated discussion. Here's my opinion on the points in question:

  • On disctrict vs. suburb (the only point that was actually discussed): I'm not 100% sure what applies here. But I strongly believe that this should be decided by the native speakers, who understand the finer points of the language. Dontworry, could you take a back seat and let the native speakers decide?
  • The picture size. That's a matter of taste, really, and for the editors here to decide. As far as I can see, no compelling arguments have been provided for the resize and only a single editor seems to support them. (Just for the record: I like the full-sized images better).
  • The Umlauts should go in. Words should be spelled directly and no argument has been provided for transcribing them.

Otherwise my main opinion is that you guys should take a good, deep breath and cool down a bit. Assume good faith, and see where you can compromise.

Maybe it would be a good idea both athinaios and Dontworry voluntarily refrained from further editing/reverting these points in the article. Just let the other editors handle it - I see there's more than you two.

Averell (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm happy to accept that for the time being. athinaios | Talk 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's useless. The only one who will do strange edits and reverts and who insults other users rather than discuss a matter is our friend Dontworry. Sorry for saying that but he has consumed his stock of AGF on de-wiki and is continuing on other Wikipedias. IMO it's not a good idea to let him get away with such doing. I'm more than fed up with that. --EvaK (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any dealings with any of you guys before, so I had to assume good faith. The only thing I can do is to suggest how in my opinion it could be resolved in a friendly way. Unfortunately, as far as I can see athinaios wanted to follow that, but Dontworry doesn't. The net result is that the edit war continues. This is not exactly my problem, but SirFozzie is an admin and already aware of this. I guess he'll take the appropriate actions. Averell (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate action for the moment has been taken. SirFozzie (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Großmarkthalle. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Großmarkthalle. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Großmarkthalle&oldid=1213824627"