Talk:Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

On 28 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Hamm to Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia. The result of the discussion was moved.

Assessment comments

The article seems to be in reasonably good shape and well-structured, although for my taste more prose and less lists would be better, especially for the History section (there must be more that can be said than two short paragraphs!). Other stuff that needs to be done is a decent copyediting by a native speaker (still sounds a bit like translated from German) and some inline citations per WP:CITE for at least the major dates and numbers to make it easy for a reader to immediately cross-check and verify them directly from the sources. Lone years should not be linked (I think that's in WP:MOSDATE), and some numbers need to be converted to English style. Can the "online almanach" be linked or is it no longer online? Kusma (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Gabriel-Royce (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamm. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925020649/http://www.kalisz.pl/_portal/118951340446e688bcd9fee/Miasta_partnerskie.html to http://www.kalisz.pl/_portal/118951340446e688bcd9fee/Miasta_partnerskie.html

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) 17:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Minorities - Soviet Union? In 2018?

I suggest perhaps it be changed to Russia, or further defined into the former Soviet Union countries that are now independent, accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CF00:7DF9:EDE0:2564:86EF:F958 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamm → Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia
Hamm (disambiguation) → Hamm

– (and Category:Cities in Germany category tree to be moved) No primary topic. While this article gets ~100 views/day, people reasonably sought with this name (Hamm, actor Hamm) get far more. Attempting to measure long-term significance, Google Scholar and Books searches for hamm -author:hamm return very few uses of the city in the first pages of results. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, no clear primary topic given the number of possibilities. BD2412 T 00:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The city is >100k in population so there's ~4k/month of organic traffic for it; ~100 identified hatnote clicks, which isn't impressive by itself. It does seem unlikely that the average English reader is strongly associating the term with the city, rather it's more likely they recognize it as a human name. (Yet we require two clicks to get to the list of biographies.) Since we recently moved away similarly sized Mons, it's worth a shot to try to disambiguate this as well. Worst case, MOS:DABCOMMON will provide relief until a revert. --Joy (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly comparable examples of disambiguated German cities include Halle, Herne, Oldenburg, Offenbach. --Joy (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Düsseldorf-Hamm is also in NRW, so the proposed disambiguation might not be specific enough. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Google seems mixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing else comes close in significance to this city of 180,000 people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The surname certainly does, given the genericness of the name. BD2412 T 23:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Not exactly the world's commonest surname. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As opposed to one in a long line of relatively large German cities? It's very hard to say that the average English reader immediately recognizes the significance of the city over other homonymous topics. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. In general we don't disambiguate places or other entities which are primary for the single-term entity but there exist some people with the surname. Only if it were such a well-known figure like Mandela, Obama etc. would that be appropriate. The city is primary topic here. — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is too much of a generalization, when just recently this was done with Charlotte with no apparent significant negative effect. --Joy (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather different situation, given how common a name Charlotte is (and how many members of royal families were called it) and how unusual a name Hamm is. Note that I supported the move there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's comparably less unusual than the reference to the German city, because probably tens of millions of English speakers around the world know a fair bit about Jon Hamm and Mia Hamm, while it's unlikely there's comparable numbers knowing as much about the city. --Joy (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but they'd be unlikely to refer to them simply by their surnames. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be so unlikely? We have plenty of evidence in reliable sources that surnames are habitually used to refer to people, and we also have Wikipedia clickstream evidence that there are readers who navigate to biographies from surnames. I don't quite see why we should tend to ignore this kind of ambiguity in these kinds of considerations. --Joy (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (strongly) per nominator. The safest bet is to have a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm surprised I didn't go to the subject at Hamm (surname) when I looked up "Hamm", so the proposal is probably the best for our readers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.