Talk:Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr./Archives/2012

Date of death?

The article says:

His full name was

The use of the past tense suggests he is no longer living. A date of birth is given, but no date of death. Could this be added? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they're not yet finished carving the tombstone. WHPratt (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation?

Is there any background on how he came to have this incredibly long name? The article leaves me acutely dissatisfied. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The main section begins with Wolfe+30; and then without any clear transition he's gained 550 letters. Something is missing here. —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

it seems as if he created it by himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sweden and China

Can someone please explain to me the relevance of the naming laws of Sweden and of the People's Republic of China?

There are a few more nations on this planet which all have their particular naming laws, so why should there be a link to these two in particular? Does this guy have any connection to Sweden or China? --Anna (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since noone gave an explanation in three quarters of a year, I deleted the section. 213.84.146.74 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is real

I know many agrees this as a hoax. I understand, I mean, I myself couldn't remember the whole name. However, I believe that this name is true. Despite the deletion of Adolph Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, if it was inserted to the Guinness World Book of Records, and also if there is a formal translation by Charles Häberl, this may be a real, true name. Hey, anyway. Why his first names starting with each of the alphabet (ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ)? Davon Online (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that some random person "officially" (whatever) translated the name proves nothing, and your personal beliefs are irrelevant. To any person who is competent in German, has training in linguistics and basic knowledge about German onomastics and history, the whole thing screams out "bullshit". The assessment under #Sources not working, etc. is right on target. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, indeed. Academic sources (preferrably official, published and in print, and ideally in Google Books), not just the Guinness Book of World Records and articles from the yellow press. People who have no clue about German, German naming practices and German history have no business judging this case. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)