Talk:Ich hab' Dich lieb

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Germany Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved album to Ich hab' Dich lieb and song to Ich hab' Dich lieb (song). Whether the two articles should be merged should be the subject of another discussion. Favonian (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich Hab Dich Lieb → Ich hab' Dich lieb –

Correct German title. [1] Snap Snap 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per cited source, also "hab'" is short for "habe" so it needs the apostrophe. JIP | Talk 06:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure; English-language sources are pretty well split, but there aren't a lot of them. The most notable is Amazon, which uses "Ich Hab Dich Lieb", so I'm leaning oppose. Powers ^T 13:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Using such capitalisation in non-English titles is supported by guidelines in related areas such as WP:CAPM ("For titles in their original foreign language, the style used is 'sentence capitalization'. That is, the title is capitalized as it would be in a sentence in that language.") This is congruent with WP:CAPS: Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages. — AjaxSmack 19:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your latter link says "If the article is about a work in a foreign language (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, or song), using the capitalization found in most English language reliable sources is recommended." That indicates that we follow the sources, which as I noted, very slightly favor the current capitalization. Powers ^T 01:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, Ich hab' Dich lieb is what appears on the album cover and Amazon uses Ich hab' Dich lieb on this page. — AjaxSmack 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, the apostrophe is required. "Hab" is not actually grammatically correct German. The grammatically correct form would be "habe", but Germans frequently use "hab'" as a colloquial shorthand to be able to say one syllable less. Therefore the apostrophe is required to show that there properly should be an "e" in place of it. JIP | Talk 19:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but whatever the outcome, there are articles at both titles, so a history merge may be required. – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, I hadn't even noticed the other article. Turns out this is about the album and this is about a song from the album, therefore disambiguation is required rather than a history merge. Since the album appears to be more notable than the song, I suggest moving Ich Hab Dich Lieb (the album) to Ich hab' Dich lieb, and then Ich hab' Dich lieb to Ich hab' Dich lieb (song) (I reckon the latter might require a history merge). Any objections? Snap Snap 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support moving the album to Ich hab' Dich lieb and the song to Ich hab' Dich lieb (song). See my above comment about the spelling. Punctuation and capitalisation isn't enough to distinguish an album from its titular song. JIP | Talk 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course I object. We should use normal English capitalization for both articles, as several reliable sources do. Powers ^T 13:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't care about the capitalisation. I want the article about the song to be moved to Ich hab' Dich lieb (song) (never mind if it's "Dich" or "dich") and to have both article names include the apostrophe in "hab'". JIP | Talk 18:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... okay? I was responding to SnapSnap, who asked if there were any objections. Powers ^T 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know you were responding to SnapSnap. I just wanted to add my opinion. JIP | Talk 04:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on histmerge. The articles should definitely not be history merged. They have parallel histories and history merging would result in the article having an inaccurate history. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose of move, this is not the way to go at all, to the point I'm tempted just to close this RM myself but I'll let another admin do it I think. Yes, merge (but not history merge) of the two articles [2] [3] is IMO uncontroversial, a bit strange that they have the same main contributor! Is it intended to disambiguate the song from the album? I guess it must be, but it seems a strange way to do it. As to what the title of a merged article should be, that doesn't require an RM, just establish an informal discussion and (hopefully) come to a consensus on the best title, then merge the articles, preserving both edit histories separately. A move would be good but not essential, if the chosen title is neither of the existing ones, give me a heads-up on my talk page if you like if this seems a possibility. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DetectiveSchnuffel seems to have handled the initial creation of the articles very badly. The first link in your post shows the article's name and the the title of the album in the lead section with conflicting spellings. In my opinion, the current situation seems like the worst case. The capitalisation doesn't matter to me and I don't care if the articles are merged or remain separate, but the current situation where the articles about an entire album and its main song differ only by inclusion of an apostrophe (where the apostrophe should actually be present in both titles, per correct German grammar) is simply unacceptable. JIP | Talk 19:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree it needs change, but just to repeat, this RM isn't the way to do it. The permalinks in my post are there mainly for the benefit of anyone who reads this discussion after it's archived; It can get very confusing after several moves and/or merges. I guess the current disambiguation might even have something going for it, if anyone wanted to suggest that then we'd need to look at the evidence either way, but my guess is that you're quite right, the creator of the articles just didn't follow our disambiguation guidelines at all. It's also possible that the title track of a gold album that charted as a single in its own right might qualify for its own article, maybe I'm being too hasty assuming a merge, but the possibility of a move complicating things was horrible to contemplate and there seemed support for it above so I did post in some haste. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the proposed new name is obviously correct. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, the closing admin will look at the arguments rather than just count the votes. This one seems to say nothing new. To perform the move as proposed would overwrite significant history and lose worthwhile content. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope we're all checking that sort of thing before moving pages. I don't ever overwrite non-trivial history when closing move requests. If there's stuff there; I swap it with the page I'm moving in. Is that not the norm? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and I don't even want to suggest that any admin would need that heads-up, and on those occasions when I've done silly things as an admin others have cleaned up after me fairly quickly and without complaint! But I thought it useful to point out fairly forcefully that there's more going on here than might at first meet the eye. Much of the above discussion, and this last vote is another example, seems to me to miss the point rather spectacularly. I'll be interested to see what the result is. Andrewa (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guys can you please stop put wrong translations? For example, I know that in the song he sings "Alles gute zum Geburtstag!" and this means Happy Birthday, but the title is simply "Alles Gute", so is All right/good...This happened in the Winterwunderland album section too, somebody always put a wrong translation on "you're like the hot chocolate" (Du bist wie heisse Schokolade) translating this with the English name, "Hot chocolate". I don't want to fight, just admit yours errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DetectiveSchnuffel (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What album is Wo bist du Hingegangen on?

I want to know which album Wo Bist du Hingegangen is on. Which album is it on? Is it on Ich Hab' Dich Lieb, Winter Wunderland, or Komm Kuscheln? HealthyGavin108 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]