Talk:Spaßguerilla

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.

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of article

1. The German "strange s" has to be used in "Spaß"

2. "Guerilla" in the context of "Spaß Guerilla" rather describes a group of people than some kind of hoax etc. The description given here does not clearly explain this. --Chris Langnickel 19:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The article title must be in the English language, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), unless there is a consensus otherwise. Do a search on "Spass guerrilla," and you come up with quite a few references. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Unless and until such references are included, there is no "English usage", and therefore the original name in its original pronounciation has to be used. user:Everyme 09:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you get around the fact that an English-language encyclopedia has to use the English language. Kindly explain. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did: There is no English language name, and thus we use the most common name, which is the native name, in its native spelling. Thank you. Read WP:UE more closely (if only the lead): English usage has to be verified, preferably through authoritative dictionaries and other reliable sources. user:Everyme 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now it becomes officially hilarious. Guess what: I've found some support for Spassguerrilla — but it has nothing to do with "using English" whatsoever (that reason is still fully invalid unless you present reliable sources to demonstrate that this is in fact the most common English usage). In this publisher's summary for a German book, the alternative spelling variants are being shortly explained, translating it here for your convenience:

Spassguerrilla / SPASSGEUERRILLA [sic] (the so-called "diabolical" [variant])
Spassguerilla ('the revolution [variant] from before the reform')
Spaßguerilla (the so-called 'official variant')

So, that merits at least mentioning both variants, but as I said: It has nothing to do with "using English". user:Everyme 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the article title, since any widespread English usage has not been established, we must go with the most widespread German spelling variant, which is without any doubt Spaßguerilla. user:Everyme 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why some people are getting so upset. That symbol is simply not an English letter. It would be up to the person who wants to use a different symbol to prove that it is so used in place of the double-S, which is the normal way of using it in both British and American typography. Shall we seek outside help on this? And, if so, how should this help be sought? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're now arguing against the MoS and usual practice on Wikipedia. Look, we do never create, establish or promote an Anglicised variant ourselves — we merely use it iff such usage has already been created and established, as should be immediately clear from a majority of English speaking reliable sources. I don't think outside help is necessary, as my reasoning is waterproof as far as I can see, but you're welcome to go ahead and request a third opinion, and if that doesn't satisfy both of us, we can then go for an RfC. But consider that non-English letters are frequently and appropriately used in titles where an Anglicised variant or English usage has not been established. Take e.g. Category:Streets in Berlin: Most articles appropriately use the local name, because creating an English variant, or asserting it as widespread English usage is against policy and the MoS. However, there is never a bright line rule, and some of the articles use an English spelling variant because that is what is used in authoritative works such as the Oxford English Dictionary (Wilhelmstrasse). Other articles are hotly debated, like e.g. Voßstraße. But here, we have not a single reliable source in English, and there is simply no common English usage of the term, thus we have to use the local original variant. Everything else would be original research. user:Everyme 03:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC

Thanks for the suggestion. I have requested a third opinion. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, esszet is correct German orthography. But in my eyes it is a bad idea to use the ess-zet in English headlines/article names. This excludes almost everybody without German keyboard from finding the article!--Kgfleischmann (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are redirects set up. Spassguerilla links here, and it would be simple enough to add one for Spasguerilla. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spas" does not exist in the German Language. Spaß is the correct German/Austrian orthography, Swiss uses Spass, as they do not use the ess-zet. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search

A Google search returns:

about 600 English pages for Spass-guerilla -Spaßguerilla -Spassguerilla -wikipedia. -- with a "-" or space
about 578 English pages for "Spass guerilla" -Spaßguerilla -Spassguerilla -wikipedia. -- with a space
about 188 English pages for -Spass-guerilla Spaßguerilla -Spassguerilla -wikipedia. -- but most of the first 10 pages returned for Spaßguerilla were in German.
about 168 English pages for -Spass-guerilla -Spaßguerilla Spassguerilla -wikipedia.

So a simple Google search suggests that "Spass guerilla" is by far the most common usage in English on the net. I have not looked to see if any of those would be considered a reliable source in as defined in WP:V--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a very similar Google search for English sources, but sifting through the first 50+ results yielded nothing really valid, mostly sub-blog quality. user:Everyme 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to this debate than meets the eye . . .

I've done some research within the past few days about the use of the double-s symbol, which, I find, is often known as an eszet. Apparently it is a German word that is not yet anglicized; at least it is not in my Web-based Oxford American Dictionary. Everywhere you range on Wikipedia there are people who want to eliminate it (my feeling, since it is not an English letter) and others who want to retain it on the grounds that it has some useful purpose in German. Here's a good example of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_23#German_eszet. Of course I cannot see any possible use for a German letter in an English encyclopedia, so I am once again leaning to rename the page as it should be. This is not a matter of contention, just a matter of good editing.

Some more links:

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"others who want to retain it on the grounds that it has some useful purpose in German" — I don't think that's the reason anyone wants to keep it. Encyclopedic accuracy and avoiding creation of new facts are.
"I cannot see any possible use for a German letter in an English encyclopedia" — Again: Accuracy and avoiding creation of new facts are the reason to not use "ss" where there is no anglicised version and "ß" is the correct usage in the native language, because doing so would simply mean creation of new facts, something we generally don't indulge in. It's also self-evidently inaccurate. user:Everyme 07:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I remember of my college German the reason there is an eszet is because of the pronunciation rules in German. It has to do with it being a single consonant in front of a vowel as opposed to two consonants (in the case of "ss"). So this is not a case of "the English version" The word, in all it's spellings, is a German word, not a name, and there is an English translation right in the article. There were people that were trying to move away from the "β" based on the lack of conformity to English but that is an ongoing social movement and shouldn't influence the proper use of the letter. There are several places in WP where the proper name is used in deference to the colloquial name (Lou Gehrig's Disease springs instantly to mind). This being an encyclopedia we should strive to be as correct as possible. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So Padillah, you're saying that it should have the eszett in it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (and I wasn't as I re-read it).

Yes, I think the eszett should stay in the article name. Several other articles have been exhibited to contain the eszet and, as you noted above, it does not limit the ability to access the article since we can create redirects as appropriate. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, for what it's worth, the eszet is not a replacement for a double-s. It is a distince letter of it's own with uses not replicated by the use of a double-s. Now, having been out of German class for a little over 15 years I can't for the life of me recall what any are but I could ask a friend (from Berlin) and post the results if that would help in the decision. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. At first I wasn't quite sure of this one, but I think it's okay to leave the eszett in the title. Other articles around here like Kreis Bergstraße, Groß-Gerau (district) and Gießen (district) have it as the article name, so I think it's fine. If you want, we can add a request at the German WikiProject to have someone look at this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, Annyong, but you are clearly wrong if you think an incomprehensible squiggle is English. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be insulting about it. It seems to me that there's a precedent in article naming, but since you're still challenging it, I've moved your RfC below, and I put a request out on the Wikiproject. Let's see what happens. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incomprehensible squiggle ? — Well, if you're interested to learn more about it (I'll just assume you are), you're in the right place. Also, of course it's not English, we've been through this already: There is no common English usage of the term in any high-profile publications. Also also, consider some other examples of articles in the English Wikipedia: Schéma directeur d'aménagement et de gestion des eaux (excuse my French...), Søren Kierkegaard (excuse my Danish...), Jiří Levý, Kôzô Nakamura, Stanisław Lem, M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, Vyšné Ružbachy, Paul Erdős, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. Some even find that umlauts add to the flavour. At any rate, definitely don't miss out on List of English words with diacritics. I'm sure there are thousands of far more spectacular examples, but I'm confident this should get the message across. If not, consider that reading is a highly regarded form of participation as well. user:Everyme 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples of my point. All of the letters used in the articles you mention are standard Roman, albeit with some accents or two. None of them is, and I repeat, an incomprehensible squiggle to non-Germans. Even the Swiss have abandoned it, although that's beside the point. It is not English. Your freund, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree that the correct name of the article is "Spaßguerilla" for the reasons stated by Everyme. This is also my interpretation of the MOS.--Boson (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Furthermore, the present wording of the article
Spaßguerilla, alternatively (also in German) [my emphasis] Spassguerilla or Spassguerrilla means "fun (or joke) guerrilla."

is also misleading. When not written in full caps, only the spelling with ß is correct in Germany. It would be marked as a mistake by a German teacher in Germany. The spelling with "ss" is tolerated only as an emergency measure when the font used does not include the correct letter. In German typesetting this includes cases where it is used in foreign-language designations such as "Codex Weißenburgensis". The spelling with "ss" is correct in Switzerland.

See Duden Rechtschreibung: "Nur wenn in der Schrift kein ß vorhanden ist, darf als Notbehelf dafür ss gesetzt werden. " [Duden Rechtschreibung, 21st ed., ISBN: 3-411-04011-4]. Correct German spelling is specified in section 25 of the appropriate official regulation (Deutsche Rechtschreibung: Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis) --Boson (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

On second thoughts, in this special case, I suppose, one could also accept the "revolutionary" spelling Spassguerilla (with one "r"), but I think an explanation would be required, and I still prefer the normal spelling in the title.--Boson (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Opinion

Do we care? The article is trivial- and even says that Duden doesn't recognise the word. It could happily be deleted and noone would care. Which ever one we choose, the other will be written as a REDIRECT. We can debate Rechtschreibungsreform but it all hinges on whether a is a short vowel or a long vowel and that changes from city to city. The precedent has been set with Gießen and Groß-Gerau- and ß is on the American International keyboard (Alt-Gr s) but it is not English, and the respect for the individual, viz Strauß, cannot apply to a concept that is not notable enough to be included in Duden. Lets debate whether it is Guerrilla or Guerilla instead.ClemRutter (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So put the page up for deletion. I hadn't really considered that the page doesn't really seem notable, but in retrospect, you're right. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? user:Everyme 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special case: proper noun from student protest movement of 1968 etc.

Since there is no normal English spelling, I would be in favour of using the German spelling. However, this word is a very special case. According to normal German rules, "Spaß" would be written with ß in all combinations, unless one were deliberately using unorthodox spelling to indicate non-standard pronunciation (like "gotta go" in English) . However, it would appear that the people who started this cultural phenomenon in the student protests of 1968, notably Fritz Teufel, deliberately coined the term "Spassguerilla" with that spelling; so it is an authentic proper noun with that spelling when used to refer to that movement. This spelling is also deliberately used (alongside normal spelling of Spaß) by official organizations such as the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, as here (A direct path from the Spassguerilla to terrorism?" Forms of campaigning (?) and violence in the protest movement). This was referred to above as the "diabolical" variant" (the German teuflisch which normally means "diabolical", here also means "Teufelian", referring to de:Fritz Teufel, probably intened as a pun). So I now think the article title should be Spassguerilla and there should be a longer explanation of the "correct" (i.e. deliberately incorrect) spelling. There should also be a much longer explanation of the whole movement, with its emphasis on provocation and "fun", with protests using acts of symbolic violence, such as throwing custard pies at the police and politicians. I'm surprised we don't have an article on Fritz Teufel a prominent figure in the German student movement.--Boson (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather rely on the Wortschatz-Portal Leipzig than on the Duden. Leipzig lists Spaßguerilla, but only spelled thus: it seems to be the most common spelling. --Konstock (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the word has been "re-adopted" and that's why most books which mention the concept spell it Spaßguerilla. user:Everyme 07:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Noting that (as per the article, the person who coined the term spelled it Spassguerilla, I believe the article should be titled that way on that basis alone. Spaßguerilla can redirect. ETA: I have no objection to the ß character on a language basis. Wikipedia has hundreds of cases of foreign characters being used in, for example, foreign names or words (as noted above). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word used much in English publications? WP:UE more or less directs us to follow that usage. If most English users retain the eszett then we should keep it. Webpage titles and other places with technical restrictions are less convincing than actual prose. If it's not really used in English then we should retain the common German spelling and the current title. I can't see any of the English sources as good ol' fashioned webpages, so can people who have access to the sources determine which is used in English publications? SDY (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I think the article, as it stood, was more about the word than the topic. To address concerns raised on the article page (template messages), I have largely rewritten the article and added scholarly references. Some information on more recent uses of the term may have got lost in the process.--Boson (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good rewrite.ClemRutter (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, too, but I think it should account for the majority of more recent German-speaking sources use the spelling "Spaßguerilla". user:Everyme 05:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is for Annyong

Dear Annyong: I didn't mean to be insulting. I apologize. It is just difficult to understand why anybody would agree that this non-Roman character belongs in an English-language encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks for looking in, even though we don't agree. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the the German WikiProject, it's my feeling that particular project would have no objection to the symbol being used, but if so that would be a case of the German project wagging the Wiki dog. In short, I don't think they would be unbiased. Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet more uncalled for insults and assumption of bad faith — opposite the option of assuming that they are a little more informed than someone who calls ß "an incomprehensible squiggle". user:Everyme 05:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ß (the eszett) isn't a non-Roman letter, it's basically a typographical ligature of sz and therefore part of the ASCII-code set as character 223 since the very beginning of DOS. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How long has DOS been around? 1981, wasn't it? Not very long. And what does that have to do with common English usage? Has anyone ever seen this mark in any English-language work other than WP? (No insults, please.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting in those horizontal rules. It makes it rather difficult to read. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Chicago Manual of Style uses the ß in its examples. Although the manual states that it "is acceptable to set ß as ss" (13th ed., ch. 9.42), it doesn't recommend such a replacement. Greetings, -- kh80 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]