This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Viereckschanze is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
The correct German orthography would be "Viereckschanze" (German wiki), though Insoll's The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, p. 407 talks about "Viereckshanzen" (source on Google Books). Is there a convention to use this defective plural? And furthermore, why is this not simply merged with the Nemeton article, like in all the other languages? Ultem (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Viereckshanzen → Viereckschanze – Requesting to move to correct German spelling (cp. German wiki). Unfortunately, some English authors mistakenly use the defective plural Viereckshanzen (e.g. Insoll's The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, p. 407). -- Ultem (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:UE, this is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia. That the Oxford Handbook uses this spelling shows that English is not German. And this topic is not confined to Germany, nor is it about a German topic, since the Celts are not Germanic. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - typo This has no English spelling, The Oxford Handbook is an outlier, all other English books on Celts appear to spell -sch-. A similar typo occurs in Archaeological Review from Cambridge - Volume 20 2005 - Page 58 where a writer uses both correct and incorrect spellings in adjacent sentences: "Throughout southern Germany, there appears to be a spatial relationship between Viereckshanzen and earlier funerary monuments (Murray 1995: 136). In Baden-Wurttemberg, 21 per cent of the known Viereckschanzen were constructed ...". Academics make typos too. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree with IIO that this looks like a typo. 65.94.79.6's objection that "this topic is not confined to Germany, nor is it about a German topic, since the Celts are not Germanic" makes little sense since the existing title is from the German too. We're not discussing a move from some English or multinational title to a German one; we're discussing a move from a misspelt German word to one that is at least correctly spelt. bobrayner (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per comments above. The current spelling appears to be a typo of an unassimilated German word and the title should be in the singular. — AjaxSmack04:21, 23 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.