This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Germany is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Frisia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.FrisiaWikipedia:WikiProject FrisiaTemplate:WikiProject FrisiaFrisia articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the
all-time Top 100 list. It has had 88 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2010, when it received 10,227,300 views.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Weimar Republic#Brüning's policy of deflation (1930–1932)|deflation]] The anchor (Brüning's policy of deflation (1930–1932))
has been deleted.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
world ranking of the German economy in the intro text
the world ranking of one countrys economy in its wiki page intro text is wiki standard. can I use it in the German intro text and add "world´ third biggest"?
BauhausFan89 (
talk) 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is at FA level thus follows
WP:COUNTRYLEAD that recommends we don't duplicate data that's in the info box (no need 3 times in one article)....other examples
Canada or
JapanMoxy- 15:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding Demographics Section
The paragraph below that is taken from the section of demographics regarding the topic of immigration in Germany illustrates the potential for confusion when the terms 'migrants' and 'refugees' are used interchangeably:
'After the United States, Germany is the second-most popular immigration destination in the world. In 2015, following the 2015 refugee crisis, the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs listed Germany as host to the second-highest number of international migrants worldwide, about 5% or 12 million of all 244 million migrants. Refugee crises have resulted in substantial population increases.'
This conflation is problematic as it does not address the distinctions between legal and humanitarian statuses of refugees and migrants, and uses them as though they signify the same concept.
78.179.1.222 (
talk) 00:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Refugees are a subcategory of migrants; what this section seems to suggest is that this subgroup has driven an overall rise in immigration rates. Do you have sourcing to suggest otherwise?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I think what IP is objecting to is that the statement 'Refugee crises have resulted in substantial population increases.' is an unsourced addition, and editorializing by whomever added it in. I concur.
JackTheSecond (
talk) 01:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The claim appears to be supported by the following source, and could be supported by additional sources if necessary. What leads you to believe it is editorializing?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
To resolve this issue and try to reach a consensus, let's see:
1- "Migrants" means someone who changes residence and/or condition
2- "Refugees" means someone who are im a refuge, that is, protected by something or someone.
Therefore, I really don't think these two terms are perfectly synonyms, however, maybe in a philosophical context, they may appear to be the same in some yet unstudied way, it's a hypothesis, but it can make sense, anyway, that's a good subject, although I agree that, in an objective context, they are in fact not synonymous, but nothing prevents a migrant can be refugee.
177.105.90.20 (
talk) 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Wanting to insert pictures about German architecture.
I want to insert 2 pictures about German architecture; one of the Quedlingburg old town as the former ruling city of the first German kings and one of the Berlin modern architecture complexes. both sites are world heritage sites and show the the brigth spectrum of the history behind German architecture. I can use the set template which includes 2 pictures about German art. that fits totally in the site´s code and design. can I do that as described?
BauhausFan89 (
talk) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No. Wikipedia articles are
not repositories of images; that short section already includes two images, and adding two more overwhelms the text and displaces the images from other sections. There are main article links by which further illustrations can be accessed.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, but as I showed with my post the other images in the following articles dont get displaced and the text fits nicely beside the 4 images in one frame. you can see that in the old edit.
BauhausFan89 (
talk) 14:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My comment is based on the version in your old edit.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Why isn’t Bonn included in the capitals? As most government buildings are still located there even after reunification
Put Bonn
as the capital as not many people knew it was the capital of west Germany, and many government buildings are still located there
Usydydjwhxyxhx (
talk) 18:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Bonn is not listed as the capital because it is not the capital - that's an official designation, not based on where government buildings are located.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, certainly! I've google for Germany cities, and Bonn was described just as "City" properly, and not as capital, I have two hypotheses:
1- Bonn is not a capital
2- Bonn is a capital, but Google is misguiding (what I honestly think not).
The sentence reads as weirdly specific to me as Guttenberg invented the movable-type
printing press, and the article on
movable-type printing is about its invention in China. Also, the article on the
democratization of knowledge doesn't have anything to do with the printing press at all.
JackTheSecond (
talk) 12:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The
movable type article mentions both China and Gutenberg, and the
democratization of knowledge article is underdeveloped. Multiple external sources elaborate on the connection between the printing press and democratization of knowledge, eg
[1][2][3].
Nikkimaria (
talk) 14:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree--gut instinct--but those sources are all written by data science people trying to give their field the veneer of historical context without referencing anyone, or even writing on exactly what happened. It kind of sounds like they heard their professor lead into the lecture with a historical context and have been using that lead-in as 'given background' ever since.
I know I'm being harsh, but even the (most serious!) source the article gives seems to me more about the communicative qualities of print. (Or at least the section is hard to identify and find, it's quite extensive work, and original research as well. Available at:
https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/CBO9781107049963)
It mostly seems to me that 'democratised knowledge' means more (to most of these sources) than just communication. But I might very well be wrong. ~
JackTheSecond (
talk) 22:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What would you propose the article say?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Having looked around a bit more, the discourse might have come to prominence with the digitization efforts and the internet, but that doesn't mean the statement is wrong. Probably. Just that the topic is underdeveloped. And that they're all stating things in a bit of an uncritical fashion without telling... this Wikipedian specifically (!) where they are taking their wisdom from.
JackTheSecond (
talk) 15:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:STATISTA
We have a few things sourced to
WP:STATISTA. Over outright deletion..let see if we can track down the real sources. Moxy🍁 20:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
AFAIK the source is displayed at Statista itself if you have an account. I do not - do any other watchers?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
what is the sites layout?
the right side of the text is clearly set for the use of images. how can I not use most or all of the right side?
the part about modern Germany needs at least one picture to represent the modern times.
and why not 2? and the historic Paulskirche picture also fitted in nicely. why was it removed. and please state more then "layout issues". Would you be so kind to explain the term. what can I do to fit an image on the right side.
BauhausFan89 (
talk) 16:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rule of thumb (from my pov).... is one image for about three or four paragraphs... this is what is best seen on PCs (as in images fitting nicely in a section without overlap into another section). I suggest reviewing what things look like on a PC and mobile before any additions. Please take note how other FA level articles are not overwhelmed with images like
Canada or
Japan. An article like
History of Germany is simply overwhelmed with images sandwiching text and images overlapping into other sections making accessibility hard for those with reading impairments.
Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts has some basics with links to more information. Moxy🍁 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree - the proposed additions created a lot of unnecessary white space. Keep in mind that
Wikipedia articles are not image repositories, and just because an image exists for something does not mean it needs to be included.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
ah, thats totally fair. can I add the Reichstag in the third paragraph of the history of modern Germany then?
BauhausFan89 (
talk) 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Refugee Crisis and Migration
Using the terms refugee and migrant interchangably in this same paragraph results in confusion and potential misinformation, as seen below;
After the United States, Germany is the second-most popular
immigration destination in the world. In 2015, following the
2015 refugee crisis, the Population Division of the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs listed Germany as host to the
second-highest number of international migrants worldwide, about 5% or 12 million of all 244 million migrants. Refugee crises have resulted in substantial population increases. For example, the major influx of Ukrainian immigrants following the
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, meaning over 1.06 million refugees from Ukraine were recorded in Germany as of April 2023. As of 2019, Germany ranks seventh among EU countries in terms of the percentage of migrants in the country's population, at 13.1%. In 2022, there were 23.8 million people, 28.7 percent of the total population, who had a migration background.
"... 1.06 million refugees from Ukraine were recorded in Germany as of April 2023. As of 2019, Germany ranks seventh among EU countries in terms of the percentage of migrants in the country's population..." The terms refugee and migrant have different meanings and are not meant to be used interchangeably.
Kekolataaa (
talk) 03:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Population pyramid and religion
@
Nikkimaria Why exactly do you find these irrelevant? Especially the population pyramid, which is crucial to understand German society and policies, especially related to immigration.
Moreover, why did you remove the paragraph on the appearance of Christianity and Judaism in the 4th century, and the sentence on the Jewish population's decline after WW2?
Shoshin000 (
talk) 08:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Population pyramid is not visible and somthing we normaly put in the Demo article
WP:COUNTRYCHARTS. As fo the religion section...we do modern stats...this is not a section for history of. because it would be to big and were should we start?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections as per
Wikipedia:Too much detail. Not seeing how stats for one group from 1910 with no other groups helps. Moxy🍁 12:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A sentence woven into the context of what is there, on the north-south divide, Jewish re-immigration from Russia in the 80s and... Turkish guest workers? ...would indeed have the potential to improve the section. But not the current edit.
JackTheSecond (
talk) 12:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What do you propose exactly?
Shoshin000 (
talk) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Other featured articles of the same calibre such as
Manitoba,
Australia,
Japan include extensive statistics and/or history in their Demographics sections.
The near-disappearance of the original Jewish population is something quite significant when discussing Germany... i mean, it's one of the main things they are known for in recent history...right?
Shoshin000 (
talk) 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The Holocaust is discussed in the History section. The Demographics section should remain focused on the present day, with details of population history expounded in the more specific subarticle per
WP:SUMMARY.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 14:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But what about the population pyramid? To me, it seems crucial, for the aforementioned reasons.
Shoshin000 (
talk) 14:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Its not visible/readable .....as in cant see properly even when clicked. These belong at an article like
Demographics of Germany that is full on non legible raw data charts that lack context or explanation
WP:NOTSTATS. Moxy🍁 14:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
as in cant see properly even when clicked
Maybe it's related to your display? To me it's crystal clear.
Shoshin000 (
talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You folks give the impression of feeling sclerotically opposed to any change because it's a "featured article" and therefore flawless. Sorry, but regarding the population pyramid I do not understand your arguments, let alone counter-proposals if there are any to begin with. It's tough to work with people who cannot point a finger as to why they feel opposed to something. --
Shoshin000 (
talk) 09:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Moxy @
JackTheSecond @
Nikkimaria hello? I'm still waiting for a more throughout explanation as to why everything I do gets reverted and a possible counter-proposal... or if you have no idea, say it honestly...
Shoshin000 (
talk) 13:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Great to see the famed openness and flexibility of the Wikipedia community.
Shoshin000 (
talk) 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Honorary titles in infobox
Not seeing why we should list the
Vice-Chancellor of Germany in the infobox. We do not metion this honorary title in the article as most country pages dont talk about deputy ministers. Moxy🍁 12:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I did actually add a mention of Vice-Chancellor to the article. The Vice-Chancellor, in many ways has a ceremonial role just like the president but both also share the fact that they do have duties and rights to certain procedures that they do. The president, chancellor and vice-chancellor are the three highest ranking leaders in Germany and the vice-chancellor is right below the chancellor. The vice-chacellor in many ways has as much power as the president in terms of leadership of the country so I dont see we couldnt list the vice-chancellor. There is no reason to remove him from the infobox other than someone just personally wanting to keep only two highest officials which wouldnt really be consistent with the pattern most country infoboxes follow.
MylowattsIAm (
talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I hope I explained in an understandable way. My first language isnt English (its latvian).
MylowattsIAm (
talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The German president has actual constitutional duties, his signature is required for laws to take effect. (even if this power is never used for anything but technicalities) -- The French and the US have entirely different systems of Government as well. (Example: US-VP has the tie-breaking vote in the senate)
I don't know where you're taking The vice-chacellor in many ways has as much power as the president in terms of leadership of the country from, it reads like your opinion to me.
JackTheSecond (
talk) 13:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Postwar
"The Allies de jure abolished the German state"
I think that should be "de facto" as the Potsdam Agreement clearly treats all of prewar Germany. I'm not aware of any agreement to dissolve Germany legally.
83.1.168.150 (
talk) 16:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems like sources support the current wording - see for example
this.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 03:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That article covers a longer time period than the immediate post-war situation, although perhaps the current article text relies heavily on how one interprets "state".
CMD (
talk) 01:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)reply