The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history 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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Flag of Israel appears in popup link to Sicherheitsdienst
In the third paragraph of the article on
/info/en/?search=Schutzstaffel , the Israel flag is inserted at the top of the pop-up link to the linked page on Sicherheitsdienst (SD). The SD was a police arm of Nazi Germany and should not be represented or confused as the State of Israel.
128.84.124.150 (
talk) 05:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It's the result of template vandalism. I've purged the cache so it should be fixed now.
Nardog (
talk) 06:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Replace redirect with link to article
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Fixed. Thank you for the suggestion. —
Diannaa (
talk) 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
British vs. American spelling
@
Asperthrow and
Obenritter: per the tag {{Use American English}} dated May 2013, this article should use American English.
Asperthrow, in the edit summary of your
recent edit you said An administrator has already approved my moving this article to British English., could you expand a bit on this? With regard to Nor is there any reason for it to be when all other related articles use British English., see
MOS:RETAIN.
Ljleppan (
talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Ljleppan - Honestly, I am ambivalent about this after looking at all the cases where British authors are cited and their spelling used.
Asperthrow did come off as presumptuous here if not contentious, when it is simply not the case that there is some preponderant evidence for British English on this subject area, but at the same time, most of the usage of words like "organisation" are in British English. Like I stated on his/her Talk Page, this is a common problem—mixing linguistic variants of English—when so many English speakers (whether native or not) bounce between them. Historians are even guilty of this and sometimes I too have mixed spellings [like labour and labor, toward and towards, etc] in the same document. Anyway -- let's see what this editor has to say about it and possibly raise a consensus query. Thanks for ringing in
Ljleppan nevertheless. --
Obenritter (
talk) 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
MOS:RETAIN says: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.
Looking at the history of the article, the very first version (
here) contained the sentence "From 1929 the leader of the SS was Heinrich Himmler, who together with his right hand Reinhard Heydrich consolidated the power of the organisation." The spelling of "organisation" shows that the first time the variety was identifiable it was British English.
Hence, per MOS:RETAIN, I guess we need to declare that the article uses British English. --
DeFacto (
talk). 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I really don't personally care what
WP:ENGVAR variant is used, as long as it's determined here in the talk page rather than through edit summaries.
Ljleppan (
talk) 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The overtaking of American English on this article (and others) presumably comes from the disproportionately large number of American editors on the English Wikipedia.
The tag has no bearing on anything. Any editor may add one and have it go unnoticed, even for a decade.
Are there any more substantial reasons why this article should use American English? Reasons which pertain to the content of the article, rather than bureaucratic ones.
Asperthrow (
talk) 14:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
On Wikipedia, administrators are not responsible for making decisions about content, including which English variant to use, so if you discussed this with an administrator, their opinion carries no more weight than any other editor. It's up to the editors active on the page as to which variant to use. It's unlikely there was ever a discussion about which variant to use. Typically the person who adds the tag makes a decision based on the predominant variant present in the article at the time the tag is added. It looks like that's what happened over ten years ago when the tag was added. I would not say that the template has gone unnoticed, as there are numerous page watchers actively monitoring the article.In my opinion the choice of variant is not as important as having consistency within the article. —
Diannaa (
talk) 15:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
It would appear that the short original article was written using British English. And then at some point, American English became predominant and since then it has been reverted back to British English in recent days. Ultimately, the original version of the article should carry weight, but consensus and consistency among the editors is most important.
Kierzek (
talk) 02:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Ultimately, I believe we should retain the British English.
Kierzek (
talk) 20:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The pagan SS marriage ceremony mentioned in the second paragraph of the "Ideology" section is called "Eheweihe" (literally "Marriage consecration") and not "Ehewein" (that would translate to "Marriage wine" in Germany). The correct plural form to be used in the context of the sentence would be Eheweihen, i.e. the full sentence should be: Church weddings were replaced with SS Eheweihen, a pagan ceremony invented by Himmler.
Note: The wrong spelling has proliferated through the English internet by pages who obviously used Wikipedia as a source.
Kitzing(CC) 10:03, 31 May 2024 (CET)
Done. Thanks for the suggestion. —
Diannaa (
talk) 11:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply