This is an archive of past discussions about Germany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The physiogeographical borders of Germany are formed by the Baltic and North seas in the north, and the Alps, Lake Constance, and the High Rhine, and not just the Alps, in the south. The famousness of a lake is no criterion as to whether it should be mentioned or not, if there were a Rainbow Country the southern border of which would be formed by tiny Elves' Water which noone knew, this would have to be mentioned as well.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This was already discussed at Talk:Germany/Archive 24#Lead and failed to get consensus. I agree with the opposing arguments given there, and I don't find the present argument about rainbows and elves convincing. It's not necessary to describe the entire border in the lead paragraph; Germany lies latitudinally between the equator and the North Pole, between the Mediterranean and the Arctic, and between the Alps and the North Sea. These are major geographical features that readers are familiar with. The same can't be said about Lake Constance and the High Rhine. The lead is meant to be a general overview and summary of the rest of the article, and the degree of specificity is an editorial judgement. I find the current version to be a reasonable balance. --IamNotU (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
No your arguments are not convincing, how about also just saying Baltic Sea instead of Baltic and North sea because the Baltic coast is much longer. Your Alps only would only be logical if the text said "between Baltic Sea and Alps", but if it says Baltic and North sea then it's gonna have to be Alps, Lake Constance and the High Rhine in the south as well. The two more words in the lede are not too much info and an encyclopedia is also there to give the readers info they didn't know before and not just confirm what they already know. Luxembourg also lies between the North Sea and the Alps and this is just a non-info. So the question is indeed, if Luxembourg was Rainbow Country, bounded by Elves' Water in the south, would you still say it lies between North Sea and Alps just because the reader is more likely to know the Alps than Elves' Water. Like Luxembourg, Baden-Württemberg doesn't touch the Alps.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There's no requirement that just because we mention two seas in the north we must mention three features in the south. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Only the Lake Constance/High Rhine sentence is correct, the Alps only one is not. Luxembourg also lies between North Sea and Alps and that's a non-info. Not mentioning Lake Constance and High Rhine is withholding knowledge from the readers through assuming their non-ability to cope with two physiogeographical features they might not have heard about before, while even ignoring the fact that Lake Constance is one of the most well-known lakes in Europe and the Rhine one of the most well-known rivers of the world.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I only can re-iterate my last sentence from the last fruitless discussion with this man on a mission: Not even in Schweiz the Bodensee is mentioned as the northern border, why should it be mentioned here, where it's far less important? I fail to see the importance of this lake for this. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)14:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Bad argument. One doesn't even know from where to where the northern border of Switzerland runs, and even if one knew it, it couldn't be described through physiogeographical features as easily as the German southern border. See geography of Switzerland.TheCarlos1975 (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is a typo in the 'economy' section of the article. Where it reads, "The In 2018 Germany ranked fourth globally in terms of number of science and engineering research papers published," it should read, "In 2018, [...]" PhosphoricPanda (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove Peter Paul Rubens from the Art & Design subsection of the culture section in the Germany page, as he was not German but Flemish. Rory Scullion-Croppies98 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Croppies98 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
User Nikkimaria often reverts edits in which information is added to the infobox not only made by me but also by other users (see version history). Now, even the infobox in the Simple English Wiki contains more information. His arguments are that this is "excessive detail" and that "Just because a parameter exists, doesn't mean it must be used [...]". In my opinion, these arguments are not valid since an infobox should contain all known relevant information about its article and it doesn't matter if it's detailed. I'd even say that the opposite is true: I think it's good if an infobox is detailed as long as it remains clear and well structured and is not redundant. There's surely a reason you can put these parameters in infoboxes. And other articles about countries also contain this information in their infobox, so that's the common consensus.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I use she/her pronouns, by the way. This argument is not consistent with our guidelines: MOS:IBX notes the following: "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." It further states that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" - in other words, even if every other country used these parameters (and they don't), consensus would be needed for them here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
1) The infobox contained not a single redundant or unnecessary information. Every information was unique and presented in the shortest form possible.
2) The consensus in this article was to include this information. It has been there for a long time until you removed some information without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Several users tried to undo your edits without success because you reverted it back. That's not what I'd call a consensus.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Really? This article has more than 10K views per day. Many Wikipedia readers want to access as much information as possible as short as possible when they read an article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Number of pageviews is not really an argument to include particular parameters; there is no evidence, for example, that those viewers consider electricity information a key fact. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Among these many users, there will be some who want to know. The reason for this is irrelevant (maybe you want to visit Germany and want to know whether your device works there). You cannot infer so many others from yourself. As long as we neither know whether there are people who want to know or whether they don't want to know, we should leave the information in there. Can't believe I have to explain that.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That's not really an argument and can apply for any country and any parameter. According to this logic, we could question every parameter and infoboxes in general. Where is the limit at which it becomes "unnecessary"? This is 100 % subjective which is why we should give all information.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"The highest temperature ever recorded in Germany was 42.6 °C on 25 July, 2020 in Lingen and the lowest was -37.8 °C on 12 February, 1929 in Wolznach." Change 2020 to 2019. 91.96.84.25 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The text says:
"After the end of World War II in Europe and a period of Allied occupation, two new German states were founded [...]"
This is not right and just the easy explanation; but too easy for a source like Wikipedia.
Interesting is the exeption Germany and Germanies what is another y/ie-topic.
The GDR (DDR) was a "Völkerrechtssubjekt" and not a state but it was a state to itself and the Sovjetunion including their partners. This Völkerrechtssubjekt was almost treated like a state. In some understanding it was the SBZ (Sovjetisch besetzte Zone); sovjetic occupied zone.
Okay, my English is not that good and I just wanna say that the term "two states" is not correct, maybe for kindergartenkids with mentening "Emagine a state, kind of state" in order of a better basic understanding. Later this basic needs to be filled with additional facts because the world is more comlex than much to easy fairytales. Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.240.82 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The GDR was a state, as it had a population, a territory and a government and interacted with other states. Statehood does not depend on recognition by other states. For more details, you can look at Staat and Völkerrechtssubjekt for details, or at the GDR article at the appropriate section.
Fully agree with Yhdwww. From 1973 onwards, the GDR was universally recognised in the forum of international relations as being a sovereign state - as in being admitted to the United Nations, and in participating, alongside the Federal Republic, in the Helsinki Accords. Moreover, the West German Federal Constitutional Court, in its 1973 decision approving the Basic Treaty, 1972 between the Federal Republic and the GDR, confirmed that, from the perspective of the constitution of the Federal Republic, the GDR had been a de-jure German state from its foundation in 1949; and hence that the GDR's actions in international relations - specifically the 1950 Treaty of Zgorzelec between the GDR and Poland on their mutual boundary - had been constitutionally valid. TomHennell (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
BRD
I changed the last edit because, as I mentioned in the edit summary, I don't think the statement that something might be contentious belongs in the article like that.
As for the matter itself: I am German myself, I have studied the history of Germany and the two states to some extent, and I believe this is the first time that I hear somebody say that "BRD" as an abbreviation was contentious. Furthermore, even if it had been, it is now certainly uncontended, so the article can, in my opinion, use "BRD" in any case. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree that it's probably not the best place to have the material on the abbreviation issue
While the article could potentially include material somewhere on how different abbreviations were used at different times, and in a historical context, it shouldn't simply state "BRD" as if it were an official and uncontentious, and the only, abbreviation. In this case the text referred to West Germany within the timeframe of the Cold War, when the abbreviation was a very contentious issue (BRD (Germany) and de:BRD). During the Cold War about half a dozen different abbreviations (see e.g. de:BRD#Konsentierte bundesdeutsche Abkürzungen) were used at various times, some by West Germany and others by East Germany; during the early Cold War East Germany would insist on calling West Germany DBR (Deutsche Bundesrepublik); when East Germany started using BRD West German authorities strongly rejected the abbreviation, and for the last decades of the Cold War use of the BRD abbreviation was highly politicized. --Tataral (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
"BRD" should be kept as the standard and predominant abbreviation of West Germany in both parts of germany. Yes, its usage had a political connotation and was contentious. Nevertheless it was used frequently, whereas the other abbreviations mentioned are rather exotical. Since the use of BRD can be sourced easily be qualified sourced it should stay in the article. An explanation of its policial connotation is appreciated.Nillurcheier (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly it should be mentioned somewhere, as should the other and official abbreviations used in West Germany, but the article should in no way claim that it was "the standard and predominant abbreviation of West Germany in both parts of germany" which is incorrect. Not even East Germany considered it "the standard and predominant abbreviation of West Germany" within the timeframe referred to, since they for the first twenty years objected to the very name the abbreviation stood for. It's not true that "abbreviations mentioned are rather exotical"; as mentioned in the German article the standard short name in West German usage was probably simply "Bundesrepublik" rather than the contentious abbreviation BRD; often it was sufficient to use "Deutschland" as a short name, and the standard and by far most widely used abbreviation was simply "DE" (the ISO standard abbreviation, used in transportation, postal contexts, and numerous other situations). BRD on the other hand was explicitly rejected by the government of the federal republic, so a discussion of it should indicate its status as contentious, and that it wasn't the only abbreviation used. --Tataral (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Religion could be added to the infobox. Since the 2011 census is quite outdated – and also not entirely accurate, as 17.4% of the population refused to answer –, information from a reliable source such as "Religionszugehörigkeiten 2019". Forschungsgruppe Weltanschauungen in Deutschland [de]. 2020-08-12. could be added. Now, there seem to be some disagreements about which groups to include. I propose the following, which is strictly from the table the source provides:
The source does not provide a figure for Christianity altogether. An alternative could be "52,0% Catholic or Evangelical", which is also mentioned in the source, though I prefer the former. intforce (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
You've changed it to the 2011 census, which as above is quite outdated - it's unclear why this dated information would warrant such a prominent position in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I would support changing it to the 2019 estimations, though I see no problem with the 2011 census remaining in the infobox. It is the latest available official data after all, with the next census being scheduled for 2022. intforce (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
We should work on removing this type of thing for all country infoboxs....so odd it needs to be in articles 3 times.--Moxy🍁16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
With that, you could argue against the inclusion of religion in any infobox. But this discussion is not about religion in country infoboxes in general (Template talk:Infobox country is). As I've said, I support the 2019 figures, which are more meaningful. Ironically, they might even be more accurate than the official 2011 census data, as back then many households refuse to answer, especially those of minority religions. intforce (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the 2019 figures may be more meaningful versus the 2011 figures. But as I said, that discussion is best provided in context. And as you note, what might or might not be appropriate for other articles is best discussed elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
What context do you need for the figures? Like population, those are just demographic numbers. The Religion section of the article adds little context, beyond a prose description of the data. By your argument, we might as well remove population numbers from the infobox, because the data is better "provided in context". intforce (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
To begin, there's the context you yourself pointed out: the contrast between the official census figures and what's provided in other sources, and the nonresponse rate in the census figures. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that that particular context is needed for a brief overview in the infobox (especially if the 2019 figures are used), and I see that this discussion is going nowhere. Let us hear opinions from other editors. If there is no consensus here, I'm open for a RfC. intforce (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This data is pretty good, but not perfect. Its origin is mixed. For the 2 large churches, it is church data, which are prezise, however refer to church members, which is not necessarily the same as adherents. Secondly, the muslim data is disputed, since FOWID (=source) introduced the term "religionsgebundene Muslime" (Muslims tied to their religion) which is their OR and other sources come up with higher data (eg PEW >6%). Nevertheless let us keep this solution and be open to add other sources. Nillurcheier (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with intforce. Also ethnicity & religion related data is an important aspect of a country's identity and deserves to be included in the infobox. We already have relevant sections for economy, population, languages too but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention that data in the infobox.Meganpeltz (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, In this discussion I also want to propose restoration/inclusion of ethnicity data in the infobox of this article which has been missing for quite some time after Nikkimaria removed it [1]. Other country articles such United States, United Kingdom, Canada etc all have ethnicity data in their infoboxes. Why not Germany? Meganpeltz (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
What parameters to include or not is decided at an article level, not based on what other articles do or don't have. What specifically are you proposing to include and what is your rationale for wanting to overload the infobox on this particular article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria how's adding ethnicity & religion related data amount to overloading the infobox especially when it was removed without discussion in the first place by you [2]. Seems like your own POV about what this article should contain or not.Meganpeltz (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, deciding that adding religion to an infobox constitutes "overloading" is your opinion, not a fact. Since it was you who removed religion from the infobox, and as far as I can see in the archives, without seeking discussion first, the removed section should be restored until a new consensus is reached. intforce (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria Your objection that "What parameters to include or not is decided at an article level, not based on what other articles do or don't have." doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like saying capital of Germany can't be mentioned in the infobox because editors here have decided not to. Doesn't matter if other country articles mention their capitals in the infobox or not.
And I have removed it. Please don't continue to add it until there is consensus to do so. It was removed a year ago already, so it can be assumed to be the stable version and the status quo to be maintained during discussion. I see at least two issues: one is the overall length of the infobox. There is no "standard" that requires listing religion and ethnicity there, and what happens in other articles stays in other articles. Though to some extent consistency is helpful, it's an editorial decision for each article. Secondly, and more important, is the accuracy and verifiability of the numbers. If there are several different sets of figures, each from a reliable source, but differing significantly, choosing just one set to display in the infobox may not adhere to the neutral point of view policy. We represent the significant viewpoints of reliable sources, in proportion to the presence of that viewpoint in the sources. That may require a more complex explanation and context given in the text of the article, rather than a bullet point in the infobox. The article has been without them for a year, so there's no rush to change it. If the dispute is stalled after a reasonable period of discussion and proposed solutions, then dispute resolution is the way forward, not repeated edits... --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. See also MOS:INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The content of the infobox at United States has no relevance to the content of the infobox here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria don't you see the irony here? You talk about consensus and discussion among editors yet you remove well sourced valuable data without any of it & now you are objecting to its re-addition just because only YOU think it will be "overloading" of the infobox. What makes an article say Canada different from Germany in this regard, can you please explain? The former has well sourced ethnic & religion related data in its infobox yet no one has removed it for "overloading". If that's how Wikipedia community is supposed to work with one user "Trimming" massive contributions from other editors than I don't know what to say.Meganpeltz (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
[If you're not interested in a civics lecture, skip to the next paragraph] It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes to improve an article, and that they don't require permission, discussion, or consensus prior to doing so. If nobody objects, then consensus is assumed. If someone does object, the customary (though not mandatory) practice is to restore the article to the previous stable version, that is, the version before any recent changes that are disputed, while discussion is in progress. Nikkimaria is a very experienced editor who has put in a significant amount of work improving article in the past year, much of which has been to trim it down to a manageable size, removing unnecessary detail from this general article that belongs in sub-articles, as is suggested in the guidelines. Not everyone has agreed with every edit, and indeed some have been undone. But overall this is a valuable goal. Her changes to the infobox a year ago were bold edits, they didn't require prior consensus or discussion. After all this time, it's not really reasonable to undo those changes and say there was no consensus. There was, and there has been for a year, and they have become part of the stable version. The recent changes, adding demographics content back to the infobox, are also bold edits, and didn't require prior approval. However, they have been objected to, and thus far, consensus hasn't been established. The usual practice would be to remove them until decisions are made. Most importantly though, it doesn't really matter. The content is not hugely controversial, so it could probably stay in, or not, while discussion is going on, and it won't make a big difference to anything. Getting your preferred version online right now is not a useful objective. Soon there will be a consensus, and that's the version that will stay. So please, let's stop pointing fingers, and get to the necessary work of calmly discussing the pros and cons, in order to come to an agreement. [end of lecture]
The fact that many other major country articles have these demographics in the infobox is reasonable to point out. It doesn't guarantee that it should be included, and the reasoning that "this other article has this, so this one must too, or else it has to be removed from the other one" is a well-known argument that has been generally rejected by the community. Nevertheless, one may ask "why?", and expect a convincing answer. In the end, it's the best argument that is carried. Questions of style, and how much detail to include, can be difficult because they are editorial judgements, and though we have some guidelines and can look at common practice, it does involve personal opinions of the editors. All the more reason for calm discussion and listening to what everyone has to say.
The question of whether presenting one particular set of figures in the infobox adheres to the neutral point of view policy is based more on actual evidence, but still there is a certain amount of editorial judgement. It needs to be determined separately for the list of ethnic groups and the list of religions. Meganpeltz has proposed to include a list of ethnic groups: Germans, Turks, Poles, Russians, and Other. The first source cited doesn't have this information, only Germans and Foreigners. The second source doesn't give a figure for Germans, and the rest of the numbers don't match. It's also unclear what the list represents, German citizens with a migration background? Foreign-born citizens, non-citizen residents, or what? These problems already rule out including this in the proposed form. If the sourcing and accuracy can be improved, I would still have questions about the particular list of countries for example, with such a large number in "other". Also, none of this is actually covered in the corresponding text in the Demographics section, and so really should not be in the infobox, since that should be only a summary of the article proper (though it can be argued that this should be in the article proper - for example, the fact that the words "Turkey" and "Turkish" occur only once each in the entire article seems implausible). Similar concerns have already been raised about the religions list. So I would say that there's a fair amount of work to be done before we can really consider adding any of it. --IamNotU (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@IamNotU thanks for your valuable input. My conclusion from reading your perspective is that you as well as all other editors involved in this discussion above except Nikkimaria are not opposed to addition of ethnic and religion related data in the infobox just because it will "OVERLOAD" it. Instead you have genuine concerns about the validity of ethnicity data depending on the sources provided which is understandable. This also means that the religion related data that Nikkimaria removed is well sourced and valid & it's removal was undue.
In summary, any editor should be able to add religion and ethnicity data in the infobox just like other wiki articles without the fear of it being deleted by Nikkimaria, but the prerequisite is that it should be well sourced and not contradictory. Nikkimaria may have contributed a lot to this article but this doesn't give him/her right to impose their views on others about what this article should look like or not, especially if the other editor isn't breaking any wiki rules. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I indented your reply, hope that's ok. Actually, I haven't formed an opinion as to whether the value of either of these lists is worth the prominent space they take up in the infobox. I'm not necessarily opposed to the argument of keeping it more concise. That also depends in part on assessing the actual value of the lists: whether they are accurate and contribute to a good understanding of the subject, or whether they may present complex things in an overly simplistic way, or show ambiguous data with false precision or selectivity of sources. The topics of race and religion tend to be sensitive everywhere, certainly no less so in Germany. Wikipedia encourages change and evolution; perhaps this will be the start of a trend of people saying, you know, maybe we don't really need to foreground ethnicity and religion so prominently at the very top of country infoboxes. Or maybe not.
I didn't go into detail about the problems with the religious data, because some were already addressed above, and I'm already writing a lot. But as I mentioned, there are similar issues, for example about presenting only one set of figures in Wikipedia's voice if there are multiple reliable sources that differ significantly. Something I've taken issue with in the past is the presentation of about 40% as irreligious or "no religion". This figure is heavily skewed for example by many who consider themselves Christian but don't attend church, don't want to pay the substantial church tax, and so don't register as such. I see that in a later version it was changed to "unaffiliated", and there's an explanatory footnote attached - that's actually something I wrote [3] to try to ameliorate the problem. Being hidden behind a footnote may not really accomplish it, and again maybe the situation is more complex than can be adequately represented in the infobox. I was aware that it was removed last March, and I didn't object. (PS, if you're going to copy content from past versions, please be sure to give attribution in the edit summary, see WP:COPYWITHIN.)
Finally, I'd ask again that this talk page be used for the purpose of making improvements to the article, and discussing edits, not editors. Meganpeltz, if you feel there's a problem with Nikkimaria's behavior (which I can say is not the case as far as I'm aware), you can address it on her talk page or with an admin. Bringing it up here makes the conversation more difficult and impedes its resolution. Any editor can add things to the infobox, but there's no guarantee that it won't be challenged. If so, each side is obligated to make rational arguments and consider the others' in good faith. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is decided on the strength of the arguments, and how well they correspond with general consensus as documented in the policies and guidelines. If editors reach an impasse, there are procedures for dispute resolution, but we're not there yet. --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@IamNotU thanks for your comprehensive & polite response. Looks like Nikkimaria who reverted my edits & asked to take it to the talk page has herself become uninterested in this conversation.
As you rightly said "The topics of race and religion tend to be sensitive everywhere, certainly no less so in Germany." That's exactly what makes their mention in the infobox important & perfectly reasonable provided that they are well sourced!
You said "Something I've taken issue with in the past is the presentation of about 40% as irreligious or "no religion". This figure is heavily skewed for example by many who consider themselves Christian but don't attend church, don't want to pay the substantial church tax, and so don't register as such" I don't think that's valid objection against my contribution to be honest. Western Europe has a large non-religious population ranging from 25-40% in various countries. Also this goes both ways. There are many people who remain registered with the Church for cultural reasons but don't believe in God. The statistics might differ slightly depending on the source but most give an estimate 55-65% for Christians, 30-40% Non-religious and 5% for Muslims and others. Furthermore, the 2011 statistic that Nikkimaria removed was based on the personal self identification instead of church membership.
You said "If so, each side is obligated to make rational arguments and consider the others' in good faith. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is decided on the strength of the arguments, and how well they correspond with general consensus as documented in the policies and guidelines" Thankyou! So far the only argument the other side has come up with aganist my edits is that it will "overload" the infobox! That's not a very sound argument.
In summary, my suggestion is that the religion related data (56% Christian, 38% Non-religious, 5% Muslim) based on 2018 source that was deleted in March should be added now. And when someone comes up with a well sourced ethnicity data in the future, they should be able to add it in the infobox too without the threat of Nikkimaria "trimming" it. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to hear more from Nikkimaria. But I think I've presented some arguments beyond the "overloading" one. You said: I don't think that's valid objection against my contribution - well, considering your contribution regarding that item in the list was to copy my contribution back to the article, it's a bit hard for me to argue against! But if someone (including me) can give a good reason to remove it, I don't object.
Regarding "There are many people who remain registered with the Church for cultural reasons but don't believe in God", I'm not sure that believing in God is a requirement for being Christian - certainly Gretta Vosper doesn't think so. But that too should be explained. When there are multiple sources that give widely different figures, depending on the method of calculating or the questions asked, and when its a "depends how you look at it" sort of situation, prominently presenting a single set of numbers as fact is usually not neutral enough. When it's presented in the article text, it can say "according to source abc, the numbers are this, but according to survey xyz, they're that". The policy that we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each" is one of the most central and non-optional concepts of Wikipedia. --IamNotU (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple reasons not to give such prominence to these figures - WEIGHT, datedness (for the 2011), accuracy, level of detail. I haven't seen an argument here that would counterbalance these factors. I have seen a lot of personal commentary that makes me reluctant to engage here - thanks IamNotU for trying to temper that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria & IamNotU sorry for the late reply. I wish to respond to your concerns in detail however my uni exams are very close & I am busy because of that. However, my request is to not archive this discussion so that I can resume discussion as soon as I am free. Meanwhile, I am going to put a link in the infobox pointing towards the Religion in Germany article so that readers can open it if they are interested. This is a very reasonable & middle ground solution as for now as it avoids mentioning overt statistics which were a cause of concern for IamNotU meanwhile giving the topic its due importance. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Very late to this - per a recent revert: The German "evangelisch" doesn't translate to "Evangelical" but to "Protestant". "Evangelical" translates to the German "de:evangelikal" which has an Evangelicalism (specific, narrow) meaning. Sadly, not even the Protestant Church of Germany knows that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I contradict. "Evangelisch" and "evangelikal" both can be translated as "evangelical". maybe a bit confusing, but true.--Nillurcheier (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nillurcheier: Okay thank you. My main problem is that 2011 census underestimates Muslims. "Church data in 2019 were 55% adherents for Christians and most recent data for Muslim were 6.4-6.7%. Let's stick to these high quality very recent data. 2020 Update will come within the next 2 months. " I will be very thankful if you updated these statistics as soon as they are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinirma (talk • contribs)
More than 4.5 million ethnic Germans have been repatriated to Germany since re-unification.[4] Can this be added to the article? Thanks. 72.26.27.255 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Science and Technology section
Let's talk about the new section. Like other FA articles this section has merit for inclusion (Canada#Science and technology). However as written below very little historical information and simply spams names. The relevant information that is here is already included in the article in other areas. So what can we say at an FA level as seen at the Canada article with actual accomplishments and data rather than a list of names..... well it does not regurgitating other sections? Moxy-14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
^"Otto Hahn". Atomic Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 13 May 2020.
^Drews, Gerhart (1 July 2000). "The roots of microbiology and the influence of Ferdinand Cohn on microbiology of the 19th century". Microbiology Reviews. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2000.tb00540.x.
My recent edit was reverted [5]. I want to add this well sourced data from 2019 to infobox Germany. Goalcy (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Striking comment by sock.VRtalk23:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Should there be a separate page for the Federal Republic of Germany, rather than just having it redirect to Germany as a whole? This would be similar to how there are separate pages for France and the French Fifth Republic or Greece and the Third Hellenic Republic. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
We do have a separate article for West Germany, although both that and "Germany" are the same as the "Federal Republic of Germany". (Wikipedia pretends that the Federal Republic of Germany not only changed its common name from "West Germany" to "Germany", but that these are also separate entities). It is a bit of a mess, like all of German history. —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Federal election of 1932
The Nazi Party did not win the election in Nobember 1932. They had only 33% of the votes. Even combined with their future coalition partners - The Nationalists (DNVP) the nazis did not have a majority. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg without having a majority in Reichstag (no party had a majority since 1930).
Saying that NSDAP won these elections is very misleading. Even more perplexing is that the link given in the very sentence caliming the nazis have won the election leads to another Wikipedia article which clearly shows they did not.
The nazis did not manage to achieve a majority even in the elections on 5 March 1933 when Hitler was already the chancellor and most of the members of the communist party were arrested. 83.24.132.10 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria 1) Who told you that? 2) Please explain your decision to not have it in this particular article, when it's included in the articles for literally every country I've spot checked except Western Sahara (if that is a country). Uporządnicki (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Uporządnicki: See MOS:INFOBOX. To quote: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article", and "The less information [the template] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." So if you feel this content is necessary for this article, you'll need to present reasoning for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Where else do you want this imformation placed? That it has to be somewhere in the article is, at least for me, nothing to discuss about, it has to be somewhere. You don't want it in the infobox, so you have to provide another place for this information.
And you have to provide a very good reason to omit this information from the infobox, up to now you only "argument" is I don't like it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)05:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
As it's in every article about countries, it's your turn to argue for this elimination of the usual parameter. The normal and no-brainer is to include uit as everywhere else, to have it excluded needs some special reasons. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)15:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1. We are discussing it. 2. Please do, yourself, rather than removing content that only you are disputing. You seem to have taken the idea that the one bit--here in Germany, unlike every other country--clutters the article, and you've fallen in love with having it removed--beyond all reason or consensus, because you can. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
If we are discussing it, then we maintain the status quo (to not include) until we arrive at a consensus to change it, which requires those who want a change to put forward policy- or guideline-based arguments. Again, not a vote. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There seems to BE a consensus here. And looking back, it seems that having it in WAS the status quo until March 19, 2000, when you decided to remove it in a flurry of edits you termed "trim." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I personally think that instead of "Germany is a country in Western Europe" it should say "...at the crossroads of Northern, Western and Central Europe". First of all, Germany is widely considered to be Western European, and is on the western end of Central Europe. Secondly, part of Germany is on the Jutland peninsula, which is indisputably regarded as part of Northern Europe. Last but not least, Wikipedia's own definition of "Northwestern Europe" includes the entirety of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlaymarron (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Before 1990 it was called East and West. They merged and I recommend "central Europe". (The little strip of Jutland is not important enough to mention, in my opinion.) Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Wars
I thought it amusing that most of Germanys page is devoted to Wars yet for instance the UK has allegedly killed far more people than Hitler during its unpleasant Empire (we gave them the roads of course) Perhaps nearly 100 years later WIKI should concentrate on other matters on Germanys homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Anthem
The title of the anthem should be changed to "[The] Song of [the] Germans" (ger: "Das Lied der Deutschen") to match the original German description. Furthermore a note saying "(3rd stanza only)" could be added additionally. 89.204.135.236 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
We don't have a preference for official names. The anthem is currently at Deutschlandlied, so there's no reason why we should translate a different title. In practice, that there are two prior stanzas (one which is simply unbearable nowadays due to prior deliberate misuse; and another which is maybe appropriate for a drinking song but not so much for a national anthem) is not that relevant of a fact, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian It's remarkable that there's no preference for accuracy. I simply don't understand the argument to the point. Why deliberately use the wrong name, instead of the official title? Llonya (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a preference for consistency. If you think that we should prefer the official name, you are free to make a move request at the appropriate page. However I don't agree with your assessment that the current name is "wrong" or "inaccurate". Not being the official title does not make something either of those two things. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to change the short description of the national anthem because the "Deutschlandlied" or "Song of Germany" is not the right name so i would like to change it to "Lied der Deutschen" or "Song of the Germans".
This is but a small change and justified for example by the article about the German national anthem Ravgnin (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So it can not be called „Deutschlandlied“. I also can not say „moonmetothefly“ to the song „fly me to the moon“ because that is just not the title. Honestly, whats wrong with some Wikipedia dudes in charge? Is the whole world going stupid or what? 2003:C8:6F19:1900:F1C:7128:780D:2BFD (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. there are many edits to the article Germany, of which the current one is simply adding links to the article. which one do you want reverted and why? 💜 melecie talk - 04:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Population density
German population density (2020)
Some version of this file should end up somewhere on the page to clearly illustrate to people the relative crush along the Rhine and vacancy across most of the east. There are also much more attractive historical maps to use than what we've currently got. Cf. the Wiktionary entry. — LlywelynII19:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Attractiveness is a secondary concern to informativeness - which specific maps do you feel should be added where? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The country's name is Deutschland and nothing else. Therefore articles like this should use exactly this name. A name is a name and can not be changed or decided by other parties. It is outrageous that people from wherever are using made up things like „Germany“ and are also spreading those made up nonsense like it realy exists. For example the former USA president Barack Obama is called everywhere „Barack Obama“, because thats his name. It does not matter where he is, lives or travels through or where a text is written or a speach is told about him. His name is his name. His name is not „Obamany“ or whatever made up stuff comes to other peoples mind for whatever dumb reason. The same goes with names of states or cities. They have all their own names and everyone else should use exactly those names (or official(!) transcriptions(!) if you can not write them). If a person cant pronounce it right, he should just learn it instead of creating, learning and using some exclusive fantasy. So offical texts and especially dictionaries should use the name of the states as they are. And the name of Deutschland is Deutchland and not „Germany“. A country named „Germany“ does not exist.2003:C8:6F19:1900:F1C:7128:780D:2BFD (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Boy, I wish I'd been taught all these principles a half century ago, when my junior high school and high school French teachers kept calling me Etien. And come to think of it, I'm trying to remember if when I studied in Poland (almost as long ago), the language class teacher was calling me Szczepan. So now, when we get EVERY ONE of the "official" texts and dictionaries to say Deutschland and not Germany (or Allemagne or Niemcy or ...), then Wikipedia can follow along. Then we can work on Warszawa, Magyarorszag, 'Ellados, Crnogorska, ... Uporządnicki (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Some version of this file should end up on the page to obviously illustrate to the states along the Rhine and vacancy across most of the east. Also, i don't own this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorruptCalvin1958 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the way it is mentioned in Germany#Culture is sufficient. If you think it should be phrased differently, please suggest a new sentence and explain why yours is superior. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: Unclear what change you are suggesting. Much of the Russian population is west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus. CMD (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Anothee suggestion but to a different topic I have is that the time between the German Confederation and the North German Confederation should be seperated since the North German Confederatiin from 1867 to 1871 was the first actual german nation state and the beginning of the German Reich from 1867/1871-1945.
The German Reich is the actual predecessor of modern-day Germany.
Therefore the North German Confederation/German Empire, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany should be clearly seperated from the HRE and the German Confederation.
Germany's actual history began in 1867/1871. 2003:D6:B739:F46F:90A2:9DFB:F3D7:C25 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
History
In the section of the historical section of Germany, the German Empire should get a seperate section. There are also a lot of topics which could have been added there (for the German Empire) for example: Moroccan crisis 1 & 2, the Maji-Maji rebellion, the Anglo-German naval race, "Weltpolitik" of Kaiser Wilhelm II, The "Three-Kaiser-year" of 1888, tge military dictatorship of 1916 - 1918, The occupation forces of China and Wilhelms "Hun speech". There really should be a correct and a detailed section for Imperial Germany. And except for that, the part with the beginning of ww1 is also controversial. The assassination was the official start for ww1 but it was not the reason. There should just stand "After the start of World War 1" or "After the events which let to the outbreak of World War 1". 2003:D6:B739:F46F:90A2:9DFB:F3D7:C25 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
That link appears to be different from the present source, which is available in archive. Is there an updated version of the exact link that should be referenced? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, I typed the wrong reference number, it is meant for 213. It is the same source, the website just went through some changes as well as data updates and ended up putting the same data explorer under a slightly different name. EnergyAnalyst2 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, but the data presented in this link vs the existing link appear to be on different topics: the existing link is on greenhouse gas emissions, and the one you propose here is on renewables. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"It is the second most populous country in Europe after Russia," <-- Germany is the third most populous country in Europe after Russia and Turkey, if we are including Transcontinental European Countries. If not, then Germany is the most populous country in Europe. This error should be resolved. MarioWood12345 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
An editor by the name of Nikkimaria is removing faith statistics saying they don't belong there. The editor seems reckless as they similarly removed my updated population statistics without giving a second thought, until I took my stand. Now they are saying that some talk page page discussion said so. However, other Wikipedia country pages have faith statistics too and no one is objecting to that. Moreover, Wikipedia pages aren't set in stone so I am creating this discussion and invite the editor who added those stats to come here and take the stand.Riopex (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the norm in many FA articles where editors have determined that the section needs more explanation then listing data can offer and or that it overwhelms the info box with raw data that haszero context that is outdated or convoluted. Moxy-15:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As noted, it does not provide appropriate context in that form. If you look at the Religion section, there are concerns around the reliability of the data. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Riopex:. My edit is fully sourced and well referenced yet it was reverted due to ambiguous reasons. Reliable statistics should be added to the lead just like other countries. Regards Ebasti (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that data inclusion should be determined at the article level. However, valid arguments should be provided to discard my well sourced edit, yet you have provided none of those. Regards Ebasti (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by 'context' here? Context is already given i.e., the data is about religion in Germany. Regards Ebasti (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Using that logic we shouldn't add GINI, population and HDI parameters either because they are just labels that aren't sufficient to allow readers to understand and interpret the data. Regards Ebasti (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
yes add the data. Wikipedia readers are sophisticated enough to know about religion--and in Germany religion has always been a MAJOR factor in shaping politics and history--for example for the last 75 years the German party system has been dominated by the Christian Democratic Union as the #1 party (it's a coalition of Catholics and Lutherans). The decline in membership has been a big deal recently. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: Asking volunteers to add that Germany is on the cross... is insufficient per our guidelines on making edit requests and the very template you are invoking. You need to write out what you want the article to say specifically and you need to produce the sources yourself. Please do not re-open this request until you do so, IP.
Since Statista is not a source itself, but an aggregator of statistical information based on various sources, it should be decided whether to use it by looking at its stated sources, which in this case is the United Nations.
Your linked information page "WP:RSP" also states that there may be exceptions, and since Statista is already cited 8 times in this article, I would be interested in why you think it's not suitable in this case.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe Germany should be classed as being in both Central and Western Europe. Germany has historically been placed in Western Europe, and culturally, other than its shared language with Austria, German culture is notably different from the rest of the Central European countries. One of those differences being the view that it is has become a rather non-traditional country, whilst other Central European countries such as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have notably traditional cultures.
This article previously stated that Germany is solely in Western Europe, but now states that Germany is solely in Central Europe. However, Germany continues to be classed as part of Western Europe, as demonstrated in the links below. I feel it would be more accurate to state Germany as being part of both regions, and others have previously argued this point.
Nikkimaria, a user that appears to be quite influential on this article, reverted my edit classifying Germany as Central and Western European. However, in Talk:Germany/Archive 25, under “Location of Germany”, Nikkimaria can be seen arguing that the country is Western European.
What I said was that this has been discussed on several occasions without a clear consensus being arrived at. In order to achieve a definitive answer one way or the other, I would suggest starting a RFC to get a wider perspective from the community. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
To avoid disagreement, I have instead stated that Germany is in the western region of Central Europe. This is similar to Slovenia's article, where it is stated that the country is in southern Central Europe. Due to various factors, geographical, historical, cultural and geopolitical, countries in Central Europe each have ties to their neighboring regions. Countries within Central Europe are often also categorised as belonging to Eastern Europe, Western Europe or Southern Europe. Wczeran (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
As I noted, just because it is cited doesn't mean it needs to be included (and in fact the citations presented are contradictory). This isn't a key detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid it’s not up to you to unilaterally determine what can and cannot be included. WP:OWNERSHIP - "Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say." What "needs" to be included is entirely subjective and is for no one editor to decree to another that they can or cannot add something to an article. Also, the citations are not contradictory. Helper201 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Have you looked at them? Of the three references provided for "dd/mm/yyyy", two of them say something else. As for what can and cannot be included, see WP:VNOT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/date-in-german - "If you want to spell out the date, it’s pretty much the same except the month is spelled out. So now, instead of der 4.11.1990, it would be 4. November 1990." Now since how this source explains how to change a mdy date into German we can leave this one out.
Regardless one source would be sufficient anyway, of which you yourself have conceded that at least one of these is fine already. The only one that could be considered contradictory is source 2 which can be left out. Also, there is absolutely no good reason for leaving this out. The infobox has a specific parameter imbedded into it to allow for a date format, so it’s completely intentional for this to be placed here. Helper201 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
None of what you've quoted here supports "dd/mm/yyyy" as being the correct format in German. And the existence of a parameter doesn't require it to be filled - see MOS:IBX. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, what I've quoted clearly supports this. And I didn't say its requied to be filled, just that you can not stop it from being so because you alone have an objection to it. Also, the guideline WP:VNOT you brought up doesn't apply here. It says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." Note "not all verifiable information must be included", not cannot. On top of that, it says, "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article". There is no consensus to determine that this information cannot be included. Unless a consensus is formed to say this cannot be included then to not allow this information to be included breaks WP:OWNERSHIP. Helper201 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
These further demonstrate that sources disagree on what the correct formatting is.
As per VNOT, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". At the moment you alone have proposed inclusion, and your proposal has been disputed. Unless a consensus is formed to say this should be included, it is left out. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The sources do agree. I've provided 3 more that all say d/m/y on top of others which also say this. There's nothing disputable about including this. Helper201 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
colors on the map
On the map of Germany in 1947 should be two different colors in the north-eastern region - the lands for Poland and the lands for the USSR. Now there is one color only. Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes. The sources align in saying dd/mm/yyyy and/or yyyy/mm/dd as I set out in my edit on the main page. Both in respects to the sources I used there (with one possible exception outlined above) plus multiple other sources that are also placed in the discussion above this. The infobox has a specific parameter for placing a date format, so it is not up to editors to restrict others from placing this information in these sections, of which doing so violates WP:OWNERSHIP. Helper201 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Among the sources presented, the range of formats include "dd.mm.yyyy", "yyyy-mm-dd", "d.mmmm yyyy", "(d)d.(m)m.(yy)yy", "d-m-y", and "dd/mm/yyyy". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"dd.mm.yyyy", "d.mmmm yyyy", "(d)d.(m)m.(yy)yy", "d-m-y", and "dd/mm/yyyy", are all alternate ways of expressing the same date order of: day, then month, then year. None of these are contradictory to each other. I'm sure if you looked up most other countries that are day, month, year you'd find sources that state slightly alternate ways of expressing that like this. Did that restrict this information from being in other infoboxess? No. Should it here? No. Also, I outlined yyyy-mm-dd in my original edit as an alternate date format used in Germany. Helper201 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree they are all the same order, but they are not all the same format - and the parameter is specifically format not order. As for your argument that other countries may also have different formats, certainly, but as per WP:OTHERCONTENT the fact that other articles may have problems does not support introducing them here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
They are the same base format but regardless the majority of the above sources say dd.mm.yyyy or dd/mm/yyyy so we could just have it in the infobox as:
The parameter is meant to be all-numeric which excludes your alternate, and having three different values which only some sources agree on for a single parameter isn't particularly useful for the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
"The parameter is meant to be all-numeric", I've seen no evidence for such a claim. To the latter point, I maintain two of them are essentially the same anyway so to the extent its three is debatable. In any case, I think we should let other editors’ weigh in on this now, as that's why I opened the rfc in the first place. Helper201 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay. But I've provided options and as such I'm trying to WP:COMPROMISE and find a way forward here. I'd like to ask that you please take a more constructive approach in finding solutions here. Simply removing content with edit descriptions like "trim" to remove cited content is infuriatingly unhelpful. We appear to be at an impasse anyway so again I think we best wait for other editors' inputs now. Helper201 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, maybe. I spot checked a handful of other country articles. Most, but not all, include this parameter, and where they do, they are using it the way Helper201 wants to use it. It seems clearly intended to summarise how dates are typically written in that country, with the most pertinent part being the component ordering. Specific formatting strings, including variations in separator, or mm vs mmmm, are minor details below the level that an infobox should be dealing with. This information is there to help the reader with tasks such as interpreting what 01/07/2023 means in a German document. The reason I say “Yes, maybe” is because there are a lot of infobox parameters and we’re not obliged to use them all. Is date format really a key piece of information? It doesn’t help that the template documentation includes an example that doesn’t include this parameter. Personally, I think consistency across country articles is helpful to the reader, and because most articles do include this parameter (including several that have been through featured article review), it should be included here too. If someone wants to make a case that including the date format is undue, that argument should probably be made at the template level, not just for one country. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It's a potentially useful information for many readers, and informing people is the exact purpose of Wikipedia. It's not very neutral when a few editors decide which facts (in their opinion) should be "sufficient" for the average reader, which is why I'm generally in favor of filling in as many parameters of standardized infoboxes as possible, since people who aren't interested in certain information can simply ignore it, while it would be very unhelpful for readers who are looking for specific facts about something if that information isn't in the corresponding Wikipedia article. I absolutely know that there has to be some limit to what information could be helpful to readers and to ensure consistency across articles which use the same type of infobox, and I'd argue that we have established certain infobox parameters for precisely this determination. Therefore, in this context, the burden of justification should lie on the person who wants certain parameters left out to explain why it should be left blank for this specific country, and if said person thinks the parameter is irrelevant in general, it should be discussed at the template level, as already pointed out by another user. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Germany is the third largest economy by GDP not the fourth
The source for the statement that "Historically, Germany has been called Das Land der Dichter und Denker ('the land of poets and thinkers') […]" doesn't explicitly state that this expression has a valid historical background, thus failing verification. In fact, I sometimes even read and hear that „Land der Dichter und Denker“ is a relatively modern self-referential term used primarily by Germans to refer to themselves, rather than a historically grown international reputation, e.g. here. Therefore, I suggest finding a better source, which supports the statement, or changing the sentence accordingly. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
total 17 million people were systematically murdered
This incorrectly paraphrases the linked Holocaust Wikipedia page that does not claim this bottom line and the paragraph that could be misinterpreted this way is itself debated at length in the Holocaust talk page for being a misinterpretation of sources. Even with the passive voice only insinuating that the German Government would be the one murdering entity (see the talk page of the Wikipedia Holocaust page for details), the bigger problem is the claim of 'systematic' murdering of 17 million.
The Holocaust is understood to stand out for the fact that it was premeditated and systematic. It is not a service to the victims to blur the boundaries by redefining its scope. There is a reason the word originates from 'fire sacrifice'.
The 17 million figure is three times higher, counting unconnected atrocities in. The way it is stated here is original and not claimed by anyone anywhere. That's why it doesn't have a source except pointing to the Wikipedia page. But the Holocaust page it links to also isn't phrasing it this way. 46.142.117.212 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I edited the section to more clearly reflect how the number was derived, and User:Nikkimaria was so kind to correct my source usage. The main issue with it was that it was unreliable, and the number of 17 million was derived by accounting for soviet civilian deaths, without counting any other allied civilian deaths.
The edited section now no longer refers to '17 million'; maybe somebody should include the overall death tolls of the conflict, though. (Citing a reliable source, of course...) JackTheSecond (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Done Thanks for pointing this out. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --IamNotU (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done: This was explained above. Both variants are correct, and the article about it is currently at Deutschlandlied, so for consistency that is what is going to be used. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. there are many edits to the article Germany, of which the current one is simply adding links to the article. which one do you want reverted and why? 💜 melecie talk - 04:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
15:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Done small jars 
