Talk:Hann. Münden

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lower Saxony (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Hi,

"Tillyschanze, and observation tower built by Count Tilly in 1626." That is wrong. The tower was built from 1881 to 1885 by citizen to remember the siege of the town by Count Tilly. look at the german Wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hann._M%C3%BCnden#Sehensw.C3.BCrdigkeiten 92.76.124.157 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

The official name is Hann. Münden. Yes, it is the abbreviations for Hannoversch Münden. But the name is no longer Hannoversch Münden (partly because many thaugt Münden was a quarter of Hanover).

Official entries in governmental lists say that the City is called Hann. Münden since June 1990.

You won't want to change the entry of New York back to Nieuve Amsterdam, just because this was the former name of it, do you?

Hi, 80.128.181.xxx (a name would be nice - no sarcasm intended)

I accept your point about the name used officially, and normally I'd put it under the official name unless there was one better known in English (no chauvinism there; it's just usual encyclopedia practice). In fact there is one - it's plain Münden, but I didn't propose reverting it to that out of respect for local wishes to the contrary, even though official names have no overriding right of precedence.

There are two problems here though. First, I think abbreviations should on principle be avoided in article titles (I've just similarly redirected from F.Y.R.O.M., which I'd imagine is meaningless to most people). Second, though, there's a language issue which interconnects to some extent: while the abbreviation "Hann." may be readily comprehensible to a German as representing Hannoversch, it's similarly meaningless in English (and of course it doesn't help that we spell it with one "n"). I wouldn't object to its use in German Wikipedia, but I just don't think it's helpful in the English version.

Finally, please take note of what I said about accents in article titles. I use umlauts in article texts, but in the title they make a real mess of article editing.

I'd like to know what the city's inhabitants call it in their daily speech: can you advise?

Regards - User:David Parker

Hello,

daily speech is a little difficult situation:

When asked by a stranger (someone not from Hann. Münden, that is) where I come from, I would tell him "from Hann. Münden, a little town half way between Kassel and Göttingen".
When telling my parents that I'm coming by train, I would ask them "could you please pick me up at the station in Münden at 8:45?".
Some older people, especially those not living in Hann. Münden any more, still say Hannoversch Münden.
The younger sometimes use the word "Ha-Mü".

Regarding titles, can I change those after creating the article?

Regarding "english name of the city", Münden does not appear very english to me, especially due to the two dots on top of the "u".

Best regards, JeLuF

Hi, JeLuF

If few inhabitants would really pronounce "Hannoversch", then I'll defer to your judgement (I didn't realise you were from there), though I still hate that "." in a title. We British would of course tend to put "Munden" or perhaps "Muenden", though some of us are very particular about the "ü". You can't change the title of an existing article as such: just start a new one, copy the text and add the old title to the "Page titles to be deleted" list here.

User:David Parker

The renaming in 1990 just changed Hannoversch to Hann. which has been already the name in earlier times. But the prefix is much older than 10 years. -- JeLuF 05:54 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Hello, JeLuF - where did you get these informations? The official site of Hann. Münden states, that the name of the town was Münden until 1990: http://www.hann-muenden.net/spontan/geschi.htm#1900 (unfortunately German language only). I have read all the entries on this talk page, but I didn't find evidence for these statements on other www sites. The town's webiste itself also has the title "Hann. Münden", but it adds in brackets: ("Hannoversch Münden") - so they don't seem to have problems with this name, and I think, THEY should know how to call their own town. I will revert your last edit, since it seems to be obviously wrong to me. (Note: I just wrote an e-mail to the webmasters of the Münden website in order to definitely answer this question.) -- Cordyph

I'm a native of Hann. Münden. The town was called Hannoversch much before 1990. It has changed spelling several times. During the 80s Hannoversch Münden was often considered to be a part of Hanover, that's why the name was changed from Hannoversch Münden to Hann. Münden. BTW, www.hann-muenden.net is not the official homepage, it's a private homepage. I will revert your edits. -- JeLuF

Your last edit is fine, JeLuF. I'm sorry but I didnt' get, that you are a native of this town. It seemed too strange to me, that the inhabitants use an abbreviation, when pronouncing the name of their town. Be that as it may, I am now convinced. -- Cordyph

I'm working on some old church records from the 1658. In those, the town is called referred to as "Münden" and "Münden aus der Bluhm". brianfreud 16:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianfreud (talk • contribs)

Another almost local (from Göttingen, just 30km away). We would always call it "Hann.Münden. That's just its name, we would never think of it as an abbreviation (compare Bo'ness for a similar example in English, there are many more). Occasionally you would hear "Ha-Mü". Never Hannoversch Münden and never just Münden. The Göttingen dialekt has a tendency to blend 'i' and 'ü': it really becomes indistinguishable from Minden. 86.161.117.126 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. Sorry, Pmanderson, but I kinda fail to see the point in the (appreciated, though) exercise. The town is small enough that verification of "English" usage becomes inconclusive (ergo Nuremberg vs. Nürnberg parallel doesn't apply), and the fact that it changed 3 spelling variants of the name through history, makes it even more inconclusive. So we might as well go after the official name. Duja► 10:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannoversch Münden → Hann. Münden — The town has changed its official name almost two decades ago, and the current article can't be moved to Hann. Münden (which is a redirect) by non-administrators. Hannoversch Münden is a deprecated old name, but not the current one to be used as per WP:NC. doco (☏) 14:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Sure. "Hannoversch" is not in common use anymore. Kusma (討論) 08:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. doco (☏) 13:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Strongly oppose Violation of WP:NAME; move target not favored in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

How is the name read in German, "Hannoversch Münden or "Hann Münden" or is it simply "Münden?" — AjaxSmack 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at de:Hann. Münden about that. The outcome basically was that in normal speech, locals would say "Münden", the town would generally be called "HannMünden" in talk with non-locals, not spelling the dot, and occasionally "Hannoversch Münden" would be used.

Also, the charter of the town (can be found here) says in §1 "The name of the town is Hann. Münden." , so that is the official version in writing. --doco (☏) 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Münden or Munden get far more English ghits than Hann. Münden; if it is unambiguous in writing, we should probably use it. (Presumably there is also English usage of Muenden.) More precise tests can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), but I suspect they would give much the same result. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Münden is ambiguous to Minden, which is why Münden got the "Hannoversch" in front of its name in the late 1800s to begin with. Also, your ghits request seemed to be slightly malformed. I get far less for this one than for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doco (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't search for Hannoversch Münden; I searched for Münden. I will agree the article should be moved, but not to the target proposed. ("Hanover" is included partly to ensure actual English, and partly to ensure that the hit is for this locality.) Minden is not a problem for a move to Münden; we don't disambiguate for pronunciation, just to have distinct pages. (There should be a dab header anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see several problems with that - first, the town -used- to be called either "Münden" or "Minden", with actual spelling varying wildly, but was renamed in the 19th century to "Hannoversch Münden", as it is situated on the Weser, just like Minden (which is a few 100 kilometres further upstream), and so the towns were regularly confused. The "Hannoversch" was chosen because the town was situated in the kingdom of Hanover at the time. This means you are likely to get many references for this town going by the name of "Münden" concerning events of the 19th century and before, but for any event after the 1880s, there will likely be "Hannoversch Münden". The town decided to rename itself to "Hann. Münden" in 1990 because nobody was spelling out the full name anyways - and it was always confused with being a borough of Hanover. So Hann. Münden is the official name (which we should use imo), Hannoversch Münden is the old name, and Münden is the old old name. Moving it to Münden would therefore constitute making the pre-1800s name the de facto name, and I think it'd be similar to moving New York to Nieuw Amsterdam, as someone said in the old discussion on this page. Also keep in mind that the "Hannoversch" is a proper noun, as the place has nothing to do with Hanover -per se-, but just had the tag added to enable people to differentiate it from Minden. (There are a few more places in Germany that work like that, for example Preußisch Oldendorf.) Therefore, of the three possibilities (keep at Hannoversch Münden, move to Hann. Münden as requested or move to Münden), the third option is the worst one in my opinion. (Although I don't mind a redirect.) --doco (☏) 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more closely equivalent to moving Hannover to Hanover, if we had been unwise enough to accept the German official name for the city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. *sigh* Everything in a nutshell again. The "Hannoversch" in Hannoversch Münden is a proper noun, as I've stated above. The place is called "Hann. Münden" since 1990. In legal documents, by the government, even on the railway signage and motorway exits. The place used to be called "Münden", but that name is rarely used outside the place itself anymore. Therefore, "Hann. Münden" is the legal and de facto name, with the Hann. being a proper noun. There is no English transcription for Münden. Which leaves us with: Hann. Münden. --doco (☏) 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Hannoversch is a proper adjective; I am not arguing for Hanoverian Münden. Perhaps I should have used Nuremberg as my exemplum, but I thought the neighboring town would be clearer. Münden and Munden are widely used in English, and either is, in English, unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC:CITY states: In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used.. Therefore, since Münden is the historical name of the city, not the current one, and since the city does not have a common English name like Hanover or Nuremberg, obviously the current local name needs to be used, which undisputedly is Hann. Münden. --doco (☏) 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a common, almost invariable, English name. See below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A parallel case

This is, in fact, the essential question: Do you think Hanover should be at Hannover?

In that case, local official usage is clearly Hannover and English usage is clearly Hanover. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, "Hannoversch" is a proper noun. Preußisch Oldendorf isn't at Prussian Oldendorf either for the same reason. --doco (☏) 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper adjective. Very well, do you think Nuremberg should be moved to Nürnberg, which is equally certainly the official name? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg has a common English name. Hann. Münden hasn't. --doco (☏) 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That requires proof, which is not presented. Please remember that many local names, like Paris or Berlin, are widely accepted in English. Similarly, the English name of Minden is Minden; fixed by the battle. So here, the statistics indicate that Münden is the English proper name, as in the title of the 1911 Britannica's article on the subject. (This cites Henze: Führer durch Münden und Umwegung (Münden, 1900) so the use of unaccompanied Münden can't be that old, even in German; other book titles suggest it is consistent Wilhelmine usage. Similarly, de:Hann. Münden cites "Helmut Saehrendt: Hannoversch Münden. Wissenswertes aus der Geschichte der Stadt, sehenswertes in der Stadt, Hannoversch Münden 2002. ) The present Britannica's only mention of the place, under Weser River is " Formed near the city of Münden by the union of its two headstreams—the Fulda and the Werra...". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. The 1911 EB reference you cite is too old. See WP:NCGN where it says that sources should only be considered if they were published in 1993 or later (Obviously, this town has had its name changed in 1990, so try and find a reference to "Hann. Münden" in the 1911 EB - you won't!). The second example you cite is in German anyways, so that's irrelevant for this discussion. Here's a bunch of recent English-language published books backing the use of Hann. Münden as the regularly used name: Adventure Guide to Germany, Hunter Publishing Inc., 2005, Singing Sailors, York University (Toronto, Ont.), 2002, Rust Diseases of Willow and Poplar, CABI Publishing, 2005, The Rough Guide to Germany, Gordon McLachlan, 2004. All of these books are verifiable with Google Books, and I could come up with dozens more if I'd invest more than five minutes of research into this. As neither the EB nor Encarta seem to have proper articles about Hann. Münden, I'm afraid you'll have to accept these as reference for the modern(!) usage of the name and give up on insisting to use the archaic name. --doco (☏) 11:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data

Encyclopedias (current; although WP:NCGN specifies 1993 because of the boundary changes in Eastern Europe; how this applies to Hanover is beyond me
- Britannica 5 hits, all Münden
- Columbia: 3 hits, two Hannoversch-Münden; one Münden
- Encarta no hits for this location
Scholarly seaches.
- Scholar.google.com. 161 hits for Münden without Hann.; 136 hits for "Hann. Münden". All of the first page are street addresses, which WP:NCGN says to disregard.
- Books.google.com. This has the problem of limiting to English hits. By including "Hanover" as a likely search term, I get 15 for Hann. Münden, and four of those are still in German; there are 420 for Münden without Hann., Of those 10 include Hannoversch.
Histories and country studies.
- The LC country study for Germany doesn't mention it.
News sources
- Lexis, gives 14 hits; 4 Hann. Münden or Muenden; 3 Hannoversch; 1 Hannoverisches; and 6 plain Münden
- The BBC has one story and it uses Hannoversch Muenden

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above data will show that "Hann. Münden" is used in English as often, relatively, as "Nürnburg" is, and in the same sources; hasty newspaper reports, and guidebooks. We should use English: Nuremburg, Hanover and Münden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall (1980s-early naughts), we native speakers of English in Goettingen, when speaking English, used Hann. Muenden. This is in contrast to, e.g., Munich. I'd say that the town is basically unknown in GB, US, etc. and should have the entry under the German name: Hann. Muenden. Kdammers 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]