Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 23 January 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanover article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Template:Vital article

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: No consensus, 27 April 2021, from Hanover to Hannover, see discussion.

Simple Easy Naming Convention

Why cannot wikipedia have a simple easy naming convention? For example: We use the name NOW used by the residents of the place (city in this case of Hannover) in an official capacity. And then put redirects for all other variants. In the article we can explain the historical name uses. SO Tallinn, Danzig, Tannenberg and Sankt-Peterburg can all be rendered into wikipedia for those wanting to find them without too much trouble. I could then find Napoli, Gdansk and Azincourt, if I want to search for them. Or any of the Greenlandic places, that recently changed their official names from Danish to Inuit names, with either of the names used historically, or in future literature like newspapers.

Where places have official names in ENGLISH (as designated by the place; so Tampere Region - ENGLISH DESIGNATED NAME, AND Pirkanmaa -FINNISH DESIGNATED NAME) we use the English name. Even though, as in the Pirkanmaa / Tampere Region case, no-one I know actually uses the "English" name, it is still the official one re English thus we use it here in wikipedia.

As we have an English name or official name its easy, and we can use it in the English wikipedia. Where they don't we can use the majority language AND minority languages with redirects. SO in Tampere and Helsinki we use the finnish, but if we want to search for the Swedish names of Tammerfors and Helsingfors it gets redirected. Where there truly is more than one official language, we can use the name that appears first on any official page: precedence being given to local council, then national decisions so Nantes rather than Naoned. EVEN IF I BELIEVE IN Breton rights, the official, national and local council is french controlled and they use the french name in precedence so we follow that. 84.231.182.113 (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)MARKUS84.231.182.113 (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A possible reason why your suggestion is not followed is that in English many of the typographical characters, accents, etc., used in German, French, etc, such as umlauts, etc., are not available in the standard English typographical set. Thus there is no way of spelling the words correctly if using an English keyboard.

The reason in many cases why the spelling in English is different from the native language is because the two languages have different pronunciation rules, and so if spelt the same the English pronunciation would be even less like the correct native one, e.g., Cologne vs 'Köln' - there is no way of working out the correct pronunciation of the latter using English rules of pronunciation. As for languages like Polish and Russian then things get even more difficult.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does have a "simple, easy naming convention". It is "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". Try to get your mind around that! METRANGOLO1 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages has a "simple, easy naming convention". It is "use the version of the name of the subject which the fat, racist buffoon BoJo is able to pronounce". Therefore, all places in Europe have now been renamed into Bulla, Wulla, Hulla and Hoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E2:370E:6F88:C5BC:57E0:F1E7:3DDB (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Those supporting have not been able to provide compelling evidence that the spelling "Hannover" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources, as noted by opposers. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hanover → Hannover – Seems to be by far the more common name now, Hannover with the double n has more than 50 million more hits on Google than Hanover. Kiev was moved to Kyiv despite still having less hits on Google AND on Ngram so what good reason is there to not move Hanover to Hannover? PaleoMatt (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Please make sure you limit your Google hits to English results. At the very least, Google Ngram viewer suggests that Hanover remains the the dominant spelling. To clarify, I inputted 'city of Hanover/Hannover' rather than just 'Hanover/Hannover' to filter out stuff about the kingdom, &c. I also oppose the move per WP:TITLECHANGES, as I don't see any benefit whatsoever to moving between two very similar spellings, especially from a long-established English spelling to a German one that is relatively rarely used in English. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That Ngram of Gbooks ends in 2014 and will include history books. BBC News current practice about the modern city is a far more reliable source than that old Gbooks Ngram. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support BBC now use the German spelling for the modern city rather the old English spelling. Difficult to sift out other English Hanovers from results, but BBC stylebook has clearly shifted to Hannover. Evening Standard, LBC, Guardian, Telegraph seem to have made the same shift. As far as I can see BBC appears to have made the change sometime between 2010 and 2014. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I always clash in articles such as Staatsoper Hannover, Hannover Airport, and many more that would look more consistent without the difference by one letter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It makes sense to use the modern spelling for the modern city, just like many news agencies (the BBC has been mentioned) and encyclopaedias (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica) do. --Fippe (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I will have to say the following: 'Hannover' is not the modern spelling, but the German spelling. You should be aware of this, since you are a native German speaker. There is nothing 'non-modern' about the spelling 'Hanover'. As I have presented above and below, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of English sources, whether books or news sources, seem to refer to 'Hanover'. Even if this is disproved by some data that has yet to be presented, we can say with certainty that the spelling used by CNN, by The New York Times, by Reuters, is indeed perfectly 'modern'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support with that strange Kiev move in mind I see no reason to not move Hanover. --Denniss (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – No one seems to be putting actual data on the table in this discussion. It'd be nice if we had such data, rather than mere claims. I have found that Reuters uses 'Hanover'. So too do The Daily Mail, The New York Times,Deutsche Welle, Bloomberg, Voice of America, Slate, and CNN. This was a cursory search, and not conclusive. When I have time, I will consider looking for more. At the moment, though, I basically see a bunch of supports with nothing backing them up, other than mere emotion. I won't be surprised if the opinion of the supporters is passed merely on this basis, but this is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. There is, at present, no evidence of a broad and universal shift to 'Hannover' in RS, as there was in the case of Kyiv. RGloucester — ☎ 00:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That Reuters article is from January, this Reuters article is from March and uses Hannover. That Daily Mail article is from last year, this Daily Mail article is from today and uses Hannover. That Deutsche Welle article is from 2017, this Deutsche Welle article is from 2020 and uses Hannover. That Voice of America article is from 2019, this Voice of America article is from 2020 and uses Hannover. That Bloomberg article is from 2020, this Bloomberg article is from 2021 and uses Hannover.

Your comment diagnosing everyone who doesn't agree with you as emotional is weird. I don't know if you did not read the discussion or if you are attempting WP:GASLIGHTING, but hard sources have been cited before you made that comment. In case you require links: Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Encyclopaedia Britannica --Fippe (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude. No hard evidence was provided, at least none that was verifiable. Mere claims without links to back them up are not sufficient grounds to move an article, or do Misplaced Pages articles that lack citations get treated as acceptable?. In any case, I can easily challenge you with additional, more recent sources. Daily Mail 27 April 2021, The Guardian 26 April 2021 (newer than your Guardian link), Reuters 26 March 2021 (newer than your Reuters link), 29 April 2021 Los Angeles Times, Deutsches Welle 1 May 2021 (newer than your DW link), Financial Times 31 March 2021, The Daily Telegraph 30 April 2021, 3 February 2021 Sky News, 20 April 2021 BBC, The New York Times 19 April 2021.

I hope these are 'recent' enough for you, and as you might notice, the same sources are often inconsistent in their usage. If sources are split, then there certainly are no grounds for a move per WP:TITLECHANGES, as there is no benefit to moving between two potentially acceptable titles. Not to mention, I'd argue that if we consider academic sources, as seen in the Ngram, Hanover retains are healthy lead, as it has a historical advantage that 'Hannover' cannot easily overcome. There has been, as we see here, no immediate mass shift to 'Hannover' as there was to 'Kyiv'. Hanover was used in throughout the past couple of weeks and days, in a wide variety of the most reputable news sources on the planet. Furthermore, 'Hanover' remains more recognisable and natural than 'Hannover' simply because of its historical advantage, and again, in a situation where news usage is all over the place, there is simply no benefit to a page move at this time. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: After i see all arguments about whether the city should be spelt as Hanover or Hannover, the usage in English-speaking publications are more divided because there is no official authority of correct spelling of place in English. If you see Nippon/Deutschland/Zhongguo, etc. English speakers are very easy to identify their name in English as "Japan", "Germany", "Greece", but the German city is a special case. English-speakers have a different directions about how to pronounce or spelt the correct name in Hanover/Hannover because there are influx of German words or German diaspora. One source like Reuters, CNN, Daily Mail, i believe use the original "Hanover" spelling but BBC, 9 News, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and German official websites in English like Hanover official website use more "modern" Hannover.180.244.190.119 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  You make me smile because the German official site in English is - of course - https://www.hannover.de/en - of Hannover, not Hanover. - In case of doubt of how to call something, be it a person, a city, a composition: why not call it the way the thing is identified originally? We had A Boy was Born, and I learned that Misplaced Pages formatting has to be respected more than how the composer called his creation. I think something basic is wrong in that argument, and if I had more time, would perhaps challenge Commonname, as leading to strange results. Per Commonname, we moved a composer, just because someone usurped his name and got also famous under the "stolen" name taken from the other who was the primary topic until the move. End of listing disappointments. I studied in Hannover, not in Hanover, so am biased, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, I actually agree with you in that I do not like COMMONNAME as a policy, and think it gives us many bad article titles. However, in as much as it is a longstanding policy, which consensus has not yet modified or overturned, we need to follow it in line with the usual Misplaced Pages way of business. We don't use official names, unlike for instance, the Japanese Misplaced Pages, which always prefers official names. We use common names...you know this! And in this case, if we follow Misplaced Pages policies, there is literally no way anyone can come to the conclusion that 'Hannover' is the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 12:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Project Opera follows The Grove, more or less. I like to see Hannover in the Encyclopedia Britannica. What's common and less common is subject to fashion, but some encyclopedias (should) have a bit more weight than other sources, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica is at present no different from Misplaced Pages, in that users can basically edit it in Wiki form. It has long ceased to have the sort of gold standard reliability that it was once known for, unfortunately. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester. The balance of the concrete evidence tips towards "Hanover" being the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Rublov (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester and Rublov. I believe the issue is more like debate about "Ganges" vs "Ganga" debate (see the talk page), when English-speakers differ each other about the naming convention. The difference is no preferrable English spelling on Hanover vs Hannover issue. 182.1.22.204 (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the usage in reliable sources demonstrated by RGloucester. I don't find the Kyiv/Kiev comparison particularly compelling, because that involved substituting one transliteration for another. -- Calidum 15:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per In ictu oculi with regards to usage by sources. feminist (+) 17:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per consistency with yogurt - that is, once the page is moved, there will be no reason to move it back here Red Slash 21:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of blog as source

Seeking to verify that the Old Town Flea Market (Altstadt Flohmarkt am hohen Ufer) is really the oldest in Germany, I picked two citations. The second is a blog (here), but as it is supplemental, and the blogger credibly professes to be familiar with the city since childhood, I kept it. The primary cite is a news photo of what purports to be the market's 50th anniversary. (We're not dealing with ancient history here.) A more substantial source would be welcome. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hanover universities

Among the universities listed, I would like to draw attention to the oldest German veterinary university. Founded in the 18th century, it is today the most important in germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_Veterinary_Medicine_Hannover ~ genom-x 2001:9E8:6D7D:7300:F87C:12A6:61CF:B825 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Top-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages