ProjectDiscussionOpen tasksAssessmentFeatured ContentMembersPortal

.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Meßstetten mess

This article is a buildup of text scraps, most of them hardly understandable and not relevant. (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I've made a start by restructuring the article into something more like the normal sequence and adding the section on Geography from German Wikipedia. But it needs a lot more work. Bermicourt (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Italian War of 1521–1526 Featured article review

I have nominated Italian War of 1521–1526 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Italian War of 1521–1526

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Italian War of 1521–1526/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

New article on VW worker organizations

I created Volkswagen worker organizations and would love more eyes/feedback given it’s complex/technical and historic nature. I’ve primarily stuck with English sources, but German sources are likely necessary in some places. The structure of article is modeled after other transnational worker organizations like IBM worker organization, Apple worker organization and Amazon worker organization ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

SS General von Steuben

Hey there! I started a discussion at SS General von Steuben, about the problem of diving to ship wrecks, and whether the article advocates it. Any input would be appreciated! Renerpho (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking up a German court case

Hi, I was wondering if anybody know how to lookup a German court case. I've not been able to make any headway against it at at. The number is Case 8K 5055/94 under judge Kohlheim. It is to verify information regarding German diplomat Rudolf von Scheliha and whether he took any money off of Soviet intelligence for the reports he was providing to them. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 11:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion at talk:Zürich

There’s a discussion about moving Zürich to Zurich of interest to this project—Ermenrich (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The current policy at WP:PLACEDAB specifies that Placename, Germany is the disambiguation standard. I note that many (most?) articles are not currently disambiguated this way, so if there are other considerations that I am not aware of, I invite everyone to join this discussion.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § WP:PLACEDAB and disambiguating by state/province. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Leo-Baeck-Medal#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leo-Baeck-Medal#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


Obscure bibliographer from Pomerania who I stumbled on. I don't read German, but a bunch of the hits in this search result and on Google Books (eg [1]) are in German. Would love some help with finding and reading German-language sources if anyone has time and inclination. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. This is extremely My Thing so I'm embarrassed to have never heard of him (or at least, I'm currently unable to remember knowing anything about him at any point), but I'm somewhat reassured by the ironically extended discussion here [2] on how completely obscure he really is. You weren't kidding! I don't think that Google Books result is very useful for expanding this right now (at a skim, looks like it's mostly interested in how he classified things as part of a larger argument, so it seems a bit undue-weighty, topic-wise, for an article at this size) but I'll put it into External Links for now. Ping me if you think there's likely to be anything especially good in one of those German-language Internet Archive sources? A skim is all I had time for right now and nothing jumped out at me as particularly promising. But it was a really quick skim. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


Hello, guten tag, everyone. I have started this article 2G-Regel. It is largely translated directly from the de wikipedia, using Google Translate, as my German is very basic and rudimentary. Any improvements would be most welcome. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Please consider including the date of birth for Dr Guy Stern in the BIRTHS section of the Wikipedia page identified as 1922 in Germany. Dr. Stern's date of birth is January 14, 1922 as verified/confirmed on his own personal reference Wikipedia page. (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A taskforce for Nazi associations?

I recently find more and more articles in both German and English Wikipedia that either gloss over/completely ignore the Nazi associations that various prominent politicians, business men have for example Parliamentarian Hermann Conring (politician) who was in charge of deportations, or a more nuanced/debated cases like VW CEO Heinrich Nordhoff. Are there guidelines/any potential taskforces to go through such articles systematically? My suspicion is a mixture of lack of English sources, and recent resurgence of examinations of the past contribute to why Wikipedia/sources are only recently analyzing more critically the past deeds. I'm inspired in general by the work User:K.e.coffman has done on counter on wiki Myth of the clean Wehrmacht revisionism ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve had a similar thought about scholars and other Mitläufer, see [3]. I think it’s a good idea.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed this myself. Companies, too - I came across an article on a company whose "history" section involved WWII but completely failed to mention, for example, that the factory had employed slave labourers during the war. I don't think we can blame it on lack of availability of English-language sources, for two reasons: not only is the problem also present on German Wikipedia, but the (biography) pages I've noticed have clearly stated at least something about Nazi associations in their Deutsche Biographie entry. Which shows up in the "authority control" template, so it's not an obscure source that's difficult to locate for an editor who doesn't read German. Not that I'd advocate that editors use sources they can't read, but it's not like "joined the NSDAP in 1932" is going to be ambiguous through Google Translate; you'd at least be tipped off that something is there. As for guidelines or taskforces, I don't know of any. -- asilvering (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll create a task-force later this week and notify people in WP:MILHIST, WP:WikiProject Jewish History, WP:COMPANIES and WP:LABOUR. Would be good to also create a list of what are highest priority companies/individuals etc.. and any guidelines/advice how to spot whitewashing of history ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that's fine as long as we don't give undue emphasis to this issue. Some editors involved in this area are just as hard over in demonising all wartime Germans as the Holocaust deniers are at the other end of the spectrum. And there are sources out there which are just as biased. Hard though it is, we need to find a balance. In the same way that we would not necessarily fuss about every Russian who was a Communist during Soviet times unless we could show that the role was significant in some way. Bermicourt (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Trying to forget about the Nazi past is a common German sin, although a lot of Vergangenheitsbewältigung has taken place, not just looking at Hans Filbinger or Kurt Waldheim. But even things like local commemmoration of concentration camps like Osthofen was controversial in the 1970s, and apparently Nohra still is. I agree about checking what is due and undue, but neutrally mentioning Nazi organisation membership should be fairly uncontroversial, and certainly profiteering from forced labour should be mentioned in company histories. One thing to look out for is companies "founded" in the 1930s, which were often from buying out Jews who were fleeing the country. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we need to keep balanced, @Bermicourt: - I think my recent work at Werner Conze shows basically the sort of neutrality I'm aiming for (particularly for individuals who were important in West Germany after the war). We need to openly discuss Nazi involvement and any attending controversies without ignoring whatever else the biographical subject may have done after the war (or trying to paint post-war actions as bad if that's not the consensus of the sources). I've certainly encountered at least one source that seems more interested in discrediting Conze than in fairly appraising him as a historian, and that appeared to be the view of the Conze article before I started editing it. Simultaneously there are other scholars such as Hermann Aubin where nothing about his Nazi past is mentioned. This is obviously a larger, systemic problem on Wikipedia that needs addressing.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
By having a central place to alert people to possible issues, whether whitewashing or WP:UNDUE I am confident we will find consensus and overall improved articles. A Taskforce category talk could also allow us to keep track of such articles in the long term even if it’s undue to include something in the content space about membership in the NSDAP people etc ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm wondering about how to handle taskforce Talk page templating and if that itself wouldn't be undue in some cases. Maybe that's jumping a bit ahead of things and I shouldn't worry. I'm just remembering everyone in Anglophone news going "omg! The new pope was in the Hitler Youth!!" like that meant anything at all. (Yes, of course he was. It was legally required.) Obviously that's a deliberately over-the-top example of context collapse, but if this hypothetical task force is going to be flagging articles for improvement, presumably some articles will stick around for a while with no reference to their subject's Nazi-associated history while they wait for someone to come by and fix them, and anything that makes that visible to someone who isn't familiar with the aims/context of this task force (a non-Wikipedian reader, an editor who doesn't normally read history articles, etc) could have some unintended effects. -- asilvering (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Asilvering agreed with the concern, which is why Article/mainspace categories would be inappropriate, whereas even now...anyone with a massive COI can slap a Wikiproject template/ask any questions. Of course they can be removed if excessively bad faith. But having a template slapped on the pope's talk page and making sure it's due weight, would be preferable to subtle insertions that go undetected for a long time. Any such tag should reflect that, e.g. 'Taskforce:Possible Nazi associations' may be more neutral than 'Taskforce:Nazi Associations' etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I created the task force Wikipedia:Nazi affiliation Task Force . We can worry about categorization later, but first let's see if there's interest from participants signing up and also examples of topics people would like to improve. I included mainly IBM/VW related ones and some known examples. I will alert the other WikiProjects and also see if we can get a mention in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding lead image on Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in this article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from this project's members. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion. Thank you! —AFreshStart (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Prehn. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

More generally, please watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany to hear about all AfDs in the scope of this project. —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to German resistance

Could you help to fix the links to German resistance shown at Disambig fix list for German resistance? Widerstand was recently change from a redirect to German resistance to Nazism to German resistance, which has created around 100 links to the disambiguation page. This is unhelpful to readers and I do not have the knowledge to correct the links.— Rod talk 15:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - this issue seems to have been resolved.— Rod talk 09:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about article "West Low German"

An editor has requested for West Low German to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with West Low German, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). --Heanor (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about merger Greater Region into Greater Region of SaarLorLux

An editor has requested for Greater Region to be merged into Greater Region of SaarLorLux. Since you had some involvement with Greater Region or Greater Region of SaarLorLux, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). --Heanor (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Merging Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II

An editor has requested for Recovered Territories to be merged into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Since you had some involvement with Recovered Territories or Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so).

Further input is requested from all interested WikiProjects to facilitate reaching consensus. Felix QW (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


Hello, I recently created a draft for Mahnmal. I need some help finding source material in German as the German Wikipedia article has none. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting GAN review

If anyone from this project is interested, First homosexual movement is waiting for a GAN review. It's an interesting topic and I hope to get it to FAC soon. (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with AfC Review

Draft:David+Martin has been sitting at AfC for a while. It is promotional in tone but I think the main reason it is sitting is because the majority of references (in the draft and online) are in German. Can anyone help by taking a look and letting me know if the references cited would meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41 The bar for AfC isn't "is an ironclad AfD pass" but more "isn't an obvious AfD fail", right? By that metric it looks fine to me, but I've seen people apply WP:NCORP in ways that seem very strange to me, so I don't want to come off as too certain. I checked refs 1, 3, 4, 19, and all are substantial coverage, not simply interviews, and independent. At that point I stopped checking, so the others might be fine too. But do you have any idea what the paid editing disclosure on the creator's userpage means? I don't get it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Asilvering:, first of all thanks for looking at the draft. For AfC, the standard currently used is that the draft would more than likely pass at AfD. Of course, if something is overly promotional or needs a ton of cleanup then it is often rejected as well. For WP:NCORP, the interpretations are sometimes all over the place; however, one constant is that references showing notability must meet WP:ORGCRIT. As such, I am going to move this to the mainspace. Based on your comments, it would more than likely pass AfD based on reference meeting WP:ORGCRIT. There is always the deletion discussion route for those who disagree. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
As far as the disclosure, it is kind of strange as I don't under who actually hired them. Being the page is promo in tone, I tagged it as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)