Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Prussia/Standesamter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm not convinced that the office location needs to be in the first line, but let's discuss it. Are you thinking that the link in the table isn't prominant enough for users that might want to jump to the town article? I want to leave the top line fairly generic to make generating the hundreds of Standesamt articles easier. And the line introduces the table, but could be made into two sentences. It must be such, that it is clear to the reader that these articles are about the district. I've considered putting town links at the bottom of the article, as their will be some for External Links. The reader would have less confusion. These could display the Polish name and it would be more evident that they would take the reader to the main town article. I imagine that most readers who are browsing this far into the Historical States hierarchy are going to be those who have a personal connection (ancesty). The links to the town articles should have some indication that they are leaving the Historical States system.

This might be a good opportunity to decide how to handle the situation where there were two offices (urban and rural). I don't see any need to give each of them their own article. In fact, I'm not convinced that the offices even kept separate record books, or separate physical offices.Bwood 22:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, since this seems to be the most developed part of the project I'll put my arguments here. Please feel free to move my remarks to anywhere you find it suitable.

The whole project, although still in development stage, has got many serious flaws and disadvantages. The most important are:

  • Lack of any reference to the actual towns. You could call the cities with their German names as per Talk:Gdansk naming compromise, but lack of any link is a major mistake. After all if we make an article about some unit of administrative division there must be a link to the town. I can hardly imagine a page on New York without any links to the city of New York. Halibutt
The only reason there is a lack of linkages is due to incompleteness. Please note that the Standesamt Kolmar article includes a table of communtities and that the town of Kolmar is linked to the Chodziez article. Since there are only a few Standesamt articles started, I believe this and Schneidemuhl are the only ones where a link to the "outside of project" world has been made so far, but as I've said many times, this is precisely where those links should be.
Fine. Hope you'll insert them as soon as possible. Halibutt
  • The German census of 1895 was done in the peak of the Kulturkampf. As such it can hardly be called a reliable cource and should be used as such. A note should be added that the data is disputed (to say the least).Halibutt
Well we did that in the province article, so we can continue that in the rest. Bwood 08:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about a general disclaimer at the top of all pages? For instance a link to a page on 1895 census with explanation on what's wrong with it and why? Halibutt 08:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Not at the top of the pages, that's out of proportion. Below the table is more appropropriate, something like: "Population data may be biased" with the whole thing a link to the explanation. Also note, that I've switched to confession data, not the ethnic popluations, as the 1895 gazetteer doesn't have ethnic data. The 1905 gazetteer does, but I don't have that resource in an easily usable format. Bwood 09:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The disclaimer is nice. I'll work on the German census of 1895 article a little. However, I still believe that such a disclaimer should be more visible. It should be similar to the factual dispute disclaimer. After all the data in the tables are the backbone of all the series and it is disputed. However, I don't want to place an info that the whole article is disputed, just the table, so how about placing the info above the table? Halibutt 13:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I feel it is making much out of very little, but we come from different viewpoints. Can we wait until you've presented some arguements in the census article? In most reference articles, the disclaimers are footnotes, not banners. Even if the population data in the table can be questioned, it is probably the least important data in the table. Bwood 23:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, you put the disclaimer explaining the whole Kreise thing on top so putting a disclaimer that the data used is most probably false wouldn't be a problem. Halibutt 08:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not too happy with the Kreise banner text, it was supposed to just explain what a Kreis was. Most of that should go below, it's too much and out of place. Bwood 23:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about moving it to footnotes together with a footnote on the census? Halibutt 06:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Although the usage of German names when referring to the period when the German was the only official language on those areas is acceptable (Talk:Gdansk...), there should be links to the actual places. Netze should be linked to Noteć and so on. Halibutt
Absolutely. This is the same as the community issue, as far as I'm concerned. Like a community, a river is timeless, we don't need separate articles about it for different periods of political history. Within the context of these articles, the contemporary (circa 1870) "official" name should be used, other names in common usage added, and it should link to the general article. Bwood 08:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Contemporary official names? That is which ones? Halibutt 08:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
The official names for the time basis as defined in this project (1905). Bwood 09:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've heard of official names for towns and villages, but never heard of a river naming commission... But let it be, it's not a big problem as long as the links lead to where they should. Halibutt 13:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


At first thought, I'd have to disagree. There certainly must be changes to some townships (a rough US equivelant to the Standeamt area) during the last 125 years. And these articles are not about the present, so it would require an assumption about changes, unless an author has recent information. Further, it's already too easy to misunderstand that these articles are not general, that they deal only with a specific period of time. Bwood 08:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So those bad Poles levelled the hills, drank all the water from the lakes and redirected the rivers? Come on, there are things that did not change and I can assure you that the landscape is one of those. Halibutt 08:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Please don't be sarcastic, the main changes are in forestation and urbanization. In comparing old and new maps, there are often fairly severe changes in forestation, and around the larger towns and cities, whole districts that belonged to the rural office are now completely urban. Further, the town articles don't describe the rural areas around the towns, so this often be the only place that does. Bwood 09:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course there were changes in the landscape of the area in last 100 years. However, the changes were not as severe as to say that the area was hilly and forrested. The area still is hilly and forrested. Perhaps the forrestation is not as immense as it used to be, but suggesting that there are no forests at all is a mistake. Halibutt 13:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
In this particular example, you're probably correct. But the issue is which tense to use for all articles, and the articles are about historical conditions, whether they still exist doesn't really matter to the content of these articles. Past tense is appropriate, and helps to clarify that these articles are limited to the scope of the late 1800s timeframe.
But the landscape is not a historical condition. Halibutt 08:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
It is at least in the former Stadesamter of Bromberg, Posen and I'm sure Schneidemuhl. I'll bet very little of that landescape is unchanged. Bwood 23:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're wrong then. Greater Poland did not suffer from heavy industrialization since this happened before the commies came. Certainly, the overall area of forrests is probably smaller, but the hills, lakes, meadows and forrests are still there. Halibutt 06:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Also, does it make any sense to create a separate section on the town history, geography and such when those topics are already covered by the proper articles (see Chodzież and City Council Kolmar for reference). Halibutt
Complete duplication isn't necessary. The detail should be in the general community article. Note that in the most complete Standesamt article so far (Kolmar), that there are only three short paragraphs that describe the area primarily, geographically and industrially. Some places had ceramics, others made cigars, others had major distilleries with narrow gauge railroad spurs. All that needs to be here is an overview, noting the character and uniqueness of the area, which may or may not be covered in detail in the general communities articles. BTW, "City Council Kolmar" is not equivalent to the Standesamt Kolmar. They had no jurisdiction over the residents of Pietronke. They may have such jurisdiction now, but these articles are about the 1800s Bwood 08:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
IMO the only historical detail in all the Standesamter articles should be on how the building was looking like and perhaps its' address. The rest belongs to the proper articles on cities and their history. Halibutt 08:21, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Forgive my frustration, but I've argued this so many times... These articles are not about the buildings nor the offices, they are about the district administered by the offices. Bwood 09:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then why did you name the whole series after the buildings and not the areas? Why Standesamt Schneidemühl and not Schneidemühl district, Schneidemühl area or [[Schneidemühl commune? The name suggests that the article is about a building, just like Schneidemühl theatre, Schneidemühl laundry or Schneidemühl Bierstube. If I were you I'd reconsider the naming since it is misleading and (as the VfD discussion has shown) leads to many misunderstandings.
None of the alternate names you list are anywhere close to the purpose and scope of these articles. The only alternate would be something like Standesamt district of Schneidemühl, and perhaps that would have been better, but it is awkward.
So why won't we use an English name Schneidemühl administrative district or Administration of Schneidemühl? New York Town Hall, Ratusz warszawski, Prazska staromestska radnice and London Town Hall should be articles about the buildings, not on New York, County of Warsaw, Prague district or City of London, respectively. If the article is about the district, then the name should reflect this. Halibutt 08:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently I underestimated the ability of others to nitpik. There are many times in common speech where we use a shortened form and everyone understands the meaning. How much work would it be to rename them now? I'll do it if it will let me get on with creating, instead of defending. Again, the only accurate version would have to have both "Standesamt" and "district" in it (XXX Standesamt district) or (Standesamt district of XXX). I can think of a few reasons to choose the latter. Bwood 23:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Would be much, much better, thanks a lot. Halibutt 06:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
Also, I still do not understand why do we need to double the history section in various articles. Halibutt 13:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
I thought we already covered this, but any history contained in the Standesamt articles should contain little duplication, only what is appropriate. For example, the historical events particular to that district, especially if they wouldn't be included in any of the town articles. But even if the town articles do contain the info, there is no problem with some duplication. Articles with different scopes can duplicate. The cholera epidemic of 1870 can be described in the articles Cholera and London and England and Disease etc. The history material, the physical descriptions, etc are secondary to the hierarchical organization of the articles within the Historical States framework. The main usage is to display the organization (in this case, of the Prussian administration of the late 1800s) in a series of linked tables. Bwood 23:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course, you are right. However, there is much more info in there than there should be. Also, your reluctantcy to link the articles to their cities prevents us from adding a For more information on the areas history see: Chodzież disclaimer. Or am I wrong? Halibutt 08:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
Very wrong, I very much want to link to the town articles here, and I hope more town articles are created to link to. But it's critical to make clear that they are outside the historical states system. So some explanatory text with the links is probably necessary. Perhaps a taxobox just below the table? Or as a sidebar in the upper right? I'll bet that would make us both happy. It would give you the prominence, and me the separation. I've dummied up a rough start on the Schneidemuhl article. Bwood 23:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Splendid sidebar, that's what the series really lacked! Cheers. Halibutt 06:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Germany-hist-stub

Should this project become active once more, please use {Germany-hist-stub} rather than {Germany-stub} to makk your stubs now that the more specific stub exists. Caerwine 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Prussia_Standesamter_06ea.html"