Talk:Jäger (military)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While merging all the Jäger(s)/Jaeger(s)/Jager(s) pages I have tried to relink all the military references to this page, regardless of spelling. Thus if spelling is "special" for some unit or unit type you describe here, you may want to call attention to it. — B.Bryant 21:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move: Jäger (military) → Jäger

There is no need for disambiguation in the page title, since all the other kinds of Jägers have different names. The current disambiguation page can be moved Jäger → Jäger (disambiguation)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support [this is my proposal] —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 01:34 Z
  • Oppose – Actually, the company Jäger has the same name (though no page yet), and more Jäger meanings may be added in the future. Moreover, the great variety of spelling variations suggests that people might land at Jäger even for some other meanings that are conventionally spelled differently. — B.Bryant 01:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Actually, the company Jäger has the same name (though no page yet), and more Jäger meanings may be added in the future. Moreover, the great variety of spelling variations suggests that people might land at Jäger even for some other meanings that are conventionally spelled differently. — B.Bryant 01:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • BTW, all those changes I made today were because we had two disambiguation pages and several pages marked "merge" (three, IIRC). In fact, this page was named Jägers, and Jäger was a REDIRECT page to it. Now all the spellings "Jäger(s)/Jaeger(s)/Jager(s)" are REDIRECTs to Jäger, and the only two narrow-topic pages I could find have been relegated to Jäger (military) and Jaeger (bird). If we stick with this plan we won't end up with another big hairball like we had until a few hours ago. — B.Bryant 01:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But don't you think it would be good for one article to own the name?—the other definitions would be a single prominent click away. The bird lives at Skua, since Jaeger is only a subset of them. I think the military term used for a couple hundred years is more prominent and popular than an aquarium equipment company. I guess hunter is the most basic definition, but it seems to be more of a Wiktionary definition. —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 04:55 Z
      • Per the question in your first sentence, no, I don't think articles should own ambiguous names. — B.Bryant 05:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Intuitively, I agree with Bobby Bryant. As a non-native speaker of English, I don't allow myself to have opinions of preference between Jägers and Jäger, nor between Jaeger and Jäger. The only thing of importance is that we don't use the (mis-)spelling Jaeger for them that actually are called Jägers (or Jääkari). /Tuomas 11:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that the word "Jäger" is that it is as overworked in German militray parlance as "hunter" is in English. The word Jäger in German also covers military craft like jäger/(Kämpfer)=fighter, (at least minhunters have the name "Minensuchboot" which is much more precise than the English equivelent). Isn't there a danger that the word Jager (military) ends up as a disambiguation page as well? Why not have just one disambiguation page and a number of diffrent pages for diffrent types of military Jäger? Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Agreeing with PBS's comments above. violet/riga (t) 08:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)