Talk:RLM aircraft designation system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Debate over pages title

This is an English language encyclopaedia. "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" is not an English word, nor is it a German proper noun. This article should be redirected to German Air Ministry aircraft designation system. I will do so if no-one else does. Adam 06:24, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is, however, the formal name of the agency which produced this particular naming system (which is why it is also preferable to RLM aircraft designation system).
Reichsluftfahrtministerium is as much a proper noun (denotes a unique entity) as the British Air Ministry and the United States Department of Defence. No other agency had the name prior to 1933, and I doubt if any will ever again! Even if you believe that it is not a proper noun, it has to be preferable to an invented proper noun ("German Air Ministry")
"Herman Goering" is a proper noun. "Wilhelmstrasse" is a proper noun. "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" is a common noun. Adam 08:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reichsluftfahrtministerium is a proper noun by any definition you'd care to cite. Not a very imaginitive name, granted, but that's not a prerequisite for proper noun status. I note that you've avoided trying to defend why "Air Ministry" or "United States Department of Defence" should be given this status and Reichsluftfahrtministerium not be. Note that neither of those names are terribly creative either. --Rlandmann 00:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In any case, "German Air Ministry" neither translates the name properly, nor does it distinguish this list from designation systems used by German air ministries before or after the Nazi era, for example, the Idflieg aircraft designation system.
Of course German Air Ministry is not an exact translation of Reichsluftfahrtministerium. But it is more informative than "National Air Ministry" or "State Air Ministry" which are more exact translations. "Air Ministry" is the standard translation in WW2 histories. Reich is a difficult word to translate: I would settle for Reich Air Ministry since Reich is a widely used word in English with reference to the Nazi period
Let's not forget - it's a term you simply coined, not one that people are actually going to be searching for. I'm glad that you say you will "settle" for something more descriptive and accurate. "Reich Aviation Ministry" would be better still. Note that if the Nazis had wanted to call it the "State Air Ministry" or "German Air Ministry", the German language can accommodate either of these options, but those were not the options they chose. In publications on WW2 military aviation, "Air Ministry" generally refers to the British Air Ministry. Even the most general work in English, William Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich" uses Reichsluftfahrtministerium and RLM. --Rlandmann 00:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Finally, the term Reichsluftfahrtministerium and its abbreviation, RLM, are (like Luftwaffe!) very liberally used in English publications and websites dealing with this era of German aviation.
Rubbish. I have been reading Nazi German history for 30 years and I have never seen the word before. Only readers of specialist literature on German aviation would have seen it. It is not a suitable word for an article title in an English-language encyclopaedia. Adam 08:09, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to inject into the middle here, but:

Adam, if this statement is true, then I should say that you need to back out of this thread entirely. Considering that it appears that you haven't written even a single article on aircraft, let alone German ones, I'm at a loss as to understand why you even have an opinion on this matter at all.

Anyone who admits to having never heard the term 'RLM' would appear to be in a very bad place to sway the conversation toward their view. I've been reading the same sort of literature for 20 years, and I've run across it perhaps 1000 times (not something I'm pulling out of a hat: 2 books a year, 25 mentions, 20 years).

'RLM germany' returns over 5000 hits, 'Reichsluftfahrtministerium' 1500. 'German Air Ministry' returns less than 500, and at least 95% of those have the term 'Reichsluftfahrtministerium' appearing in the same sentence. So I have to disagree with the whole concept of your post as well -- this IS what people will be looking for.

Considering that I've actually written the majority of the articles in question (the fleshed out ones at least), I'm afraid I'm going to have to trump you on this issue.

Maury 13:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just because my experience differs from yours, I don't appreciate my opinion being dismissed as "rubbish". I have seen this word in general, non-specialist use, and still feel that it is appropriate here. (revised: --Rlandmann 00:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC))
Unless there are any compelling rebuttals over the next few days, I'm moving it back. --Rlandmann 03:45, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The compelling argument is the one I gave at the start: this is an English language encyclopaedia and "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" is not an English word. It must be translated to be used an article title since it is completely incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't read German.
Wikipedia naming policy says:
Use English words
Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) Adam 12:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Heh. You're not the only one who can selectively cut-and-paste quotes, you know. From further down the same page:
Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in "Torino" even though most English texts still call the city "Turin". However newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world never do this and still say Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. However, whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).
This same trend can be seen in the aviation press.
My rationale for moving the page back from RLM aircraft designation system as suggested by Greyengine5 was based on:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)
Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples)....
Many acronyms are used for several things, especially the three letter ones. Naming your article with the full name helps to avoid clashes.
--Rlandmann 00:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with Adam here; such a term should be translated. Of course, once defined in the article, it can be used in the article if necessary, but it should not be in the title. A better, more accurate translation could possibly be done, of course.
Some German words don't need translation because they're frequently used in English, such as 'Luftwaffe' and 'Reich', but this isn't one. —Morven 11:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's simply not consistent with what my bookshelf tells me. Turning now to the internet, excluding the word wikipedia and limiting language to English, Googling Reichsluftfahrtministerium returns 233 hits on the web (some in apparently quite casual usage amongst us "wingnuts"). Searching on the words "RLM" and "Luftwaffe" together (to exclude other uses of RLM...) under the same conditions (only English, no wikipedia) returns 2,330 hits on the web and 880 on Usenet. --Rlandmann 00:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking of writing an article on the Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz. Adam 11:37, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Now see if you can move that to the English title! --Wik 12:51, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
I don't need to, because the article you have written is not about the law itself, but about the phenomenon of extremely long German words, therefore the German title is legitimate (although there ought to be a translation on the opening paragraph). I would probably incorporate it into an article on Extremely long German words or (if I was feeling more pretentious) Logopoesis in German. Adam 13:31, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RLM seems to show more often then the spelled out version, aside from all the entries that are linked to wiki, on google. Its pretty much only found on german pages or when somones explaining what RLM stands for. RLM-GL/C would be ok since thats what the RLM used in paper work to describe the list anyway. RLM seems to be bit tidier and more common, although if it must be in 'english' then at a bare minimum a direct translation should be used, not the unclear "invented" one. Really it not so important since all the redirects will feed into this page either way. Greyengine5 07:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that it's far more common. I guess the two factors to weigh here are the commonness of the acronym vs the general desirability of spelling out names in full in article titles. Going on the Google figures I posted above, I'm starting to lean more in your direction. --Rlandmann 01:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In response to all of Rlandmann's points above. I am of course not an expert on German aviation history. I am however a general modern historian who has read extensively on WW2 and the Nazi period, including at least two biographies of Goering, Adolf Galland's memoirs and several other related works. I repeat that I have never seen the word Reichsluftfahrtministerium or the acronym RLM, amd if I haven't seen it, it's a fair bet that very few other non-specialists will have either.

Regardless of what you may or may not have read, over 2,000 web pages show that the acronym RLM is found in English usage. Over 200 even spell out the whole name. I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" in this area either, merely an enthusiast - but I'm quite certain that I've even seen the name Reichsluftfahrtministerium spelled out on the instruction sheets of plastic model kits. I'll have a rifle through my stash later and see if I can produce a cite for you :) --Rlandmann 11:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have however seen many references to "Goering's Air Ministry" etc, and I maintain that Air Ministry is the standard English term, and the one most readers will recognise.

The fact that you have seen "many references to "Goering's Air Ministry" etc" just demonstrates that there is no one standard way of referring to this particular organisation in English - and therefore that any attempted translation will be a purely arbitrary one. --Rlandmann 11:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is for general readers, not specialists. As I said, I am willing to settle for Reich Air Ministry, or Reich Aviation Ministry if you prefer.

Plenty of titles on esoteric topics are not very informative to the average English-speaking reader. Substitute Reichsluftfahrtministerium for any of a hundred specialised scientific, linguistic, medical, mathematical or computing terms and you will draw the same blank look from the person on the street. But then, this is not a term, is it? You and I both know that it's a name.
On that subject, I find it interesting that you apparently still will not concede that Reichsluftfahrtministerium is a proper noun - yet when you yourself translated it, you capitalised German Air Ministry as if it were. You've now also twice failed to address my question as to why Air Ministry and United States Department of Defence are to be considered proper nouns and Reichsluftfahrtministerium is not to be. But then, of course, if you were to admit that it is in fact a proper noun, then you would also have to admit that there is a much stronger case for rendering the title of the article in the original language. Or will I see you moving one of those articles to Defence ministry of the United States sometime soon? Didn't think so... --Rlandmann 11:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, the analogy with "Torino" and other place names is not relevant. Place names can be given in "foreign" forms if they are recognisable to general readers, as "Torino" is as an alternative to "Turin". But we do not call Egypt "al-Misr", because English-speakers would not recognise that name. I repeat my fundamental point that "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" is incomprehensible as a title for an article in an English-language encyclopaedia. Adam 01:32, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since you seem to admit that aviation history is outside your area, I don't think that you are in a position to say whether the Turin/Torino analogy is relevant or not. Even quite general texts on Luftwaffe aircraft use this term. Chances are, anyone interested in Luftwaffe aircraft is going to meet this term before long; and if they haven't already, this is as good a place as any. Finally, if they're not interested in Luftwaffe aircraft, I doubt they'll be looking up the RLM. --Rlandmann 11:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rlandmann's arrogant and patronising tone provides the real explanation for what is going on here. He has an area of specialist interest, and is contemptuous of anyone who doesn't have his level of knowledge about it.

I have had no intention of coming across as arrogant and patronising. If you tell me what you have found objectionable in my comments, I will be very happy to reword or remove them as necessary.
I am disappointed and hurt at the suggestion that the only reason that someone could hold an opinion different from yours is because of some defect of personality. I would appreciate it if you would remove this remark from this discussion and instead address the specifics of our differences. --Rlandmann 23:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since I am not an expert on German aviation history, he says, I have no right to comment.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: all I said was that if you're unfamiliar with aviation literature, you're not qualified to comment on whether or not there is a tendency in that literature to use the original German name as opposed to one of a wide variety of possible translations. I never said that you had no right to comment on this topic as a whole. --Rlandmann 23:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well I have news for him.

I find this tone condescending and hurtful. --Rlandmann 23:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a perfect right to comment, and the fact that I am not an expert gives me even more right to comment, because the function of an encyclopaedia is to convey information to those who do not possess it.

I again point out that there are thousands of webpages in English using the terms RLM and/or Reichsluftfahrtministerium, and a large number of non specialist books in English that use them as well. I believe that the readers of such resources in English have a reasonable expectation to find this name here. --Rlandmann 23:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Giving articles obscure titles in foreign languages makes this more difficult, which is why Wikipedia has a policy requiring English-language titles.

My reading of the policy tells me that it's a gross oversimplification to simply say that "Wikipedia has a policy requiring English-language titles". That general policy is subject to quite a number of qualifications, amongst which are whether this term is frequently found in English (it is - as the statistics provided by Maury and me show), whether the word is a proper noun (it is - it refers to a unique entity), and whether there is a generally accepted way of rendering the name/term in English (there is not - there are a plethora of possibilities, but no standard). --Rlandmann 23:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how I can put this more simply, and I don't propose arguing further with Rlandmann about it.

I feel frustrated because to me, it seems that you've hardly argued at all - to me it looks like you've simply stated your opinions as facts and never actually discussed the specifics of our differences, such as why:
You maintain that Reichsluftministerium is not entitled to be treated as a proper noun when (a) you yourself translate it as if it is and (b) the names of equivalent organisations within other governments are treated as if they are.
You maintain that only "specialists" or "experts" can have ever encountered this word in English, when thousands of web pages, books one can expect to find on the shelf of a public library, and even the instruction sheets of plastic model kits one can find in toyshops demonstrate that this is not the case.
You maintain that this word is simply too obscure or too difficult for an general English-speaking audience when specialist terms in other disciplines are not.
--Rlandmann 23:20, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If he changes the article titles back to the German forms I will revert his changes and then refer the issue to Disputes Between Users. Adam 01:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question about gliders

Any informantion on whether transport gliders received 108- or 8- prefixes would be very usefull. Currently its unclear which was used. Greyengine5 23:36, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The standard reference work for German aircraft types of this period is Heinz Nowarra's Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945. On p 21, he gives the DFS 230 and Me 321 as 8-230 and 8-321 respectively. --Rlandmann 03:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of page breakup

  • (Put blurb on naming bit to) Yea the page has gotten too large. I recommend breaking it into RLM aircraft designation system] (with the explanation), RLM aircraft list by manufacturer (esentialy the bottom part of the page), and RLM-GL/C aircraft list with the table. (nice table btw) As for any carryover of the naming controvery extending to the breakup- I of course stick with my original choice 'RLM'. My secondary vote is for 'Reich Avation Ministry'. I think the full german name is a little rough for english speakers and 'German Air Ministry' is not a accurate enough translation and is not in common enough use. RLM-GL/C is the definative name for the actual list of aircraft so I wouldn't like to see the table under a different name, unless its required to fit into the decided upon naming heirarchy. Unless 'german a...' name fits into a set off govermental beruacracy naming rules, i.e. (Country)(area of orginization)(beuracry designation), then I think its superceded by aircraft naming beuracry rules, which is to use country of orginizations names and acronyms. Greyengine5 20:38, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • What I'm proposing is this: I want to turn the current page into an explanation of how the system worked - this will actually bring it into closer line with the other pages on designation systems (which don't actually list a whole catalogue of aircraft that they were applied to). The actual table itself should be spun off onto a separate page to control the size of this page. I think the *best* place for the breakdowns by manufacturer is to move this information to the manufacturers' pages themselves (most already have a page, and those that don't can be quickly stubbified). This page should also have a list of those manufacturers and their standard abbreviations, which will also then (conveniently) provide a link to those manufacturer pages and their sub lists.
  • I'm at a loss to know what to do about the names. For all the reasons I've gone into at length, I'm not happy with anything other than RLM or Reichsluftfahrtministerium. On the other hand, Adam has made it quite clear that he's not open to further discussion on the subject. --Rlandmann 22:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with your proposal on breaking up the page. 'By Manufacturer', especially, can go on the manufacturers' pages.
  • I personally would prefer to see an English-language title (for clarity, for readers who are not experts in the field) and would prefer "Reich Aviation Ministry", but it's not all that important; we have redirects, after all. I think Adam Carr's final response here was unwarranted. —Morven 22:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Think I would prefer keeping a RLM aircraft pages by manufacturer page seperate, rather then dissolving it into manufactuers pages. Really I started it as alternative to the flat numerical list-and I know I'v found it very convenient for finding manufacturers and there planes. It allows quickly connecting to rlm aircraft of specific makes and allows access to manufactures which would otherwise require clicking on a planes link first (until the table gets direct to maker links as well anyway). Greyengine5 01:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh absolutely - I wasn't proposing removing the "by manufacturer" list until links to all manufacturers' pages were in place. If anything, this should make look-up even easier by removing a lot of scrolling! Also worth noting that the manufacturers' lists will catch quite a number of aircraft not listed here because they never got assigned a project number by the RLM - they are still known by their manufacturer's in-house project codes. Examples include the Junkers EF 126, Lippisch P.13, Arado E.555, Focke-Wulf Project VII Flitzer, Messerschmitt P.1101 and many other "Luftwaffe 1946" types. --Rlandmann 01:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm I was thinking having a the manufactures list be rlm only, literally the exact same planes on the rlm list just categorized by make instead of numerical (as it is now). I had earlier thought of doing it as you say but some manufacturers just have to many projects. [list of bv projects] <-- I mean B&v alone has over 200 internal projects! (thats on that luft 46 site) I agree the major internal projects need a place to be listed together, it may be best just to forgoe a rlm reserved list and include major projects as well- Im just attached the idea of having the same information sets layed out different ways. Greyengine5 02:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • True - it won't be worth listing every project. I think projects that made it at least to mock-up stage would be definitely worth noting, but others probably only need to be added on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Arado E.555 is a lot better known than it would be (all else being equal) because of a well-received plastic model kit of the aircraft released by Revell Germany a few years back. --Rlandmann 02:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • (changed format to avoided text squishing) Wow I just checked out that e.555 [[1]]-very cool. These late war projects will definately have to be included one way or another. Greyengine5 03:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Duplicates / Designated name collisions

An anonymous ip number, (84.133.88.202) took issue with several bits of information in the article, but is apparently ignorant of the purpose and existence of this discussion page. I have removed some comments inappropriately placed in the article itself, however, the points made might be true or not (I don't know) and I summarize them here:

  • Did the RLM create the designation system from scratch in 1933, or did it improve over a previous system created in 1929/1930 ? (I'm betting that it improved on a pre-existing system, at least to some extent, so the article now shows that. Correct me if I'm wrong and please source the proof)
  • Disputes that: "This immediately produced some duplicates - for example, between the Dornier Do 11 and the WNF Wn 11" and that "More duplicates were created when the RLM allocated "8-" series numbers to captured foreign aircraft, such as Czech Zlin XII aircraft referred to as "8-12" when this same number was already being used for the Dornier Do 12 " because: "Wn 11 is an Austrian design, which never could "produce immediately duplicates" in 1933. That could have happened theoretically only after March 1938, when Austria came to the Reich. But at that time certainly no Do 11 was still in service."
On these last points, I have no knowledge, so simply deleting this discussion from article. Those facts should be sorted out here first, then put in the article. Intersofia 14:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the so called RLM designation list

I was the anonymous ip who made in this certainly wrong way his very first steps in wikipedia. Sorry, but what I said is absolutely true, not based neither on Green nor Nowarra but on documents. Thank you that you have ironed out at least partially my faux pas. But nevertheless, I think it is high time to put in order some of the tales which govern the whole literature. I repeat my statement that it was not the RLM which has created the system now called RLM designations. It was worked out already a few years before RLM was founded. With high probability it was the Heereswaffenamt, a division of Reichswehrministery, which had an own section for aviation, that brought together in 1929/30 a group of experts from different institutions and also from the aviation industry. It should be known that the Reichswehr planned resolutely (against all conditions of the Versailles treaty) to establish an Air Force, which was given the name “Friedensfliegerwaffe”. For that purpose also preparations were necessary to enable the industry to produce aircraft in a far larger scale than up to now with the possibility to exchange designs and let produce them under license by other firms. It was therefore no longer acceptable, that every firm had an own system of numbering their built aircraft. Almost all used a letter together with a number in a continuous sequence, which had begun with 1. Therefore not less than 6 German aircraft existed bearing e.g. the number 33. That was no base for a centrally guided production system. The group therefore worked out a completely new designation system aiming to identify any aircraft of any manufacturer by only one certain number. Duplications were shut out. The origin of the aircraft should nevertheless be recognizable by a two character designation consisting of the two first letters of the firms name, as it had done all the time Dornier with Do and Rohrbach with Ro. The groups proposal was accepted and the new system introduced as obligatory for all firms. As far as possible the numbers already given to some of the airplanes by their manufacturers would be kept, if they did fit in the whole plan. If not they got completely new numbers without any connection to the former numbering. One example is the Bf 108 which from its origin was designated as BFW M 37. Dornier, who had not used numbers for his designs but letters, could so easily accept the future numbering of his aircraft beginning with 10 and this way opening the new list. Others like Arado with the Ar 64, Focke-Wulf with the Fw 44 or Klemm with the Kl 31 could keep their numbers. All these aircraft appeared between 1930 and early 1933, proving that this new system can never be an invention of RLM. It simply continued to use and extend it. It is obvious that in the first time still a few duplications were possible, but they disappeared very soon. Later on they could no more happen. Therefore the many duplications contained in the list published here, especially in the very high numbers range, are more than doubtable because no intelligible reason for them exists, considering the many not allocated numbers. Furthermore, no booty aircraft has to appear in this list, because they brought their numbering from elsewhere but not from RLM and - their manufacture in occupied countries did not at all touch the producction in Germany. 19:50 10 Nov 2005 Corrector

[edit] A few thoughts

I think there's a reasonable argument for disambiguation here. Reichsluftfahrtministerium does not translate as "German Air Ministry" - "Reich Air Ministry" is clearly more accurate, as Rlandmann correctly says, and I believe that s/he's also correct to point out that it is a proper noun (more accurately, a compound noun) relating specifically to the organisation of that name that existed between 1933-45. We need to distinguish between the generic name "German Air Ministry" which could relate to any Air Ministry in Germany, and the specific name "Reich Air Ministry" which was only used between 1933-45.

However, I also agree that the English-language title should be used. We would not, after all, use "Auswaertiges Amt" as the title for an article on the German Foreign Ministry (and I doubt if many outside Germany and diplomatic circles would understand it if we did). So I would vote for using the formulation "Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, or RLM)" and using the acronym RLM thereafter. -- ChrisO 00:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just to help inform the discussion a little - here's a selection of web pages in English that use Reichsluftfahrtministerium spelled out in full:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

These range from quite general aviation pages to (admittedly) very esoteric aviation pages, include one (of a few) NASM pages that use the term, plastic modelling sites, computer flight sim game sites, an architecture site and even a UFO conspiracy site (!). I contend that this shows a limited but general usage, and not one just restricted to specialists. Of course the word only shows up on pages somehow related to aviation - which means nothing more than the fact that Pentium only shows up in connection with pages somehow related to computers...

For the record, I'm no longer arguing for Reichsluftfahrtministerium in full in the titles (though that's still my first preference), if only because the acronym RLM seems to outnumber the full version 10 to 1 on English webpages.

(As comparison, the only usage I've found for Auswaertiges Amt on English web pages is on contact directories, or (more frequently) as parts of email addresses or URLs)

--Rlandmann 00:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to my searching, 'Reich Air Ministry' is just as common as 'Reichsluftfahrtministerium' in English language pages. 'Reich Aviation Ministry' is rarer. A search for 'RLM Luftwaffe' in English returns about 2,400 results, making RLM the common version. The problem is that the most commonly used term for it in English is the abbreviation, but Wikipedia prefers spelled-out to abbreviation. —Morven 01:34, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Acronyms are OK when the acronym is very widely used - NASA is a good example (as well as others like radar, laser, and scuba which are not even often recognised as acronyms any more) --Rlandmann 01:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Google test

"Reich Air Ministry" 300 [29]. Reichsluftfahrtministerium 1,580 results [30]. 'Reich Air Ministry' 20,800 [31]. That seems to make it clear which is normal English usage.

The last link is deliberately misleading. If you search for "Reich Air Ministry" (using double quotes), only 302 results are returned. Indeed, this does make it clear which is the normal English usage. -- NSash 22:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)