Talk:Martin Chemnitz

Translation of the German Wikipedia article

Inasmuch as Martin Chemnitz was a big figure in German history, I thought that supplying a translation of the German article in the Deutsch Wikipedia would be helpful to the researcher. I did not read anywhere that it was prohibited to supply translations of entries in Wikipedia in other languages. drboisclair 23:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The long-term (more than 16 months at this point) presence as a separate section of the translation of the German Wikipedia article inside the English Wikipedia article is not really up to the standards of Wikipedia. The material contained there should be incorporated into the main text and the translation section deleted. Ortcutt 08:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that this translation should not be there? Where is the Wikipedia standard that you are refering to? Have you been an editor here long? I tried to leave a message on your talk page, and there is none.--Drboisclair 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The translation there has changed, so perhaps this old translation should be removed. I will work on providing information from the German article that is helpful for the English article.--Drboisclair 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is information that is useful from the German Wikipedia article then just put it into the main text of the English Wikipedia article. Maintaining it as a separate section of the English Wikipedia article is totally illogical and I can think of no other Wikipedia article that has this oddity. Ortcutt 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you have seen or not seen such a thing is immaterial. Is there a written Wikipedia standard that you can adduce for the exclusion of what I considered a helpful section? The point is moot because I have deleted the section because the German article has changed with materials that the authors may have gleaned from this English article.--Drboisclair 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Królewiec

It is helpful to have the contemporary names and the present day names. If we use the Polish names the article may have more meaning to Polish English speakers. This should be inclusive rather than exclusive. drboisclair 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is proper to use the contemporary name, but that is Königsberg, not Królewiec. Your second justification, that using the Polish name of the town is inclusive to Polish speakers, is absurd. If that were a desideratum, then we would change all the references to New York to Nowy Jork (New York) and change all references to London to Londyn (London) in English Wikipedia. Ortcutt 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have Königsberg as well, but this is a city in Poland. I am trying to be a consensus builder here. Maybe we could have both names in the article? drboisclair 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a city in Poland. Königsberg is now Kaliningrad, which is in Russia. I don't know how you got the impression that it is in Poland. Ortcutt 20:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The list of Chemnitz's works is not unwieldy for the scholar that wants information

All of these items are authentically his writings, and this information provides useful information on Martin Chemnitz. Why does everything have to be abbreviated? This section provides useful information. I think that it should stay as it is.--Drboisclair 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. More to the point, encyclopedias frequently contain lists of works, as a look at Britannica shows. So, it is absurd to call the list unencyclopedic. The list only seems long because the entry is still relatively short. Maybe there should be an effort to extend the main text of the entry. Ortcutt 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that observation. I have subdivided the list of works into subcategories, which will make it a little less unwieldy. I think that expansion of the narrative portion of the article would be helpful too.--Drboisclair 16:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin Chemnitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226003419/http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/WRHC/On%20Almsgiving.pdf to http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/WRHC/On%20Almsgiving.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208064509/http://www.wlsessays.net/node/2004 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/2004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707151003/http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1081 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1081

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)