Talk:Hans and Sophie Scholl

Move request 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. In addition to the links below, I also note that the recent usage in Google's book opus has switched to the sibling version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Geschwister Scholl → Scholl siblings – English name, easier accessibility for readers, also in consistency with other articles on siblings. German name can be mentioned in the introduction. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've only ever heard of "Geschwister Scholl", and aside of that, Hans was male and ergo not a sister. Jared Preston (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you (The proposer) actually mean Scholl siblings.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I corrected it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose [1]Agathoclea (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support if one does a Google Books search taking out -School -Award -Platz and so on, the English "sibling" or "brother and sister" is left. Try also putting "Geschwister Scholl were" vs "Scholl siblings were" into Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment to Jared Preston: the German word "Geschwister" does not mean "sister", it means "sibling". The German word for "sister" is "Schwester". HandsomeFella (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Jared Preston's comment referred to the original proposal, which requested a move to Scholl sisters but was later changed in place. --Boson (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Boson. I didn't want the article moved in the first place either, which is why I created it at "Geschwister Scholl" four years ago. Having said that, I'm not so bothered about the second RM, in which I support your arguments. "Scholl siblings" is just.. wrong. Jared Preston (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Flawed move decision

The above move was against the consensus of the discussion and therefore flawed. Agathoclea (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS? Jared Preston (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the above move was not against the consensus of the discussion and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not about consensus of a few people about changing policy but about how this policy and the reading of available sources applies in a given situation. There is sofar a consensus of everybody commenting here that your move was wrong, and at the same time a number of your moves have been queried elsewhere. This should give you an idea to think again about your level of super-vote influence. There would have been no harm in you expressing your views or even to exend the deadline and let someone else deal with it in a weeks time. If you have hurry matters because you are afraid someone else would close differently then you certainly misread policy. Agathoclea (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You have mistaken yourself for everybody. People supporting yet another move to a title unmentioned in the RM I closed is a far cry from commenting that the move above was wrong. My other moves were also correctly carried out, although one user has decided to harass them whenever his proposals are not carried out -- that does not give me any indication to change the normal RM process. There was no harm done as it was closed, even if it is moved again to an even better name. And no matters were hurried. You're grasping at straws. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Lynch7 07:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Scholl siblings → Hans and Sophie Scholl – Hans and Sophie Scholl is by far the most common way of referring to this brother and sister. See, for instance http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hans+and+Sophie+Scholl+were%2CGeschwister+Scholl+were%2CScholl+siblings+were&year_start=1940&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=5 --Boson (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Here are some more Google Books advanced search results, selecting English language:

• 388 "Scholl siblings" -Platz -School -Award
• 9710 "Geschwister Scholl" -Platz -School -Award
• 13800 "Hans and Sophie Scholl" -Platz -School -Award

• 1 "Geschwister Scholl were"
• 23 "Scholl siblings were"
• 711 " Hans and Sophie Scholl were"

I would tend to ignore any counts of less than 100. The applicable sections of the article titles policy are WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, and WP:UE. Since this is a European topic, and the word "siblings" is not commonly in non-specialist use in European varieties of English, WP:ENGVAR, may also apply, including WP:COMMONALITY and possibly WP:TIES. --Boson (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support this proposal as well, this is much better than the current Scholl siblings; for which no consensus was reached (see above). Jared Preston (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per excelent analysis by Boson. Current title is extremly flawed. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and as there were more siblings, and the article is only about Hans and Sophie. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a further improvement to the article title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• This certainly works as well. There are also other article titles in this format, so it's consistent as well. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Geschwister Scholl stamp, GDR, 1961.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)