Talk:Technical University of Berlin

Name of the article

My english language skills are not the best, but "Technical University of Berlin" seems to be a very crude term. In my opinion, the term should be "Berlin University of Technology" (i am an alumni of the TUB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.153.194 (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just checking their website to see that they officially avoid any translation. In the English section, the university refers to itself usually as "The Technische Universität Berlin", or "The TU Berlin". I would opt for this variant, with redirects from all the other pages.

On the other hand, searching google for "Technical University of" yields 7M results, with the TU Berlin being first. Searching fo "University of Technology" yields 21M. -- Ravn 14:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A mail from Dec. 14, 2007 from the president of TUB states: "Technische Universität Berlin" shall not be translated. In case it is necessary, the Term "Berlin Institute of Technology" is to be chosen. (Source: Rundschreiben "Englischsprachige Bezeichnung der Technischen Universität Berlin", Dec. 14, 2007) -- DB, 14 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.121.197 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Name and Logo

TU Berlin calls itself in Englisch "Technical University of Berlin" but it is a Member of the "German Institutes of Technology". I made a lot of changes today on the Page. I also exchanged one pic since the pic of the "languages institute" is ugly and languages are a VERY minor thing at this University. Concerning the University Logo: TU Berin hast two different logos. The red one is used for German language, a blue one for English publications: http://www.tu-berlin.de/uebertu/logos.htm You may want to change this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.125.229 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The "languages institute" is one of the most important of its kind in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.26.145 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NO...the univeristiy does not call itself "Technical University of Berlin". It is a free translation and not accepted by the university at all. In official communication the university explicitely states the no English translation is accepted.SFBB (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2006)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I requested to move this page to Technische Universität Berlin for the above reasons. Please comment. -- Ravn

• Technical University of Berlin → Technische Universität Berlin – proper name of the university, not to be translated. (It is not translated on the English section of their home page). Other universities keep their proper name in Wikipedia as well. -- Ravn 14:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose: WP:NC(UE) --Philip Baird Shearer 00:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain: I acknowledge the naming convention, but being an alumni myself, I must admit that it's a bit uncommon to have the name translated thusly. -- Ravn 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:NC(UE) - Spaceriqui 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: per PBS. Jonathunder 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I haven't looked into this particular case, but doesn't wikipedia suggest using the english translation if available? See WP:NC(UE). On the other hand, a google search seems to suggest that the german name is the most popular "Technical University of Berlin" has 179,000 hits while "Technische Universität Berlin" has 193,000 hits, althought many of these seem to be in either German or be part of a mailing address. - Spaceriqui 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Purpose of Redirect

Berlin Institute of Technology is the name indicated on the English translation homepage of the TU Berlin website. --Danorton (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It may have been in 2008, but it is now clear the thing is simply called Technische Universität Berlin. All attempts to cook up an English language name won't work, mostly for the simple reason that Universität means much more than "university".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.182.27 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Horseshit. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be renamed? the official website of the university uses the name "Technische Universität Berlin" and not "Berlin Institute of Technology" on its english page. http://www.tu-berlin.de/menue/home/parameter/en/ Lilied1 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be moved. The "BIT" was probably a failed marketing idea, published here cited from the newsletter "TU intern", 01/2008. It never did catch on, and today it is only found in obscure or dated places. The recent guidelines in the standard impressum of tu-berlin.de pages tells that the official name is "Technische Universität Berlin" and it's not to be translated. The "BIT" is only to be used as a explanation of the official name. -- LutzL (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Need to bring this up again! This should rather be called Technical University Berlin. Just as the article Technical University Munich calls the TU. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a wrong translation. It sounds like it is a technicality that it is an university. The bit of BIT that associates "technische" to "technology" is actually the correct way. Any translation of TUB has been rejected by the university itself, so that should be respected.--LutzL (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

""Technische Universität Berlin"" is the official title of the university. Despite all the given website translation arguments which are outdated by now, it is best to look at the published work of the university. All the publications of the Technische Universität Berlin (and, by the way all other TU's) have the german title Technische Universität Berlin, even in english written language. I can think of that all the Technische Universitäten have agreed on building up the "TU" brand (in an educational sense). Given the fact that all the websites, scientific papers, books and other publications are labeled with Technische Universität Berlin, I don't think that "Institute of technology" is an accurate naming (even though a correct translation!). Of course, "Technical University Berlin" is a bad translation, so, that is no option. Keep in mind that there are many german professors that care about the german language and also the german education system, which would also be an argument for the "Technische Universität Berlin" version. 198.129.37.71 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move. Proposed name has not been shown to be the common english name of the university.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Berlin Institute of Technology → Technische Universität Berlin — Move back to the only official name. It is not to be translated per [1]. "Berlin Institute of Technology" is only to be used as transliteration. LutzL (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request appears to be based on the common misapprehension that official names are automatically the best article titles, ignoring the fact that official Wikipedia policy is to prefer common names. Andrewa (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps so, but which is more common in English-language sources? Do English-language sources use the translated name? Powers ^T 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Good questions. It's up to the supporters of this move to answer them, and until they do, there's no case for a move. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Noone but a handful of insiders in Berlin would suspect that "BIT" refers to the TU-Berlin. Since the use of "BIT" was for a short time official policy to use "BIT", there are of course lots of references for it. However, google trends does not find enough data for "BIT" (expanded of course), in contrast to "TU-Berlin" and its long form. So next to no one is searching for "BIT", contradicting, for whatever it is worth, that it is a "common name".--LutzL (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a better case, but still vague and unconvincing IMO. Provide some links to the Google searches, perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As you wish:

BIT no result

TUB (both forms)

Note also that at the website of the university, except in the impressums, there are no official pages presenting the university using BIT, contrary to what one would expect for a common international name. The only pages where BIT is actually present are homepages of researchers and research groups, and the library. The other pages, even if displayed by google, do not contain the BIT phrase, even in the source. -- I would even say that the original move to BIT was a violation of the common name policy.--LutzL (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, still unconvinced but at least now we know exactly where you are coming from regarding Google Trends. Disagree that common English names would necessarily appear on official sites, official sites tend to use official names. Your claims about the only pages... and the other pages... seem rather selective... why exclude the ones you have? I'm trying to assume good faith but it seems very like an attempt to manipulate the results to me. A naive Google search [2] finds many hits (not all of them English!), are the English ones really all excluded by the conditions you have chosen, as you seem to claim above? Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't do anything further. I'm unable to do an international poll of how many people know that the "Berlin Institute of Technology" actually is a full university. And I suspect that you would equally not be able to do a counterpoll to prove that the original move of this article was justified under the "common name" policy. Of course there are lots of google hits since around 2008 "BIT" was for a short time the officially proposed translation. But, per your own words, what the university proposes does not make an internationally known "common name". That they stepped back from that decision can be read in the impressums, sadly not the when and why.--LutzL (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

<-- reset indenting

Ah, is that the real issue perhaps? That the article title currently doesn't do the instutution justice, as it's a full University? The title Institute of Technology is actually quite vague in English; MIT for example is also a full University. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Wikipedia has made a mistake. If the want to translate "Technische Universität Berlin", it has to be Technical University (of) Berlin. When you say Berlin Institute of Technology, nobody knows what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.19.236 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that "technical university" is a bad translation is, IMO, one of the reasons for the original move of the TU9 to "institute of technology". Out of the ten TU in the TU9, only the Karlsruhe Inst. of Techn. retained that name, and this only (again hearsay) because of the fusion of the universtity with a research institute at about this time. Another complication is that the Fachhochschulen (engineering schools) started to call themselves "university of applied sciences", so "university of technology and applied sciences" would be too close and too long.--LutzL (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New argument for redirect?

All 9 (or 10?) German "Technische Universitäten" agreed around 2000 to call themselves either (preferred) "Technische Universität" or (if an English translation is necessary) "Institute of Technology (University)". Therefore, this article should be renamed "Technische Universität Berlin".
Unfortunately I can't cite any sources, but as far as I know, the TU9 (the 9 Techniche Unis), or their heads resp., meet or met regularly and once decided to use the Germany title on such a meeting. — Tauriel-1 (☎) 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur. A "naïve google search" as proposed above, limited to English language pages yields about 132,000 results for "Berlin Institute of Technology" (Wikipedia was excluded from the search) but about 768,000 results for "Technische Universität Berlin." Since many people regard Wikipedia as their resaearch authority, it should not give unofficial names as official ones. Neoryt (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2013)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Title of Berlin Institute of Technology emphatically rejected; no consensus found between Technische Universität Berlin and Technical University of Berlin; moved back to Technical University of Berlin in absence of consensus and without prejudice against a re-proposal. Complicated, many dueling arguments, and few explicit sources. It is very difficult to determine the common English name for this university. I cannot find a policy-founded consensus between the two titles and therefore we have to push it back to Technical University of Berlin, which everyone agrees is a sight better than the unfounded name, Berlin Institute of Technology. A new move proposal, expertly crafted specifically to prove Technische Universität Berlin's commonality over Technical University of Berlin, looks as if it might have a reasonable chance of success. No consensus here, though. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 00:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Berlin Institute of Technology → Technische Universität Berlin – The Technische Universität Berlin finally decided on a corporate design (Aug 2013). Since there are many votes for a name change in the talk-page and no (new) oppose comments I'd like to request a move. Some of arguments for a move are:

• The naming tradition of the university in (almost) all it's publications (books, papers, etc.) is in the german variant. See this english written book.
• The internal handle is Technische Universität Berlin. TUB german-english guide.
• The Wikipedia article itself uses most often the german writing Technische Universität Berlin.
• As in previous comments provided, the google search results for the german naming are much higher.
• Follow the RWTH Aachen wikipedia naming (as a branding), and also, the naming of TU Darmstadt and their discussion about the naming

I'm happy to discuss opposing votes. However, for the internal voting system do not forget to actually support this request. Hopefully with even better arguments!--Relisted. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Relisted. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC). 2602:304:56B5:3D9:558F:BB3B:C55A:B315 (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is the English Language wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, the English name or English translation should be used as it is the most frequently used and recognised name within the English speaking world; regardless of what the official name is. RE: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), Wikipedia:Article titles, WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Official names etc. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: What evidence of a current date do You have that BIT is anywhere the common name of TU-Berlin? Any recent paper where the address of the author is given as BIT, conference announcement where the affiliation of a speaker is given as BIT?--LutzL (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, unsurprisingly, per RM from some months ago. The same arguments still apply. BIT was better than "Technical University", but was very fast abandoned without leaving much of a trace. Sources for the history of BIT or the TU9 move to "institute of technology" are scarce, to put it mildly.--LutzL (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• - The common name for this institution is undoubtedly "TU Berlin" (as in this short version) as used in e-mail addresses, web location, logo.--LutzL (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Alternative: Although some editors have commented negatively about the idea before, I don't see any real problem with the title this article had before March 2010, namely Technical University of Berlin. I suggest that name in preference to the German form. It's in English, it abbreviates nicely as TU Berlin, and I don't find the alleged potential misinterpretation plausible. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: There was another prior move request discussion that people here may not be aware of. Please see Talk:Technical University of Berlin. It proposed the move Technical University of Berlin → Technische Universität Berlin. The result (on 25 January 2006) was "don't move". The later move in March 2010 moved only the article page without moving the Talk page, and seems to have been an undiscussed move. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

-Would this then even more strongly suggest that the move to BIT was a violation of the "common name" rule? I've to agree, 'Technical University' is the common (mis-?)translation of "Technische Universität".--LutzL (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it a mistranslation? I'm not fluent in German by any means, but the translation appears literal and correct. Perhaps it doesn't capture a nuance present in German, but I don't think that makes it a mistranslation. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There was a reason that the TU9 acted against "Technical University", but I don't find it documented anywhere. Could one misunderstand it as "it is a burocratic technicality that it is an university"? There are lots of "false friends" that make english difficult for germans. Saying to a waiter "Ich bekomme ein Steak." is perfectly good german, "I become a beefsteak" a too 'letteral' translation.--LutzL (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Go back to Technical University of Berlin as BarrelProof. "Technische Universität Berlin is" 52x vs "Berlin Institute of Technology is.." 6x vs "Technical University of Berlin is.." 969x The University's own website has "The TU Berlin strives to promote the dissemination of knowledge and to facilitate.. " as noted above. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I don't think, that a plain google search hit number can estimate the most common usage. Just think of all the scientific papers, which are read and cited with the german full naming. Also, old paper's and books may not be digitalized.--Maderthaner (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)\

• Support - the above reasons seem good to me.--Maderthaner (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Maderthaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support per nom. The German name is the most commonly seen. We do not translate everything just for the sake of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Technical University of Berlin This appears to be the established English name. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Then how do you explain this search? "Technische Universität Berlin" x68,400; "Technical University Berlin" x13,400; "Berlin Institute of Technology" x2,290 this search includes most scientific and legal documents, not only books as previously done. --Maderthaner (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I see with that search is not written in English. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are the english only search results. "Technische Universität Berlin" x42,700--Maderthaner (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A different perspective: One would expect that a common name is used in google searches. Google trends allows to compare search terms, for the proposed names it results in this. "Technical University" is barely visible.--LutzL (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Technische Universität Berlin, with Technical University of Berlin as the second choice. Current name Berlin Institute of Technology has nothing to recommend it. Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME 06:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathoclea (talk • contribs)

Discussion

There is an inherent problem for democracy in three-way votes. It's easy to devise a thought experiment in which A beats B beats C beats A in the three possible two-way contests.

That's one good reason Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andrewa (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Then let's make a summary: This article was created in march 2003, probably as "Technische Universität" (only visible in the history of the redirect), a stub that uses "technical university" in the text, and was first moved shortly after creation (14:59, 26 August 2003 Sandman) to "Technical University". The second move in 2010 (12:18, 4 March 2010 Mootros, with quite a history of compulsive, undiscussed moves) to BIT violated several principles. It was not discussed. It did not move the talk page. It went against a prior consens in 2006 that "technical university" is the common name. It ignored information on the same talk page and on the BIT redirect talk page on official naming policy in 2007/8. All still visible on the old talk page. Is this enough to qualify as "move in bad faith"?

On Google results, I would think that their summary in "trends" of actual search terms would give the most information on what name is common. However, the location information given puts all searches inside Germany, but here we are looking for usage outside Germany. In scientific papers the occurrences will be affiliations and addresses of authors, hardly evidence of common usage outside Germany.

My only concern is to make BIT into the side note that it actually is. It was a nice idea at the time it was invented, did not catch on and probably also diminished the long established brand of "TU-Berlin". I was surprised at the small role that "technical university" has in the google trend pictures, so please take that into account when deciding on moving the article.--LutzL (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Technische Universität is like a branding of 9 different universities all over germany. All of them prefer the german variant, also, in the international context. If you look around the other TU wiki articles you'll find the german writing already. That being said, even on wikipedia the german variant is accepted as common name. Only the TU-Berlin article community is having a hard time realizing that... --Maderthaner (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you realized it, but this page, or rather the possible targets, are move-protected. So it has to be an admin that has to do the move, and in the event of a move back to "technical university", also the merging of the talk pages. As you can see, Andrewa (an admin) changed his opinion from 3 years ago, but is unsure of the correct decision. And as I tried to document, there is no correct decision based on "common name in the english speaking world", the majority of the cited google hits can be suspected to originate in Germany, mostly in publications by members of the TU-Berlin, creating a hard-to-untangle bias. There is a history of using "technical university", but no indication on actual current usage.--LutzL (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I just typed "Technische Universität Berlin" into both Google and Bing (from an IP address within the US). Both of them, on both their web search and maps pages, brought up "Technical University of Berlin" or "Technical University Berlin" as headlines on the right-hand side of the page and as map location identifiers. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You. What does the google-trend picture show from your location? Any search locations outside Germany?--LutzL (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just checked it with my US IP. Search trend shows the same picture (TU Berlin>Technische Univer.>Technical Univer.=0). However, people that search for TU Berlin mainly come from germany.--Maderthaner (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think this misquotes me, on both occasions. My opinion remains that no case was made for the earlier move, but that a case has been made now (and perhaps that's because important things have changed in the past three years, or perhaps it's just that the research has been more thorough this time, n'import). I also believe that Technische Universität Berlin is the best target, but that failing that Technical University of Berlin would be an improvement on the current name. How you can get unsure out of that escapes me. And yes, I'm an admin, but not an uninvolved one so I won't be closing this RM anyway. There are several others watching WP:RM, fortunately. Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for misreading You. Or being clumsy in my summary of your point of view. You did change your opinion from "no point in moving" to "moving is appropriate". And as with anybody else, there is no clear direction if the german or the english name is the better target. -- I do not have the impression that the situation or the arguments have changed over the last 3 years. The recent discussion just has more participants, the arguments (against BIT) are the same as in 2010 and even in 2008.--LutzL (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating... we seem to agree on the name Technische Universität Berlin as proposed [3] [4] but I disagree with most of this last post. But I'm also asking myself, what does any of it matter? The relevant thing is just, on the evidence now before us, what's the best article title?

Let's focus on that. We seem to have consensus above that the article should be moved somewhere, and I think we have a rough consensus on the destination too.

The question of non-admin closure which you raised above is similarly irrelevant. This is sufficiently controversial to require admin closure even if there were no protection in place. Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As I see it, the argument pro "technical" is the historical precedent and one sighting on google-maps (there surely are others, only hard to find for me due to the helpfulness of google). The argument pro "technische" is the recent consensus on (re)naming of some of the other "Technische Universitäten" here on en-wiki and the official corporate image of the TU-Berlin.--LutzL (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I do have to stretch the point, that in the very beginning Technical University was dismissed. "Technical" is not a proper translation of "Technische". Due to that bad translation the idea to move to Berlin Institute of Technology (BIT) was born in the first place. Now, we all agree that this move to BIT was a bad call anyways. So, we should not run in circles here. I also have the feeling, that the wikipedia naming affects the common use, e.g., the BIT wiki article is linked in Facebook. This may lead to more and more wrong translations and namings. Choosing "Technische Universität Berlin" is in many ways a good idea! It is a (the official) proper and correct naming. Arguably, it is the most often (english) used name. It would also close the discussion about "Technical" being an improper translation/naming, since it is easily mistaken with a Fachhochschule and not being a full university. Since there are no other problems with the german variant, I really think we may have a naming candidate for a long-lasting wiki article name. --Maderthaner (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your intentions, however, to remain fair, I was corrected somewhere above that "Technical" is a valid translation. I only suspected and always asked for confirmation if it was a bad translation, but it took a long time for the first competent refutation. MIT and CalTech were given ans examples that "institute of technology" is a valid name for a full university, with the problem remaining that it has no tradition in Germany (outside Karlsruhe) and an "Institut" usually is a part of a faculty, i.e., a department, or outside of universities, a smaller independent research institution. There no longer are "Fachhochschulen", for some reason they dropped the "Fach".--LutzL (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, as someone familiar with English and not so familiar with German, I think it is false to say that "Technical University" implies some lower status of scholarship than "Institute of Technology" (in English). If someone wants to convey a lesser level of scholarship or less complete breadth of education, they would use the phrase "Technical College" or "Technical School" rather than "Technical University". Anything called a "university" is generally understood to have a complete educational program and a high degree of scholarly status. To me, the term "Technical University" simply implies a scholarly university that focuses particularly on technology. Google and Bing both translate "Technische" as "Technical". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but very little of the above seems to relate to the policy at Wikipedia:Article titles. The question is, what is the best English name that will be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. Not what it should be. Questions of the accuracy of the German translation, for example, seem academic on this ground alone. (But I still prefer Technische Universität Berlin anyway.) Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, this link here would be the most important one I guess: [5]. It lays the most weight on a uni-form wikipedia naming. It also says, that we should respect the official english naming claim of the university. The link also refers to technical but since a technical university is a german thing (as far as I know) there is no way of having a uniform naming while using "technical" OR "technische". So, I have to say, either stay with BIT in order to have a uniform wikipedia entry (which we agreed not to) or stick with technische/technical. Being stuck between technische and technical again, I would weight the official naming claim as the most important reason to go for the german variant, since we're also stuck arguing what is the most common english name. I also think that, everybody and I mean everybody who reads "Technische Universität Berlin" does know about which university in the world we're talking about. Not because it's such a famous university but because it's straight forward to figure it out.--Maderthaner (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and I agree with the eventual conclusion of course, but still not relevant. Does the section you quote (better linked as Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Universities and colleges) have any authority? Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions reads The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process (my amphasis). It's not linked to from WP:AT as it should be if it were in force. And it's rather strangely phrased, quite out of step with other Wikipedia naming conventions. It needs both work and discussion before it will be of any use to us here, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If the translation of technische to technical is correct, I have to quote this though: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." That basically forces us to use "Technical University Berlin". I also looked up, that there are "Technical Universities" in the Netherlands etc. At least NYTimes and The Times use the technical name much more often. --Maderthaner (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are quoting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name there. Again, not relevant I'm afraid. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Well then, in that case we have to look at the goals that we should achieve by choosing a fitting article name. Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title says: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency, but that brings us back to the original discussion anyways, right? In that case I would again prefer the german variant! --Maderthaner (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That was the original proposal, and the evidence points to that move, and the policy points to it too, and there seems to be a rough consensus on both of those last two points.

I'm guessing that the main reason that this RM is languishing in the backlog is that we've given any potential closing admin a daunting job in sorting out the relevant points above. It got off to a bad start, the proposer is a newbie with no talk or user page and only three contributions (all concerning this article, although I suspect they may have other anonymous contributions) and the proposal didn't focus on the relevant points, and we've never really recovered from that. I chose to vote and then later to comment because I was hoping that this would make it easier for another admin to see a consensus. It didn't work out as I was hoping. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical names

Where does "polytechnic university" come from? The only old names I found are "Königlich Technische Hochschule" until 1920 and "Technische Hochschule" until 1945. Are there any sources that confirm it as the usual english translation? The university itself uses "Technical College" in the english version of the "facts & figures". One can argue that since it got the right to award the doctorate (in engineering?) (article only mentions the diploma) in 1899, it was by then a full, but specialized universtity.--LutzL (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know "polytechnic university" is just another way to express an Institute of Technology. It comes from the GB-english and it is also used in the french language. I also did look at the TU Berlin website and found the same historic names [6]. I also checked that the "Technische Hochschule" was granted the right to award the doctorates degree (german wiki entry). I can think of that "Technische Hochschule" was directly translated into "technical college". I would agree, that you could translate it to (technical) university since technical implicates its a specialized university. Yet here again, we see a rather not 100% fitting translation and it may be more useful to use the original name, because, if people are more curious they can google it or find more in wiki. Either way, polytechnic university berlin is not very practical ;). --Maderthaner (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is wrong to use "polytechnic college" or "polytechnic university". I was just curious if there are sources using this translation outside of wikipedia, or if this is an original wikipedia invention. But I would opt for "college" until 1920.--LutzL (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking US-EN, I'd say that you can use "technical college"! --Maderthaner (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Another possible move

I have looked long and carefully at the non-admin close above. This is not a substitute for review by an uninvolved admin per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure which reads in part All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin. I'm involved so that should not be me.

My comments here are intended:

• To help any admin who does perform such a review.
• To sound out support for yet another RM.

It's a borderline non-admin close IMO. One of the conditions is The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days). I don't think there's a lack of consensus above, I actually think there's a rough consensus for Technische Universität Berlin. Whether that's true or not, I don't think you can possibly say that the lack of consensus is clear, and that's part of the condition for a valid non-admin close too.

Having said that, I also think it would be far better to open a new RM rather than reopen the old one. The close makes exactly the same point I've been trying to make, that we need to focus on the relevant issues, and explicitly leaves the option of an immediate rematch open.

I still think that a valid case can be made to move to Technische Universität Berlin in terms of the name being recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In fact this case was quite possibly made at the second try, it's just that right from the start it was also tangled with less relevant arguments, most notably but not only the accuracy or otherwise of the translation.

Some of the arguments also seem to have suffered themselves in translation from German, and these two observations both suggest to me that it's at least possible that some contributors similarly fail to understand the details of the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The English Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not necessarily correspond to the German Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Or in other words, the German Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not supposed to be translations of the English ones, nor vice versa.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to comment. I approve of what you said here; I think it was somewhat clear that no consensus existed between the main options and it was very clear everyone hated the BIT title. So rather than deal with what would have been a messy move closure, I basically called it "no consensus". Was that outside of my rights as non-admin closer? I really don't think so, mostly because I feel it's easier for us non-admins to say "listen, there's no consensus here" versus having to come out and say "there IS a consensus and it is X". The proposal also was really poorly suited to match Technical University versus Technische U. I felt that rather than scraping together a consensus from a messy RM, we could just start a new one and take the only real consensus--to reject BIT. I won't lie--I struggled with whether or not the German title had consensus, but I just couldn't see it as a consensus. Anyway, I think you absolutely should file a new move request. I'll look at it and keep tabs on it with interest, and my bet is that a consensus will develop for the German name for the university. Red Slash 03:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, most constructive. As was the close. Absolutely no censure is intended, what I wrote above (and below) is technically criticism but meant in the sense of discussion rather than of objection.

I do think that it technically oversteps the bounds of non-admin closure. But perhaps the rules are wrong in this particular case, or perhaps I'm wrong myself. I certainly think the closure is the best way forward. Those are the reasons I called it borderline rather than anything stronger.

Perhaps I should say, the best way forward given that no admin has come forward to close this RM. Backlog means just that, if you do the arithmetic ideally RMs are closed the day before they enter the backlog! It rarely happens, we're all rather busy. And to come up to speed on this discussion as it was would be a considerable commitment. Hopefully, a new RM will be a bit more straightforward. Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And while I don't agree with all of your closing summary, overall it's well above the average standard set by admins, IMHO. (;-> I should have said that before. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I mean it! I loved your creed, by the way. Red Slash 21:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

While not my absolutely favored solution, the current state is a solution I can live with. Any foreigner coming to Berlin and asking for 'Technical university' will get correct directions at the first try, which would not be the case with 'BIT' (or 'Berlin Central Station'). Any further move to the german name will get only weak support from me, and not much argument.--LutzL (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Weak support and letting your previous words speak for themselves is a good reply. And very helpful to make your position clear here, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was quite surprised that the RM was closed. I'd also say that there was at least a rough consensus for Technische Universität Berlin and while we were searching for policies to actually set this in stone, the RM was closed - maybe a little too early. I also agree with creating a new RM. Now, nearly all the arguments and facts are on the table and we can write a clear written RM. So far, I could live with the english naming of TU Berlin but the problem I see: There is not a uniform handling of all the TUs. Some have a german, some have an english name. It would be nice to reach a wiki-wide consensus on the TU naming! That being said, most of the TUs have their german name. I think it would be nice to make a (new) RM for all TUs to their german name and close this topic for good. I'm happy to help with a mock-up RM but in the end I think it should be an admin (you Andrewa?) who actually opens the RM. --Maderthaner (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so, and it appears to me that I should too, in view of the general support so far. But my being an admin is in theory irrelevant once I have become involved in the discussion. I'm now acting purely as a registered, confirmed and long-standing editor. (Which doesn't always count for much either.)

Many good points, thank you. I'll need a few days probably to find the time and get my thoughts together. Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Affected articles

Following Maderthaner's suggestion above that we seek consensus for uniform handling of all the TUs above, I think the first step is to list the affected articles.

Looking at Category:Technical universities and colleges, Category:Universities in Germany and Category:Engineering universities and colleges in Germany, I came up with:

• Technical University of Berlin (this article)
• Technische Universität München
• Dresden University of Technology
• Technische Universität Darmstadt
• Braunschweig University of Technology

I may have missed some, and looking at de:Kategorie:Technische Hochschule and the other corresponding German Wikipedia category pages looks like it might yield some more too. But I'm at a bit of a disadvantage speaking almost no German.

The TU9 members are given in that article as:

• RWTH Aachen University
• Technical University of Berlin
• Braunschweig University of Technology
• Technische Universität Darmstadt
• Dresden University of Technology
• University of Hanover
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
• Technische Universität München
• University of Stuttgart

(all given above as the current article titles rather than redirects where these are used)

Which of these are affected? Any others? Andrewa (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

---

That's a good beginning. I'm actually a little afraid myself, but the list is *much* longer :-). But that's okay, it actually emphasizes the whole problem... Digging into Institute_of_technology I found a more or less complete list of the universities - world wide! I guess, let's concentrate on the german-named ones first ;-). When I look at all the "Technische Universitäten" from Germany, Austria and Switzerland I get:

- The TU9

• Y RWTH Aachen University
• X Technical University of Berlin
• X Braunschweig University of Technology
• X Technische Universität Darmstadt
• X Dresden University of Technology
• Z University of Hanover
• X Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
• X Technische Universität München
• Z University of Stuttgart

- Smaller german TUs (still full universities!)

• Y Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg
• X Chemnitz University of Technology
• X Clausthal University of Technology
• X Technical University of Dortmund
• Y Freiberg University of Mining and Technology
• X Technical University of Hamburg
• X Technische Universität Ilmenau
• X Kaiserslautern University of Technology

- Austrian's TUs:

• X Graz University of Technology
• X Vienna University of Technology
• Y University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna
• Z University of Leoben

- Swiss has:

• Y ETH Zurich

X - marks names which could be directly translated to "Technische Universität XXX". Y - marks names which can not directly be translated to "Technische Universität XXX", so, they need special attention. Z - marks universities that could be directly translated but since they are the only universities in the city, they should just go by "University of..."

All of those are full universities. They are granting a doctoral degree.

I believe, that every university marked with an Y has to have it's own RM. About the Z marked ones. I don't know where I read it, but I think wikipedia rules are, that for clarity reasons, we should use "University of XXX" only.

Well, if I haven't missed one, I suggest we get startet with the guys marked by an X. I think, we should even include the already german named ones just because there will be an uniform naming after the RM. --Maderthaner (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible that we can cover all of these with a single RM, and even more likely that we can cover all of the Xs with a single RM. WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves provides the means to discuss up to 30 moves in a single discussion, and in a way that even allows people to oppose some of the moves while supporting others.

However if the justification is significantly different or stronger for some than for others, then we should consider separating them along those lines, in the hope that all the subsequent arguments will then also apply equally to all of the pages nominated in that particular RM, making it far simpler and easier for everybody. Andrewa (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the circumstances surrounding each of the names will be so distinct that attempting to impose uniform naming will not be a useful exercise. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this means in practice... Are you saying that no multiple moves at all will help, that we'll need to deal with each article individually? Or simply that we'll need more than RM even using multiple moves? Or would you agree with my guess, that the optimum is somewhere between these two extremes?

Let's see what we come up with. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's all gone very quiet. Perhaps waiting for me. I haven't forgotten it, just got busy elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove to Technische Universität Berlin

Technische Universität Berlin does not translate its name (alternatively they use "TU Berlin"). The current Wikipedia invention, Technical University of Berlin, is not used by the university and it might not even be a good translation: I am a native speaker of German, but the English term "technical university" seems to refer to the university itself being technical (e.g. the building?), which would not make sense here. The German word "technisch" seems to be used in a slightly different way than the English word "technical", hereby also including aspects that would better be described by the English word "technological" (although there is a word "technologisch" in German as well). de-Wiktionary says about "technisch": "die Technik betreffend, auf die Technik bezogen, in der Art und Weise der Technik", which makes sense here (technische Universität = a university that is concerned with technology"). From what I see how the English term "technical" is used, I have my doubts that it should be used in the same way as the German word. But: You are the native speakers, so if you believe that "technical university" makes sense... If i HAD to translate it, I would write: Berlin University of Technology, hereby assuming that university (en) and Universität (de) describes just the same. However, as I said, TU Berlin does not translate the term and their own guidelines are clear about this. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

While the principle is correct, its justification is not. The name "Technical University" has 60+ years of international recognition behind it, in contrast to the artificial "Berlin Institute of Technology". Thus, by the "common name policy", there is not much reason to push a renaming. Btw., the "University of Technology" found above for some TU's is far better than "Institute" from a german point of view. However, at the time the "Fachhochschulen" (today "Hochschule"), which are engineering colleges (without the ability to give doctoral degrees), renamed themselves somehow pompously "University of Science and Technology".--LutzL (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "Hochschule" is not well defined. "Hochschule" was used in the past for Fachhochschulen" and "Universitäten". See the original name "Beuth Hochschule" that now is in use again and as counter example "Thechnische Hochschule Berlin" - the name that was used by the TU Berlin before 1946. People at TU Berlin did consider this name change in 1946 to be a degradation. Schily (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Do sources for this "feeling of degradation" exist? Does it persist to this day in a noticeable degree? Has it to do with the greater generality of a university, i.e., losing the focus on technology and applied science while adding "soft" sciences?--LutzL (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the inventions made at TH Berlin before 1946, you will see that there was more science in the times it was called TH. See e.g. basics of electron microscope by Ernst Ruska, and the basics for the bipolar transistor in the PhD of Herbert Mataré as well as Wernher von Braun and Konrad Zuse (first universal computer) or Bruno Taut (famous architect). I just send a mail to the person who did mention this degradation theory. Schily (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be hard to find quotable notes about this problem, but there is at least a hint that several distinguished Technische Hoschschulen did not like this name conversion and Aachen and Darmstadt succeeded in their wish not to be renamed. Schily (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that "Technical University" is not necessarily wrong in English, see for example Colorado Technical University. It might be rare though. As several German "TU"s use "TU" (and not "UT"!) almost as a brand, it makes sense to write "Technical University" instead of "University of Technology" or even "Institute of Technology". I am not sure if it should be "Technical University of Berlin" or maybe "Technical University, Berlin" or if the comma could maybe even be omitted in the latter suggestion. But one of these terms would be my suggestion if I could invent a term in English. 90.184.23.200 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Technical University of Berlin. 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/20070928082013/http://www.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a70100710/Dokumentationen/Imagematerial/Campusplan/campusplan.pdf to http://www.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a70100710/Dokumentationen/Imagematerial/Campusplan/campusplan.pdf

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) 09:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolarship

I'm Egyptian,and I want to know how I can take a scholarship?! and continue my education at Germany .what is the things I must to do to have this scholarship? I'M 18 years old I'm at my final stage in school (third secondary). Hope to reply soon. Thanks in advance Mohammed ahmad altayeb (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Before Reunification

I guess it is good to tell if it was a part of West Germany during before 1989. The Charlottenburg area to my knowledge was a part of West Berlin.MikeEcho (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Judging by the supports and opposes, both variants enjoy fairly common usage and there are offsetting arguments of using English and deferring to the official name. Overall there is no consensus to move from the current long-term title.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Technical University of Berlin → Technische Universität Berlin – In several places, it occurred to me that people are convinced that 'Technical University of Berlin' is the correct name because it's on Wikipedia. I think as an encyclopedia we should reflect the facts and not influence reality. https://www.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/abt4/Uebersetzungs-Service/Stilrichtlinien_fuer_englischsprachige_Texte_an_der_TU_Berlin_04_2019.pdf Physikerwelt (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. qedk (t 桜 c) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Slavish translation is never the best way. The original name is often seen (probably most often seen) in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:UE says that we should follow usage in English language reliable sources. A search of the New York Times archives gives 32 results for "Technical University of Berlin" and 1 for "Technische Universität Berlin" (with or without umlaut), and 0 for "TU Berlin". (All queries enclosed in quotes for exact matches.) A google search of the two terms prefixed with site:bbc.com returned 2 results for Technical University and 0 for Technische Universität. So I'm inclined to think "Technical University" is the prevailing form used in RS unless someone wants to present some compelling evidence to the contrary. Colin M (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: The same idea was proposed in [2006 and] 2010 and 2013, and I have seen no new evidence to indicate that the common name in English sources is different from the current Wikipedia article title. This RM has been open for a long enough discussion period, and no new momentum has appeared. In fact, many English speakers would have a hard time remembering or figuring out how to type "Technische Universität". Providing an unexplained link to some self-published PDF file written completely in German is not helpful to making this decision. Please also see my prior comments from 2013. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I forgot to mention the above-referenced discussion in 2006! (now inserted above) It can be found here. I don't think we need to keep discussing this over and over, so I struck out the "Weak" from my "Weak oppose". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The new naming convention was enacted in 2014. Thus the situation before was different. --Physikerwelt (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Users Colin M and BarrelProof. There seems to be no real basis for the proposed move beyond variants of IDONTLIKEIT.Ingratis (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to defend myself here. IDONTLIKEIT is different from my argument. The argument is: Technical University of Berlin is not the official name and must not be used by people employed by TU Berlin. See for example https://www.tu-berlin.de/?133132 which has no English translation. "Zur Förderung der Corporate Identity wird generell auch im Ausland nur die deutsche Bezeichnung „Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin)“ benutzt." It is not surprising that this name also appears in Google search results and is also used by journalists. Also in the article it is described that the official name is Technische Universität Berlin or TU Berlin. I can comprehend the point of view that the name is not determined by the institution itself but by the press echo, even though I don’t share this opinion.--Physikerwelt (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, the press (and other reliable sources) does not merely "echo" self-published preferences – that is the whole point. Wikipedia aspires to be written from an independent perspective. It is not intended to present the point of view of the promoters of the topics it discusses, and the English Wikipedia prefers to consider independent sources that are written in English when determining article titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I respect your argument. It is however unclear to me, why an independent (more or less objective) journalist would use an unofficial name. For the articles after 2014, I am not sure if the official name was intentionally not used or if that happened accidentally. I suspect that the journalist did not intend to change the name of the university. If I would ask the NYT journalists… would that help to convince you? --Physikerwelt (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, one reason that someone who is writing in English might want to translate the name instead of writing it the way it is written by the institution is that the name that this university uses is clearly not in the English language. The words "universität" and "technische" do not exist in English, so most readers would not immediately understand what they mean. And the readers who do have some idea of what the words mean might wonder why the author switched to German in the middle of a sentence instead of translating those words. The words seem pretty simple to translate into English, and it is very common to translate words that are part of the name of an institution when talking about a topic in a different language. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I think in most cases one write TU Berlin. As far as I remember the discussion in TU Berlin in 2014 the rationality of not allowing university member to use "technical" as a translation of "Technische" was this was regarded as misleading. For larger entities such as Volkswagen keeping the original name seems to be accepted. --Physikerwelt (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
            • The Volkswagen case again comes down to the simple principle that BarrelProof is talking about. English-language reliable sources refer to the company as "Volkswagen" (not as "People's Car"), so that's what we call the article. We can speculate about the reasons why certain foreign names are translated in RS, and others are left alone, but it's not really our place to judge the 'correctness' of these decisions. Colin M (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
            • "TU Berlin" is an abbreviation and is also not understandable to most readers of English, since most people don't recognize what "TU" means. Abbreviations can also have an informal tone that may be considered unencyclopedic. Many universities have abbreviated names that can be used in informal contexts or after some explanation, but MIT is at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cal Tech is at California Institute of Technology, UofT is at University of Toronto, UCLA is at University of California, Los Angeles, UT Austin is at University of Texas at Austin, Boston U is at Boston University, etc. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and per Necrothesp. The proposal would move the page to the actual name of the subject. bd2412 T 17:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as proposed. Citing the print communications standards document published by the school is near meaningless. The significant statement translates (Google) as

Also in English is only the German name „Technische Universität Berlin“ used.

Of course what Google actually said was:

Also in English is only the German name "Technical University of Berlin" used.

which could be of some note. A school or other institution can be obsessed with how their name is used in print. A friend astonished me with how particular UT Austin was, requiring "The University of Texas at Austin" with absolutely no deviations and some strange formatting requirements too.

Looking through the list at Technische_Hochschule#In_Germany, out of 18 mentioned there,

• 2 articles have their German names: Technische Universität Ilmenau Technische Universität Darmstadt
• 2 articles are linked directly to the names auf Englisch: Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg HafenCity Universität Hamburg
• the outlier Technische Universität Dresden ends up at TU Dresden
• and the remaining 13 all redirect to English-named article titles

So... in truth this rename request should not be considered in isolation given that so many articles have exactly the same pattern of naming and exactly the same obsessive internal standards. A mass rename would have to be proposed. This isn't that. Shenme (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The university has, in my view, an odd policy on the translation of its name into English. I see no reason not to retain the current direct word-for-word translation for this article. It is the clearest and most obvious approach, I would say. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oh. I did not pay attention to this discussion and unfortunaly it was closed...I am certain people will request moves over and again until the problem has been resolved. --Physikerwelt (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's called Technische Universität Berlin

The university is called "Technische Universität Berlin" and that's also its name in English. No translation is accepted and "Technical University of Berlin" is simply an invention by wikipedia. Some years ago they tried with an English name namely "Berlin Institute of Technology" but after a copule of years, it was decided that no translation is acceptable and the the name in English must be also "Technische Universität Berlin" (source: I'm an alumni and former teacher at the university) SFBB (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Here an official source accesible via Internet: https://www.tu-berlin.de/servicemenue/impressum/

Der Name "Technische Universität Berlin" wird nicht ins Englische übersetzt. (eng: The name "Technische Universität Berlin" will not be translated into English).SFBB (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've have read all previous discussions on this thread that have ended in no decision being made. But the arguments by the people opposing are always in the vein of "This is the Englsih wikipedia and the English name or English translation should be used", but this arguments are simply incorrect, as thre is no English name and the university explicitely states that the translation used in the page is an unacceptable free translation. Calling Technische Universität Berlin "Technical University of Berlin" is like callig Cristiano Ronaldo "Christian Ronald" SFBB (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. WP:USEENGLISH says we should use the form most commonly found in English-languages sources, and the results are very, very close. Hence the default is to preserve the long-standing title. I've initiated an RfC on whether a different tiebreaker should be used in these cases; feel free to participate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Technical University of Berlin → Technische Universität Berlin – This subject has been voted in the past, but most people rejecting the change do so, arguing on incorrect facts (e.g. "This is the English wikipedia and the English name or English translation should be used" or "the university uses the English name).

The university's only name is Technische Universität Berlin. And the university explicitily states both in internal and external communication that no translation into English is acceptable.

For intance: https://www.tu-berlin.de/servicemenue/impressum. Der Name "Technische Universität Berlin" wird nicht ins Englische übersetzt. (eng: The name "Technische Universität Berlin" will not be translated into English).

The name "Technical University of Berlin" is simply a free translation and it has never been used or accepted by the university (employees are even encouraged to correct the wrong translation).

SFBB (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

More on that. In the past, some users have argued that English sources would prefer the free translation "Technical University of Berlin", but a quick check at BBC website shows that it is highly inconsistent (as all English translations are simply free translations and no one should be preferred over others), including:

- Technische Universität Berlin

- Technical University of Berlin

- Berlin Technical University

- TU-Berlin

The QS university ranking also uses the name Technische Universität Berlin.SFBB (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the Telegraph and the Guardian and same as BBC, all have results for all aforementionend variants, but Technische Universität Berlin is the most used variant by both British newspapers (the most imprtant in the country). So the argument "Technical University of Berlin" is the most common name does not seem to apply. SFBB (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And finally, if you go the the wikipdia page of Astana, it is called Nur-Sultan. Swaziland is called Eswatini. Alma-ata is called Almaty, Bombay is called Mumbai, etc. etc. Wikipedia has a policy of using the most widely recognized name in the language, but, when many possible names seem to be used, it normally respects official names, especially when coutries or institutions are making efforts to get rid of names they do not approve. I know this issue has been discussed in the past and many of you consider the issue to be settled and will resort to the same old arguments, but until the university is referred to by its actual name, you will keep seeing this request over and over, as the university and its community (students and employees) will keep making efforts (not only in wikipedia, but everywhere) for the university being called by its name (same way as KU Leuven, ETH Zürich or Mines ParisTech, among many others).

SFBB (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per evidences and explanations. ~Amkgp ✉ 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. I'm not seeing any actual evidence being presented that "Technische Universität Berlin" is the most common name used in reliable English language sources. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The results in reliable English language sources are mixed and not only between the actual name (in German but it does not matter) and a translation, but among many different possible English translations. And the use of the actual name, given the enforcement by the university, has gained significant momentum during the last lustrum. SFBB (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way. The very WP:USEENGLISH discusses cases like this using the example of "Olympics in Torino"SFBB (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I would always go with the native name unless an English translation is exceptionally better-known in English-language sources. That isn't the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not the standard we're supposed to be using. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What isn't? That we use the title most often used in reliable English-language sources? I think you'll find it's exactly the standard we're supposed to be using. WP:UE certainly does not say we should translate everything into English, although many seem to misinterpret it that way. This Wikipedia mania for translating everything into English because native English-speakers (and I am one, incidentally) are too fick to unnerstand furrin has got to stop. It's not policy and it makes WP look ignorant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Using the title most often used in reliable English-language sources is indeed the standard. But "always go[ing] with the native name unless an English translation is exceptionally better-known in English-language sources" is not the standard. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semantics. Comes to precisely the same thing. Unless there is a common English-language translation that is used more often in reliable English-language sources than the native name we should use the native name. What we shouldn't do is use an English translation just because there is one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems quite different to me. And I agree we shouldn't just use an English translation just because there is one, because there almost always is an English translation of anything. But your position seems to be that we should generally default to the non-English name, while I think our policies say that we should tend to default to the English name. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per previous discussions: The same suggestion was considered in the RMs of 2006, 2010, 2013, and 2019, and I continue to see no indication that the common name in independent reliable English-language sources is clearly different from the current Wikipedia article title. The words "technische" and "universität" don't exist in English and are hard to remember and hard to type for readers of English. It is very common to translate words that are part of the name of an institution when writing in a different language, and those two words seem easy to translate. The current title also abbreviates very nicely as "TU Berlin". Google Ngram seems to show the current name as more common than the proposed one in English-language books. The nominator said they checked some British newspapers and found very mixed results. If the (independent reliable English-language) sources are very mixed, we should lean toward using English, not German. And Google Ngram doesn't show the British English corpus favouring the German form either, and most readers of English are not British. The university has a policy document (written in German) that says something about how the institution prefers to write its name in English, but its naming policy is simply irrelevant – Wikipedia aspires to be written from an independent perspective, based on its own policies that do not include promoting the brand identity of the subjects of its articles. When I type "Technische Universität Berlin" into Bing (from an IP address within the US), on both the web search and maps pages, it brings up "Technical University of Berlin" as the headline on the right-hand side of the page. On Google, the similar panel is titled "Berlin Institute of Technology" (which I do not suggest using). I see no reason to continue to repeat this discussion with no real change in the circumstances. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, the argument based on previous discussion is irrelevant, as up until 2014 English translations were tolerated (not used, but tolerated) by the univerisity. That is no longer the case.

Second, the fact that "Technische" or "Universität" are not English words does not matter, as it is a proper name. "Katholieke" and "Universiteit" are also not English words, but the name of the university in English is still Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft are also not English words and it is still the name of the institution (and of the Wikipedia article), the Bundestag could easily be translated as the Federal Diet...and so many examples (just to mention some in German). Following this line of thought, one could argue that Cristiano Ronaldo should be called Christian Ronald (both "Cristiano" and "Ronaldo" are not English words and both seem easy to translate into English and the Portuguese words are hard to remember and hard to type for English speakers).

Third, searching books is missleading as older sources tend to bias the amount of results (it cannot be argued that Mumbai should be called Bombay, because a majority of old books call it that way).

Fourth, if the results are mixed, we should not lean towards English or German, we should lead towards the actual name (akin to cases of Nur Sultan, Mumbai, or Eswatini, among many others). Same as KU Leuven, ETH Zürich or Mines ParisTech.

Fifth, if one uses google or bing, and is led to "Technical University of Berlin", it is due to a large extent that the wikipedia page is called that way. So this argument is tautological.

Sixth, according to previous discussions the use of translations instead of the university's name was predominant in the past. It does not longer seem to be the case, which is due to the effort by the university indicating that the use of translations is not acceptable (and I've got to stress this: it is not that the university "prefers" the German name, as claimed in the argument; the university does not accept translations). Because of the former, it is hard to argument that there has been no change in the circumstances and keep referring to old discussions. Every day the use of the university's actual name gains momentum as it is enforced by the university.SFBB (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the obscure statement "Der Name 'Technische Universität Berlin' wird nicht ins Englische übersetzt", written in German on a subpage of the university website, is having any effect on how independent reliable sources refer to the university in English. I searched the New York Times website and found 34 instances of "Technical University of Berlin" and only 2 for "Technische Universität Berlin". Of the two that used the German version, at least one of them did not seem to be written by the newspaper itself. On the Boston Globe website I found only "Technical University of Berlin" (one instance). The Times Higher Education site (published by The Times) uses "Technical University of Berlin" for its page about the university and its entry in the list of top German universities. The LinkedIn page for the university uses "Berlin Institute of Technology". U.S. News, a well-known U.S. resource for information about universities, uses "Technical University of Berlin" for its main page about the university and its entry in it list of best German universities.

It's not even clear to me whether the statement "Der Name 'Technische Universität Berlin' wird nicht ins Englische übersetzt" is merely intended as a description of what the university does on its own website or is intended to discourage other people from using translations as well. That page just seems to be about what are the practices that the university uses for its website and how to write its mailing address, not about general policies of how people should refer to the university. I have also found publications by professors of the university that use "Technical University of Berlin" to describe their affiliation. If they are trying to influence the outside world, they don't seem to be succeeding. (Clearly the Technical University of Munich has no problems with rendering its name in English – it does that on its own website. And Munich isn't called München on Wikipedia.)

—BarrelProof (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

1.- I check the NY Times. There are indeed 34 references to "Technical Univerisity of Berlin" but most of them are from the last century and the newest is from 2015 (short after the implementation of the policy). There are only two references to "Technische Universität Berlin", but one of them is the most recent reference (2019). I checked and both are indeed published by the newspaper (it's just a subsection). Boston Globe has only one reference to the university and WSJ has zero. It only shows that the university does not play a major role in the US, and that is not an argument to go for outdated references (i.e. old references in NY Times).

2:- As a European universitiy, it plays a bigger rolein Britain than in the rest of the English speaking world. These are the results from the two major British journals:

The Telegraph

-Technichal university of Berlin 9 (all 2015 or older)

-Technische Universität Berlin 4

-TU Berlin 10

-Berlin Technical University 4

-Berlin's Technical University 4

The Guardian

-Technichal university of Berlin 24

-Technische Universität Berlin 32

-TU Berlin 3

-Berlin Technical University 6

-Berlin's Technical University 9

There seems to be a clear momentum towards the official name instead of a transalation (any of them) in the British press.

3.- The Times Higher Education ranking indeed uses a translation, while the QS World University Rankings uses its official name. Again THE is American (where the university plays a much smaller role), while QS is British, where the university is better-known and consequentielly the change in its naming policy is more likely to be known. Furthermore, if you take a look at the QS ranking, you will observe that for most universities from non English-speaking countris, it indeed uses as translation, and it only refrains from it, in the cases where universities explicitly state that their official name should not be transalted into English (e.g most German universities, such as KIT, RTWH Aachen, or TU-Munich are referred to by their English translatons, while TU Berlin is referred to by its only official name).

4.-The fact that is not clear to you what the university means with the statement does not matter. What do you expect? that the university writes a statement indicating "We discourage other people from using translations"? no institution will write such a statement, but persons using translations are indeed being admonished in private. You claim that professors use a translation of name, but I can assure you that either (and most likely) these papers are old (and therefore outdated for the purpose of this discussion) or if after the changes (much more unliekly), anyone using a translation has been admonished to use the official name. There are many internal documents used for that purpuse and many references in the website and official communications (also here for instance: https://www.tu-berlin.de/?133132).

5.-You argue that Technical University of Munich has no problem with rendering its name in English. So what? TU München indeed uses the English name Technical University of Munich, my current institution (I'm not longer at TU-Berlin) uses the name Utrecht University in English and University of Karlsruhe went as far as to rename itself (in 2009) in German as Karlsruhe Institute für Technologie so that it would match its new English name Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. But such an argument is like arguing Stanford should translate its German motto into Latin, because Harvard does so. TU Berlin is a different institution that decides on its name on its own and it has decided by 2014 that its name in English is "Technische Universität Berlin" (or alternatively TU Berlin), but it seems that people in wikipedia are not willing to let the university decide on its own name. Why do you let the University of Karlsruhe change its English name to Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in 2009 and you don't let TU Berlin use the name they consider appropiate as they have decided in 2014.

6.- Please read again the WP:USEENGLISH guideline. You're going way beyond it. Following your lines of thought i) no name changes would ever be allowed (as the old references would still use predominately the old name) and ii) artificial translations should be used for every foreign proper name and we should speak of Agricultural Credit when referring to Crédit Agricole or the German Bank when referring to Deutsche Bank. SFBB (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

One point of correction: Times Higher Education is British, not American. It is published by The Times, which is a leading British newspaper based in London and founded in 1785, and its website uses British spelling conventions. According to the Wikipedia article about THE, "It is the United Kingdom's leading publication in its field."

The leading American authority on universities is U.S. News & World Report – e.g., see U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking and U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking.

So both of these leading English-language independent reliable authorities on the subject of universities (and Bing) use the current article title to refer to the university (and some other sources use some other translated name). The opinion of the university itself is not so relevant and now also not so clear, as it appears they have not actually publicly declared that they discourage other people from using translations. The University of British Columbia has a partnership program with TU Berlin, and uses the current article title to describe it, as found here. I don't see a clear indication that independent reliable English-language sources consistently differ from the current article title, and I don't see a need to keep repeating this discussion, after having the previous RM discussions of 2006, 2010, 2013, and 2019. However, I suspect you will have some additional lengthy reply.

—BarrelProof (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No. I don't have any lengthy reply. You keep obstinately repeating that is has been discussed in the past and neglecting any new development and argument. There has been a very important change, since the university changed its English name (or its policy towards its English name in 2014), but you simply don't wanna hear it. I'm not saying that no sources use a translation. I'm claiming that some sources use translations while others use the official name, and that in the last year lustrum there has an irrefutable momentum towards the use of the official name. While THE still uses a translation, QR has already chnged its policy. Same applies to newspapers, such as the Guardian and the Telegraph (where you can see the development over time) and to partner universities (e.g. UCL, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global/collaborations).

Fact is that both, different free translations and official name are used by independent English-language sources and that a clear development towards the official name has been observed during recent years.

PS: Note that this momentum was already there in 2019, but the discussion was closed on the basis of the arguments of 2013...same as you're trying to do it now.SFBB (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought it might be nice to look somewhat more systematically for authorities on the subject of universities, so I looked at the College and university rankings article. I confirm that QS seems to be among the reliable ones. Among the English-language sources that seemed appropriate from that list, I found five that use the current (English) article title (THE, ARWU, CWUR, USNWR, and URAP) and two that use the German title (QS and CWTS Leiden). One of the other sources listed there was Newsweek. I did not find the university in a Newsweek ranking list, but from a search on their website I found the current (English) name used here in 2018 and did not find any uses of the German name. These results are all recent, were not chosen selectively to favour a preferred outcome, and generally favour retaining the current article title. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at College and university rankings, but I'm frankly surprised but the selection of rankings you report to use in your argument. It seems as if you have (despite of your claim) selected 7 rankings out of a much longer list in completely ad-hoc fashion with the sole purpuse of favoring your preferred outcome. I checked all rankings listed on that webpage (all of them are in English).

The Wikipedia article includes College and university rankings the following rankings:

- QS World University Rankings: Technische Universität Berlin [7]

- Times Higher Education World University Rankings: Technical University of Berlin [8]

- Academic Ranking of World Universities: Technical University of Berlin [9]

- Center for World University Rankings: Technical University of Berlin [10]

- Leiden Ranking: Technische Univesität Berlin [11]

- Eduniversal: Technische Univesität Berlin [12]

- G-factor: I was not able to find it or even to identify it (if someone finds it, please add it).

- Global University Ranking. I think I found the ranking, but the links are broken [13]

- HEEACT—Ranking of Scientific Papers: Technical University of Berlin [14]

- Human Resources & Labor Review: not listed [15]

- High Impact Universities: seems to exist but I wasn't able to find it anywhere.

- Nature Index: TU Berlin [16]

- Newsweek: not listed (only US-American universities) [17]

- Professional Ranking of World Universities: Tech Univ Berlin [18] (NOTE: Tech Univ Berlin, seems to be short for the official name, as for other examples the raning includes the word "of" in shortened versions. Furthermore, the ranking uses mostly official names and official translations).

- Reuters World's Top 100 Innovative Universities: not listed [19]

- Round University Ranking: Technical university of Berlin [20]

- SCImago Institutions Rankings: Technische Universität Berlin [21]

- U-Multirank: Technische Universität Berlin [22]

- University Ranking by Academic Performance: Technical University of Berlin [23]

- U.S. News & World Report's Best Global Universities Rankings: Technical University of Berlin [24]

- Webometrics: Technische Universität Berlin [25]

- Wuhan univerversity: I was not able to found it

- CHE University Ranking: Technische Universität Berlin [26]

- TOTAL

- Technical university of Berlin: 7

- Technische Universität Berlin: 8

- TU Berlin: 1

Technische Universität Berlin is the most common denomination (although Technical university of Berlin is also widely used).

This argument just highlights the momentum towards the change of the English name since the enacting of the new policy in 2014. SFBB (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way...in a previous argument you mentioned the linkedin page of the university would the name Berlin Institute of Technology. This was indeed so, up until the new policy (enacted in 2014) and, since then the official linkedin pag uses the name Technische Universität Berlin [27] (the other is just and old profil, that has not been deleted and is no longer being actualized).SFBB (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking that data. I tried to check your counting, and the count for the German form seems off by one. Are you counting "Tech Univ Berlin" as German? To me, I think that is a very plausible abbreviation of "Technical Unversity of Berlin", so I would not count it as German (nor as English). Like "TU Berlin", it could abbreviate either the German or English name. Like you, I discovered that several of the sources listed in that College and university rankings article were hard to find or did not list the university, so like you I did not use those. The top sources seem to be QS, THE, and ARWU (and possibly Leiden and USNWR). These three are the ones used in the "Rankings" section of this article, and two out of the three use the current article title. I think the reason I did not check SCImago and Webometrics is because they were identified as Spanish sources. CHE was not listed in the article's list of "Global rankings", so I did not check that, and it also seems to be a German publication. Newsweek was listed in "Global rankings" and did publish a global ranking at some point, since there is a link to it in that article, but the link is now dead. Ednuniversal had a combination of problems – it is now defunct and was a French publication – and in a quick effort, I had difficulty finding it. U-Multirank was also tough to find for me; I now confirm what you said but also note that it is an affiliated government publication and that the beginning of their article says "Berlin Institute Of Technology (Technische Universität Berlin) is one of 107 universities ...", so it does not entirely refrain from English translation. Overall, if we count only the sources listed there as "Global rankings" and do not consider "Tech Univ Berlin" as either English or German, and especially if we somewhat discount sources published in non-English-speaking countries, I think there is a majority in favour of the English-translated title over the German one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm counting "Tech Univ Berlin" as Technische Universität Berlin, because i) when doing the abbrevations, the ranking systematically includes the word of (e.g. Inst for Study of Politics - Paris; Tampere Univ of Technology; Univ of Applied Sciences (Fachhochschule) Aachen; Univ of London; Univ of Navarra; among many, many others), so if it would be short for Technical University of Berlin, the abbreviation would be "Tech Univ of Berlin", and ii) because the ranking systematically uses official names and not translations (unless offcial translation exists).

And the English Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia in English and not an encyclopedia of English-speeking countries. There is no reason to disregard a source in English (which s published in English only), merely because it originates in a Spanish-speaking country. SFBB (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is actually very common to remove minor words such as "at" or "of" when shortening names in English. For example, the University of Texas at Austin is commonly known as UT Austin. I think that practically no one would say "U of T at Austin" or "UT at Austin" (and indeed those are red links), they would typically remove the "of" and the "at". University of Massachusetts is known as U Mass, not U of Mass (another red link). Similarly, UPenn rather than U of Penn. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, so what? again a strawman to back your argument. It doesn't matter. It's not about how abbreaviations are generaly used in the English language, but about how the reference constructs its abbrevations.SFBB (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to summarize here the arguments in the previous discussions:

- Official policy of the university: Technische Universität Berlin (the policy enacted in 2014 is equivalent ot a change of name in English).

- Use in the British mainstream press: Mixed use, with a clear tendency/majority of Technische Universität Berlin since the change of the English name.

- Use in university rankings: slight majority of Technische Universität Berlin.

- Use in the US-American mainstream press: much more limited use than in the Britisch mainstream press. Most references older than 2015. Number of references since 2015 neglectable (both variants are used). SFBB (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I offer a slightly different summary: 1) no clear statement of policy on what the university wants independent people to do in English-language publications; 2) mixed use in the British press, with the highly-rated British authority on universities, Times Higher Education, favouring the English translation; 3) mixed use, perhaps with majority favouring English translation in reputable global university rankings published in English (esp. publications in English-speaking countries); 4) U.S. sources generally favouring English translation; and 5) "Technische Universität Berlin" is hard to type and clearly not in English – note that there are also other variants of translation that are used in English-language independent sources – there is a tendency to translate or abbreviate to avoid the German words and umlaut in one way or another, and this way seems the most common. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof You're simply unbelievable. You seem to have a personal thing on this issue. You have been voting against the use of the official name, every time this issue have been suggested in the past and while different people keep arguing for a change on different ocassions you keep pushing questionable arguments forward and trying to twist reality (more on that below). Your opinion on this issue should simply be ignored, as you've showed that you're simply moved by obstinacy and keep insisting on the discussion you "won" in the past on this issue.

Above you claimed you had selected evidence that "were not chosen selectively to favour a preferred outcome, and generally favour retaining the current article title". I proved checking all the evidence, that this was merely a deceitful argument and that you had just selected websites using translations in ad-hoc fashion. You have tried to push forward argument such as: "TU Munich uses a translation, so TU Berlin must use a translation too" or "universität is not an English word" which obviously contradicts the WP:USEENGLISH guideline. You keep posting handpicked evidence and trying to make it look as it would be general and you keep trying to interpret a clear declaration of the university in a completly weird way (despite the fact that insiders - 3 already on this talk page - have already explained how the university interprets the policy, namely the obvious straighforward interpretation).SFBB (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

And again you're lying and/or selected evidenc ad-hoc to back your point in you're reply.

1. The policy of the university is clear and it is stated here [28] and here [29].

2. THE indeed uses a translation. The QS ranking (which is oldest and argueble the most reputed one - THE is a secession from QS) uses the official name.

3. I already showed that your claim is not true (and can only consider that you keep repeating that claim after being proved untrue is plainly a lie). I checked the rankings in College and university rankings (as you claimed you had done) and showed that a majority uses the official name.

4.- You claim that US sources favor a translation. I agree up until 2015. Since that dat the number of mentions is minimal and neglectable compared with the mentions in Britain. Again, check the WP:USEENGLISH guideline.

5.- Technische and Universität are obviously not English words. so what? Again, check the WP:USEENGLISH guideline.SFBB (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I already made my points clear and I backed them with evidence that can be hardly regarded as hand-picked. I refuse to keep discussing with someone that already showed is not interested in evidence but merely in keep policing the use of a translation in the article (as you have showed it, every time this issue has been touched in the past).SFBB (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

One point of correction: I did not participate in the RMs of 2006 and 2010. I also insist that I have not selected references merely to support my views on the matter. I refer to my explanation above and request to please assume good faith. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

hard to type and clearly not in English... I'm not aware that this is cited as a good reason to translate in any policy or guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll accept that, although it was an excerpt of a longer statement that was more nuanced. And I also agree with you that we shouldn't "use an English translation just because there is one." From the policy/guideline perspective, we can focus on whether German version is the most common form in independent reliable sources that are written in the English language. I don't think that has been shown. For example, two out of three of the top global university rating services (THE and ARWU) use the English form that is the current article title. If we expand that list of sources (e.g. to the top 4 or 5 or more rating services, or also include English-language newspapers), I still don't see a clear majority favouring the German. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Necrothesp don't lose your time trying to reason with BarrelProof. The guy is simply policing the article to avoid a change he dislikes and he's been voting against for years. He neglects new evideence, selects information in ad-hoc fashion to sustain his viewpoint, comes up with ridicoulous self-invented policies that go against the official wikipedia guidelines and newly decided on the weirdest interpretation of the university official's policy to vandalize the page (despite the fact that 3 persons have told him that the straigforward interpretration and not his, is actually the interpreation the university uses).SFBB (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat my request to please assume good faith. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose with mixed use in English language sources, WP:USEENGLISH is a tie-breaker. We are not here to promote university's brand name. buidhe 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So now its name in its own language is a brand name?! No, it isn't. It's its name! Anything else is no more than a translation and shouldn't be used unless it's widely used in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The current (English) name is "widely used in [independent reliable] English-language sources", as has been discussed above. I think it is more prevalent than the German name in such sources, or at least that the German name is not clearly more prevalent. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

After the last requested move in 2020 (the fourth one), whose result was too close to tell, the section name was added to the article and different editors participated in the writing. Surprisingly, one of the editors that participated in writing of the consensus text (and who had been the fiercest opponent of every move in the past) deleted it after a couple of month without any consensus. That's plainly unacceptable and that's not how wikipedia works. Any change of a consensus should be first discussed here. SFBB (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To be precise, the section in question is this one, describing guidance in the university's style guide discouraging the use of translations of its German name. No independent sources are cited that have made any comment at all about the University's preference (or anyone else's preference) for how to write the university's name when writing in English – the only cited source in that section is the university's own "Corporate Design Manual", so it is WP:UNDUE to put a section into the article to talk about it. If there is evidence of a consensus, it is that the article has been stable without that section for the last year and three months. I am not aware of any consensus declared that such a section should be in the article. Wikipedia is not a part of that corporation and is not obligated to pay any attention to its corporate design manual. As said by another editor in the last RM discussion, "We are not here to promote university's brand name." It is understandable that the university has an internal style guide to promote its corporate identity, but Wikipedia does not need to follow that style guide or help draw any attention to it. Readers of the article who want to learn basic information about the university are unlikely to be interested in the university's brand promotion efforts (even if we assume we know how to interpret the one brief sentence in that German document that mentions it). I strongly suggest that since that aspect of the article has been stable for more than a year (i.e., without that section in it), the burden should be on the party who wants to add it to establish a consensus that it should be added. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The text is a consensus version, to which you contributed yourself (e.g. here}. After that, you let a couple of month pass by just to delete it when no one noticed (as it was). Now you insist on deleting consensus text via undoing. Once more trying to impose your version that way and I go to the noticeboard. SFBB (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing something to make it somewhat less objectionable does not imply agreeing with it, and I only did that edit after you reverted my previous deletion of that section a few days earlier. As far as I recall, there was no consensus to include that section – only a disagreement between you and me that stopped with its removal a year and three months ago. I haven't noticed anyone else saying that section should be included in the article, and it is not supported with any independent sources to indicate that it has any notability. Please feel free to open a noticeboard discussion if you wish – I would welcome comments from others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't the information be included as a footnote next to the English name in the lead or next to the parenthetical immediately after? That seems more due than giving this info a section of its own, while still including it. —El Millo (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does the university's style guidance (if that's what it is) need to be mentioned in the article at all? No independent source appears to have remarked about it. Also, the referenced web page (see https://www.tu-berlin.de/servicemenue/impressum/) is entitled "Impressum", which is explained in the linked Wikipedia article as being "a legally mandated statement of the ownership and authorship of a document" (i.e., the website), because "The Telemediengesetz requires that German websites disclose information about the publisher, including their name and address, telephone number or e-mail address, trade registry number, VAT number, and other information depending on the type of company." An impressum is an information disclosure about the website published the university, not guidance for external parties. The referenced statement ("Der Name 'Technische Universität Berlin' wird nicht ins Englische übersetzt") is also under a section heading that appears to indicate that it is about how the central mailing address of the university is written ("Zentrale Adresse der TU Berlin") – perhaps it is intended only to help avoid postal delivery problems when writing the mailing address, or to explain that although they translate much of their website content into English, they do not translate their name on their website. It is not really clear whether that sentence is intended to influence writings that are not published by the university itself, or anything that's not their website. It is only a brief sentence and contains no explanation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course BarrelProof (talk · contribs), that's just so that just so that post doesn't get lost. Dozens of users have been telling here over years how this paragraph is interpreted in practice, and why using the name "Technical University Berlin" is consider impolite...but of course, you know better how to interpret the meaning of the sentence. Discussing with you is simply losing someone's time, because it does not matter how many people tell you you something and how much documentation will b provided, you won't change your mind and keep imposing you version by force...or you'll waint som month up until no one is checking.

For anyone else interested, here you have the bulletin of communications from the year 2002, which thematized why "Technical University Berlin" is a no-go and why back then the university adopted the name Berlin Institute of Technology for a couple of years . [30]. I quote

Die Briten gaben ihr bei ihrer Neugründung 1946 den Namen "Technical University Berlin", den sie auch lange Jahrzehnte gerne trug. Vor einigen Jahren einigte man sich darauf, den Eigennamen gar nicht mehr zu übersetzen, weil die englische Übersetzung die Assoziation mit einer Fachhochschule hervorrief.

And in English:

When it was founded in 1946, the British gave it the name "Technical University Berlin", which it liked to wear for decades. A few years ago it was agreed not to translate the proper name at all, because the English translation evoked the association with a university of applied sciences.

. SFBB (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen that publication before – thank you for finding that – it is interesting, although I'm not sure it matters either way for Wikipedia purposes, since it is another university-published primary source. I do notice a couple of things. One is that "it was agreed" is a kind of strange phrasing. I wonder who agreed? I also notice that there are "Pro" and "Con" arguments presented about some (other) naming idea, and that both of them seem to agree about one thing, as summarized by Professor Preuss-Lausitz who wrote the "Con" position: "P. S. Mit einem hat Wilpert Recht: Es muss natürlich heißen: 'Technical University of Berlin'.", which Google says means "P. S. [Prof.] Wilpert is right about one thing: Of course it has to be: 'Technical University of Berlin'." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, I refuse to discuss with you, because you'd twist any evidence that be provided and come up with ridiculous arguments to try to make your points, such as that porpuse of the impressum is that the post doesn't get lost and starting to doubt who agreed upon a agreement communicated in the official university communication letter. What's next? to cast a doubt on who wrote the official Affiliation Policy. If we check previous interventions in the multiple move requests the list becomes eve more absurd (e.g. the argument about how you'd abbreviate UT Austin as an argument on the way a given ranking was abbreviating names). So it's pointless. I'd wait for the result of the noticeboard claim. SFBB (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finding another document that I had not seen before, which has not been previously discussed here. It is another interesting university-produced primary source, and at first glance, it seems more clear about this than any of the others. I think it is natural to want to know who agreed to a described agreement. After all, what can be described as an agreement without some understanding of who was agreeing? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@BarrelProof what do you think now? Could you imagine agreeing to a move?

I mean this has been discussed since 2006. I find it astonishing that people have such a strong opinion on one or the other variant. I can, of course, understand both perspectives. However, I find it annoying that I need to discuss in various context (proposals, papers, etc) that the name is not Technical University of Berlin even though this is the title of the Wikipedia article. Today, people trust Wikipedia more than any other source, and one new collaborator changed all the occurrences in my text today with the reference to the Wikipedia article. I am now wondering, if the Wikipedia was not called Technical University of Berlin if one would find the name in newspaper articles etc as there is no provenance where the name comes from.

CC @SFBB Physikerwelt (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

And even the corpus shows that after 2014 Technische Universität Berlin has also become the most common way (see Ngram Viewer <-here without smoothing for sensibility, but low smoothing gives the same results). This is interesting, because the last time is was discussed, the conclusion was "too close too call" and back then the corpus 2012 was used as an argument for the free translation. Now that argument also goes the other way around. SFBB (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Physikerwelt:: You could eventually propose a new move (now that there is even more evidence that you should tip a fact that was already too close to call), but I would not count with a consensus with the other user. Any move would have to occur despite his opposition (as he has been doing it for like a decade) and cherrypicking efforts to keep it this way despite of the evidence. SFBB (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@SFBB I would support it, but I think it is up the next user to propose it. Could you ping me, when the next movement proposal will be made? Physikerwelt (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Technical vs. Technological

I would argue the translation of "Technische Universität" as "Technical University" is a mistranslation. In English, the word "technical" is much narrower than the German word "technisch". For example, the Technological University Dublin also abbreviates itself with TU (i.e. TU Dublin). It is comparably dealing with teaching of technologies like the TU Berlin. Imagine someone calling an institute "Massachusetts Institute of Techniques". But in the same I would interpret "technical" in this mistranslation. Why don't we follow the example of TU Dublin and describe it as "Technological University Berlin"? But as the main title I would simply choose "TU Berlin", as it is handled by the university itself in much of its communication. 80.71.142.166 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)