Talk:Deutsche Mark

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: Speedily not moved. Per

Please clarify. You propose a change (move), and you say the current title is a stable one ... be allowed to stand. (Also, your two diffs are not clarifying). DePiep (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 14:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Got it. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like the article coverts various historical currencies. I don't have time now, but we best gather an overview of (all) these currencies, their German names and possibly English names. Correctness is crucial, preferably by sources. Incidentally, ISO 4217 names can help, but are never defining (ISO follows not defines a currency; and only so after 1977 anyway). -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per
  WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That Ngram says: three names ~equally popular. DePiep (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: three names in sight: "Deutsche Mark" (de, e.g., on banknotes), "Deutschmark" (en), "German mark" (en, transl). Same currency since 1948–2002 (historical since euro replacement). We can use more name usage background. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ISO 4217 says DEM ="Deutsche Mark" (as lang=en; list 3=historical). So, no new/different en name from there. DePiep (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "deutschmark" (with no capitalization) is well attested in English, so I completely fail to see the point of the nominator's attempt to deprecate "deutschmark" from use on the website, which is what they seem to be doing. A term such as "German mark" is not particularly helpful as it is also used to describe the
  gold mark, papiermark, and reichsmark, whereas deutschmark always refers to the 1948-2002 currency. 92.9.5.232 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. We had this discussion a few years ago, and it was already demonstrated that the current name is the common and also correct name. Also, why propose a move you don't agree with?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe they are trying to get the word "deutschmark" deprecated. I am honestly neutral on the name of the article itself, but this sort of strict demand for a narrow nomenclature would be rather limiting, causing intense issues with use of quotes and such. Going through the website with a fine tooth comb simply to take out every instance of a widely used term in political and economic history would be rather totalitarian and unconstructive. 92.9.5.232 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a series of mass edits where someone with a proverbial "fine tooth comb" changed "ruble" - "a widely used term in political and economic history" especially in non-British English sources - to "rouble". Would that also be "totalitarian and unconstructive" in your opinion?

  talk) 16:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  So why do you seek to become the thing you profess to dislike? All this is deeply unhelpful to anybody. This TCG person seemingly did not make mass changes from "Deutsche Mark" to "deutschmark", they just used it a few times. 92.9.5.232 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Any reversion of a mass disruption is by definition a mass action itself.

  talk) 00:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's not helping in any way, NRS. No need to advocate for smthng you don't want. Do not advocate for someone else's misunderstood point. That's not 'clarification'. DePiep (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, do we let the disruption stand? Because that is just abetting the behaviour.

  talk) 16:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  TheCurrencyGuy has seemingly been indefinitely blocked, so it's not like any disruption is likely to continue. Anyway, here we are. Re the above point, I'd have thought using "Deutsche Mark" in other articles is also preferable, seeing as it's both the common name and the more "correct" version.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you even care that there are multiple formats for the name? Surely this is just like the r(o)uble example; a person attempting to force one variation in all circumstances. Checking your recent history you've even accused completely innocent people of being TCG simply for using the same terminology as they did. It isn't "disruption" if a term you don't like is used on some articles, many instances of "deutschmark" will have been there for many years, thus you would be the disruptive person by attempting to change them all. 92.9.5.232 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By your own logic, "many instances of" ruble "will have been there for many years" and therefore any attempt to "change them all" to rouble, as has occurred in reality, are "disruptive".

  I admit that I haven't addressed this point much either, but you are currently failing to highlight why we should avoid the current stable terminology of "Deutsche Mark" in order to embrace "deutschemark", and how it is suddenly not disruptive unlike the r(o)uble dispute.

  talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This is getting ridiculous, you seem intent on enforcing a sort of "one [name] to rule them all" policy in which no variation of any kind at all is permissible, the very same thing you accuse TCG of. I am suggesting both are equally valid (they are as close to equal as makes no real difference in ngram results) and your attempt to force the entire site to adopt one or the other is unacceptable. I will also note that you attempted to move German ostrubel (the grammatically correct German compound) to "German ostruble" (fictitious Deutschlish) because of your personal preferences. You appear to have more similarities to TCG than you care to admit. This proposed move is a perennial suggestion that comes up every few years, but this appears to be the most egregious one because you set it up to fail so you could exploit "consensus" as a licence to make disruptive and unconstructive edits en masse. 89.240.245.172 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To break it down:

  1. "Consistency" is Wikipedia jargon for "one [name] to rule them all". Imagine seeing one page referring to a "Belarusian ruble", a second page referring to a "rouble", and a third page referring to a "rubel". That obviously wouldn't be very helpful for the average reader. The same applies to other currency names, such as the Deutsch(e )mark.

  2. If both nomenclatures are truly "equally valid" then the current nomenclature of "Deutsche Mark" should prevail per

  WP:TITLECHANGES

  , since there would then be no good reason to change the current title.

  3. Yes, I did propose the ostrubel move, but...

  - It is in last November, so it is a less accurate of the editor that I am.

  - I respected the RM's results and left most references to the "ostrubel" intact.

  - It is not "my personal preferences" or a desire for "fictitious Deutschlish" that prompted the RM; instead, TCG did a bold move without prior consensus, so I was seeking to seek the consensus for them. It is like

  WP:BRD

  , but instead of reverting first, I discussed first.

  4. As I have stated above, anyone reverting mass disruption (like that which TCG had done) is by definition similar to TCG because both would have used mass edits. Since you are an NRS historian, you probably have heard of the admin Tamzin, with whom I have been involved over TCG; do they "have more similarities to TCG than [they] care to admit" because they mass-reverted CorwenAv's ban-evading edits?

  5. Many proposals based around TCG's ideas (e.g. using "mark" rather than "Finnish markka"; see Talk:Finnish markka) are indeed set up to fail because they shouldn't have been done in the first place due to the lack of consensus. Had enough people agreed with TCG, the markka RM (for instance) would have succeeded.

  (Bonus: Your notion that I am using

  talk) 06:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, I did propose the ostrubel move, but... stop it. Just stop it. Are you expecting us to read this? I won't. Don't discuss about the discussion. DePiep (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  so we let the disruption stand??? irrelevant. Just don't impose for an argument. IOW, speak for yourself. I still don't see what "disruption" you mean. (don't explain). Simply say: "I think x is the best name because Y?" The rest is confusion. DePiep (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt any user is going to be confused if they see both "Deutsche Mark" and "deutschmark" in different places. NRS seems to be being petty and aggressive seeking to impose his one and only rule everywhere. Will he remove every instance of the word "jam" and replace it with "preserve"? Because that is the end result of his current endeavour. This move request is an example of disruption because he is taking up valuable time and energy on an issue that objectively does not even need his "help". Innocent 1s and 0s died for this nonsense. 89.240.245.172 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]