Jump to content

Talk:Mainz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I'm fascinated to learn that the Polish for Mainz is Moguncja, but does it have much to do with this article, or indeed with the distinctly Rheinland, nowhere-near-Poland-whatsoever, character of the city? And how does the Gdansk vote affect this at all? Alai 16:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Gdansk vote says specifically, that the cross-naming affects any place that has a shared Polish-German history. In this case, there has been a large Polish diaspora there in the 19th century, also there were Polish troops stationed there during the Napoleonic Wars. The city was German, the troops were Polish - so the history is shared.
BTW, you might want to question this interpretation at Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion Halibutt 16:47, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Halibutt. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
As to the rationale: for instance, in 1631 the town was occupied by Polish and Swedish forces. As to the name being mentioned in English language sources - google is your friend. Notify me on my talk page if you need any book sources as well. Halibutt 18:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Google mainly uses the name Mainz, so I don't accept Google as a reference that primarily uses the Polish name. Can you be more specific? Eugene van der Pijll 18:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, this is a completely unreasonable argument. French troops occupied most of Poland under Napoleon - how would you feel is from French editor concluded that that was enough of a historical connection to add French names to all Polish pages? There are Polish people living in almost every major city in the entire world - is that enough of a Polish connection to require that we add the Polish names for those cities to all those articles? Etc, etc, etc. Noel (talk) 18:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite. The above search turns up around 200 hits, and they're exceptionally low-grade stuff. I'd like not merely book sources, but considerably more notable and authorative sources than [1], in either medium. Alai 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But that link, http://www.moguncja.hotelsbedbreakfast.inn26.com/, is interesting, in that it is an international site, and it uses the Polish name. Oh, but wait: it uses the name Mainz as well. And http://www.mainz.hotelsbedbreakfast.inn26.com/ also exists, and uses "Mainz" twice, and "Moguncja" 0 times. Which makes "Mainz" the most common name there. Ah well... Eugene van der Pijll 18:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a clearly specious interpretation of Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Halibutt, you should be ashamed of yourself - this is really childish. I am happy to revisit that particular result of the poll to make it more specific, but this is absurd. john k 19:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childish? I bet you could try to offend me in a more sophisticated way. Anyway, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote ruling does not require any specific kind of source, it simply has to be a English language source, be it a fable, a fairytale, a tourist office ad... here you go then :) Halibutt 07:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
"It was printed by the Gutenberg from Moguncja, probably in 1454 year." That is not English. Eugene van der Pijll 08:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree it is not the best English I ever saw, but still it is English. And there is no rule saying that there can be no errors on the source that uses the name. Halibutt 15:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I can see value in including variant spellings, of any nationality, of a name (so the entry can be found by Google search, for example)—but listing them all at the front makes the article very hard to read (there could easily be as many entries as ther are languages). Can we not have them at the bottom, like 'see also' sections, etc.? Thans. mfc 14:33, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

That would be OK with me. But the name "Mayence" should stay in the first line of the article; not because it's the French name, but because it is an English name for this city. Nowadays a very rare name, but it used to be the most common name, so people could come across the name in older books, newspapers, etc. See for example this google search: "mayence -mainz", only English pages: almost 20,000 hits. Compare with ["moguncja -mainz"]: 31 hits. Eugene van der Pijll 17:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to list them all, only the French (by common sense) and Polish (by Talk:Gdansk rule. Whay exactly not? Why exactly is it against the rules? Halibutt 02:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
How, again, did Mainz "share a history" with Poland? Quit it, quit it, quit it. john k 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Being occupied by Polish forces twice in its history is not enough? Perhaps for you, gbut not for the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Halibutt 03:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Polish forces? No, that is not enough, especially since in neither case were those Polish forces national forces. Once again, you are clearly purposefully ignoring the clear intent of the vote in order to make a point. Just stop it and do something constructive. What on earth is the point of arguing a position you don't actually agree with? john k 03:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Holy Mary mother of God, John, just listen to yourself. What else do you need? If I post you a pic of Polish WWII troops entering the city under a Polish flag you'll ask me for an ethnic composition of the regiment chart? And then you'll call the number of ethnic Poles within the unit too small?
And what difference would it make for the letter of the voting results? I understand that your point of view is that I should provide a zillion of books that use the name and a proof that there was an army with more than 80% of Poles and flying the Polish banner there, but this is clearly absurd. And more importantly, this is not needed by the voting results.
If you don't like the voting results - change them. Or ask the ArbCom to change it. But do not change it yourself by demanding that some articles you like be applied the rules and others not. Who exactly gave you this right? Halibutt 03:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Another link, if the previous ones were not enough: [2], [3] Halibutt
Halibutt, the fact that the Polish army on the western front entered the city at the end of World War II is simply absurd as a reason for putting the Polish name in. The basic fact is that everybody except you does not understand "shared history" to mean "at some point there was somebody Polish in this city." This includes those of us who agree with you that the current rule is too vague. "Sharing a history" was clearly meant to mean cities which have, at different points in history, been inhabited by both Poles and Germans, or which have been under the political control of both Poland and Germany or a German state, not any German city that a Pole has set foot in at some point in recorded history. This is how everybody else has interpreted it, and this is how you intepreted it until a few days ago. So please quit with this nonsense, which, so far as I can tell, is supported by nobody except you. john k 03:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But this is incredibly pointless. The basic fact is that what is clearly an overwhelming majority do not believe that your interpretation of the vote is correct and that you have consistently and repeatedly failed to even acknowledge that this is a possible response to what you are doing. Let me say it again: Everybody else who has weighed in on this does not agree with you interpretation of what "shared history" means. As such, no matter what you think "shared history" means (and I assume you do not even really think it means this, but are just engaging in absurdity because you're irritated by how this has been applied on Polish pages - something which, I will again note, I agree with you about), you cannot continue to assert your interpretation as though it is undisputed fact. So, again I say stop it! stop it! stop it! All you are doing is making people less sympathetic to anything you say in the future on the subject. john k 03:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There already exists a page for lists of alternate city names: List of European cities with alternative names. DirectorStratton 18:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)--
Nevertheless, I thought the information on List of European cities with alternative names should also be included here; it is information about the city that might be useful -- if for noone else, at least for Poles who want to know where their name of the city comes from (apparently from the Latin name). So I added a new section. But as I said above: no other names in the first line but Mainz and Mayence, as these are (also) the English names. Eugene van der Pijll 21:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to change the following sentence in the article:

The reparations were not paid and Germany preferred to wreck its economy through inflation than to pay them.

This sentence is grammatically wrong and has a content that is controversial to say the least. I would not leave it there without a good citation. I disagree that Germany let its economy go down on purpose to avoid paying reparations. Seems like a very weird statement to me. Instead a note that the reparations where not fully payed and the claims where abandoned after WWII would be in order. Maybe one should mention the worldwide economical crisis in the 20s in that context ...

I think it needs to be said that Mayence was the most common ENGLISH, not just the French, name for Mainz until quite recently. In Victorian days, when the Rhine River was part of the Grand Tour for British and Americans, it was called Mayence. When Mainz fell out of mainstream travel, because of the world wars, the name fell out of usage.
Leaving out the information that Mayence is also the older English name will make it harder for people to find what they are looking for on the internet. Think Bombay/Mumbai or Ceylon/Sri Lanka. There are many older references on Google in English under the name Mayence, but most English-speakers won't look for it if they think they will find only information in French.

Evangeline (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: The ONLY English name of Mainz was Mayence until quite recently (ca 1933!). There is a good deal of information about the city in ENGLISH under the name Mayence. This needs to be part of the article so that people can use Mayence when Googling Mainz in English.

HOW will they know this without this information? I thought Wikipedia was about more, not less, information?

Please LEAVE IN. Evangeline (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Mainz

[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is that

[edit]

What are you doing Zindegi (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimhg

[edit]

Bikbbgfdgiv Zindegi (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainz. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mainz. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainz. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First bishop

[edit]

About this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainz&diff=856258750&oldid=856240702
First Bishop in Mainz was by legend Crescenz around 80 AD; first verifiable Bishop of Mainz was Martinus in 343. In no way Boniface was first bishop in Mainz.
First archbishop in Mainz was Boniface, he became archbishop pro hac vice in 732, and in 745 he was granted Mainz as metropolitan see. So he was actually not archishop of mainz, which was at that time not a regular archiepsicopal see until 781. So Boniface was first archbishop in Mainz and Lullus became first archbishop of Mainz. I therefore revert the wrong version of "first bishop in Mainz, Boniface," which is wrong in many ways, back to "first archbishop in Mainz, Boniface". --mmg (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[This copied from Mmg's talk page, and I acknowledge that points were already addressed though I didn't know about this post here, so much of this actually confirms the above and other points are already handled:] Mmg, we're at an impasse here and I'm wondering if we're talking at cross-purposes (and I don't know what you mean with "See DS"). Sure, B. became "archbishop" in title, but you know that the first time he wasn't assigned a seat (732), and later he really was metropolitan bishop, initially and abortively of Cologne (which in ancient times had that status), and while he became assigned to Mainz, that didn't become an archdiocese until, what was it, 780. So the odd thing is that you can call him an archbishop, and you can even call him an archbishop in Mainz, but you can't really call him an archbishop of Mainz, since that obviously suggests Mainz was an archdiocese. I am unable to reach for my library now, but I'll drop you some quotes from Rudolf Schieffer (as yet unpublished--I'm working on it):

"A move in this direction is confirmed by a document from 732 in which the new Pope, Gregory III, bestowed on Boniface the rank of archbishop and the pallium as its external symbol."

"The synod [the Concilium 742] was attended solely by Archbishop Boniface and the five bishops recently appointed by him in the previous months (and like him still without a diocese), ..."

"Moreover, he, the archbishop, had personally encountered insurmountable resistance on the occasion of his abortive installation in Cologne in 745."

"The Frank Agilolf was appointed to the episcopal throne at Cologne, and in 746/47 Boniface had to be content with Mainz, which was, however, not raised to the rank of a metropolitan see and was only vacant because the bishop there, Gewilib, had been deposed due to manslaughter perpetrated in a blood feud." Note how careful Schieffer is to never say "B. became archbishop of Mainz": we should be this careful too. And here--OK, I grabbed one book quickly--is Lutz von Padberg, the 2004 biography from Beck, the final timeline on p. 121: "746: Nach dem Scheitern der Pläne für Köln erhält Bonifatius das Bistum Mainz"--my emphasis. We simply cannot say "B. was the first archbishop of Mainz." Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I see now that you indeed reverted to "in", which is good; guess I should have looked closer. I think we need a note here to explain this, after Boniface and before mention of Lull (who should be mentioned) and others. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that "See DS"-note; bad habit from too much work on german WP:-) I guess, everything should be clarified with my in-between edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainz&diff=next&oldid=856358364 - Are you OK with that? --mmg (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
mmg, alles klar. Thanks. There is much more to do here--the German articles on this topic are still superior, and we can do with more sourcing, but that's for a later date. Thank you for your help and your comments: you were much more correct than I gave you credit for, and I owe you an apology, and myself possibly a new pair of glasses. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Two variants are given for the pronunciation of the name. But it is hard to see what the difference is. --Alazon (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive citation needed tags

[edit]

Dear user:Alexandermcnabb, I noticed you made recent edits, mostly to tag following lines with citation needed. This is very excessive and you shouldn't tag every line in the paragraph, instead, just tag the end of the paragraph.

On the other hand, what you didn't like is actually common sense and needs a look on a map. What citation do we need, do you have eyes and could you see? I believe, some people on Wikipedia miss the point of referencing. It's like tagging the sentence, the sun rises from the east[citation needed]. We are not robots. The sentences you tagged are not controversial political arguments. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand German as I cited that S8 trains and others take about 25 minutes! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any factual statement should be referenced. Any unreferenced claim of fact is OR - Original Research. Just because you believe/'know' a thing to be fact doesn't mean it belongs in WP without a reference to a Reliable Source - WP:RS. Simple as that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ripuarian

[edit]
"Mainz spoke a dialect termed Ripuarian."[1]
  1. ^ Lameli, Alfred (2004). Standard und Substandard: Regionalismen im diachronen Längsschnitt (in German). Stuttgart: Steiner. ISBN 3-515-08558-0. OCLC 55963084. (series: Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik – Beihefte)[page needed]
    • That lacks the page.
    • ripuarisch/Ripuarisch only occurs on p. 73 in a totally unrelated context (and on p. 254 in the title of another work cited).
    • On p. 133 it is: "Da allerdings die Untersuchungsorte Wittlich und Mainz sprachsystemisch verschiedene n Großarealen zuzuordnen sind (moselfränkisches Wittlich vs. rheinfränkisches Mainz) [...]", i.e. Rhine Franconian Mainz.

    --21:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    Proposed merge of Free City Of Mainz into Mainz

    [edit]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The majority voted against merging. The other article should become more detailed about the historic timespan, while this article should become more of a summarized style of content regarding it. Kissaki (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can be included in Mainz's history, unless substantial content is added to justify separate page Broc (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just a first draft, I am working on some edits on Notepad right now, Will reply soon,
    Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Broc,
    I just re-wrote the article, I don't think it should be moved now because of how different this article's history of mainz is and the article is now, please check it just in case though!
    Cheers und Danke vielmals!, Arotparaarms (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arotparaarms, how is your page different than Mainz#Christian Mainz, and why do you think it should have its separate page, given it has basically the same content?
    On another note, does the foundational edit of the page you created consist of a copy of that chapter? Please have a look at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: attribution always needs to be given, per Wikipedia's Creative Commons license.
    My best suggestion: incorporate your edits into the main page, then turn Free City of Mainz into a redirect to Mainz#Christian Mainz. Broc (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hmmm...... this really does needs to be discussed, I do think that you have a fair point... will look into it
    Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am opposed to merging. The article Mainz should be written in WP:Summary style, with content about specific periods moved to sub-articles. —Kusma (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma's argument is valid, we should write Mainz in Summary style,
    Cheers once again, Arotparaarms (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge – As linked in this discussion, the history section contains the same information. I think the argument about summary style should be visited separately and after merging (/dropping Free City Of Mainz). A split of Mainz into summation and themed subpages is much more work, and the current Free City Of Mainz article is not in the correct form for that either (too specific/narrow). Kissaki (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is correct but instead of merging what we should do is improve the article instead of merging it all together. Arotparaarms (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I'll strike through my Merge vote. Kissaki (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep separate, don't merge. Free City of Mainz has an analogous article on de.wiki, de:Freie Stadt Mainz, which suggests that this is a rational subtopics. Comparing that de article makes clear that there is more than enough material for a separate article on Free City of Mainz. Furius (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree - That's what I'm talking about, We should keep it seperate
    Arotparaarms (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, End of Discussion? With all due respect @Broc, I believe there is a strong majority against Merging, it's a 1:4 ratio as far as now, and, I purposefully didn't add to the discussion to check if its an an active issue or not I think the discuss should end and we should embrace Free City Of Mainz as an article and write Mainz#Christian_Mainz AS WP:Summary, I will lend the discussion if there are no further comments after 2 days,
    Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 12/Mar/24 - Tomorrow, 13/Mar, I will officially remove the 'Merge' banner on Free City Of Mainz, I think that the discussion has ended,
    Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arotparaarms (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • CLOSED DISCUSSION
    It's Over, It's over now....... By Over, I mean removing Every Reference to the merge in the ArticleArotparaarms (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still in the article. What are you talking about? - I will clean it up and conclude this discussion correctly too. Kissaki (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mainz&oldid=1252174055"