Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of German grammar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • The author apparently has no mastery of either English or German, nor of encyclopaedic writing. --Wik 16:29, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • If there's something here that's worthy of keeping, it's also worthy of putting into German grammar. No reason for having two articles. -- Jao 16:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Jao.--Beelzebubs 16:50, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in agreement with Jao. Delete and merge into German grammar, provided there is anything of use to merge. DO'Neil 21:22, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with German grammer. --Starx 01:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with German grammar. There's more material in structure of German grammar than in German grammar so I think there is something to be gained here. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote this article. I am a German native speaker. I don't know if you are, but I my knowledge about my own mother tongue is at least as big as yours. So I have mastery of German, and I have been learning English for 7 years. If there are mistakes in English, dann korrigiert sie doch. Desweitern ist diese Seite wesentlich umfangreicher, than German Grammar. There are more facts than in the old article. Maybe there is no need for two articles. OK, that's the reason I transferred the information into German grammar. Seeing the article changed into its old state, containing less information, I decided to create a new one, because the author obviously seemed to claim "German Grammar" for himself. Ganz nebenbei, I wrote many articles in the German Wikipedia. In Deutsch hatte ich außerdem eine 1(A) auf dem Abitur, when I left school. I know enough about my language. So, I think it is better to replace the content of the old article.
  • Keep. The existing German grammar article is great (I assume it's accurate). Merging will kill it. So let's have a more detailed article, and link them one to the other, with a note at the top of each to this effect. This article needs some work by English native speakers (who know enough German not to do any damage, preferably!), but that's for cleanup, not VfD. Andrewa 18:13, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'll recommend pretty strongly against separate articles. The German grammar article is really short -- there has got to be a lot of stuff left out. I don't see why it can't be expanded, aside from Wik's edit warring [1], which is the reason why structure of German grammar was created and why that article is listed here. The general trend has been against creation of parallel articles and I don't see why that shouldn't apply here as well. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Big topic. Where has this been discussed already? I wasn't aware of any principle that we shouldn't have parallel articles, one introductory for laymen and one with all the gory detail. In WikiProject Mathematics in which you are active, I thought it had been generally supported as a good idea. Andrewa 20:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I didn't need to say anything about a trend or unstated policy concerning parallel articles. The fact is that these two were created because of an edit war, not because someone decided it would be a good way to divide up the topic, and, FWIW, I don't think these two articles divide up the topic of German grammar very well. As for math topics, I haven't noticed parallel articles; I guess I've missed them. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the information of both the articles could be combined in German Grammar without a lack of quality. But since the topic has grown over 42KB, think about the following: Why not combine the contents of both articles, and split the topic apart? For Example: German Grammar(Overview and General Stuff), German Grammar: Nouns and Prounouns, German Grammar: Verbs, German Grammar: Adverbs, German Grammar: Sentences. In this way, you could keep an eye an details, without leaving out all the other stuff. If you agree, post what names you would suggest for the articles, in order to avoid later discussions. Please answer me what you think about that! Einen schönen Abend noch.
  • Certainly keep. Merge with German grammar, if possible. I looked at the edit history of German grammar and I think the person who reverted to the previous version acted too hastily. If someone adds an imperfectly written but useful info, that needs copyedit, not reversion. Andris 02:39, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • It is not useful as it is. --Wik 02:46, May 19, 2004 (UTC)


  • Well, Wik, Please explain at first, what "German Grammar" is meant to be in its reverted state.
    • A brief overview? It's already to deep for that purpose. That kind of article could be included in German Language.
    • A tutorial? There are tutorials for other languages throughout the Wikipedia. That should be called something like Introduction to German Language. In anyway, your version of the article does not appear useful to me for learning.
    • An outline, but not with too much details? Does anybody need this? Too complicated to begin learning German, not enough details for an advanced learner.
    • A detailed outline, maybe a book about German Grammar online? That's what I want to turn it to, although it may be a long road to this goal (OrHoweverThisIdiomIsInEnglish).
  • In anyway, Wik, why is this article not at least as useful as yours? Why are less information better than more information?! Too much English mistakes? Correct them, help me! Too much mistakes in the content? I corrected a lot of them! The structure is too complicated for you? Well, it is complex but not complicated, for it is a complex topic. Not enough explainations? Can be added easily! Every piece of information from your article can be included in this larger version! Too much incomplete sections? Add whatever you know! Too much information? That's what Wikipedia is good for! The article is too big? I suggested splitting it apart!
  • So, If you think I am wrong, present your arguments, please! And why do you think that Structure of German Grammar has nothing that could be added to "your" German Grammar?


German grammar is not "my" article. And of course more details could be added to it. But your material is just too faulty, and I'm not interested in fixing it. If you or anyone else wants to keep this, it's up to you to fix it. --Wik 20:11, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
I made some fixes. Probably you regard me a s***er going on your nervs, but you have to know, I actually just want to be productive. So, what are the mistakes which make you disapprove? Just English mistakes? Maybe you dislike that I don't care about commen terms and explainations. For example, I use the word "possessive article". Well, I know that these are called "possessive pronoun", but this appear unlogical and unreasonable to me, because they are treaded like articles. My intention was to make a grammar with a more consistent structure. I have taken an old issue of "Der Spiegel"(german magazine), and looked at this quite complicated sentences, and they are fully covered by this structure. BTW, I cannot believe, that there is so much sh** in this article, that there is nothing that could be merged into your article. Although you probably still regard me a s***er, give some examples, please, so that I can better understand you.
You may well be well-meaning, but what ultimately matters is not whether you "want to be productive" but whether you are productive. And frankly I don't think you're qualified to write about German grammar. Don't tell me you are a native speaker when you write things like "Der Auto". --Wik 21:17, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
At First, Sh** happens when editting in two languages, my typewriting is not that good, too
Second, I'm going on in German: Ich lüge nicht wenn ich schreibe, dass Deutsch meine Muttersprache sei. Wenn ich mal einen Fehler beim Setzen des Artikels mache, dann liegt das wohl eher daran, dass ich mich erstens beim Schreiben am Computer mehr anstrengen muss als beim traditionellen Schreiben mit Kulli, Bleistift oder Füller, und zweitens dass es auch nicht gerade mental entspannend ist, ständig zwischen zwei Sprachen hin und her zuhüpfen, als an mangelnder Ausdrucksfähigkeit in meiner Lieblingssprache. Und falls ich tatsächlich auf jedes Englischfehlerschen geachtet hätte, dann würde ich wohl heute noch mit dem Wörterbuch vor dem Rechner sitzen und ständig hin und her blättern. Ich habe eine ganze Menge geschrieben in kürzester Zeit, die Struktur ist ziemlich komplex und ich musste die ganze Zeit lang nachdenken, ob beispielsweise "hinauf" entweder ein Pronominaladverb ist, oder ob es sich bei "auf ... hinauf" um eine Klammerkonstruktion handelt, schließlich wollte ich möglichst durchdacht schreiben, und ich habe außer meiner Tätigkeit als Wikipedianer auch noch so manche andere Angelegenheiten zu erledigen im wirklichen Leben, wie du dir sicherlich vorstellen kannst, deshalb ist es durchaus möglich, dass sich hier und dort ein Flüchtigkeitsfehler eingeschlichen hat. Glaube nicht, dass ich Probleme damit hätte, mit dir in Deutsch weiter zu diskutieren, dass würde mir sowieso viel leichter fallen als in einer Fremdsprache auf meiner Tastatur rumzuhämmern. Ich bin kein emotional diskutierender Mensch, ich bevorzuge rein sachliche Erörterungen und bin auch bereit nachzugeben, wenn mein Gegenüber recht behalten sollte. Wichtig ist mir eigentlich nur, dass es ich anderen Wikipedianern gegenüber meinen Strukturvorschlag durchsetzen kann, denn ich betrachte diesen Aufbau des Artikels deinem in den Grundzugen überlegen. Wenn du mir beweisen kannst, dass die Besonderheiten meines Aufbaus unlogisch, nicht realitätskonform und schlecht erweiterbar sind, dann werde ich das Handtuch werfen, das Feld dir überlassen und den Fehler einsehen. Genaugenommen ist mir dieses Gerüst das wichtigste an der ganzen Geschichte. Mir ist noch kein einziges Grammatikbuch untergekommen, in dem erklärt wurde, ob Positionsangaben vor oder hinter dem Genitivattribute stehen, noch eines, in welchem die Satzstellung nicht im Kapitel "Der Satz" steht, obwohl diese Regel genauso für Infinitive aller Art anzuwenden sind. Dieser kleine, wenn furchtbar peinliche Flüchtigkeitsfehler spricht noch nicht gegen jenes Gerüst, ebensowenig die Tatsache, mein Englisch am Computer grottenschlecht werden kann. Es tut durchaus Leid, wenn ich den Eindruck erweckt habe, ich würde hier rumlügen. Nun denn, ich hoffe du hast das vorhergehende verstanden, und ich konnte hoffentlichklarstellen, dass ich ein "German native speaker" bin. For anybody who didn't understand this, the same stuff in short, stupid Englisch: I'm a native speaker. If you want, we can discuss on in German. I would like to know, why my _structure_ is faulty. "Der Auto" was just a , äh, *blätterblätterblätter* careless mistake, that made a wrong impression unfortunatly. Mal sehen, inwiefern sich meine Regeln auf den obigen Text anwenden lassen.
  • merge whatever into German grammar.--Jiang 01:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wik, I have spent a lot of time into my article, and although it there maybe some mistakes, even in the recent version, a lot of it is usable. In order to set an end to this, please take a look at it and tell me where it is not conform with reality, I will correct the mistake, or at least I will mark those sections with a to do. Then I will merge it with German grammar, and we can live on happily, what do you think? This goes for everyone else interested in this topic.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Structure_of_German_grammar&oldid=357573513"