Talk:Frankfurt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Frankfurt "at the" Main[edit]

User:Kgfleischmann undid an edit of mine, stating that "Frankfurt at the Main" is supposed to be a literal translation of Frankfurt am Main.

As noted in my edit summary, I don't speak German. I do, however, consider that "Frankfurt at the Main" is an obviously defective English translation, and is not correct even as a 'literal' translation. Places are on rivers, not at them. London is not at the Thames; Cairo is not at the Nile. Again, as a non-speaker of German, I verified that the preposition 'am' can be translated to "on the". Other translations proposed by the software were "by the" and "near the", and if somebody who is proficient in both German and English would prefer one of these, I won't object. However, I do object to using "at the", as it's just not good English. For now, I have changed it to Frankfurt on the Main, which is my best attempt at a literal translation of Frankfurt am Main.

Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, you do not speak German. But you possibly Know, that translations are always interpretations. So, If there were any need to translate the city's name, your interpretation were possibly correct. But there is no need, unless you come up with a proof of the frequent use of "Frankfurt on Main" in the English language, What was done here, was to translate the phrase word by word. Possibly a bad idea, and we should delete the full phrase.--Kgfleischmann (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The point is, that the translation was wrong, and now it isn't. Personally, I don't much care whether we have an English translation or not, but if we do have one it should be correct :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see you do not understand what was the purpose of that translation. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I have often seen Frankfurt on Main, though Frankfurt on the Oder seems more frequent for that city. As any English-speaker knows, "Frankfurt at the Main" is wholly unidiomatic, and just wrong, even as a literal translation. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't "upon Main" be the idiomatic translation? --2001:A61:20C1:1401:87C:D07D:D43:6A5C (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as in Upton-upon-Severn, Newcastle upon Tyne, Kingston upon Hull, and Kingston upon Thames. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not idiomatic, because nobody ever uses it, unlike Frankfurt on Main! Forms like Burton on Trent, Sunbury on Thames etc etc are actually far more common in English, surely. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Those English place name examples, both of the 'on' and 'upon' variety, are irrelevant. The question is, which form is most used by Anglophone writers in the real world? That is, what do the sources say?
A Google search for "Frankfurt upon Main" (in quotes) yields 1,910 results. A search for "Frankfurt on Main" yields 278,000 results. And, for the record "Frankfurt on the Main" gives 211,000, while "Frankfurt at the Main" gives 44,600, the vast majority of which are either mirrors of the WP article of a few weeks ago, or on German-registered sites displaying the same lack of English proficiency as discussed above.
Based on Google search results alone, there is not much in it between Frankfurt on Main and Frankfurt on the Main, so I am happy to support the use of either. I will however object to any other variant proposed unless significant sources are cited. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Since "am" = "an dem" – that is, it is a contraction which includes a definite article – I suggest that "on the" is the appropriate translation. It would also be a little clearer to make it "Frankfurt on the Main [River]". Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggest all you like, pal, but "the appropriate translation" is THE ONE(S) ENGLISH-SPEAKERS ACTUALLY USE, not the ones Germans or pedants think we ought to. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Foot-stamping, condescension, and name-calling are not appropriate behaviors on Wikipedia. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think "literal translation" means "idiomatic translation"? Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Better. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frankfurt. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankfurt. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankfurt neutrality?[edit]

@62.225.107.74: I've put a Cn template on the claim that Frankfurt stayed neutral in the Austro-Prussian War. Actually, Frankfurt is the last in the list of the twelve allies to Austria given in Austro-Prussian_War#Alliances. The German sister article also claims Frankfurt actively participated on the Austrian side. Both may be wrong; but, if so, there should be some source for this (and in that case the articles about the Austro-Prussian War in several wikipedias should be corrected). My bet would be that instead the fault lies here, however.

The neutrality claim was added here. JoergenB (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)