Talk:Ulm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, please remove the unref=yes switch of the {{WikiProject Germany}} template on this page. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Quote: In 1938, it again became a "free city" (which means that it didn't belong to a county)

Anyone care to expand on this? It seems quite an important part of Ulm's recent history.

--Spiggot 16:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a complete unneccessary and misleading quote. Every town which exceeds the number of 100.000 exhabitants beomes that status, which means that it now is an urban district and not longer part of a county. The quote pretends a status like that of a Imperial Free City, of which it is far from, but in fact Ulm was once one. In the moment it looks like the Nazis granted the City of Ulm a special status, but it only exceeded 100.000 people in 1938.

I changed it, for non-Germans the old quote seemed to be simply confusing. Gerhard51 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote and extended the article. Hope you like it. There is however still much to do. Candidus 11:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hirschstraße picture currently says "View from the Münster towards Hirschstraße. Due to its almost complete destruction in 1944, this part of the city consists of modern architecture only.", which isn't true. For example, today's "Wöhrl Plaza", former "Hertie" has survived the WW II bombings, although it was damaged and had to be repaired. It's the building with the distinctive roof on the left, the thing that looks like a chopped-off cylinder with a peak in the middle. This is the location of the central stairhouse of the building, which had a glass dome in earlier times, as historical photographs show. Also, right above the entrance (not visible from the picture in the article), there is a stone relief that was hidden behind metal blinds/covers (covering the entire building's front and sides) during the "Hertie" times, and discovered again during renovation when it was turned into the "Wöhrl Plaza". Today, it is sometimes covered with advertising, but if you're lucky, you get to see it. Maybe someone could "wikify" this information and add it to the article? At least change the statement that all Hirschstraße buildings are post-war buildings - this is just plain wrong. 85.216.17.14 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I replaced "only" by "primarily". I think this term adequately describes the situation. Candidus 11:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Münster

I propose to replace "Ulm Münster" by "Ulm Minster". Münster is not a proper name, so it should be translated. The correct translation is Minster. ---Dagbert (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We should consider three points before replacing "Münster" by "Minster":

1. Which is the most widely used term in English for that church?

2. Which term would be correct in an ecclesiastical sense?

3. Which term would be readily understandable for English speakers?

Ad 1: A google hit count is probably not the best reference, as the article of the church itself has been moved to "Ulm Minster" and a lot of google hits will just reflect the Wikipedia article. In the 1911 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and also in the most recent online version, the church is called "cathedral", in the Columbia Encyclopedia, "minster".

Ad 2: A cathedral is usually defined as the seat of a bishop, a minster as a collegiate church. The Ulmer Münster however has neither been a collegiate church nor the seat of a bishop. It was instead built and used by the citizens of Ulm.

Ad 3: Is "minster" an expression that is used mostly in British English? Perhaps a native speaker of English could better decide on that point.

All in all, I think "minster" would be appropriate (although it is a compromise), but I would appreciate more input on that question from native speakers.Hori-Lu (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable inhabitants

Is Gerhard Klopfer really a notable inhabitant of Ulm? He was not born in Ulm and did not make his career in Ulm. He just came to Southern Germany after the war and obviously practiced as a lawyer. In the NYT acticle cited in his Wikipedia entry (see New York Times (Obituary)), it is even stated that he actually practiced in Neu-Ulm, not in Ulm, and that he died in Heilbronn. Hori-Lu (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the list a second time, I also find the connection of Claus von Stauffenberg to Ulm to be very distant. In my opinion, he should also be removed from the list. Hori-Lu (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)