Talk:Braunschweig

Beer

As an inhabitant of Braunschweig for the last 28 years (I left the city in 2008) I must make some notes:

1. Braunschweig does not have many breweries, but just 2: "Hofbrauhaus Wolters" (http://www.hofbrauhaus-wolters.de/) and "Feldschlösschen" (http://www.feldschloesschen.de/)
2. The famous "Mumme" is not a beer, but a kind of malt sirup which *can* be mixed with beer (although the taste is quite questionable, but that's just my personal opinion). Also, it does not contain alcohol.
3. The most famous beer from Braunschweig is definitely the "Wolters" pilsener which is characterized by it's nordish bitter taste. Feldschlösschen also makes a pilsener but that one it widely acknowledged as tasting quite bad. Also, Feldschlösschen makes a red beer called "Duckstein" but that one is not produced in Braunschweig. In addition to that, Feldschlösschen has its origin in Dresden and therefore would rather count as a Dresden beer than a Braunschweig beer.
4. The Wolters brewery had great financial problems two years ago and was about to be closed, but Braunschweig's citizens formed a kind of "Keep Wolters alive" movement and donated a good amount of money, so the brewery is still alive.
5. There are in fact more breweries, but those are just small family businesses, combined with taprooms. Their beer is not sold in any shops.

--78.177.157.4 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC) (my name is Frank Willeke)

this is also the reason i got to the discussion page here. many != 2. i know of only one of the "breweries" frank mentions in the last paragraph of his comment. -- .~. 84.133.124.111 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

Thanks at all there worked here for this Article. This Article is not already ready, i hope. when the Article is ready, I think the Design from the english Article is better than the german ;) Greetings, --84.133.96.80 20:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

62.158.3.142 wrote: "Brunswick was founded by Bruno II (died before 1017 AD), a saxonian count." I didn't know, what to do with this sentence, but it seems to be wrong. The Brunswick website says, that the origins of the town are unknown, and that it may be founded by traders. So do other websites. No word about a Bruno. Instead of deleting the sentence I turned it to the version: "Legend says, that..." But actually I don't know about such a legend. Does anyone else know more? - Cordyph 15:56 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

I am bothered by this paragraph as well. The Bruno/wik info would explain the etymology behind the English name Brunswick, but I have always been under the impression that Brunswick was just an anglicization of the German Braunschweig. Olessi 2 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

I believe the english name is the mediaeval name of Braunschweig. Brunswiek, if I remember correctly. I learned that in school, so I have no references. And I also learned about the legend that this Bruno founded a Wiek (whatever that is) from which Braunschweig derived 134.76.10.66 13:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The founding by Bruno is a legend. But the ruler of the area in the time of the founding were the Brunonen.--Dark Scipio (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article not simply at Brunswick? The other places listed there don't seem to be important enough not to have that page at Brunswick (disambiguation). - Sandman 09:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we move this page to Braunschweig, which is the city's name and is the most common way English speakers refer to the place (in my experience)? --Robert Merkel 06:02, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is it? Google returns 1,450,000 results for Brunswick+Germany and 339,000 for Braunschweig+Germany. - Sandman 10:35, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's not my direct experience. Also, my Lonely Planet guide lists the place as "Braunschweig" with (Brunswick) in brackets. However, if you don't think it should be moved to Braunschweig, I definitely agree it should be moved to Brunswick.--Robert Merkel

While you get lots of hits on "Brunswick Germany", many are not relevant. First, I used the advanced search feature and searched only for the exact phrase - only 3,640 hits, some of which are Wikipedia. Second, even of those, many refer to the historical Duchy which, while related, is not the same as the city. Third, a quick review showed that most of the relevant google hits were listing Brunswick in brackets or parentheses after the more commonly recognized "Braunschweig". A search on the exact phrase "Braunschweig Germany" finds 208,000 hits. (Note that searching for Germany instead of Deutschland will filter it down to the english language sites so we have a fair comparison.)

The Rand McNally World Atlas index lists "Brunswick, Germany" but the entry says see Braunschweig. Even the Wall Street Journal uses "Braunschweig" instead of "Brunswick".

I propose to move the contents of this page to Braunschweig, expand the disambiguation page to make the issue clear to everyone, redirect "Brunswick" to the disambiguation page and then run a "what links here" and start cleaning up all the links. Rossami 02:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Copy from Votes for Deletion

• Delete Brunswick to make it possible to move Brunswick, Germany there. - Sandman 16:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep - very full disambiguation page. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • We need disambiguation instead for other Brunswicks, like New Brunswick, Canada, perhaps, or New Brunswick and East Brunswick, New Jersey. Or Brunswick, Australia. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I support moving Brunswick, Germany into Brunswick, rather than redirecting Brunswick to a disambiguation page. Brunswick, when used alone, almost always refers to the city in Germany so I see no problem in doing this. Maximus Rex 11:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brunswick, Germany, should be at Braunschweig. The English name has fallen out of use for the present city (compare Google results for "Brunswick Germany" vs "Braunschweig Germany"). --Wik 18:30, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
  • Agree with Wik: keep redirection page, consider using Braunschweig for the German place since I personally believe the Brunswick anglicisation is rarely used anymore --Morven 02:10, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • That's not true. Google results limited to English: ~1,900,000 for Brunswick Germany and only ~330,000 for Braunschweig Germany), so it's clearly the dominant form in English. --Delirium 08:38, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • You have to include the quotes, otherwise you get a lot of pages relating to the historic duchy, or to one of the U.S. Brunswicks, or New Brunswick. With quotes you restrict the search to the present city: "Brunswick Germany" - 2,430; "Braunschweig Germany" - 135,000. --Wik 12:54, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Add to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and give me some time to clean them up. (I should be able to get to in next week.) By the way, I strongly recommend that the correct location for the "Brunswick, Germany" content is under "Braunschweig". I can find no recent reference to "Brunswick, Germany". Rossami 03:14, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Always looking for lebensraum, aren't they? orthogonal 14:08, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brunswick must be a disambiguation page for all Brunswicks. How can that really be questioned? Kingturtle 03:21, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Brunswick, Germany should not be at Braunschweig if Brunswick is the more common name in English. The city's own website calls itself Brunswick on the English pages. [1]. Angela 04:00, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree. Wikipedia policy is not to have the english version of a name but the most common version used in english. That clearly is Brunswick, not Braunschweig, so Brunswick is where the page belongs on the english wikipedia. German wikipedia, would needless to say be different. Sorry. FearÉIREANN 03:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • In addition, remember even if Braunschweig is used increasingly in American english, that does not mean the same phenomenon is happening in other forms of english. AE has tended to adopt nativised forms of names, eg, Turino, Milano, Roma, but that simply is not happening in British English, Hiberno-English or Indian English and I wonder if it is happening in Canadian English or Australian english. This is english wikipedia, not American English wikipedia and we must use forms of names that are internationally recognised. Google searches throw up largely American websites as most websites are American. That is no evidence that worldwide Braunschweig is either used or even recognised by people. The only people I have heard ever use that name are (i) Germans, naturally, and (ii) some users of American English on the web (never even in person). I have never heard it used by anyone else. We would want pretty clear evidence of its universal usage before opting for it. FearÉIREANN
  • I respect the theory but I'm not sure I agree that this is an American English only trend. For example, the Wikipedia article on the capital of China is at Beijing - Peking is a redirect. In the case of Brunswick, I'd like to see some evidence that the anglicized version is still in wide use. The objective evidence the other way is starting to appear pretty compelling (see below). The only countervailing evidence presented so far is the personal experience of Wikipedians. I don't want to discount personal experience but, based on the reports above, it appears about evenly split so ... well, I guess I do discount it in this case. :-) What more research can I provide to convince you that Braunschweig has become the more common usage? Rossami 03:21, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Well-filtered google searches find Braunschweig over Brunswick at > 50 to 1.
    • BBC.com (which I have to assume is written using British English) had 4 hits for Braunschweig and only one hit for Brunswick that refers to the city in Germany (and that one is in context of WW2).
    • FT.com (Financial Times) (again, safe to assume in British English) returned 20 articles for Braunschweig Germany and zero for Brunswick Germany.
    • CNN.com had one hit for Braunschweig and five for Brunswick, but none of the five refer to the city in Germany.
    • Factiva all dates/all sources finds 1423 articles with "Braunschweig Germany" and 195 with "Brunswick Germany".
    • Two atlases checked so far use Braunschweig as the primary name (though they both list Brunswick as an alternate usage).
    • The city's official website has an English translation page that uses "Brunswick".
      • Personally, I discount this as the opinion of one webmaster with unknown English experience and possibly dated information. (I know I wouldn't trust Cleveland's official website to tell you anything useful about my hometown.)

Hold on, Wik. There is not the necessary percentage of people advocating the renaming of the page to justify a move of the page from its current location. Please follow the rules. FearÉIREANN 21:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is the necessary percentage? It seemed to me that after Rossami's summary no one was really arguing for Brunswick any more. If you want to do so, how do you explain away the 50-to-1 Google ratio? --Wik 21:38, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

65% is now seen as representing something of a consensus for making a major change, such as a dramatic renaming or a deletion.

• Brunswick/Brunswick, Germany/Brunswick (disambigulation): -
  • FearÉIREANN Sandman Angela Delirium Wiwaxia Kingturtle Andy Mabbett
  • Total = 7.
  • 58% approx, 66% if including Orthogonal.

I don't see all those opposing Braunschweig. Andy Mabbett, Wiwaxia, and Kingturtle have only commented on the disambiguation page. Delirium has not further responded after I told him how his search method was flawed. Sandman's argument seems to have been based on the same mistake. --Wik 23:58, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

• Braunschweig
  • Wik Robert Merkel Rossami Morven
  • Total = 4
  • 33% approx

• unclear, but tone suggests not a Braunschweig supporter: -
  • orthogonal
  • Total = 1

As to google, google also says that the Prince of Wales's surname is Windsor (wrong), proves completely inaccurate facts about W.E. Gladstone are correct, confirms elementary factual errors about Ireland are true, and contains many other such howlers. It is a thoroughly unreliable standard against which to measure facts, as I found when double checking information on it time and time again. FearÉIREANN 22:08, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but still it is the default unless you have a better authority to base your claim on.

It should never be the default. If it was wikipedia's default, wikipedia would be a laughing stock. It is at best a secondary source notorious for its unreliability. FearÉIREANN 15:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Google may not be a reliable source for many kinds of factual information, but as a polling device to provide evidence of general usage of language or the degree of importance or interest in a topic, I believe it to be quite credible. Granted, there is risk of a systemic sampling bias because the internet population is still skewed toward educated and affluent participants compared to the general population, but that is only a risk of sampling bias, not evidence that a biased result occurred. Wikipedia uses google searches as evidence all the time. As a single example, look at how often google is mentioned in support or rebuttal of an entry on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. The internet may not be perfect but it's better than relying solely on personal opinion. Rossami 21:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And I don't think AE/BE is an issue here. Where do you get the idea Americans say Roma? "Rome Italy" - 2,060,000. "Roma Italy" - 207,000. So that's 10-1 for the English name. With Braunschweig it's 50-1 for the German. So the frequency of using the local form is 500 times higher for Braunschweig than for Rome. --Wik 23:58, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say Americans use Roma. I said that there is increased usage of native language names of European cities in the US. Such a phenomenon simply does not exist in the rest of the English speaking world. So whereas some academic and broadcasting organisations in the US opt for Milano, in the rest of the english speaking world exclusively uses Milan.

By the way the earlier mention of Beijing/Peking by Rossami is irrelevant. It is nothing to do with english vs native language names, but to do with different linguistic methods of creating an english name. Everyone uses Beijing and have done for decades. It has no relevance to this debate. FearÉIREANN 15:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Beijing/Peking is not merely a choice of written transcription. It is also an example of the difficulty of phenome matching - some sounds have no easy parallel in the target language. Before long-distance travel became cheap and easy, the experience of most english-speakers with german phenomes was quite limited. Brunswick was a reasonable transliteration of word by a non-german speaker. We now have greater exposure to more phenomes. If you heard someone say Braunschweig today, I dare say you would write down something other than Brunswick. As for "everyone [using] Beijing... for decades", I can personally vouch for the use of Braunschweig by Americans for over a decade. Braunschweig/Brunswick is merely an older example that has gone uncorrected longer, not fundamentally a different problem from Beijing/Peking. Rossami 21:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Lexis-Nexis suggests Braunschweig is more in use: A search for "Braunschweig" and "Germany" on European news sources for the past six months gets 25 hits, most appear relevant, whilst "Brunswick" and "Germany" gets 10 hits, most irrelevant. --Robert Merkel 05:46, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

European news sources aim their content at multilingual audiences and so make considerable usage of native language names. That is irrelevant here as this wikipedia is exclusively an english language encyclopædic source aimed at english language speakers and has to use a form recognisable in english. Braunschweig would mean absolutely nothing to millions of english language speakers except those belonging to special subcategories; people of German descent, people with direct cultural and business links to the city, people with regular access to, and fluency in, non-english language sources, etc. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common accurate name. For the generality of readers worldwide that is Brunswick. Braunschweig 's usage is not recognised by the generality of readers but those attached to subgroups who have specific reason why they would use or hear the german language name, not the english deriviative. (By the way, BBC news carried a story some days ago which started "A trial in the German city of Brunswick . . . ") FearÉIREANN 15:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So we should put ourselves out of step with European and US news sources? Who is left that we will be in-step with? We agree on the policy - most common english usage. We obviously still disagree on the conclusion. I've presented my facts. I believe they overwhelmingly support Braunschweig as the more common usage. I disagree strongly with your statement that Braunschweig is limited to special subcategories. So prove me wrong. What facts or measurable behaviors support your belief that Brunswick is still the more common usage? Rossami 21:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(And yes, BBC is inconsistent in their usage. With your one new data point, BBC is now at 4 Braunschweigs to 2 Brunswicks.) Rossami 21:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Just to put my own two cents in (of course, just because it's me, Jtdirl will probably oppose it) I would favor "Brunswick" being a disambiguation page and "Braunschweig" being the listing for the German city. But there clearly is an AE/BE problem; I rarely hear Americans use "Brunswick" for the German city, but in part that may be because I live in Maryland and "Brunswick" means "Brunswick, Md." when used alone. Brits tend to anglicize (they would say, of course, "anglicise") more than Americans; Americans tend to use native names more, but the real statistic varies from place to place. Nobody even America calls the Italian capital "Roma," but you do hear "Milano," and I suspect that "Livorno" is used 1000 times as much as "Leghorn." (of course, the chicken is a Leghorn, but that's another story!) - BRG 16:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just to put my own two cents in (of course, just because it's me, Jtdirl will probably oppose it)'!!! absolutely not. If you are right, you are right. If you are wrong, you are wrong. It is arguments that matter, not who makes them. :-) FearÉIREANN 22:35, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To add my US$0.02, I don't think it makes that much difference either way. I'm personally more familiar with the name "Brunswick," but I can't say with absolute confidence that that's not because of the other cities named "Brunswick" ("New Brunswick" and so on). As long as there are redirects from one to the other, and both are mentioned at the very beginning, I don't think anyone looking for one or the other will end up confused. And, unlike Gdansk/Danzig and related disputes, this isn't an ethnic dispute, so I think people looking for one are unlikely to be offended if they find it at the other. My slight preference in borderline cases is for local names, perhaps because I prefer things like Thessaloniki and Peloponnesos to their Latinized or Anglicized versions. Cases of overwhelming English usage like Rome (Roma) and Athens (Athina) excepted of course. --Delirium 22:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I support using English names wherever available. The fact that the name of a city was translated into another language is a sign of its importance. Hence using Brunswick means treating this city with the same respect as Bruxelles, The Hague, or Vienna. -- 134.169.99.111 10:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Brunswick is the English name and has been for decades. Like Munich or Nuremberg. Look at all the authoritative sources... --Bermicourt (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Just a quick explanation for my vote - it seems that from the evidence we've been able to find, and my personal experience, Braunschweig is now by far the most common way the place is referred to in English.

It's not a huge deal either way, however. --Robert Merkel 23:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I voted for "don't care" because I'm not a native speaker and have no idea what the more common English name is. I thought it was Brunswick, but seem to have been proven wrong. However, if the article is moved to Braunschweig, I think that Brunswick should stay a redirect and not be turned back into a disambiguation page - if it is, it will only continue to collect links, all of which will refer to Braunschweig. That's how this whole debate was started, after all. - Sandman 19:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Requesting an unambiguous vote:

• Braunschweig
  1. Rossami 21:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) (see above)
  2. Wik 22:01, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
  3. Wiwaxia 22:30, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 22:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC) (see above)
  5. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  6. —Eloquence
  7. Morven 23:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  8. Robert Merkel 23:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  9. BRG 15:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Brunswick
  1. Maximus Rex 22:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  2. Angela. 22:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  3. FearÉIREANN 22:44, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  4. Hephaestos 05:44, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  5. Bermicourt21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Don't care
  1. Sandman 19:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I think this vote was wrong. My search led to about 1,150,000 English pages for Brunswick Germany[2] and about 286,000 English pages for Braunschweig Germany[3]. Wik's previous search depended on the city name being followed immediately by the word Germany, but there is no reason why it should. --Henrygb 15:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth bringing up again. Please drop it. Google is not definitive besides: there is also the argument based on mentions in English-language media, which favored Braunschweig. —Morven 18:09, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Gdansk vote

How does Braunschweig fall under the definition of share a history between Germany and Poland? It's even west of the Oder. While there is some Wendish history there (hence the suburb of Wenden), Braunschweig is much too far from Poland to fall u

confused pronouns

"It was also the Garrison Town of the 31st Infanterie Division, which took part in the invasions of Poland, Belgium, France, and Russia. It was one of the units that was destroyed during the withdrawal from Russia at the end of the war. As a result, it was severely damaged by Anglo-American aerial attacks."

"It" seems to refer to both the town and a military unit. I understand that the town was severely damaaged by bombing, but don't see how that obviously follows from a unit based in the town being destroyed during withdrawal from Russia. Presumably the unit was destroyed somewhere between Russia and its garrison, no? Mike Linksvayer 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Maybe it also means the garrison buildings in the east of the city which have been the target of many aerial attacks.

Kohlmarkt

The name today is Kohlmarkt, but in former time, the name was Kohlenmarkt or „uppe deme kolemarkede“ or „forum carborum“ (Latin), Look; de:Kohlmarkt (Braunschweig) --Chauki 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and the City of Braunschweig

I deleted the information on Hitler and his citizenship as it is wrong.
The author(s) obviously confused two things: 1) the City of Brunswick (Stadt Braunschweig) and 2) the Free State of Brunswick (Freistaat Braunschweig). Both of them go or rather went by the common name of just “Braunschweig”.
However, it was the FREISTAAT Braunschweig or more precisely it’s Interior Minister Dietrich Klagges, an ardent Nazi and member of the NSDAP, together with several other Nazis and right wing politicians, who provided Hitler with the German citizenship he had craved for for seven years.
As a matter of fact, during 1925 and 1932, Hitler himself as well as his Nazis followers had tried at least seven (7) times, to obtain German nationality for the “Führer” - cf. de:Einbürgerung Adolf Hitlers.
Regards form Braunschweig --Brunswyk 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for the move. Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Braunschweig → Brunswick (Germany)

Per WP:Use English. The article claims that "Brunswick" is archaic but it is still used by some news and wire services like Reuters[4], AFP[5], and BBC (photo caption)[6] but not AP[7]. The town's website (at www.brunswick.de) uses both names [8]. See also above for a similar discussion from several years ago. — AjaxSmack 02:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Per nomination, although if disambiguation by state or another subnational designation is used then I support that. Charles 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support rename to Brunswick, Germany. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  I should note that I am neutral on the rename from Braunschweig. If it needs a rename, then my suggested name stands. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the evidence you have given is massively flawed and unrepresentative of English usage in those sources. You have found a mention on BBC News - so what? Search for Brunswick Germany and Braunschweig Germany on the news part of the website - there are three times more results for Braunschweig. Search on Google news for those two (but make sure you remove hits for "New Brunswick", which make up the bulk) - there are three times more for Braunschweig [9],[10]. Reuters is roughly equal in usage. AP archives gets seven times more hits for Braunschweig [11], [12] . The town's website (also at http://www.braunschweig.de/english/index.html it must be noted) uses Braunschweig much, much more commonly in the English section - on my quick examination Brunswick was used only for the title of the city map and the twin-cities sections with Braunschweig everywhere else. Searching for evidence in the places suggested above gives more evidence that the Braunschweig spelling is more common (and therefore the one we should use by UE). Knepflerle (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In any case, either Brunswick or Brunswick, Germany would be preferable to the present move target. The first would imply that this is primary use of Brunswick, which is probably true; New Brunswick is a different matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, both of those are preferable to Brunswick (Germany), which needs turning into a redirect once this discussion is over. But I still firmly believe the usage evidence favours Braunschweig first and foremost, and this avoids disambiguation problems we would have with Brunswick (not a determinative factor, but worth consideration). As a WikiProject with a banner above, I will leave a notice on this discussion at WikiProject Germany Knepflerle (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nomination refers to WP:Use English, which states: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." In my opinion, the most commonly used version in England is "Braunschweig", when referring to the modern German city (but Brunswick for the historical duchy). This usage is also adopted by, for instance, Britannica and Grolier.--Boson (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Both names are commonly used in English (see discussion), Braunschweig is less ambiguous. Markussep ^Talk 09:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• oppose imars (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, insufficient evidence that Brunswick is more common than Braunschweig, which is less ambiguous (besides the place is the source of name Braunschweiger -- renaming the place article would obscure that connection. older ≠ wiser 17:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The translation is a technical thing. Braunschweig is the more common name. Kingjeff (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Markussep. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. The disambiguation page Brunswick refers to two Braunschweige: The city (Braunschweig); and the duchy once seated there (Braunschweig (region)), disestablished 2004 (see also Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) ). Confusion with Brunswick-Lüneburg and Duchy of Brunswick should be avoided; I concur in part with nom but recommend an alternate rename to Brunswick, Germany per User:Septentrionalis. The name Braunschweig is used in English specific to the subject of this Article, so may be kept to avoid confusion with multiple Cities of Brunswick around the world. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This is a common misconception that needs putting to bed. We don't use an non-indigenous "English" name just because it exists and this is exactly not what WP:UE says. We don't have articles at Ratisbon, Coblence, Leghorn, Trent - we have them at Regensburg, Koblenz, Livorno and Trento because these are the names used in English more often even though they're identical to the indigenous names. The fact that an exonym exists used only in English which is different to the indigenous name does not over-rule predominance of usage. And what is more English than what English uses the most? UE says explicitly to use what is used most often in English, not what is "most English" by some unspecified yardstick. Knepflerle (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Right in principle, but we should probably use Trent; certainly Council of Trent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree on Council of Trent, glad it's there already. Trent over Trento would surprise me, and cause extra disambiguation problems (as here) but we'd have to look at the evidence of usage first. Knepflerle (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a guideline on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) how to determine the most commonly used name.

• Step 1: recent encyclopedias: Britannica has Braunschweig, Columbia and Encarta have Brunswick. So that's undecided.
• Step 2: Google Scholar and Google Books. Google Scholar is useless because of the number of authors named Braunschweig. Google Books, books from the period 1958-2008, added "city" or "town" to remove false hits in other languages and for the medieval state: Braunschweig 1141, Brunswick 5120, but most of the hits are for New Brunswick, or the Brunswicks in Georgia, Maine, and England. I added "Lower Saxony" to get rid of these: Brunswick 431, Braunschweig 264. Not a big difference.
• skipped Step 3, I don't have those histories at hand.
• Step 4: News sources, I tried Google News, again using "Lower Saxony" as a filter. Braunschweig 184, Brunswick 109. Again, not a big difference.

It looks like both Braunschweig and Brunswick are both commonly used in English. I would suggest keeping the article where it is, since Brunswick is heavily ambiguous. Markussep ^Talk 09:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Economy and more

I'm not from Braunschweig but from Germany and I think there is a lack of information about the economy of Braunschweig: The city is located in an area that is important for Volkswagen AG: In 1938 the first Volkswagen plant has been foundet in Braunschweig. Todays Volkswagen Headquarters are in Wolfsburg (about 36km by car from Braunschweig), the Volkswagen Commercial Vehicle Division is in Hannover (about 77km by car), there is a plant for Volkswagen-Parts in neighboring city of Salzgitter (only 13km south of Braunschweig) and also a volkswagen-plant for component-parts IN BRAUNSCHWEIG - more Information: http://www.volkswagen-braunschweig.de/ (also in english)

Further Volkswagen Financial Services AG and Volkswagen Bank GmbH have their headquarters in the city of Braunschweig. From their website:
"Volkswagen Financial Services AG is a 100%-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG and has its headquarters in Braunschweig, Germany. We are responsible for coordinating the worldwide financial services activities of the Volkswagen Group. In Europe, Asia-Pacific and South America we manage the financial services operations directly via subsidiaries."

Further there is an Siemens plant from Siemens Transportation Systems which develops and produces Signal Technology for the railroad. It developed important technology for Shanghai Transrapid.

Further I'm wondering why there is a so prominent information about German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Investigation (BFU) (an agency most germans just don't know about) - but no information about the 'Luftfahrtbundesamt' (LBA) -> German Federal Agency of Aviation.

A few years ago they rebuilt their Brunswick Palace (destroyed in and after WW2) with reconstructed facades and a modern and large Shopping-Centre inside - namend the "Schloss-Arkaden" (Palace Arcards)
Greetings - TomGaribaldi (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move 2: MOVE TO BRUNSWICK!!!

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Braunschweig → Brunswick – I was born in Brunswick, and moved to Wilmette, IL 5 years ago. As someone who lived there for more than 2 decades, I can say that Brunswick is the most common English Name. We were taught to call is Brunswick in English. I consider exonyms such as Brunswick a great honor, as they are a sign my beautiful birthplace was/is internationally important enough to earn the English name. However, if my experience did not support a move to Brunswick, I would not suggest it, no matter how much it means to me. Fortunatley, however, Brunswick remains the most common English name among the inhabitants. Only one American knew what it was, and called it Brunswick. (P.S. I have read Wikipedia for years and registered this account to make this proposal. However, I have no editing experience, so forgive me if I have made this proposal incorrectly) DukeOfBrunswick (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As someone who's mother is from Brunswick it is clear to me that Brunswick is the preferred and more common English form. KaiserWilly (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Admin note: Both DukeOfBrunswick and KaiserWilly have been confirmed as sockpuppets of OttomanJackson. Their !votes have consequently been struck. Favonian (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support I got KaiserWilly's message, and after reading through this discussion, I believe the evidence to be in Brunswick's favor. As a native monolingual Anglophone, I have to say Brunswick is much more familiar to me. Also, this city is most important to Anglophones in a historic context (Duchy of Brunswick), when the city was exclusively known as Brunswick in English. This, combined with ngrams (link below) showing Brunswick to be about 9 times more common than Braunschweig (Bronswiek, the name in the local dialect is never used in English and does not show up) leads me to strongly support a move to Brunswick. Ngrams OttomanJackson (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:CANVASSING - Please explain, what do you mean "I got KaiserWilly's message"?
    • Scratch that, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KaiserWilly, I am getting so fed up of this sort of stuff. To assist the change of title on a web encyclopaedia?... Come on. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Braunschweig is commonly used in English language media (what you learn in Germany isn't all that relevant there). Pretty much all the arguments from the old discussions are still valid - the google books search will give you results not only for the state, but also New Brunswick, and the Brunswicks in the US, etc. I searched the websites of CNN, the BBC, The Times (of London), and all use Braunschweig in recent news items. The Times uses Brunswick more often, but the difference isn't that big, and most of the time it happens in articles on a historical topic (WWII and Anniversaries). So since there's no definite conclusion either way and it's certainly more practical to leave the article at Braunschweig (less ambiguous) I see no need to move the article at all.Alexpostfacto (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - firstly because of the, sorry, original research in the proposal. Secondly because of the possible element of WP:Canvassing, thirdly because of sources. 2000 onward sources show that Brunswick is an old Napoleonic English exonym, like Leghorn, which has passed out of use. Compare "Braunschweig" + "European Union" 3030 results to "Brunswick" + "European Union" zero results when "New Brunswick" excluded. See also city website Welcome to Braunschweig. GNews, etc. etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support this clearly has an English-language name, WP:UE. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Columbia uses "Brunswick", as does DPA, the German press agency. Britannica and Encarta both use "Braunschweig". I'd like to see Braunschweig (region) moved to Brunswick, which is how Encarta does it.Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Deutsche Welle uses "Braunschweig" for the city, "Brunswick" for the state. In a German history context, "Brunswick" generally means the duchy or the state. So it's less confusing if the city is called something else. Kauffner (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Braunschweig (region) does not refer to the state of Brunswick, those articles are already under Duchy of Brunswick and Free State of Brunswick. The article BS (region) is about one of the four post-WWII administrative regions of Lower Saxony, so it makes sense to have the same name as the city. The administrative regions were of extremely minor political importance, however - they basically consisted of a (non-elected) bureaucracy Alexpostfacto (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no evidence that the modern german city is the primary topic for the term. older ≠ wiser 11:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This move is malformed and should have been proposed as a multi-page move as it also affects the disambiguation page. In addition, the vote tallying below is offensive. older ≠ wiser 11:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've known it as Brunswick all my life. It's close enough to the dialect name too.Bmcln1 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per In ictu oculi. Some English-language names are historic or archaic, like Leghorn for Livorno, Italy, or Elsinore for Helsingør, Denmark. This seems to be a similar case. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons given above. The Brunswick disambiguation page correctly states that it is an historical name for the city in English ---Ehrenkater (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose Primarily per In ictu oculi. This is more like Koblenz than Cologne; just because there's an English version of the name doesn't mean it's the right one to use. This is probably just reflective of my own biases, but when I hear "Brunswick," I think of New Brunswick and Brunswick stew. And now I'm hungry. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've also moved the vote-counting section. It's common enough for someone to add these, but they're almost always removed, and I notice not everyone was using it anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per evidence provided by others in the discussion as well as that in earlier discussions above and that I presented in a previous move request. —  AjaxSmack  03:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per numerous arguments above. Not only does the disambiguation page state that Brunswick is a historical name for the city, but, as noted above, there is no evidence that this is the primary topic for "Brunswick". Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose When IIO and Kaufner agree it must be snowing. Recommend speedy close. Agathoclea (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is encouraging to see Kauffner's changed vote I admit. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose To override the native spelling of 'Braunschweig' there should be clear majority support for 'Brunswick' in current reliable English sources to establish 'Brunswick' as established usage per WP:UE. That does not seem to be the case here. Purely FYI, in The Netherlands the reference is always to 'Braunschweig'.--Wolbo (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

British crown

Article says, “[Henry the Lion] had previously established ties to the British crown in 1168,” but there was no British crown until centuries later, only English, Scottish etc. crowns. This “British crown” notion is in the source (German National Tourist Board), so can this be changed and still claim authority from the GNTB source? (I guess putting “[sic]” in there would look a bit odd, as it’s not given as a quote.) 1A72 talk 05:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it into "English crown". I don't think the reference needs to be changed, though - it's hardly a controversial issue. My guess would be that the mention of the British crown was mentioned because of the Hanoverian succession later on, which made those ties relevant for modern Britain. At least that's the reason why I didn't make the change earlier myself, when I rewrote parts of the history section. Alexpostfacto (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 1A72 23:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Braunschweig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150425095907/http://www.braunschweig.de/politik_verwaltung/politik/stadtbezirksraete/index.html to http://www.braunschweig.de/politik_verwaltung/politik/stadtbezirksraete/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120219051419/http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_007/nn_228094/EN/The_20BFU/Location/location__node.html?__nnn=true to http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_007/nn_228094/EN/The_20BFU/Location/location__node.html?__nnn=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Braunschweig

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Braunschweig. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517074103/http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/twinning-associations to http://www.thecityofbath.co.uk/twinning-associations
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/628oflRIh?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.braunbattleoftheyear.com%2Fabout.html to http://www.braunbattleoftheyear.com/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Braunschweig. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130107095744/http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/sites/130225 to http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/sites/130225

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) 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Added to ja:wiki

Section title (Added to [[:ja:Special:Permalink/65212640|jawiki as of 2017-08-21T16:33:58 ]]) moved to resolve bolded error notice. See original. Moonraker12 (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Braunschweig#Demography was added to the Japanese page on ブラウンシュヴァイク#人口統計 (the Demography in Braunschweig) and for this diff. --Omotecho (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Braunschweig. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160215060249/http://braunschweig.de/politik_verwaltung/nachrichten/medien/stapak2015_Bevoelkerung_in_StBez_folder.pdf to http://www.braunschweig.de/politik_verwaltung/nachrichten/medien/stapak2015_Bevoelkerung_in_StBez_folder.pdf

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) 22:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential error in the immigration section

The nationality table in the immigration section is titled as 2024, but the cited source is dated 18.09.2014, and makes no reference to the statistics being projections.WhatWouldKantDo (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Description of images incorrect

Reading the description under the first images, it doesn't seem to make sense. Clockwise from top, second should be the Happy Rizzi house. Also, none of the images contain the Brunswick Lion as far as I can tell. Not changing it since I don't know which description belongs to which picture.

Full text: Clockwise from top: Castle Square with Brunswick Cathedral, Dankwarderode Castle and the Brunswick Lion, Happy Rizzi House, Town Hall, Brunswick Palace, Old Town market with the Church of Saint Martin and the Alte Waage with the Church of Saint Andrew Xzpx (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Description is correct.. Castle Square with Cathedral, Castle and Lion is all in the first picture. Rizzi House is the second picture.. But it should get a better structure.. --Jonny84 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Braunschweig or Brunswick

Should the name of this article be ‘Braunschweig’ or ‘Brunswick’, A previous discussion claims that ‘Brunswick’ is dated such as how Leghorn, Coblence, Trent and Ratisbon are. This is inaccurate, ‘Braunschweig’ and ‘Brunswick’ are used equally by English sources. ‘Brunswick’ is used by Google Maps, Columbia, and The Times of London, whereas ‘Braunschweig’ is used by Britannica, The Washington Post and the official website. The New York Times uses both interchangeably. Could I have some opinions on the name of this city please. Ale3353 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• ‘Braunschweig’ Based on what's already on the official website. Sea Ane (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• ‘Brunswick’ (Summoned by bot) fairly weakly, Brunswick still seems to be commonname in English. Like many other German place names, (inc 'Germany' itself) English commonname bears - at best - only a passing resemblance to the name in German, so local use is irrelevant - I see a weak current preference for the older form in English. Pincrete (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Brunswick, per WP:COMMONNAME and its overwhelming use in English compared to Braunschweig. Ngrams tells us that in English, Brunswick remains significantly more common, while Google trends tells us the same, with the only country preferring Braunschweig being Germany - and as we seek the most common name in English, we must ignore that. However, I must ask - why is this an RfC rather than an RM? BilledMammal (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal I didn’t make it an RM because I was unsure on which name was more common. Now that I have had some more evidence that ‘Brunswick’ is more commonly used in English, I may consider making this an RM. Ale3353 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Danzig (just kidding, for the people who remember 2005) Braunschweig. Following the guidelines at WP:PLACE, "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." Disagree there's a widely accepted English name given Washington Post usage. Then, "if neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present)." As such, We should use the official name, which appears to be Braunschweig. That said, my preference is extremely soft and I should not be used to block what is otherwise a consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)