Talk:Das Reich

Das Reich
German. The only other sense besides the is "name of a newspaper". I don't think we cover these. -- Liliana • 20:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur; delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why keep English "Das Reich" and delete the German original? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The English section does not have the German sense which is the subject of this RFD. A sense can hardly be "kept" in the English section if it isn't there to begin with. - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording led me to believe that the whole German section would be endangered. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, does the article inflect when the term is used as an object, or in a genitive construction? If so, it could SOP as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficult to find usage, but this sentence from German Wikipedia would hint that the article is not inflected: "Am 15. Oktober 1942 wurde der Name von „Reich“ in „Das Reich“ geändert". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Yes, when a term like this is used in a dative or genitive position, it either inflects or sometimes drops the article. The fact that "das Reich" is common in its unambiguously SOP sense(s) makes it hard to find inflected examples of the collocation's military and printing senses, and the fact that the division was formerly known as "Reich" (without the article) muddies the waters when citations like die Männer der motorisierten Waffen-SS-Division „Reich“ (from Als der Osten brannte) are found, but the general principle can be seen with other newspaper and unit names: in „dem Großen Bremen-Lexikon“, auch im „Großen Buch der Musik“, etc. - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the "newspaper" sense which was the subject of this RFD. (A "military unit" sense was added to the entry after the RFD began.) - -sche (discuss) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)