Talk:Die Grünen

RFD discussion: October–November 2016
Proper name of a political party. Delete per precedent case Republican Party. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep since it seems to add value to the users of the dictionary. Republican Party was deleted based on Talk:Republican Party 2011 RFD, and previously there was no consensus for deletion. We still have Liberal Democrats. Governed by WT:NSE. WT:CFI does not apply, IMHO, and is not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the German name of many political parties. We should probably add them all (as many as we can) though I'd be happy with deletion as well. In terms of WT:NSE I don't find these any more entry-worthy than the names of famous buildings, though we do have some of those, which is why I'm not actually advocating deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's entry-worthy. DonnanZ (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually a short for several parties, the official name of the German party for instance is Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, and was the name of that party's predecessor in West Germany. It seems that it's more often used as "die Grünen" however. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC discussion: October 2016–April 2018
Should this have the definite article in the lemma? Cf. English Greens. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Die Grünen" including the article is the original full name of the party, so this should be correct. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The full name? Is that not Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (which we don't have)? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the current-day successor formed from the party Die Grünen from West Germany and Bündnis 90 from East Germany (and I think some more minor organisations). I would consider nowadays' Die Grünen to be a pars pro toto. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If Die Grünen is supposed to be an entry on the name of a political party it would need to be sent to RFD. As far as I know we don't have names of political parties on Wiktionary, Republican Party, for example, is an linking to Wikipedia. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The German press and even some greens themself use die Grünen, der Grünen, den Grünen, die Grünen and at least in headlines also Grüne.
 * www.morgenpost.de/politik/article208712929/Von-den-Gruenen-gibt-es-Blumen-Pfiffe-und-unklare-Signale.html: "empfangen die Grünen Daimler-Chef"
 * www.taz.de/!5346251/: "bei den Grünen"
 * www.krone.at/welt/gruene-gegen-christbaum-unzeitgemaesses-ritual-debatte-vor-advent-story-538084 : "Grüne gegen Christbaum" and "ausgelöst von den Grünen"
 * www.gruene.at/mitmachen/mitglied-werden : "warum du es bei den Grünen werden solltest [...] weil die Grünen damit stärker werden [...] den Kurs der Grünen"
 * gruene.berlin/nachrichten/sicherheit-geht-vor-neuanfang-mit-den-gruenen-zaehlgemeinschaft-berlin-mitte : "haben die Grünen"
 * www.gruene.de/ueber-uns/bundesvorstand.html : "von BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN" and short "die GRÜNEN".
 * Regarding Pedrianaplant's: As mentioned on Talk:Die Grünen, there is also Liberal Democrats, and also Labour Party, Labor Party. -84.161.26.173 19:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the RFC tag due to lack of input. If you think the entry should not be on Wiktionary, RFD. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May 2019–September 2021
The first sense. This doesn't count: For the second sense, one can find enough examples searching for "Partei Die Grünen". Daloda (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
 * "Grüne", "die Grünen" etc.
 * "Die Grünen" at the beginning of a sentence


 * Do I understand correctly that your issue is that sense 1 is actually the sum of the definite article and the plural form of the noun ? If so, I think you are right. But the sense ” the German green party, 'Bündnis 90/Die Grünen'“, currently found at, may be more in place at . (Does it make sense that this noun has separate masculine and feminine entries? Can’t we combine them?)  --Lambiam 05:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No, my point is: Does "Die Grünen" meaning "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen" exists, is it attestable, are there pars-pro-toto uses? "Die Grünen" refering to an older party exists. And because of the capital D it's not just "die" + "Grüner".
 * (Grüner/Grüne and Grüne are different words with different gender and inflection.) Daloda (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This sense is extremely common: dwds Kernkorpus 2000-2010, though the article is usually not capitalized.
 * —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about and not, and there sill are zero quotes (in the entry or on the citation page). --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar as with the Hindi term above, except that this is one to which I can directly attest, this sense of ‘die Grünen’ is the usual sense and it is so common that “the term is in clearly widespread use”. I use it and hear it every time I talk about politics. The majority of the citations you can find through the link I gave use the sense “the political party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen”, not “the greens collectively”. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * At DWDS' corpus it's and not  (notice the capital D). --Myrelia (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not useful. I've already noted the lack of capitalization. The party stylize their name with a capital. German capitalization rules prevent the article from being capitalized when the term is w:used, although I don't think this rule is strictly followed. It works the same way for the West-German party ‘Die Grünen’ and for newspapers like ‘Die Zeit’ and ‘Der Standard’. Could you instead suggest a way forward? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lack of capitalisation means it's which is easy to attest and not questioned.  for the West-German party can also be found (e.g., , , ) and isn't questioned as well. This is only about  in the pars-pro-toto sense "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen". Without three quotes with capital D and the pars-pro-toto sense, this would be: RFV failed. --Myrelia (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look carefully at the pages in your links you'll see that every time ‘Die’ is capitalized it is either at the beginning of a sentence or part of a quotation or title (ie it's ‘mentioned’). In all other instances the article is written small, in accordance with German spelling conventions. There is no difference between how “Die Grünen” is used when describing the pre- or post-1990 parties. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * is the proper name of the West-German party and is used that way. For the post-1990 party (from 1993), the proper name is and is used in a similar way:
 * : "(Wahlprogramm Die Grünen 1980: [number])" & "(Wahlprogramm Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 1980: [number])".
 * : "und 1980 in die Bundespartei Die Grünen aufgehen sollte."
 * : "präsentieren die SPD und Die Grünen alternative Entwürfe", "Auch Die Grünen legen am 8.7.85 Änderungsanträge [..] vor."
 * : "eine Analyse der Beziehungen der Partei Die Grünen sowohl zur Regierung als auch zur Opposition in der DDR."
 * : "Die Entwicklung von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen von 2002 bis 2005"
 * : "der baden-württembergische Landesverband von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
 * As for quotes are still missing. As for  it could fail another RFV because it's rather mentioned than used, or because of WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY, or could be send to WT:RFDN, but that's not part of this RFV request. --Myrelia (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Only number 7 arguably constitutes use of "Die Grünen", because the author consistently spells it that way, but that's only twice in the whole book... This is clearly not enough to keep the 2nd sense. Could you instead make a constructive suggestion? Why not broaden the scope to make the entry better? Just deleting the sense is undesirable because a) it's in common use and b) it would be inconsistent. I see two options: either leave as is but add a note about capitalization or move the entire entry to "die Grünen". —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * a) does already exist (it's sum of parts of the definite article and a noun + inflection). [It's similar to, , .]
 * b) is unattested for years; the proper name is .  As long as the the alleged pars-pro-toto sense is not attested, there's no reason to keep it, see WT:CFI.
 * c) can be found. It could fail RFV because it's rather mentioned than used, or because of WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY (it's not really a company, but still some kind of organisation), or could be send to WT:RFDN, but that's not part of this RFV request.
 * d) Whether or not deserves an entry is similar to c) and out of scope of this RFV request too.
 * --Myrelia (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not productive. We need to find some common ground and agree on a solution. Can you get behind the following:
 * The term ‘die Grünen’ usually refers to ‘Bündnis 90/Die Grünen’. Historically it also refers to it predecessor named ‘Die Grünen’.
 * This information should be on wiktionary in some form or other.
 * I am willing to implement any solution that works with these two points. The exact scope of the rfv is of lesser importance to me than feeling that I'm improving wiktionary as a whole. If you disagree is it alright if I leave it to you to resolve this? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare a) above: does already exist. --Myrelia (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now it doesn't mention the use of the article to get that meaning. If you add that then it's fine. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article isn't needed, e.g. "CDU bei Kommunalwahlen vorn, Grüne weit abgeschlagen" (welt.de). But well, often it's present. --Myrelia (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Additions were made to and there now is also an example with Grüne (strong pl.) without article. So  is covered.  on the other hand is unattested for over 2 years, which means: RFV failed. --Myrelia (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)