Talk:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän

RFV discussion: August–September 2015
German. Are there attesting quotations showing actual use rather than mentions, and thus meeting WT:ATTEST? . For example, "... wird beim Schreiben des Wortes Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän benötigt ..." is an exemplary mention, as is 'Der „Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" illustriert in extremer Weise die Möglichkeiten, die gerade in der deutschen Sprache durch ...'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete -- Liliana • 09:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to vote; we'll check existence of attesting quotations using the standard RFV process, shan't we? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To my surprise, this might actually turn out to be attested. I've found two citations so far; Citations:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. - -sche (discuss) 09:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, I have come across this term before. It's not a proper noun though, unlike Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (DDSG). Donnanz (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this is RFV. We need one more attesting quotation at Citations:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän, not "keep". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Added another quote.
 * Also:
 * Couldn't it be "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (+ s) + Kapitän"? de.wp says that Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (DDSG) was a company.
 * Can "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" (two f) be a superseded spelling of "Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" (three f) when "Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" is not attestable and when the company's name was "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft" (two f)?
 * -80.133.99.105 21:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Has been cited. The citations look adequate and there have been no objections to them. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No more correct
Now it has to be spelled Donaudampfschi fff ahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. See de:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. --Peter Gröbner (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you still refusing to read WT:ATTEST? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read it. I don't propose to delete the 2-f-spelling, but in my opinion it should bi mentioned that it is no longer correct as was done in the meantime. Greetings, Peter Gröbner (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history, this entry was made a two years ago but that edit was undone on the grounds that the three-f spelling seemed to be unattested at the time and the first element might be the proper (unchanging) name of a company. However, the three-f spelling seems to be attested now, although no spelling of the word is common. - -sche (discuss) 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Meanings/Citations
The citations do not clearly reveal the meaning. Hence the template isn't necessarily correct and is POV-like, favouring one of multiple interpretations. As such the template doesn't fit. A better and less POV-like solution is a neutral usage note. The note could explain that there are two possible subsenses, that the citations do not clearly reveal the subsense and could often fit to both, and that the two-f spelling for one subsense is superseded. A suggestion:
 * ====Usage notes====
 * The term has two possible subsenses:
 * a captain of a certain Danube steamship navigation company, which is more properly known as Erste Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft or Erste Donau-Dampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft
 * a captain of any Danube steamship navigation company.
 * The citations, however, do not clearly reveal any subsense.

-80.133.99.74 15:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)