Talk:Hitler

Translations
I assume that, for Lithuanian, the translation of the word Hitler is the word Hitleris, not Adolfas Hitleris. Am I right? I don't understand why wrong translations have been added (by Atitarev, then by Stephen G. Brown). Names such as Adolfas Hitleris don't belong to Wiktionary, anyway, because they are not words (but they'll probably be created from translations by the appropriate bot). Could somebody explain? Lmaltier 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you check the edit history more carefully, I haven't added but changed the formatting of the translations. The original decision to add "Adolf" wasn't mine. Your edit - wiping off all translations wasn't a very a good one. Anatoli 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In English, Hitler alone carries the full meaning of Adolph Hitler. In some languages, there is less laxity about leaving Adolph out of the name. I haven’t looked at recent additions, but most of the entries seem to reflect how the term is preferentially used in each language when the meaning is specifically Adolph Hitler. —Stephen 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you tell? I've checked the lt.wikipedia page, as a test, and it uses Hitleris alone several times. It seems logical to assume that the best, most precise, translation for Hitler is Hitleris, even when Adolph is implied, and that it's the same for most languages mentioned. Lmaltier 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I tend to agree with Lmaltier in that the translations should only state the surname whenever possible, that is, whenever the target language often uses the surname alone to refer to Adolf Hitler. --Dan Polansky 10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have somewhat boldly removed the first names. Wiktionary does not include full names of people, per common practice so far, so these are not inclusion-worthy anyway. Presumably, many languages would use the surname alone to refer to Adolf Hitler; this needs to be verified per language, though. --Dan Polansky 10:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That was too bold :) Korean is written with the first name but romanised WITHOUT, Hindi is written without but romanised WITH it. --Anatoli 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion
English proper noun: "German Chancellor between 1928 and 1945". --Yair rand 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not a specific sense: the interesting thing in a language dictionary is that it's a surname. By its very nature, a surname is shared by many people (this is very different from towns which happen to share the same name, each town is a different sense, and these senses may have different linguistic properties). People with this surname can be found in Wikipedia (the link to Wikipedia is needed as a bridge to this encyclopedic point of view). Lmaltier 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Unless we make an exception when there are derived words (here Hitlerism, Hitlerian)? But the sense as a surname seems to be sufficient to accommodate these derived words (of course, in any case, the reference to Adolph is required in pages dedicated to these derived words). Lmaltier 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jefferson gets an RFV, I think this should too. Polarpanda 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have Hitler. The question is whether there is attributive use not actually referring to the individual (ie, the "Hitler years" referring to 1920s-1945) or to the common noun sense we have, eg, a "Hitler mustache", "Hitler hair/hairdo/haircut", "Hitler salute". Move to RfV DCDuring TALK 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to RFV, where I think it will pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "Move to RFV", because I don't see it there anywhere. Either way, why would we move it to RFV? There already is a attributive sense, and senses specifically referring to the person don't meet CFI regardless of citations. --Yair rand 05:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please and thank you: strike the specific sense. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 03:00 z 


 * I'm not too sure of your criteria, but surely a sentence such as "What would have happened if Hitler had never been born?" can only be talking about Adolf. The sense should be kept. BedfordLibrary 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The move to RFV made sense within the context of the attributive-use rule back in February 2010, but the rule was removed from CFI in this vote: Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (My comment copied from RFV) Keep. I have expanded the def to say - German Chancellor between 1933 and 1945, and (by extension), Nazi imperialism and dictatorship especially during World War 2-. When we hear that Hitler invaded Poland, we are talking about the Nazi government, not the man personally. Might need a bit of a tweak on the wording, but you get the idea--Dmol 13:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep. I should think it was pretty difficult to find many instances of the use of the word Hitler: that did not refer to the person who was "German Chancellor between 1928 and 1945". SemperBlotto 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * closed, appears to be at rfv now. -- Prince Kassad 17:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion
"German Chancellor between 1933 and 1945." Tagged, not listed. IMO this is not dictionary material, though we should possibly have a usage note about the unpopularity of the surname (I suppose many people changed their names) after Adolf and his fascist period. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to RFD. It's in clearly widespread use, and WT:CFI says we don't have consensus for any specific criteria for names of specific entities. —Ruakh TALK 02:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to RFD if needed, but Keep if that is done. I have expanded the def to say German Chancellor between 1933 and 1945, and (by extension), Nazi imperialism and dictatorship especially during World War 2.  When we hear that Hitler invaded Poland, we are talking about the Nazi government, not the man personally.  Might need a bit of a tweak on the wording, but you get the idea.--Dmol 02:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point: Hitler metonymically represents the Nazis collectively. (Of course, that's not specific to the form —  gets plenty of relevant hits — but if we keep this sense, then that metonymy seems worth mentioning.) —Ruakh TALK 19:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The use of Hitler here refers to his position as the ultimate decision-maker. I would say the name of almost every person having the sole decision-making power has been used that way: Bush invaded Iraq, as an example. --Hekaheka 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to RFD sense and keep there. Tagged for rfv-sense on 20 February 2010 by DCDuring; previously tagged for rfd-sense on 18 February 2010 by Yair rand. --Dan Polansky 07:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course keep. That what the word means >99% of the time. SemperBlotto 11:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re moving to RFD: this just came from RFD, see WT:RFD. --Yair rand (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was there back when we had a semi-objective "attributive use" rule. Back then, it was standard practice to send such terms to RFV. Nowadays we have a very different rule, one that can only be implemented via RFD. —Ruakh TALK 14:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edited definition: Hitler was a dictator, not dictatorship nor imperialism. --Hekaheka 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have cited the sense, to fulfill the letter of the RFV requirements. "clearly in widespread use"" would probably also fit the bill. --Dan Polansky 10:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking again as cited and thus RFV passed. Disclaimer: I am the one who has provided most of the citations, so I have something like a conflict of interests. In any case, feel free to review this striking and state reasons for why it would be invalid. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"czech"
"probably related to Czech Hidlar / Hidlarcek" needs proof. Not a single onomastic source scientifically states even the possibility of this this origin. Unless there is proof for this "being related", erase!


 * It doesn’t say origin, it says related. Looks right to me. User:Mutante added this information, ask him about it. —Stephen (Talk) 09:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)