Talk:Wolfgang

German name
Since Wolfgang is a German name, it is a violation of wiktionary's rules to list the German last. I put it first as it should be. Also, Saint Wolfgang is not the first person to ever have the name. That is just silly. I moved the name translations to the bottom of the page, as throwing them in the middle makes no sense. The English and other language sections should not even be there, as there is no spelling nor etymological variation. The translations roll-down should suffice. I think I will remove those two entries now. It is not like comparing "Heinrich" with "Henry" and "Enrique". Wolfgang appears to have no variants. 112.198.83.66 09:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am pretty certain you are the one who is violating the rule. Please link to the rule that you think justifies your edit, which I see as a mistake. Equinox ◑ 09:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You must be new here...112.198.77.209 14:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , 112 is presumably right about the originality, though, no? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wolfgang is an ancient pagan name that dates back as far as 4,000 years. So Saint Wolfgang would certainly not be the first person with that name in the 900's.119.92.93.84 18:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can someone fix the locked vandalism?112.198.79.173 18:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any vandalism on the page. —CodeCat 18:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is terrible and every time I try to fix it it gets vandalized. Someone please fix the vandalism.119.92.93.84 20:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "vandalism" is the standard format our entries have had for a decade, and calling it vandalism just shows your ignorance of the rules. This is English Wiktionary, so English goes before all other individual languages. I'm sorry you don't like the way we do things, but saying that anything you disagree with is vandalism accomplishes nothing. Please see our entry layout rules for details. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we update all the articles so they can be wrong in English as well? Why the inconstancy in this article? You are a disgustingly ignorant person and it is people like you that discredit the wiki projects that have so much potential. But they are ruined by information terrorists like yourself. We will have to have you eliminated from wiktionary.119.92.93.84 09:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur on the vandalizing and locking of this article. Whoever "fixed" and then locked this should be banned from wiki permanently.


 * You're a funny chap, anon. I've always wanted to be known as an associate of the feared "information terrorists". —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but with all the children here on power trips, they are right. Saint Wolfgang being the first person to bear this name is a pretty ignorant assertion. Why would a Roman Catholic Saint be the first to bear one of the most powerful pagan names?

I also fail to see the need for the Portuguese section that says "Wolfgang" means "Wolfgang" similar to the English "Wolfgang". That whole passage is pretty dumb.

Translations
The translations section pretty much looks like "Wolfgang" in every language. That would be transliterations, not translations. Someone should look up what "translation" means in wiktionary :)
 * Well what term do you propose the Hawaiians should use instead of "Wolfgang"? —suzukaze (t・c) 03:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hawaiian is not a language. Furthermore, most names are not translated into other languages. In fact, I have never heard of this being done at all.
 * —suzukaze (t・c) 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I lived in Hawaii for 8 years and NEVER heard of this language! I thought they only spoke the bastardized version of English, bruh. Though I knew Pidgin is not native. Anyhow, does Hawaiian not allow foreign names? I have never heard of a language that translates names. It just seems like it would come over silly, and people would offensively not be called by their actual names.
 * I can’t speak for the other languages, but the thing is, Wolfgang is used as a given name by Portuguese speakers whether you like it or not. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say I did not like it. I said it is stupid to point it out here in a special section. Wolfgang is used all over the world. Not just in Portugal or Brazil. Also, it is spelled exactly the same. So what is the reason to give a special consideration to point out that "Wolfgang" is "Wolfgang" in Portugese? Oh, and don't forget, "Wolfgang" and "Wolfgang" are both related to "Wolfgang" (English) and "Wolfgang" (German). Is there something I am missing? I mean, are half the men in Portugal named "Wolfgang" or something? If so, it should be mentioned in the article.
 * Being spelled the same is no reason not to include a word. Would you remove the German word just because it’s written exactly like the English translation? — Ungoliant (falai) 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying about "adverbial". However, you, like everyone else, are failing to point out the significance of the Portuguese here. OK. We should include "Wolfgang" in it's foreign language forms. Even though most of those are simply "Wolfgang". But why Portuguese? Why not French? Dutch? Italian? Chinese? Swahili? No one has yet to describe or give the reason for the importance of knowing that "Wolfgang" in Portuguese is "Wolfgang" like "Wolfgang" and "Wolfgang". Does no one else see that this is total stupidity for an academic based website?


 * One advantage to having duplicate sections is that people can insert their native pronunciations of a foreign word. ricochet is an example: the quotidian English pronunciations are quite different from those of French. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't "ricochet" pronounced the same in French as in English? As for the Portuguese "Wolfgang", no variant pronunciation is given. Even if it were... why Portuguese? No one seems to have an answer for that. I feel like I am talking to a wall.


 * No, because in English the recognised pronunciations can be /ˈɹɪkəʃeɪ/, /ˈɹɪkəʃɛt/, &c. and in French the pronunciation can be /ʁi.kɔ.ʃɛ/. (There are probably more, recognised variations that are not yet documented on‐line.) There are people who are interested in learning Portuguese and would be grateful to anybody who provides accurate information on it. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Wolfgang" is German. Not Portugese. As for how the French pronounce "ricochet"? I cannot read the code you are writing in, and fail to see how the French pronouncing a word has to do with how "Wolfgang" is "Wolfgang" in Portugese. You people are going to get banned for this trolling and vandalism.
 * It’s hard to believe you are a linguist when you claim that Hawaiian is not a language, can’t recognise IPA and don’t seem to comprehend the basic concept of loanwords. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , normally I try to avoid being this open in public, but I think that we can all agree that this chap is baiting us. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 01:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But it’s not uncommon for people to feel strongly about whether loaned words are truly part of the language. This is not even the first time I’ve seen someone complaining about loaned given names.
 * Despite all this, I do think the anon has a legitimate point (although his way of presenting this point won’t win any awards for eloquence). I’ve been defending the Portuguese entry because I happen to know from personal experience that Wolfgang is indeed used as a given name by native Portuguese speakers, but it’s hard to believe that it is a genuine word in Yoruba or Ilocano. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, do you think that a naturalised form exists in any Romance language? Maybe… Volfgan? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I don’t know of any. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If Hawaiian is not a language, what is it? — Ungoliant (falai) 04:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a type of pizza. Something from the US State of Hawaii. It is the scent I use in my bathroom to cover up the smell. I am a linguist, fluent in 1 Austronesian language, knowledgeable in about a half a dozen (all of my children are half Austronesian, so I have taken a special interest[edit: among over a couple dozen languages of varying fluency]), lived in Hawaii for 8 years, and never heard of the Hawaiian language. I looked it up, and it is real. I stand corrected, as I stated already. Still odd I have never heard of it.

Origins
"A male given name traditionally popular in Germany and Austria, originally borne by a tenth century saint."

Isn't this kind of a silly statement? How do we fix it???

Religious POV much?
What is with this religious POV they are trying to push "originally a Catholic Saint"? With a Heathen name? 50.153.221.173 16:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of saints have Germanic names. —CodeCat 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * But why would a Catholic invent a pagan name to give to their Catholic son? Makes no sense. And Saints with Germanic names, those names were used before as pagan names. What I am saying is, I agree with some of the above comments, that it is not possible that this Catholic bloke was "the first" person to ever have this name. That does not sound very academic. The wolf is a religious symbol in ancient Germania. To Christians and Jews, it is a symbol of the Devil, evil, trickery, and the like. Wikipedia even states that the name is so old that it had largely lost its etymological value of "wolf walk" or whatever. If it was already such an old name, how can a Catholic fellow be the first to ever have it? Does not make sense.50.153.221.173 16:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, it should should read something like "Although a much more ancient name, the first recorded historical figure to bear this name was a Catholic Saint", etc.50.153.221.173 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just becasue a Catholic has a German name does not make that name Catholic! What kind of logic is that?


 * Also, German wikipedia on Wolfgang list historical evidence this name is recorded multiple times, hundred of years before the Catholic saint.


 * I was unaware wiktionary was a Catholic-bias site.68.45.174.58 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Catholicism not.
Yeah, I don't know why this article is locked. The oldest attestations of this name date to the 8th century CE (cf Förstemann ibid., Col. 596). So it is clearly impossible that the 10th century Catholics were the first to use this name. This is in addition to it being a pagan name.DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspect translations
The translations are obviously copied from wikipedia links of. That's risky, besides obvious mistakes (the Gujarati said "Mozart") you might end up with transliterations created by ten-year-old fans of Mozart. The content of wikipedia articles is somehow controlled but wrong titles may remain for years. Wolfgang has never appealed to English speaking parents. The purpose of the English entry is to list translations. The same could have been done through ====Descendants==== in the German section. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

German
"Wolfgang" is neither and English name, nor Portuguese. It is GERMAN. Also agree that the Catholic Saint cannot be the first Wolfgang, if sources cite Wolfgangs from the 8century! The moderator is biased! 68.45.174.58 18:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At no point in the entry it is claimed that the saint was the first to have that name. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have long been curious whether this user's first name is “Wolfgang” (and is perhaps non-Christian). That's the only thing that makes sense to me to explain this fervor. — JohnC5 20:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who says it has to make sense? This person seems to believe that every random thought that enters their head is self-evident Truth (or at least they would like us to believe they do). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — JohnC5 04:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Originally borne by a Catholic saint". How could you miss that? NOT originally borne by a saint.


 * "English name" "Portuguese name". Neither!


 * Also, "Wolfgang" does not mean "Healthy Wolf" is means "Path of the Wolf"!


 * cf: Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ganganą 68.45.174.58 20:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ganc?
Gang, from ganc, which is Lithuanian, from German, "ganz", healthy.

I highly doubt this etymology is correct.

Would not "ganganą" to walk, to step be accurate?

This page is locked, and the one managing it is a troll.

Who can we get to fix this?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/gangan%C4%85

68.45.174.58 20:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ganc is not Lithuanian; it is Old High German, as the entry says. There is no troll here, unless you are one. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Sero-Croatian and Vilamovian. Which it is neither. It is German. It does not say "German" learn to read! Also, the "gang" in "Wolfgang" does not mean "healthy". It means "path, walk, way". You clearly do not know German, nor any Germanic languages, including English. Again, this is wrong. Whoever is keeping this in the article needs to be BLOCKED from wiktionary. Same goes with the useless additions of religion and nationalities. 68.45.174.58 20:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have trouble looking at the entry on whose talk page we are discussing, I've copied the etymology from the German section for Wolfgang, for your convenience: Etymology[edit] Old High German wolf ‎(“wolf”) + ganc ‎(“path”). You will be pleased to find that it does not speak of Serbo-Croation nor of health. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the game: first you ignore the text accompanying the link, then you follow the link and you ignore what the entry you went to says, then you follow a link in that entry that has nothing to do with the original entry, find the most irrelevant of several senses there, then you complain (in a tone normally reserved for crimes against humanity) about how the the original entry is wrong for saying what you found only after following two links. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from the (legitimate) question of whether ganc is Middle High German or Old High German or both, there's no problem with the etymology that can be fixed by accessing the entry- someone just needs to add Middle High German and/or Old High German section(s) to ganc. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Etymology Still Wrong
The etymology is still wrong. Now it is saying that "Wolfgang" comes from two English words. This is a GERMAN name. The correct root words are wulf and Someone should fix this. Though I see this is a hostage article and cannot be edited. It looks like there have been improvements fixing the original reference to the Saint. Yet the etymology is just crazy. 2601:806:4301:C100:94FA:34AF:2E41:D517 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does it say it comes from two English words? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The etymology is there. It links to two English words, not to the ancient German root words. Really, learn how to click on links. The words should show up a different colour.


 * Do we have to reference the saint, though? We could probably find a saint for any name. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Saint thing is fine now. The Saint is the oldest famous person with the name. Before it was worded to say he was the first one with that name, which is contrary to history and logic. 2601:806:4301:C100:9D2B:A6B:8245:6EA 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, they link to Old High German and you're still incapable of wrapping your head around the idea that we might potentially link to entries that haven't been created yet. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are just an idiot and a troll. The entries exist. I showed them to you. It is just that they are currently linking to the wrong entries. For one, you cannot link to entries that do not exist. Secondly, you cannot link to wrong entries. I know you are new here, but try to play well with the adults, eh? 2601:806:4301:C100:9D2B:A6B:8245:6EA 20:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Linking to entries that don't exist yet is possible and normal: quirkafleeg. Equinox ◑ 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the IP here is confused because the pages linked to in the etymology do exist, but they do not understand that we are linking to hypothetical Old High German entries on those pages, which do not exist yet (well, didn't exist at at least -- wolf exists now as an OHG entry on that page, but only because I just added it). Anyway, with their ignorant and combative attitude, it's probably best to pay them no more mind. — Kleio (t · c) 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: we have an OHG entry at now too. — Kleio (t · c) 20:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm so conflicted whether to block this anon. The user is very funny to me but clearly has violated our norms of conduct. — JohnC5 20:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't block him unless he vandalises or edit wars. We need some harmless entertainment sometimes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , the encoding in the German etymology section is the following:  + . The code for English is en; German is de; Old High German is goh. As you can see, the links go to Old High German, not English. The only reason that you land in English when you click on the links is because the OHG pages had not yet been created. They do not link to two English words, they link to two OHG words, but the pages for the OHG words had not yet been created. Instead of abusing our editors and admins, you should have created the OHG forms. —Stephen (Talk) 20:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Guys, don't be cruel. We need to have a message displayed to newcomers: "Yes, we do have the page you just clicked but it's in a different language, please consider orange links!" ;) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

German Different
Why does the English version have a different etymology than the German, if it is the same name?2601:806:4301:C100:50EF:2859:A5A2:C8A3 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As before, because the English name is borrowed from German. — JohnC5 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

MHG
Wolfganc does appear in MHG as in Heinrich und Kunegunde von Ebernand von Erfurt, ed. Reinhold Bechstein, thus it's at least an alternative form to be mentioned in this entry. Ca. 1400 (still gmh) Wolfgang does occur as in ''Der Heiligen Leben. Band I: Der Sommerteil, which also has pei (= NHG bei), ain'' (= NHG ein) making it less MHG. Not sure, if Wolfgang appears in 'classical' MHG. In any case it might also be a matter of normalisation. -80.133.98.20 00:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it really "Wolfgang" and not Wolfganc (Auslautverhärtung, cp. )? OHG too, might (also) have c.
 * Is it really feminine ("Wolfgang f  A male given name.")?
 * Middle High German (and mordern High German for that matter) had both dialects with final devoicing and those without. So both Wolfgang and Wolfganc should be alright as entries for the name. I think we have no strong preference of normalising to one or the other. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)