text:
Talk:The Quarrymen

untitled
Simply put, how is this line of any accuracy?

"In 1997 the four surviving original members of the Quarrymen reunited to perform at the 40th anniversary celebrations of the garden fete performance at which Lennon and McCartney met for the first time. Since 1998, they have performed in many countries throughout the world, releasing four albums. Three original members still perform as the Quarrymen."

When Lennon and McCartney would obviously meet well before 1997, as indicated by the previous descript before it?

Also for what its worth as an outsider, I think the Quarrymen should retain a distinct article from The Beatles, as it is clearly a different band with 6 members, which is also stated directly during McCartneys 2019-2020 tour, and only half of which remained for the transition to the Beatles afterward.

Is it really McCartney?
The top-right image has the caption: "The Quarrymen performing in Rosebery Street, Liverpool on 22 June 1957[1] (Left to right: Hanton, Griffiths, Lennon, Garry, Shotton, and Davis) with Paul McCartney watching (right)"

Can anyone give a citation that this is McCartney on the right of the image? It seems very unlikely as 1. he didn't meet Lennon until 3 weeks later, 2. he doesn't wear glasses, 3. McCartney's hair at the time was back at the sides and falling down at the front, this guy is more forward at the sides and up at the front. 4. he looks older than Lennon in the pic.5. he's hanging out with a load of suits.

 * OK I have taken out the reference to McCartney in the picture. If someone has historical evidence of it being him (not just looking similar) then they can put it back in, with a citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.253.50.73 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Useful or not?
Is this article useful ?

 * I think it is. Why wouldn't it be? That said, wasn't it "Quarrymen", one word? --Camembert

 * Nearly all the text is the article The Beatles

That's true, but I think it's useful to have separate articles - the two things are not the same, and most members of the Quarrymen were never in the Beatles. I'm sure there's plenty more that can be said about the Quarrymen than is here now, and most of it wouldn't be appropriate for the Beatles article. --Camembert

 * Almost two years have gone by since the last comment here, and by now Wikipedia has grown so much that there is no doubt I guess that The Quarrymen deserve their own article. I agree with everyone, including User:68.214.177.119, who said only two days ago I think that it is The Quarrymen rather than The Quarry Men, so I have moved the page (again).

 * P S What about Quarry Men and Quarrymen (without the article)?  11:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I am of the belief that it is Quarry Men (two words). I have Anthology 1 here in front of me, and it uses the Quarry Men notation. Likewise, our History of the Beatles article says Quarry Men. This book says Quarry Men. Our German article on the band says Quarry Men. I'm fairly certain it's a two-word thing. - Vague | Rant 08:37, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, at least someone sees reason. Elfred 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 * And for what it's worth, so does this album cover. - Vague | Rant 06:28, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that it isn't an actual "Beatle" Quarry Men/Quarrymen CD. ;)
 * OH! What does that say? It says "The Quarry Men," that's right. Not Quarrymen. YOU IDIOTS, IT'S NOT FRICKIN' QUARRYMEN! Elfred 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)!

What we need to realize is that the two (The Quarrymen or The Quarry Men) cannot be decided on. John Lennon himself writes 'The Quarrymen' so, as I've no choice but to believe it all falls on personal preference, I agree with John and call them 'The Quarrymen'. The majority of people (bootleggers) tend to go with 'The Quarrymen' when labelling their albums (see also both this album and this book on Amazon.com.) We could probably offer this on the main page: that the two names exist and are accepted. Riv @ 00:10 hours on Feb 3, 2005

Quarrymen or Quarry Men
Although in many ways the two names appear to be interchangeable there does seem to be an underlying difference. The original lineup had the two-word name on their drum head and on their business cards. It seems that the line in the school song used the one-word form and that was the style favoured by John Lennon. For the purposes of this article I found it convenient to use the two-word form for the original band and the one-word form for the second incarnation (the proto-Beatles) that was formed for the Casbah residency. This isn't entirely consistent because the 1990s reunion band was styled "John Lennon's Quarrymen". --Theo 12:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Percy Phillips demo (1958)
I am not convinced that the demo was recorded on a 78 rpm disc? I have a note that the recording engineer "later wiped the tape", which suggests that it was tape recorded. --Theo (Talk) 09:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fate of the tape
"The tape sold to EMI for £78,500, making it the most expensive recording ever sold at auction, but the recording quality was too poor to issue and the the tape is now believed to be lost."

I have to disagree with the latter comment - I've never heard this rumour before, and surely if something is in the hands of EMI, it's not going to be lost, especially considering that they only bought it ten years ago? NoNameR

 * I agree. I have researched this further and amended the article accordingly. —Theo (Talk) 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The Nurk Twins
I have seen several items on the web saying that John and Paul used to busk under the name of The Nurk Twins as well as The Quarry Men. Any one know about this? "Before the Beatles, there was The Everly Brothers," (Chet)Atkins said in his stage introduction. He wasn't overstating the point: Prior to forming The Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney played Everlys songs in a street-busking duo known as The Nurk Twins." Said in discussing the influence the Everly Bros. had on the Beatles tunes. http://weeklywire.com/ww/05-11-98/nash_music-lede.html and http://www.beatles.com/hub/article.php?page=upto63&menuItem=the%20beatles I know it has always been fashionable to busk in Engaland. Did the lads busk or not?

 * Read the article, and you will now find that it was a weekend gig at a pub.--212.241.64.236 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tree
I just added a rock family tree. Please feel free to move it to its own page, a la The Beatles line-ups, if there's some determination that it shouldn't be here in this article due to size, or whatever else. Thanks. --luckymustard 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we accept that the reformed "Quarrymen" of the 90s are a legitimate enyclopedic topic - and I guess they are - shouldn't the family tree include those lineups? Perhaps the Beatles should be a fork? --kingboyk 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In-line Citations
I have just added the first three, and Spitz's and Miles' books as references. It would be nice to see more... --andreasegde 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

John Lowe's middle name
Is it Charles or Duff? The Quarry Men website says it's Duff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.110.23 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

 * It's John Duff Lowe.--andreasegde (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is Quarry Men...
It actually is Quarry Men, read the biography of The Beatles by Bob Spitz. I believe he has done more research than any of you. It says clearly that it is the Quarry Men.

 * No it's "The Quarrymen", not only did my father go to school with Colin Hanton, but it states so quite clearly on their web site. The main reason for this confusion comes from the fact that it was not possible to write the name across the bass drum in letters big enough to be seen, so the name had to be "split up" and Bob Spitz didn't help Hanton and the others to carry their gear around. Hope this helps. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vera. Spitz got a lot of things right, but not everything.--andreasegde (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The spelling The Quarry Men is defitely not an ERROR, as initially stated in the article. They even used that spelling on their bass drum!?. The reference to the "poster" that JL designed could be wrong. It is actually a small contact card saying "Rock'n'Roll, Skiffle: The Quarry Men - Open for Engagements - Manager Gateacre 1715"contact card scanvideo (see at 2:44). The credits on the anthology are also The Quarry Men.(E-Kartoffel (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

 * Did you read Vera, Chuck & Dave's comments above?--andreasegde (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, and I have also found that contact card, that seems to have been miscredited in the book by Bob Spitz. I do not own that book, so I can't check what is actually written there. All I want to say is that the spelling Quarry Men is not incorrect. Both spellings have been used. there is no point in marking that spelling as incorrect. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
 * OK, I'll change it to "The Quarrymen (also written as "The Quarry Men")"..... which I have just done --andreasegde (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

GA
I have started work on this.--andreasegde (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have upgraded it to B-class.--andreasegde (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I realise that I'm just throwing stuff in, but it will be cleaned, refined, and polished.--andreasegde (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is now up for a GA review.--andreasegde (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Now passed! —Giggy 04:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dissenters
Should the The Dissenters be added to the lead, or just merged? 70.53.187.114 (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I have added it to "Sutcliffe", as it was only a booze-up idea, but worth mentioning in the lead.--andreasegde (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Early years: mention band's original name
From section "Early years:
 * Two weeks later they heard that another skiffle band already had the same name,

This really threw me. Which name? I'm guessing the Blackjacks from 4 paragraphs up in the lede? This is way to far back for the reference here. If this is the case, the sentence should be changed to something more like "The band was originally named the Blackjacks, but two weeks later..."

Thanks. --Speight (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

 * "Two weeks later they heard that another skiffle band was already called The Blackjacks, so during a "mini-brainstorming" at Mendips, Shotton laughingly suggested naming themselves The Quarrymen after a line in their school's song: "Quarrymen, old before our birth / Straining each muscle and sinew", as they had never done much work at school.[12]" OK?--andreasegde (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Blackjacks
It's common knowledge that The Beatles evolved from a band Lennon founded called the Quarrymen which is the subject of this article. This article talks about another band name of The Blackjacks of which there is no supporting citation. It seems that stories about The Beatles' origin go back to The Quarrymen, not The Blackjacks. Can someone get more info? Steelbeard1 (talk)

 * Answer: "Two weeks later they heard that another skiffle band was already called The Blackjacks, so during a "mini-brainstorming" at Mendips, Shotton laughingly suggested naming themselves The Quarrymen after a line in their school's song: "Quarrymen, old before our birth / Straining each muscle and sinew", as they had never done much work at school.ref name="Spitzp51"> Spitz (2005) p51 (reference)--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn't realize there was discussion of this before making a change to the citation. In my copy of Spitz, the Blackjacks info quoted above is on page 52. I updated the citation, which triggered an update to a subsequent reference to p51. Hope I didn't step on any toes, or worse. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I have the hardback version (which is where the refs come from) and it cost me a fortune. This is the price I have to pay for living in a foreign country. :))--andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First names
User:TheHYPO has added first names even when a person's full name has already appeared previously in the article. I don't see any reason for this, and recommend that we follow the WP convention. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I can see User:TheHYPO's point, per the edit summary. I don't know what precedent there is but I can see the benefit. I would see this as analogous to judicious use of wikilinks for terms already linked earlier, where repeating the "definition" brings greater clarity as it does in this case. Maybe the convention can expand to encompass this, if it's not already covered and if there's consensus to do that. PL290 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I think there is an argument the other way, and it relates to the reason for the WP convention. Adding first names clutters the text, and when only a single person has that surname, eliminating the first name simplifies things and makes it easier to keep track of who is who.

 * As it stands now, the article has "Pete Shotton" in para 2 (full and linked) and "Pete Shotton" in para 6. Inconsistently, the article has "Eric Griffiths" in para 1 (full and linked) and "Griffiths" in para 5. The distance (in paragraphs) is the same, but one is handled differently than the other.

 * I think we should return the article to match the style guide and someone in favor of changing it ought to make a proposal for why this article needs to be different. If that proposal is accepted, the article ought to be changed so that it is consistent for all members of the band. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I've now checked the guideline, which is WP:LASTNAME, and it doesn't currently make exception for this kind of thing. As you say, it may be best to return the article to its previous state until consensus is achieved in MoS for this approach. PL290 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I've started this conversation on the MoS talk page. I haven't stated a strong opinion one way or the other but I can see both points of view. Interested parties are invited to comment there and take any eventual action here if applicable. PL290 (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent times
The article does not seem to have a section on the band in recent years. The infobox says they have been active since 1993 but there is no mention of it. McLerristarr (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of recording ?
It looks odd (or it's a pity) no precise date is mentioned for the recording of the only original 78rpm disc feat. That'll Be The Day b/w In Spite Of All The Danger. It should have happened by the end of 1957 or early in 1958, but it would be interesting to be more accurate... if possible ;-)

Before I get an answer to my email sent to the present band, would s'dy have some more clues or sources ?--Polofrfr (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC) --Polofrfr (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 * 12 July 1958. It is now in, but it was in Phillips' Sound Recording Services. "Thinking of Linking", I think.--andreasegde (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've Lost My Little Girl
The article quotes Pete Shotton: "During 1958, McCartney played his first self-composed song, "I've Lost My Little Girl", to Lennon, who was shocked and impressed, according to Shotton's account.[56]"

This may be a "reliable source" but it's inaccurate. The Quarry Men had several originals in their set in late 1957, and Mark Lewisohn (Beatles Chronicle) lists "I Lost My Little Girl" as part of the group's repertoire for 1957 too. Either it's a typo or Shotton has his years wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.251.58 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Well spotted, but...

Anyway... I have moved the sentence to the 1957 era, as McCartney joined then, but have added that the song was written in 1956.--andreasegde (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Maybe McCartney had never played the song to Lennon before (it being a bit personal about his mum, after all).
 * 2) Maybe Lennon thought McCartney's other original songs were not bad, but "I Lost My Little Girl" was a cracker?
 * 3) Pete Shotton spelt one of his best friends' name as Nigel Whalley, when it should have been Nigel Walley.

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Skiffle vs Skiffle
I assume whoever wrote the line "In the mid-1950s, there was a revival in the UK of the musical form 'skiffle' that had originated in the USA and had been popular in the US in the 1920s, '30s and '40s" is either too young to remember the 50s or American. The music that the UK called skiffle bore slightly less than no resemblance whatsoever to the US music it lifted its name from (At the suggestion of Bill Colyer, brother of New Orleans-style jazzband leader Ken). Indeed, from reading his Wikipedia bio it seems likely that Lonnie Donegan had never even heard the term or knew what it referred to. Basically Brit skiffle was a bunch of people with musical instruments singing the first songs that came into their heads. Loudly. --Deke42 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How many survive and perform when?
The lead section now closes,
 * In 1997 the four surviving original members of the Quarrymen reunited to perform at the 40th anniversary celebrations of the garden fete performance at which Lennon and McCartney met for the first time. The band decided to continue playing, and since 1998 have performed in many countries throughout the world. Griffiths died in 2005, and Shotton retired due to ill-health. As of 2014, three original members are still actively performing as the Quarrymen.

At John Duff Lowe we say that he was not original, first performed 1958, but he performs today with three of the originals Davis, Garry, Hanton. If so then five were surviving of Griffiths and Shotton were not both original, or something. Lennon and the five I have named here are the six in our 1957-06-22 photo.
 * At Colin Hanton, five members not including Garry are named as a 1956 lineup (2nd paragraph), but Garry is called original later (4th par).

--P64 16:56 --P64 (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is still inconsistent. Adpete (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead: In 1997 the four surviving original members of the Quarrymen reunited to perform at the 40th anniversary celebrations
 * Formation and early performances: This initial line-up consisted of Lennon and Griffiths on guitars, Pete Shotton on washboard, and school friend Bill Smith on tea chest bass. [That's four including Lennon, so only three alive in 1997].
 * Reformations: 1994 to present: The surviving members of the original line-up of the Quarrymen reunited in 1997 for the 40th anniversary of their performance at the 1957 Woolton village fete—which was the occasion of the first meeting of Lennon and McCartney. All five surviving original members, Pete Shotton, Rod Davis, Len Garry, Eric Griffiths and Colin Hanton, performed.

Strange, but true
"and went on to have an extremely successful recording career." - no shit.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Quarrymen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221173256/http://liverpooldays.com:80/photo/thumbnails.php?album=32 to http://liverpooldays.com/photo/thumbnails.php?album=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Quarrymen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511130105/http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/quarry.htm to http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/quarry.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://originalquarrymen.co.uk/html/hot_news.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206202638/http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/namec.htm to http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/namec.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511130105/http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/quarry.htm to http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/quarry.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They exist in the present
Surely it should start, The Quarry Men ARE a band... rather than WERE a band...? They just played a gig in Hungary, three days ago.

title: Talk:The Quarrymen


text:
Up Front (game)

Up Front is a World War II card-based wargame. It was designed by Courtney F. Allen and published by Avalon Hill in 1983. Hasbro now owns the franchise, and at one time licensed it to Multi-Man Publishing, a license that has since expired without republication of the game. There was an attempt to reprint Up Front through Kickstarter in 2013. The project raised over $300,000, but no updates to status has been posted since March 21, 2014.

In 2016 Hasbro licensed Wargame Vault to sell Up Front as a print on demand product; and the game is now available through on-line ordering. The official rules are currently available to order either as a printed book or as a portable document format electronic file. The components (cards) are produced on high quality card-stock with all known official errata incorporated in the reprints.

Description
Subtitled The Squad Leader Card Game, Up Front was intended as a card version of their successful Squad Leader series of games, but it represented a radical change in approach. Traditional wargames are based on maps representing terrain and game pieces representing units, which attack on their players' turns. Up Front has terrain, attack opportunities, and other factors determined by cards dealt to the players.

Fans of the game claim this type of play gives the player a more realistic feel for man-to-man combat where most terrain will be unfamiliar. With traditional map-based wargames, players have an overhead view of the entire battlefield. In Up Front, locations are revealed as the game is played, emulating how real soldiers might encounter and explore terrain.

The game contains two different kinds of cards, Personality and Action. A Personality card depicts a single soldier and several statistics about him including his name, rank, and the weapon he is carrying. These are assigned by the scenario selected (scenarios lettered A-L were included in the base game) and arranged in groups by the players. The Action Deck contains different types of cards including terrain, movement, heroes, and many other game factors. These are shuffled and dealt to the players.

The original game included German, U.S., and Russian units along with their equipment. Expansions added to the nationalities available for play. Each nationality was given different capabilities including variations in hand size and discard ability which imposes different tactics for the players by limiting the options available to them.

Expansions
Two official expansions were released for Up Front:
 * Banzai (1984), which included Japanese, British, and USMC forces along with rules for Jungle Terrain, Random Reinforcements, and Scenarios M-X.
 * Desert War (1985), which included French, and Italian forces as well as rules for Desert Terrain.

Both expansions are now available as print to order products from Wargame Vault.

Reception
Sandy Petersen comments: "If you can find a copy of Up Front, and you like tactical combat at all, check it out. Or even if you just like card games. In either case, you won't be disappointed. This is a game that surpasses its flaws, and turns some of them into strengths."

Legacy
Like many Avalon Hill games, Up Front continues to be popular among loyal fans. There are active groups dedicated to the game on the Internet.

There is also a VASSAL Engine module for this game.

Wargame Vault now sells licensed copies of the original game and both expansions as print to order products.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Up Front (game)


text:
Talk:Fugging, Upper Austria

Oh, have a sense of humor.
There are so many more places the name of the town could be entered into the article with perfect accuracy. It would certainly make it much more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.139.9.155 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * It's not for lack of humour. In a reference work like WP, it's more appropriate to use pronouns than to gratuitously re-cite the subject's name. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move: → Fucking

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Legoktm (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fucking, Austria → Fucking – This is the only article on Wiki of this title, so there is no need for disambiguation. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail," per WP:PRECISION. The vast majority of items in Category:Cities and towns in Upper Austria do not use the comma-Austria tag. Please do not come to this RM if you plan to make fun of the name, for example by asking whether it is the sister city of some other town with a ribald name. We've heard it all before. Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey
Isn't the purpose of the disambiguation to distinguish it from the inflected version of the word fuck, rather than from some other place of the same name? Prioryman (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Red meat is considered to be sufficiently disambiguated from Red Meat, per WP:PRECISION, linked above. Kauffner (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Leaving Fucking Alone, clever clogs. The article's doing it's job fine and unambiguously where it is. Let's face it, the versatile word 'fuck' is generally used as a verb, but as we usually mandate nouns as article titles, it's arguably in the wrong namespace. It's highly likely that the proposed title could cause misdirection of traffic. We don't want the innocent stumbling onto the wrong article now, do we? Admittedly, the worse case would be in the other direction. But landing on the wrong article because someone wants to write in shorthand doesn't serve the readers nowt, and I sure as hell don't want to see an article entitled Fucking (activity). ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * F*** me, hands off. Tony   (talk)  15:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:disruptive and WP:childish. See "I definitely had fun writing this" In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A little disambiguation goes a long way. For example, I was just visiting here to check out something one of our most distinguished admins said to one of our most distinguished pitas "I don't care about your Fucking article!"  Did he mean this Fucking article?  Apparently not.  FWIW, folks go to incredible lengths to disambiguate around here, e.g. a couple of days ago somebody decided to make sure that when I wrote New York City, that readers would understand that I meant New York City, New York, United States.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See . But maybe he was just making a point, since I'd already identified the location as in Lower Manhattan Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant here (and is listed at WP:PRECISION as one of the possible reasons for an exception to the precision criterion). When someone is looking up "fucking", I would argue that they are most likely looking for the article "fuck". If the redirect were changed to not point to the disambig, then it would me more appropriate to have it point directly to "fuck" rather than to this article. (note: I'm not endorsing that change either - I think the disambig serves the encyclopedia better than redirecting to a specific article). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Either 1) rename to Fucking (Austria) or 2) Keep. The common use of the proposed target in English is the activity so WP:COMMONNAME should point it there. On 1) I think brackets disambiguation is preferable to commas as the latter can give the misleading impression that the full phrase is the standard name for the place, but that battle may have to be fought at a higher level. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pointless move request.  The current redirect for Fucking points to where most people searching the term would expect to go.  As such, this article's title is appropriate as is. Resolute 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fucking, Austria should stay where it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supposed bad word?
It's worth saying that it's famous for its name because its name is spelt like an English bad word. 85.210.158.7 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is covered adequately. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 * And to think I wandered in here entirely at random. 😄 – AndyFielding (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Google Maps indicates a change to the town name -- why?
Google maps shows the name of the town, and the name of its main road(s) as "Hucking" (observed 16 Nov 2013). Is there any evidence of how such a change occurred? The map search was for the original place name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.150.252 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look and it seems that Google has named all the village streets and even some of the nearby roads "Hucking"; however, if you zoom out by one level, the village's limits appear, as does the name Fucking. I think the "Hucking" form is simply a mistake. Quite possibly the compositor refused to believe that a place could be called "Fucking". Kelisi (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know the public can edit Google Maps, right? – Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

German Towns with silly names?
What is the problem with a German town being called Himmelreich ("Kingdom of Heaven")? Does this have some rude double-meaning in German, like "Glory Hole" or something? Muzilon (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Himmelreich doesn't have a rude double-meaning at all. Gugganij (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm sure you'll agree, though, it's good to get these sorts of things straightened out. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What silly German place names is concerned, you might want to consult de:Benutzer:Bdk/Liste merkwürdiger Ortsnamen in Deutschland. --Proofreader (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Today's featured article/requests. — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015
Since the name of this town "Fucking" is very often mispronounced I want to add the correct pronunciation with a sound file recorded by me and uploaded with my account: soundcloud-link

edit - I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia commons:

Xamuel1804 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Could you upload the file to Wikimedia Commons? That way I can add it to the article. If you want to upload the file to commons, you will need to agree to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 (or similar free-use licence), as Wikipedia will only include material is allowed to be used, modified, and redistributed for any purpose, by anybody; although you retain the copyright to your work. Follow the instructions here: Commons:Special:UploadWizard. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rob984 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015
Since the name of this town "Fucking" is very often mispronounced I want to add the correct pronunciation with a sound file recorded by me and uploaded with my account. I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia commons:

Xamuel1804 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by --  Chamith   (talk)  06:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight problem
This article desribes in great detail the controversies and incidents surrounding the name of the town, even including quotations from a local tour guide, the municipality’s mayor and a police chief. One could argue that this kind of detailed information should not be in an encyclopedia. More problematic is the fact that the amount of attention given to this topic is disproportionate concidering the little information that is provided about the town itself. Not surprisingly, this is a problem that occurs often in Wikipedia-articles involving more ‘popular’ topics. Tridek Sep (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The only reason this remote village is so notable is its name, so it is only natural that most of our (and our sources') coverage revolves around that name. Compare, for example, the article about pair of barren islets named Imia/Kardak -- they're notable only because the border dispute, so "the amount of attention given to this topic is [also] disproportionate [to the] information provided about the islets themselves". However, I don't see any problem there -- we assign exactly the due weight (proportional to weight used by our sources) to that particular aspect. No such user (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * This seems to be an WP:OSE argument. And maybe indeed, the article about Imia/Kardak should be renamed to better reflect the topic it describes. I don’t think, however, you can compare the relevance of the controversy surrounding the funny name of an Austrian village with a military crisis and subsequent dispute over an Aegean island that started in the 19th century and continues to this day. The fact that a vast amount of sources on the Internet are dedicated to the strange names of villages, does not reflect encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of information found in tabloids and anecdotal websites. The issue can be mentioned, but certainly not with every detail that is now included. Tridek Sep (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * So, would you rather assist in detecting sources that focus more on demographics, economy and culture of Fucking, population 93, or you just prefer drive-by tagging? How does that tag help anyone? How do you propose that we "fix" this "problem"? I've told you already that the only reason why this village is interesting for anyone is its name, and that's what the sources focus on (did you read them). For comparison, its municipal seat of Tarsdorf, pop. 2000, is a substub with infobox and nothing else. Should we delete all the material from this article that is, um, actually interesting to make it more like Tarsdorf, which was (un)fortunate to have a dull name? No such user (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 * It would be foolish to further elaborate on the demographics, economy or culture of a village with only a few inhabitants. I rather suggest to limit the amount of space given to the section ‘popularity and notoriety’. This is what I meant when I wrote: The issue can be mentioned, but certainly not with every detail that is now included. I apologise if I made myself not clear enough. I also want to point out that being interesting is not and has never been accepted as an excuse to include trivial information on Wikipedia, hence my reference to the concept of encyclopedic notability. You do however add an interesting note when you mention that the article about Tarsdorf (pop. 2,000) is a substub (it only has two sentences!). Even the articles on the region of Innviertel (pop. 215,000) and the entire state of Upper Austria (pop. 1.4 million) are smaller than the article about this little town in question. This is my point exactly. Tridek Sep (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So find something sufficiently interesting about those places to flesh them out, if you wish; your argument seems to be WP:OTHER STUFF DOESNT EXIST, which isn't really any more useful than its opposite. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The policy you are referring to seems to be non-existent, hence the red link. Other stuff doesn’t exist is a characteristic of an undue weight problem, though. And while expanding the articles I mentioned would be a good idea, it does not solve the other issue I described. Tridek Sep (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know that's what a red link meant, and I've only been editing here a decade. Indeed, you are invoking a non-policy. Tell you what, why don't you use your sandbox and put together a version of this article that does not have the problems you describe; then we'll actually have something to discuss. --jpgordon:==( o ) 13:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 * From my experience, a red link indicates no such link exists. I am, however, impressed by the fact you've been editing here a decade. Congrats! Tridek Sep (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Since you like policy-based discussion, here's one for you, WP:BALASPS (bold mine): An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. Now, if you Fucking Austria, 95% of links (and that includes reliable sources therein, and our references as well) deal with just one aspect of the subject... May I suggest that you're taking this issue way too seriously? An encyclopedia should include light-hearted subjects as well, and treat them appropriately, which I believe is the case in this article. But seriously, you aren't being helpful. No such user (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors should take things seriously. Rather than engage in such personal criticisms, it's better to note that none of User:Tridek Sep's arguments are valid; in fact they are upside down. They mention WP:OSE, which says "comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument" but then go on about how other articles are smaller than this one so this one should be smaller. They also misuse the notion of notability, which applies to the subject of an article in the context of whether the article should exist, not to individual facts in an article. At the moment, everything in the article is relevant and informative. Jibal (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Why start class?
C'mon, this is almost a B-class article! This town isn't even big. It has like a population of 100. There has been an adequate description and a long and interesting history. There's even no citation needed places! Why is it still in Start class?

Rant by Kevon kevono (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 21:15 (PT)

 * Well, it got your attention, didn't it? – AndyFielding (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
A gentle reminder to editors to adhere to the neutrality policy. This article describes clearly differing viewpoints over whether the coincidental homograph with the English word is highly amusing or intensely tedious. Editors should make every effort not to take sides in this dispute. Where sentences are phrased in a way that creates double entendre, this could be seen as taking sides with the view that it is amusing, so this should be avoided. Examples of this include using the place name adjectivally outside of direct quotations (e.g. Fucking street map instead of Street map of Fucking). So too is excessive repetition of the place name beyond what is necessary for context, and inclusion of detail which labours the pun beyond what has been reported objectively in high quality sources (e.g. inclusion of references to other road signs which could be misinterpreted). The whole thing ought to read in such a way that it is not possible to tell whether editors consider it to be amusing (and I still have some concerns regarding the overall length). Thank you. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Where sentences are phrased in a way that creates double entendre, this could be seen as taking sides with the view that it is amusing
 * Lots of things could be seen by various parties in various ways, but that doesn't make them true or valid. I think this notion of two "sides" here is an invention with no merit. Jibal (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Besides, ask any comic—funny stuff is funniest when told with a straight face. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017
I grew up in this town, and I want to make sure that the article reflects more about the history rather than the popular association with an offensive English word. There is more to the town than that.JohannFromFuckingAustria (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC) JohannFromFuckingAustria (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.  JTP (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge
There is no need for separate articles about the town and the sign for the town. Much of the detail from the sign article is already included in the town article, anything else of note can be merged. This is creating spin-off articles for the sake of creating DYK nominations, in what appears to be an attempt to game the system; this seems to be more prevalent lately. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As to merge the sign info into here would violate WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to the sign rather than the village. The village is not its sign alone. If anything, the sign info in here should be put in the sign article to balance it out.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And having a standalone article on a sign isn't WP:UNDUE? Especially when most, if not all, the information in the sign article would easily merge into the town article.  This appears to be gaming the system to create unnecessary forks for DYK purposes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Prioryman (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Prioryman You agree with whom? Do you have a position?  Or a vote?  7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose and Keep or Merge Lots of sources.  More and different content. No compliance with WP:Before. Article has been around a long time, and This brouhaha is about the DYK, even as you opine that it isn't.  Where have you been all these years?  And this is about the sign, not about the town.  I also incorporate by reference the reasoning of User:The C of E  7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The sign is already covered in the town article, as it should be. All information here that isn't already in the town article can be merged in.  By the way, Before relates to deletion, this is merging.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, this article started as a redirect in 2008 and has only now been expanded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your vote. "keep" and "merge" are diametrically opposite in a merge discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarify. 7&6=thirteen (☎</b>) 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked, I accommodated. Violation of the rules of cross examination.  Wellman says, "Don't insist on an answer."  <b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, not at all, I'm just amazed by how confused this has all become. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In part because it is a masked ball. Things are not what they seem.  And we have a conflicts of laws problem, where one part of the project and their rules may not agree with other parts.  We also have questions of "intent," which includes arguments about 'gaming the system' and impugning motivations of editors (all of whom are volunteers and are needed).  The relationships are way more important than the outcome. We have a shared community of interest.  It is a microcosm of what has gone wrong in Wikipedia. This is ugly and complicated.
 * Needlessly so. Over something that is so miniscule that it doesn't really matter.
 * When you scrape away the turds, you still have shit on your boot. Just sayin ...   <b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's more of a clear demonstration of what damage DYK is doing in some quarters of the encyclopedia, but your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion, as there clearly isn't anything worth merging. See Articles for deletion/Fucking sign. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge take II

 * Should Fucking sign be merged into this article on the grounds of a lack of independent notability and as a redundant content fork of Fucking, Austria, of which it is a paraphrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prioryman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so the AFD was somewhat curiously closed with keep as the outcome, regardless of the plethora of non-keep votes. So I've restored the merge templates as my reading of those involved in the AFD was a clear and distinct consensus to either delete or merge. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons previously stated. Merger proposal was closed.  Deletion proposal was closed as keep.  This is just forum shopping and motions for rehearing.  Serial proposals are b.s. <b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The merger was closed prematurely (less than 12 hours with little input besides those with the vested interest in the article's ongoing existence) as the article was nominated for deletion. This is just a continuation of the process which now actually reflects the community's feelings about this article.  Calling this "bullshit" is unhelpful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The AFD was not closed as keep, it was closed as no consensus to delete. The closure was particularly odd since at least a dozen contributors suggested either delete, or merge whatever was there and delete/redirect, while a tiny minority said "keep".  Please keep to the facts.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - Yes exactly the Afd was closed hours ago with no consensus to merge or delete. A previous Merge discussion above less than a month ago did not come to a merge consensus either. Perhaps it is time to realise were this is heading.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The merge discussion was closed because the article was nominated for deletion, not because a consensus was achieved. You can see that, it was only open for 12 hours.  Please don't spin this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be useful to ping here; I've seen some admins close discussions like this explicitly as "merge and redirect", but others won't close an AFD this way, and instead say "keep" but mean "keep, because merging and redirecting does not require AFD, and this should not be literally deleted". I certainly don't think it's likely that Mjroots meant "keep and don't merge", but if he did, that's good to know too.  Asking for his clarification is quick and easy and useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done, not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to clarify. I have no strong feelings re keep, merge or delete. What I said to TRM was that if an editor was to be WP:BOLD and merge, then that would be fine. However, if another editor was to revert the merge, then it goes back to keeping the article whilst the issue is discussed, per WP:BRD. Such discussion could take the form of another AFD (which I will not participate in, in any capacity per WP:INVOLVED), or further discussion at talk. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So if I can put words in your mouth, you don't see this merge discussion immediately after the AFD close as forum shopping or anything, but a natural next step in reaction to the decision not to actually delete. Right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been WP:BOLD and "merged" and redirected the spin-off article. I say "merged" in quotation marks because every piece of content in the spin-off article was copied from this article. There is literally no new content to merge. Actually, the one item of content which is different is wrong: the editor who created the spin-off article credulously reported a hoax from the Daily Mirror as true, whereas this article gets it right. A poor job all round. Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No doubt some will see it as forum shopping. I think it is better that the issue is discussed rather than an editor throwing his/her toys out of the pram because they didn't get the exact result they wished for. At least it wasn't immediately sent to WP:DRV! Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a "wrong" decision by the closing admin, though some of the !votes in the discussion were on remarkably stupid grounds. A second AFD is another option, as you say. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My actions are totally legit. The afd foreclose the merger nom inside 12 hours. The afd achieved nothing, i.e. Maintained the status quo. Reactivating the merge discussion based on the strong consensus at the afd was absolutely not forum shopping. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To merge the article is simply wrong. Especially after a Afd abd two Merge discussions has not reached a consensus for it. I smell somethong fishy here. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. The AfD said "no consensus to delete", the first merge discussion ran for twelve hours and was closed early for the AFD, and the second merge discussion is ongoing.  In the meantime, someone has done the sensible thing and redirected the sign to the town.  Nothing "fishy" at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk about a rush to judgment and forum shopping. Prioryman showed his contempt for this ongoing discussion with this edit.  Wow!  <b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what forum shopping means, it certainly hasn't taken place in this scenario. If you like me to try to explain it one more time, I'm happy to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a practicing lawyer I have litigated the issue. And won.  Have you?  Meanwhile, you start another discussion and then preempt the result.  First the hanging, then the trial?   Would you like me to explain how decisions are supposed to be made in Wikipedia?  <b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, again. I'll leave it to someone else to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, again. I'll leave it to someone else to explain. <b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Merge and redirect if anyone can find anything to merge into the main article that is actually reliably sourced that is, if not, just redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/RD Yes, the AfD was closed with no consensus to delete, but looking at it another way, there were ~2:1 who wanted "something other than keeping the article", that is, to delete, merge, or redirect it. I can see no good reason why this warrants its own article. Even if one wants to get punny with the adjectival use of the name, one can do so in the town's article. Crow  Caw  23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking deeper into folks' arguments in the above 2 sections, I'm even more unsure why this warrants its own article. The only fact in the Sign article that's not in the Town article is that the sign is made to Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals standards. Beyond that, the Town article goes into much better detail. Repeating what I said in the AfD, WP:UNDUE doesn't say that you can't focus heavily on one aspect of the topic, but that you must balance focus according to the amount of coverage each aspect gets. Since the sign gets the most press, it is logical and sensible that the article's focus be the same. Crow  Caw  23:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Oppose As per the reasons I gave above. Plus just because the AFD was closed with a result that that the person proposing this merge didn't like, I fail to see why we should persist in persecution of this article with a double-jeopardy (or technically triple-jeopardy) merge discussion being opened. I think we really need to consider WP:STICK here.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not that I didn't like it (I didn't understand it, but that's another issue), and it's not even single jeopardy. Please read carefully:  the initial proposed merger was never completed, only having been open for 12 hours, as the article was AFD'ed.  The AFD closed as "no consensus to delete" but clearly there was a large majority in favour of merging or deleting and redirecting.  The closing admin made it clear to me that there was no issue with continuing the merge discussion, that's where we are now.  Nothing is being "persecuted", no "stick" is required to be dropped, spinning off articles unnecessarily just for points in the WikiCup needs to stop.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add my own explanation as well. As I see it (in late to this whole thing, admittedly), the original merge discussion was mooted by the AfD. The AfD resulted in No Consensus, so I just see this as trying to find a consensus after one misfire and one inconclusive discussion. Personally, I (and at least one other) feel it should go one way, but if we can get to something resembling a consensus either way, then I'll support and defend that even if it was not the way I would have done it. I just would like to get there, is all. No forum-shopping, triple-jeopardy, flogging the horse, or anything like that. Crow  Caw  22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see valid arguments both for and against merging the sign and keeping it separate from the article of the town. My main problem is if the sign can stand on its two feet attracting and directing users through the site. I know there are articles like the sign that exist on its own, but I don't know how commonplace they are. I can see both a section for the sign hogging all the attention on the village's article, but I also can see the sign slowly rotting and abandoned with tags, barely above stub length if it was on its own. Contentious.--<font face="Constantia"> <font color="DarkKhaki">Sıgehelmus <font color="Coal"> (Talk) |д=)  21:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, that's one of a half-dozen reasons why this is a bad fork. Even right now, the 2 articles aren't close in their coverage (the fork should have more info than the main, one would think), and indeed they disagree on what seems like a major point: Whether the "proposed rename" of the town was a hoax or not. Town page says yes, Sign page says no. Regardless of the outcome here, these items need to be addressed, no? Crow  Caw  22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not well-informed about that situation. I just know I'm slightly learning towards "Merge" for the article.--<font face="Constantia"> <font color="DarkKhaki">Sıgehelmus <font color="Coal"> (Talk) |д=)  23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the hoax was around changing the name in the 2010s because of relation to Fugging. The Fucking sign article references an earlier motion that occurred in the 90s.
 * Quite so, my mistake. Crow  Caw  15:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I !voted to merge and redirect at the AfD and I find the close baffling. The arguments above that a complete merge discussion has yet to occur are correct as the discussion above was halted for the AfD and the close of the AfD shows merging was not considered (because it obviously had consensus – there was simply no deletion consensus.  This fork is not needed, not suitable, and not reasonably down.  TRM is correct, if there is anything to merge, do so... then redirect.  EdChem (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Is there a single academic work dedicated to this sign or this and similar signs? The article about the village could cover the subject. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Concur with argument stated above. There is no reason why the sign needs its own page; it can easily be covered by a single section on this page. 1.6180339887   golden   sqᴉɹʇuoɔ 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The spin-off is a fake article - it appears to have been created by copying the content from the sign section of this page, then paraphrasing it to disguise its origins. There is no content in the spin-off article that doesn't exist in the original other than the incompetent presentation of a tabloid hoax as a fact. I don't think it was created in good faith, and it has no good reason to exist. Prioryman (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, per previous arguments given.  ʙʌ <font color="lightseagreen">sʌwʌʟʌ  <font color="Navy">тʌʟк  04:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. If the town didn't have this name and the sign that goes with that name, it would be one of those short, one sentence geographic stubs that are all over Wikipedia. No need to have two articles. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and don't bother to merge. Although I have the article on my watchlist, I missed the show. We're way too lenient on undiscussed content forks such as this one. When a split is challenged, the fork should immediately follow the BRD cycle, instead of going through a thousand hoops as happened here. The forked article is unnecessary and mostly useless. No such user (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect I would have supported delete or merge in the AfD. This is likely a standalone article for humor, as Prioryman points out. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment are we done here now? I've been insulted and insulted and insulted over this, yet it transpires that my original opinion is what the overwhelming consensus of the community opines as well.  It's time to call this to an end, and learn at least one lesson: don't create content forks when they're simply not required, regardless of the intent in doing so....  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect – Obvious. — JFG talk 21:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"F**king" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect F**king. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Fooking, Austria" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fooking, Austria. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Profane word?
The intro states that 'fuck' is a profane word. It can be used in a profane manner, but that doesn't mean the word itself is profane, right? Note that I am not a native English speaker, so I'm not sure. DirkvdM (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 * "Fuck" is definitely profane. A50E10AN500ER (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's profane only to native English-speakers. Our article seven dirty words is interesting reading too, about American comedian George Carlin's famous monologue about words you can't say on television. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's profane in English. Whether an English speaker is "native" is irrelevant. Jibal (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fugging which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate pronunciation information
I would like to point out that this passage:

"In their 17 November 2020 session, the council of Tarsdorf voted to have the village's name officially changed to Fugging (pronounced [ˈfʊgɪŋ]), effective from 1 January 2021."

is not accurate, and I suggest to either remove the pronunciation part entirely, or change it to [ˈfʊkɪŋ].

As a German native speaker from Upper Austria, I have to say that in most Austrian German varieties in general, and in the dialect spoken in the region in particular, "Fucking" and "Fugging" are homonyms. A local person – even when speaking in Austrian Standard German – would pronounce both the same. Generally Danbuian-Bavarian variations of German barely differentiate between hard and soft consonants (e.g. b-p, d-t, g-k). The only big difference is the vowel length of the preceding vowel. A soft consonant indicates a long vowel (Fuge, Möbel), while a hard consonant indicates a short vowel (Mappe, Decke, Futter). Generally double consonants indicate that the given consonant is prounced "harder". Therefore a double G is prononced almost like, or just like a K in Upper Austria, since Ks (even "hard" Ks that are written as ck) are pronounced very softly here (e.g. Mücke is pronounced like Muggn), with little to no aspiration.

An inhabitant of Fucking/Fugging will pronounce the new name exactly the same as the old one (which is the whole point of renaming this village to a name so similar).

Other examples of gg place names in the region: Ardagger, Eggenberg, Deggendorf, Waldegg, Eggerding (which happens to be close to Ober- and Unterfucking).

E.g. in the case of Ardagger the etymology is that -agger comes from Acker which means field. So ck and gg in placenames are used interchangeably in the Danube-Bavarian language region.

I do not think that basing pronounciation guides on writing alone is very helpful. Better to base it on the way local pronounce it.

The same applies to the parallel article on Fugging 17:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I never liked seeing IPA pronunciation coding on Wikipedia because only linguists can understand it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Fucking sign revisited
I was thinking, in light of the move of the Fucking name into history and the recent move discussion to move the Fucking article to its new name in the new year: I was wondering whether it might be worthwhile revisiting the notion of having a separate article for the Fucking sign? Only since it will then be a historical Fucking artifact rather than something still a part of the former Fucking village.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any thoughts?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings. When the name of this article changes, the old title will redirect to the new one. The article can still retain all of its encyclopedic content about its old name (in fact, the old name is the primary thing that makes the town notable), so I am not sure if it's necessary to have a separate article about the sign. The old content isn't going to disappear. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My thoughts were that given from the 1st, the sign is going to be outdated, it then takes on the factor of a historical curiosity since it would no longer be in use.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 16:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the name is the "primary thing that makes the town notable" - this settlement dates back to the 1100s,and presumably has a rich history outside of its recent notoriety on English social media and bathroom-shelf books - but on the whole I probably agree with Anachronist that a spinoff article would be overkill. There isn't that much to say about the sign, and this isn't a hugely long article to start with. I think it's a great shame that they've made this decision, but I guess it's not my village! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we just need to add a Fucking section in this article where it will talk about it's notoriety and it's former Fucking name PyroFloe (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There'll be plenty to talk about Fucking on this. I think we all love Fucking and are sad to see it go. Think of the poor Fucking children!  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Think of the poor fucking children – Pardon me, but as the wise man said: "I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex." <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The sign is not notable on its own. Let's keep it tucked in the history section. --- Running 11:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It is now Fugging
Hello,

It is now the 1st of Jan. The name is now officially Fugging, not Fucking.

RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC) note it was 1 Jan in Aussie Time, when I posted this.

 * OK. How are we going to deal with this? Are we going to move this to Fugging, Upper Austria? I tried, but wasn't allowed to for whatever reason. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, and name the other one Fugging, Lower Austria. I've also tried it but I am also not allowed. Perhaps only admins can do this?

RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am an admin. So there's some combination of existing articles or redirects getting in my way. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, whatever it was, I got it done.--jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check your user page for that.

RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 * so, it's basically https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/174/359/793.png 79.185.3.174 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy
Was the village renamed in 2021 or late 2020? Both are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The vote was in 2020 but the change only became effective in 2021.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I wasn't ther—but I'm guessing that some people were managing to steal the signs anyway, right? – AndyFielding (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Oops, that was supposed to be "there". For some reason, the mobile version of WP's Talk editor only lets us add posts, not edit them. (Does this mean we stop being editors?) – AndyFielding (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is it called swear word?
Please WHY! Thank goodness they changed it. Francisco Nubuelas (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fucking is not a swear word in German.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Great name!
Why don't we have cool town names in USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:4300:8d80:846d:5015:e08d:e9fd (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I mean, we do have Intercourse, Pennsylvania. 67.87.219.120 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I always thought Bucksnort, Tennessee was an interesting name. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Complete List of Lewd-Sounding Town Names in America AndyFielding (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
Add to "In Popular Culture" Was featured in the Amazon Prime series "The Grand Tour" - Season 1, Episode 12 "[censored] to [censored].

Sources: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6068854/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl#summary-po3092963

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Grand_Tour_episodes#Series_1_(2016%E2%80%9317) 2603:6011:9206:7AA:EDD0:EAF2:BE4D:C79F (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * ❌. The town of Fugging or Fucking isn't even mentioned in those pages or in their citations, so it hardly seems that it was "featured" in the show, but at most merely mentioned. Doesn't seem significant to include in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

New sign
Please update the image in the info box to the new sign Greek king (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Moved old sign into the section about the name. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fugging 2021.jpg

Name change, and YouTube
Is it worth noting that the official reason given for the name change, a video by YouTuber Albert Soap that lead to the perceived disturbance of the locals, and unwanted attention,(source) has led directly to a second video by the same YouTuber? In that video, they return to the village. Ironically, the second video has gained a lot more attention than the first one, at least judging from the numbers of views and comments. Renerpho (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Converting audio pronunciation from .wav to .ogg
NEVER EVER upload a .wav file. Both mp3 and ogg will let you play the sound file online. Most browsers will force you to download the .wav.

I do not know why it isn't showing up. The semi-protected status possibly? MiroslavGlavic (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

One of WP's best quotes ever

 * Augustina Lindlbauer, the manager of an area guesthouse . . . had to explain to a British tourist 'that there were no Fucking postcards'.

Sorry, but I just had to express my appreciation of that passage in a Talk post. Sometimes the most serious content is irredeemably funny. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alas, we no longer get to enjoy all those Fucking jokes. It seems the internet got too keen on Fucking and the poor Fuckers who live there had enough of their Fucking being mocked. ;)  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is deeply offensive for constantly using profanities with seemingly little care. Why aren't these censored or removed?
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that particular word is the name of a place. But a website like Wikipedia where everyone including children can access shouldn't be able to see an article that constantly spouts profanities. Even if its true that the people in the village use that word freely in their dialogues, why can't these be modified or paraphrased so there's not a single unnecessary vulgarity? The idea that this page exists with so much foul language is ridiculous and offensive on its own.

Am I the only one who thinks that? 122.11.237.26 (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the "Wikipedia is not censored" box at the top of this talk page. Meters (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Which dialect?
The section Name Change  states "voted...to have the village's name officially changed to Fugging (pronounced the same as Fucking in the dialect spoken in the region". It would be good to revise "in the dialect" to "in [name of dialect], the dialect". I would do it myself but I don't know which dialect they are referring to.

Further, the part about the pronunciation being the same is not in any of the three references cited, so a reference to that assertion needs to be added. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Hello,, I am puzzled as to why you reverted my edit. I was unable to find a reference to the pronunciation in the local dialect in any of the three references. Did I miss something in one of the references? Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for editing! I revert a lot of vandalism, I think my revert in this case may have been misjudged. I apologise and wish you the best in future edits. If you want to talk to me more, please use my talk page. ButterCashier (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 * , sorry, nevermind, I just saw that the reference has been removed from the article, making my edit moot. Carry on. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of reference for quote
The quote supposedly from a "local tour guide" in the Popularity and notoriety sections references this article https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/this-towns-a-f-joke-555249 as a source. The "local tour guide" is not named, and the other quotations in the article suggest that this is a comic piece of commentary, rather than accurate quotations from locals. Burgess-pedia (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fugging, Upper Austria


text:
Holstentor

The Holsten Gate (Low German and German: Holstentor) is a city gate marking off the western boundary of the old center of the Hanseatic city of Lübeck. Built in 1464, the Brick Gothic construction is one of the relics of Lübeck's medieval city fortifications and one of two remaining city gates, the other being the Citadel Gate (Burgtor). Known for its two-round towers and arched entrance, it is regarded today as a symbol of the city. Together with the old city centre (Altstadt) of Lübeck it has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1987.

Appearance
The Holsten Gate is composed of a south tower, a north tower and a central building. It has four floors, except for the ground floor of the central block, where the gate's passageway is located. The side facing west (away from the city) is called the "field side", the side facing the city the "city side". The two towers and the central block appear as one construction when viewed from the city side. On the field side, the three units can be clearly differentiated. Here the two towers form semicircles which at their widest point extend 3.5 metres beyond the central block. The towers have conical roofs; the central block has a pediment.

Passageway and inscriptions
The passageway once had two gates on the field side, which have not survived. A portcullis installed in 1934 does not correspond to the original security installations. Instead, there was once a so-called "pipe organ" at this location, with individual bars which could be lowered separately rather than together as a set. Thus it was possible to first lower all but one or two rods, leaving a small gap for their own men to slip through later. There is an inscription over the passageway on both the city side and the field side.

On the city side it reads, "SPQL" and is framed by the years 1477 and 1871, the former being the supposed date of construction (the correct date is, however, now known to be 1478), the latter being the date of the gate's restoration and the founding of the German Reich. This inscription was modeled on the Roman "SPQR" (Latin Senatus populusque Romanus - the Senate and People of Rome) and stands for Senatus populusque Lubecensis. It was, however, affixed only in 1871. There was previously no inscription at this location. It would also have been pointless, since the view of the lower parts of the Holsten Gate from the city side was obscured by high walls.

There is another inscription on the field side. The text is "concordia domi foris pax" ("harmony within, peace outside"). This inscription is also from 1871 and is a shortened form of the text which had previously been on the (not preserved) foregate: "Concordia domi et pax foris sane res est omnium pulcherrima" ("Harmony within and peace outside are indeed the greatest good of all"; see "Outer Holsten Gate" below).

Fortifications on the field side
Functionally, the field and the city side have very different designs. While the city side is richly decorated with windows, this would be inappropriate on the field side considering the possibility of combat situations. On the field side there are accordingly only a few small windows. In addition, the walls are interspersed with embrasures. Also, the wall thickness on the field side is greater than on the city side: 3.5 metres compared to less than 1 metre. The reasoning during construction may have been to be able to quickly destroy the gate from the city side in an emergency, so that it would not fall into enemy hands as a bulwark.

The loopholes and the openings of the gun chambers are directed toward the field side. In each tower there were three gun chambers, one each on the ground, first and second floors. Those on the ground floor have not been preserved. Since the building has subsided over the centuries, they are now 50 centimetres below ground level, and even below the new flooring. On the first upper storey there are, in addition to the aforementioned chambers, two slits for small guns which were above and between the three chambers. There are also small openings on the third upper storey with forward- and downward-directed slits for firing small arms.

The central block has no loopholes. The windows above the passage were also designed for dousing invaders with pitch or boiling water.

Ornamentation
The most striking nonfunctional embellishments are two so-called terracotta stripes which encircle the building. These consist of individual tiles, most of which are square with sides of 55 centimetres. Each tile bears one of three different ornaments: either an arrangement of four heraldic lilies, a symmetrical lattice, or a representation of four thistle leaves. There is no apparent order to these recurring symbols, but each group of eight tiles is always followed by a tile with a different design. It has the form of a heraldic shield and bears either the Lübeck heraldic eagle or a stylized tree. These shields are flanked by two male figures who function as bearers of a coat of arms.

The terracotta stripes were repaired during restoration work between 1865 and 1870. Only three of the original tiles are preserved as museum specimens. The new tiles approximate the former design, although liberties were taken during the restoration. For example, the design of the heraldic eagle motif is by no means a reflection of the original.

The pediment was also not faithfully restored, but this is not the fault of the restorers, since in the 19th century it had long been gone and its original appearance was unknown. An old view on an altarpiece in the Lübeck fortress monastery shows a Holsten Gate with five pediment towers. But since this picture shows the Holstentor Gate in the middle of a fantasy landscape of mountains and forests the credibility of the representation is disputed. Today, three towers crown the pediment, but they are visible only from the city side.

It was constructed with red bricks.

Interior

Both tower interiors have the same design. The ground floor and first upper story have the highest ceilings, while the floors above are much lower. Two narrow spiral staircases wind their way upwards, in each case between the central building and the adjacent tower. On each floor corridors connect the rooms of the central block with tower rooms at the same level. The ceiling of the north tower's second floor has been removed, so that today the second and third upper storeys there share a common space. This change dates from 1934 and does not reflect the original situation.

The gun chambers are in front of the loopholes. Today there are guns in the chambers of the second floor, but they are not originals and were placed there at a late date. Above the gun chambers are hooks from which chains were suspended and attached to the cannon to cushion the recoil after firing. The higher gun chambers of the first upper storey could only be accessed with ladders.

History
The rich Hanseatic city of Lübeck felt the need in the course of the centuries to protect itself from outside threats with ever stronger walls and fortifications. Three gates gave access to the city: the Citadel Gate in the north, Mill Gate in the south, and the Holsten Gate in the west. To the east, the city was protected by the dammed Wakenitz River. Here, the less martial Hüxter Gate led out of the city.

These city gates were initially simple gates which were repeatedly strengthened over time so that they eventually all had an outer, middle and inner gate. Today, only fragments remain of these ancient city gates. The gate now known as the Citadel Gate is the former Interior Citadel Gate; the Middle and Outer Citadel Gates no longer exist. All three Mill Gates have completely disappeared. The gate now known as the Holsten Gate is the former Middle Holsten Gate; there was also an (older) Inner Holsten Gate, an Outer Holsten Gate, and even a fourth gate, known as the Second Outer Holsten Gate. So the history of the Holsten Gate is actually the history of four consecutive gates, although only one of them is left.

The names of the individual gates changed as a matter of course as their components emerged and disappeared. The Middle Holsten Gate was once the Outer Holsten Gate before the gates on either side were constructed. Still today there is a great deal of confusion about the names as one studies the historical record. The four gates and their history are described below.

Inner Holsten Gate

The oldest Holsten Gate guarded the nearby banks of the Trave River. One had to leave the city through this gate in order to get to the Holsten Bridge, which crossed the river. It is not known when a gate was erected here for the first time. The Holsten Bridge was first mentioned in a 1216 deed signed by the king of Denmark. It is likely that already at that time there was a gate and a city wall along the Trave River. The designations "Holsten Bridge" (and "Holsten Gate") are simply a consequence of the fact that the city's western exit was in the direction of Holstein.

Historical records indicate that the Holsten Bridge and Holsten Gate were renewed in 1376. There is good evidence for the appearance of the gate erected at that time in a woodcut of a view of the city of Lübeck produced by Elias Diebel. Although this is a city view from the eastern, Wakenitz side of the old inner city hill, the artist has folded out essential parts of the gate's west side, so that they too become visible. It was a rectangular tower with a wooden gallery on the upper part.

At an unknown date in the 17th century, the Inner Holsten Gate was replaced by a smaller, simple half-timbered gate—possibly because no point was seen in having a strong inner gate in light of the strong outer fortifications which had been erected in the meantime. The Inner Holsten Tor was connected to the dwelling of the tollkeeper, who guarded the access to the city at this location.

The half-timbered gate was replaced by a simple iron gate in 1794, which in turn was demolished in 1828, together with the tollkeeper's house and the city wall along the Trave River.

It is likely that there was a gate also on the opposite bank of the Trave at an early date. But nothing is known of its appearance. If it existed, it was torn down before or after the construction of the Middle Holsten Gate.

Middle Holsten Gate
In the 15th century the entire gate construction was considered to be inadequate. The proliferation of firearms and canon made stronger fortifications necessary. It was decided to build another gate—the Outer Holsten Gate, later known as the Middle Holsten Gate and today only as the Holsten Gate. Funding was secured by a legacy of the councilman John Broling amounting to 4,000 Lübeck marks. In 1464 the city's architect, Hinrich Helmstede, began construction, which was completed in 1478. It was erected on a seven-metre high hill raised for the purpose. Already during the construction period this foundation proved to be unstable. The south tower sagged because of the marshy ground and already during constructions attempts were made to compensate for its inclination.

For more history of the Middle Holsten Gate see the section on demolition and restoration below.

Outer Holsten Gate
The exterior Holsten Gate was also known as the Renaissance Gate, the Foregate or the Crooked Gate. It was constructed in the 16th century when a wall was built west of the Middle Holsten Gate into which a gate was inserted. The outer Holsten Gate was completed in 1585. The new gate obstructed the view of the Middle Holsten Gate since its eastern exit was located only 20 metres from that construction. A walled area known as the zwinger was created between the two gates.

Its foregate was small compared with the approximately one hundred years older Middle Holsten Gate, but much more richly decorated on the field side. The city side was by contrast left plain. The Outer Holsten Gate was the first gate to bear an inscription. It read, "Pulchra res est pax foris et concordia domi – MDLXXXV" ("It is wonderful to have peace without and harmony within - 1585") and was placed on the city side. It was later moved to the field side and slightly modified ("Concordia domi et foris pax sane res est omnium pulcherrima", "harmony within and peace without are the greatest good of all"). Connected to the gate was the home of the Wall Master, who was responsible for the maintenance of the fortifications.

The builder of the Renaissance gate was probably the city architect Hermann von Rode, who designed the front following Dutch prototypes. For example, the Nieuwe Oosterpoort in Hoorn is directly comparable. This gate existed for about 250 years and was in the end sacrificed to the railway; it was demolished in 1853 to make room for the first Lübeck train station and tracks. Today, this station no longer exists either; the present station is located about 500 metres to the west.

Second Outer Holsten Gate
At the beginning of the 17th century new city walls were built in front of the city moat, under the supervision of military engineer Johhann von Brüssel. As part of this construction a fourth Holsten Gate was built in 1621. It was completely integranted into the high walls and topped by an octagonal tower. The archways bore the inscriptions "Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos" ( "If God be for us, who can be against us?") on the city side and "sub alis altissimi" ("Under the protection of the Most High") on the field side. This gate was the last of the four Holsten Gates to be constructed and the first to disappear, namely in 1808.

Demolition and restoration in the 19th century
In the course of industrialization, the fortifications were considered to be only annoying obstacles. In 1808 the second outer Holsten Gate was demolished, in 1828 the inner Holsten Gate, and in 1853 the outer Holsten Gate. It was then considered to be only as a matter of time before the Middle Holsten Gate, the only remaining of the four gates, would be torn down. Indeed, in 1855, Lübeck citizens petitioned the Senate to finally demolish the remaining gate, since it hindered the extension of the railway facilities. This petition had 683 signatures. However, there was at that time also growing resistance to the destruction of old buildings. Thus August Reichensperger wrote in 1852, "Even Lübeck, once the proud head of the Hanseatic League, does not seem able to endure the reflection of its former glory. It maims, crops and covers up so assiduously that "modern Enlightenment" will soon have nothing to be ashamed of any more". When King Frederick William IV of Prussia heard of this, he sent Prussia's then-curator of historic monuments, Ferdinand von Quast, to salvage whatever could be saved.

Controversy over the demolition went on for a long time. A decision was made only in 1863 when the Lübeck citizens decided by a majority of just one vote not to demolish the building but to instead extensively restore it. Meanwhile, the gate was in very bad condition, since every year it had sunk a few centimetres further into the ground. The lowest loopholes were already 50 centimetres below ground, and the inclination of the entire gate was beginning to be dangerous. This drastically altered the statics of the building, so that its collapse was feared. The Holsten Gate was thoroughly restored, with work continuing into 1871.

Afterwards there was a change in the relationship of the Lübeck population to the Holsten Gate. It was no longer perceived as a troublesome ruin, but as a symbol of a proud past. In 1925, the German Association of Cities made the Holstentor its symbol. As early as 1901, the marzipan manufacturer Niederegger used the Holsten gate in its company trademark. Other Lübeck companies did the same.

Restoration 1933/34
Since the towers continued to slant and their collapse could still not be ruled out, a second restoration became necessary. This occurred in the years 1933-34, during which the Holsten Gate was stabilized so that it finally stood firm. In this final restoration, reinforced concrete anchors were used to secure the towers, which were girded by iron rings. Changes were, however, also made which did not correspond with the original character of the gate, including the above-mentioned merging of north tower floors. The Nazis turned the Holsten Gate into a museum. It was called the Hall of Honor and Glory, and was supposed to represent Lübeck and German history from the perspective of Nazi ideology.

In the second half of the 20th century minor repairs were made to the Holsten Gate which are no longer in line with current standards for architectural conservation.

Restoration 2005/06
From March 2005 to December 2006, the Holsten Gate was again restored. The restoration was estimated to cost around one million euros, with 498,000 euros (the originally planned cost) being provided by the German Foundation for Monument Protection and the Possehl Foundation. The remaining costs were primarily covered through donations from individuals, companies and academic institutions. A swastika dating from 1934 was cut out and taken away by unknown parties a few days after the scaffolding was installed for the repairs. It was considered to be the last swastika still remaining on a public building in Germany and was supposed to be concealed with metal sheeting as part of the restoration work. A plate with the date 2006 was put up where the stolen swastika had been to commemorate the completion of restoration work.

On 2 December 2006, the Holstentor reopened to the public as part of a light show created by the artist Michael Batz. For safety reasons the gate had been obscured during restoration by a high resolution depiction of the gate before work had begun, printed on scaffolding tarpaulins.

The Holsten Gate today

In 1950 the Holsten Gate was again a museum, this time for municipal history. Relics from historic Lübeck were presented, the development of medieval Lübeck was shown by using models and pictures, and models of the ships of the Hanseatic League and the flagship "Eagle of Lübeck" were exhibited. The features of this museum were also not historically accurate. For example, the museum also included a torture chamber with a dungeon, a rack and other torture devices. But the Holsten Gate had never contained anything like that.

The two monumental iron statues of reclining lions placed in an area in front of the Holsten Gate designed by Harry Maasz date from 1823 and are unsigned. They are attributed to Christian Daniel Rauch and may possibly have been made with the collaboration of a member of Rauch's workshop, Th. Kalide (1801–1863). One lion is asleep, the other is awake and attentively regards the other. They were originally placed in front of the house built in 1840 by the Lübeck merchant and art collector John Daniel Jacobj (1798–1847) at Große Petersgrube 18. In 1873 they were placed in front of the Hotel Stadt Hamburg am Klingenberg until its destruction in 1942 during World War II, and only later in front of the Holsten Gate. They are complemented by a bronze statue on the other side of the street, the Striding Antilope, by the sculptor Fritz Behn.

The Holsten Gate Museum was modernized in 2002. Not only was the torture chamber removed; all rooms were redesigned according to a new concept that involved the integration of image and sound documentation. As of 2006, the museum has been managed by the Cultural Foundation of the Hanseatic City of Lübeck.

Surroundings
The Holsten Gate is located in the Lübeck city wall complex on the main access road connecting the main railway station with the suburb of St. Lorenz and crossing the Puppen Bridge. The Holsten Gate Square (Holstentorplatz) is enclosed on one side by a branch of the Deutsche Bundesbank; with new construction extending the original Reichsbank building to the rear. On the other side there is the brick expressionist Holsten Gate Hall (Holstentorhalle) between the historic salt warehouses and the DGB's House of Trade Unions (Gewerkschaftshaus). This building was altered with funds from the Possehl Foundation to create a rehearsal and teaching facility for Lübeck's University of Music (Musikhochschule Lübeck) was rebuilt. Another pedestrian bridge over the Upper Trave River was completed in spring 2007 to provide a connection the university's main building complex in the old city centre.

On currency and postage stamps

The Holsten Gate appears on the 50 DM bank notes produced from 1960 to 1991 and on the German two-euro coin issued in 2006.

In 1948 it appeared on the four highest denominations (DM 1, DM 2, DM 3 and DM 5) of the first long-term series of postage stamps in German mark currency, which featured buildings. In 1997 it appeared on the 510 Pf. postage stamp of another definitive series, "Places of Interest".

In video games
The gate appeared in the trading simulation The Patrician.

The gate also appeared as a landmark in the Maxis PC game Simcity 3000.

Other uses
Since 1926 there has been a stylization of the Holsten Gate in the emblem of the German Association of Cities (Deutscher Städtetag DST).

A simplified and scaled-down replica of the Holsten Gate was completed in 2008 for the Hansa Park in Sierksdorf.

The current Guinness World Record for the fastest marathon dressed as a landmark building was achieved by a Richard Mietz wearing a Holstentor costume at the 2018 Berlin Marathon

The Amphicar (a mass-produced amphibious automobile) built in Lübeck in the 1960s, sports a golden image of the Holstentor on the horn button in the center of the steering wheel. Many people who see the Amphicar think the emblem is a castle.

title: Holstentor