1. I do not agree with your editing of The Hohe Bogen reference to Pension Hohenbogen. The term is the Hohe Bogen ( I stayed at the Hohe Bogen, meetcha at the Hohe Bogen) which is identical to that of the mountain. No big deal it works but I believe wrong edit move on your part.

2. Also removing the sub catagory in Places of Our Gasthäuser and Pensionen did nothing to remove confusion where there was none but actually removed an editing location in a specific and growing catagory where those with more information of Our Gasthäuser and Pensionen could easily add their own house information. There is no need to list each house as a seperate place name but where the names will be linked from tales or other definitions simply linked back to the general catagory.

3. I do not agree with what seems to be over editing such as changing ASA to Army or Air Force and Army to American personell. ASA is a clear text description, Ridgerunners or Rimbachers are not ambiguous in context - remember this is a wiki by Ridgerunners to reflect OUR references and sayings as we used them not as someone else wishes to interpret them.

Just a thought

Jim Menzie - 07 October 2008 11:37 PM

1. I do not agree with your editing of The Hohe Bogen reference to Pension Hohenbogen. The term is the Hohe Bogen ( I stayed at the Hohe Bogen, meetcha at the Hohe Bogen) which is identical to that of the mountain. No big deal it works but I believe wrong edit move on your part.

To prevent confusion, the entry referring to the mountain should be separate from other entries that carry variations of that name (pension, etc.). Explanations of those variations can be made at any point. Further, each entity should be a separate entry because they all individually represent important aspects of our service there, and we as individuals have certain memories associated with each. Plus, visitors who are not familiar with our stories or Rimbach in general will find individual explanations easier. Simply because they have similar, but varied names should not disqualify these disparate entities from being separate.

Links to these similar entries can and should be made within individual entries (e.g., “Also See ...”).

2. Also removing the sub catagory in Places of Our Gasthäuser and Pensionen did nothing to remove confusion where there was none but actually removed an editing location in a specific and growing catagory where those with more information of Our Gasthäuser and Pensionen could easily add their own house information. There is no need to list each house as a seperate place name but where the names will be linked from tales or other definitions simply linked back to the general catagory.

See above. Each “thing” or place should indeed be a separate entity. The deletion of the “Our Gasthauser and Pensionen” subcategory was a subjective call, but not done without thought. As there only a potential handful of these entities, I felt that perhaps they didn’t require their own subcategory. We can put it back if it pleases you.

3. I do not agree with what seems to be over editing such as changing ASA to Army or Air Force and Army to American personell. ASA is a clear text description, Ridgerunners or Rimbachers are not ambiguous in context — remember this is a wiki by Ridgerunners to reflect OUR references and sayings as we used them not as someone else wishes to interpret them.

Overall, editing can be a subjective task, as well. But entries should always be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling, etc.

ASA refers to Army Security Agency. It is true that at one time only ASA troops were stationed in Rimbach. But most of the general history of the U.S. military presence in Rimbach and the surrounding area that we speak of pertains to both services. It would be a slight to the Air Force troops who served there to only refer to ASA in this Wiki. Where appropriate, when speaking of things pertaining to just the Army or just the Air Force, division of the services should be referenced. But when speaking of the general history of things, it must be made clear — or at least left unsaid and assumed — that both services were involved.

When referring to “Ridgerunners” and “Rimbachers,” you are correct. Your references were not such, if I recall correctly.

Jim Menzie - 07 October 2008 11:37 PM

The term is the Hohe Bogen ( I stayed at the Hohe Bogen, meetcha at the Hohe Bogen) which is identical to that of the mountain. No big deal it works but I believe wrong edit move on your part.

It’s very possible that during the copy/cutting/pasting I dropped some letters on this entry. I make no claim at all with regard to knowing any of the linguistic distinctions in this matter, so if I’ve messed up this one, please repair the damage.

To prevent confusion, the entry referring to the mountain should be separate from other entries that carry variations of that name (pension, etc.).

The Hohe Bogen is an identical term with two meanings. Just as any dictionary entry item one and item two - not two separate entries for the same word. It prevents confusion to describe our usage of that word in one spot with links to further descriptive categories.

Links to these similar entries can and should be made within individual entries (e.g., “Also See ...”).

Precisely as made in a sub category of places. Or any other link which may be souced by Heindrichmeyers or Pension Hohenbogen

2. Also removing the sub category in Places of Our Gasthäuser and Pensionen did nothing to remove confusion where there was none but actually removed an editing location in a specific and growing category where those with more information of Our Gasthäuser and Pensionen could easily add their own house information. There is no need to list each house as a separate place name but where the names will be linked from tales or other definitions simply linked back to the general category.

See above. Each “thing” or place should indeed be a separate entity. The deletion of the “Our Gasthauser and Pensionen” subcategory was a subjective call, but not done without thought. As there only a potential handful of these entities, I felt that perhaps they didn’t require their own subcategory. We can put it back if it pleases you.

That would be nice it certainly would please me but more importantly it reduces clutter and increases understanding of our living conditions.

3. I do not agree with what seems to be over editing such as changing ASA to Army or Air Force and Army to American personnel. ASA is a clear text description, Ridgerunners or Rimbach are not ambiguous in context — remember this is a wiki by Ridgerunners to reflect OUR references and sayings as we used them not as someone else wishes to interpret them.

Overall, editing can be a subjective task, as well. But entries should always be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling, etc.

ASA refers to Army Security Agency. It is true that at one time only ASA troops were stationed in Rimbach. But most of the general history of the U.S. military presence in Rimbach and the surrounding area that we speak of pertains to both services. It would be a slight to the Air Force troops who served there to only refer to ASA in this Wiki. Where appropriate, when speaking of things pertaining to just the Army or just the Air Force, division of the services should be referenced. But when speaking of the general history of things, it must be made clear — or at least left unsaid and assumed — that both services were involved.

When referring to “Ridgerunners” and “Rimbach,” you are correct. Your references were not such, if I recall correctly.

Being a Zoomie I can understand that you did not know that we use the term ASA and not Army. We were very proud of being in the ASA . To my knowledge the primary military contingent in Rimbach was ASA and no other Army unit. Usage of ASA is clarity not confusion. The Air Force were well called Zoomies not Air Force except maybe when they got Arctic winter parka’s and then we were so jealous that for a short time you were Air Force. The terms Rimbacher or Ridgerunners are inclusive so no need for the AF to feel left out.

The purpose of the Wiki it seems to me is to help other people understand our terms - not to change our terms to something we did not use to explain what we used eh…
We were ASA, Zoomies, Rimbachers and Ridgerunners alike. If it makes you feel better we can make an entry for ASA and explain what it was and then use our term ASA and another entry for Air Force explaining they were really Zoomies ....

My suggestion is use ASA not Army.

Jim Menzie - 08 October 2008 01:15 PM

The Hohe Bogen is an identical term with two meanings. Just as any dictionary entry item one and item two - not two separate entries for the same word. It prevents confusion to describe our usage of that word in one spot with links to further descriptive categories.

If that were the case, then yes. But I maintain that “Hohe(r) Bogen” the mountain is different from “Pension Hohe(r) Bogen.” Note the word “Pension.” If the official title is “Pension Hohe(r) Bogen,” then it should be a separate entry. The fact that it was not used that way in common speech is irrelevant. If you called the pension simply “the Hohe(r) Bogen,” it would not change the fact that it was not its name.

If, however, its official name was simply “Hohe(r) Bogen,” not “Pension Hohe(r) Bogen,” then yes, it would be added to the “Hoge(r) Bogen” entry as a notation. Find a photo and see what its sign says.

Precisely as made in a sub category of places. Or any other link which may be souced by Heindrichmeyers or Pension Hohenbogen.

Exactly. If such a subcategory still existed, of course.

That would be nice it certainly would please me but more importantly it reduces clutter and increases understanding of our living conditions.

That is your subjective opinion, so recreate subcategory. I won’t harp. (Just change the little code at the top of the Pension Hohe(r) Bogen entry.)

Being a Zoomie ...

Being a former member of the United States Air Force.

.. I can understand that you did not know that we use the term ASA and not Army.

That’s fine, Jim. But you used it as if there were no other military contingents in Rimbach. That’s fine for mailing lists and forums, but incorrect with a Wiki. This should provide accurate information. You can’t say only ASA when referring to all troops who ever served there.

Usage of ASA is clarity not confusion.

It is not when it’s used incorrectly.

The terms Rimbacher or Ridgerunners are inclusive so no need for the AF to feel left out.

True, when those terms are used in that way. But you said ASA.

ASA simply can’t be used to describe a group comprised of all troops of all services. It’s incorrect and confusing.

The purpose of the Wiki it seems to me is to help other people understand our terms - not to change our terms to something we did not use to explain what we used eh…

Yet we must be precise and correct when we do so. If, for instance, you have an entry on a slang word that was used in place of a real title, then you must refer to that real title in its explanation. The Wiki must be as precise and correct as possible.

If it makes you feel better we can make an entry for ASA and explain what it was and then use our term ASA and another entry for Air Force explaining they were really Zoomies ....

Technically, you should also have one for “Zoomy.” And “Grunt,” I suppose. 

My suggestion is use ASA not Army.

You may, when you refer only to Army troops. When referring to a body or group (or bus load) that includes both Army and Air Force troops, ASA would be inaccurate and should not be used.

This thread is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.  As of yet we don’t even have enough posts to really necessitate putting things in categories, although I know that we might as well start now because categorization will eventually be necessary. 

I do think that there are enough potential entries to sometime have a category for Gasthaeusern und Pensionen or a more general one “where we lived” Pension Hohenbogen, Pension Berzl, the Talblick, Birdhouse, Farmhouse, Cafe Frank, Kastanie, usw.

I think the Words and Phrases category could have a subcategory as a special place for “Jargon” for words like Tread, Dub, Weed, etc. and another for acronyms and titles, like ASA, USAFSS, Det K, 16th USASAFS Herzo, 6913th USAFSS, etc. 

As the wiki grows the categories will surely need to be adjusted to accommodate what people decide to actually add. 

Blaze

Bill Blaisdell - 08 October 2008 07:25 PM

I do think that there are enough potential entries to sometime have a category for Gasthaeusern und Pensionen or a more general one “where we lived” Pension Hohenbogen, Pension Berzl, the Talblick, Birdhouse, Farmhouse, Cafe Frank, Kastanie, usw.

As I’ve said, I’m certainly not against such category or subcategory, though I think it perhaps should be given an English name since some of our visitors may not be familiar with the German words. But I’m open to either.

I think the Words and Phrases category could have a subcategory as a special place for “Jargon” for words like Tread, Dub, Weed, etc. and another for acronyms and titles, like ASA, USAFSS, Det K, 16th USASAFS Herzo, 6913th USAFSS, etc.

Good idea, Bill.

As the wiki grows the categories will surely need to be adjusted to accommodate what people decide to actually add.

Absolutely. As it grows, its structure will have to adjust.

The Hohe Bogen is an identical term with two meanings. Just as any dictionary entry item one and item two - not two separate entries for the same word. It prevents confusion to describe our usage of that word in one spot with links to further descriptive categories.

If that were the case, then yes. But I maintain that “Hohe(r) Bogen” the mountain is different from “Pension Hohe(r) Bogen.” Note the word “Pension.” If the official title is “Pension Hohe(r) Bogen,” then it should be a separate entry. The fact that it was not used that way in common speech is irrelevant. If you called the pension simply “the Hohe(r) Bogen,” it would not change the fact that it was not its name.

If, however, its official name was simply “Hohe(r) Bogen,” not “Pension Hohe(r) Bogen,” then yes, it would be added to the “Hoge(r) Bogen” entry as a notation. Find a photo and see what its sign says.

Well I do not really care at this stage what you do with it. The Hohe Bogen term was used for both mountain and Pension. the Hohe Bogen was common usage which of course no one spelled out. The Pension Hohenbogen was added. You also removed the note which made one aware of the many different spellings of Hohe Bogen.

.. I can understand that you did not know that we use the term ASA and not Army.

That’s fine, Jim. But you used it as if there were no other military contingents in Rimbach. That’s fine for mailing lists and forums, but incorrect with a Wiki. This should provide accurate information. You can’t say only ASA when referring to all troops who ever served there.

My suggestion is use ASA not Army.

You may, when you refer only to Army troops. When referring to a body or group (or bus load) that includes both Army and Air Force troops, ASA would be inaccurate and should not be used.

I have not been able to find my original entry but if I used ASA to describe the whole detachment it was not intentional and simply corrected by adding “and the Air Force” which was obviously not the case.

As the wiki grows the categories will surely need to be adjusted to accommodate what people decide to actually add.

Absolutely. As it grows, its structure will have to adjust.

As German words and slang terms will be added is the spell checker set up to add our new common usage words ?
Just a question..

Bill Blaisdell - 08 October 2008 07:25 PM

This thread is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.  As of yet we don’t even have enough posts to really necessitate putting things in categories, although I know that we might as well start now because categorization will eventually be necessary. 

Could you make that a Temest in a Bierkrug?

good input Blaze

menz

Jim Menzie - 08 October 2008 10:50 PM

Well I do not really care at this stage what you do with it. The Hohe Bogen term was used for both mountain and Pension. the Hohe Bogen was common usage which of course no one spelled out. The Pension Hohenbogen was added. You also removed the note which made one aware of the many different spellings of Hohe Bogen.

I believe the distinction was sufficiently explained higher in this thread.

The note was moved to the Hoher Bogen entry.

I think these issues have been hashed out sufficiently, so I’ll close this thread.