Talk:Bagger 1473

Thanks for your criticism

But i have difficulty resolving these issues. Because of my dyslexia

also please give me some tips over how to solve this issue

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (May 2019)
This article does not cite any sources. (May 2019)

any help will be much appreciated

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The two problems are linked, really, and you would be able to solve both of them by doing the same thing: find some good quality, reliable sources, that discuss Bagger 1473 in enough detail to show that it is 'notable' (i.e. important, significant and/or well-known). You can read more about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources here and what counts as notability here. If you find some sources you would like to add, and you need help, feel free to post them here first and other editors can advise if they are good enough, and help you add them. --Hugsyrup (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for refs to support notability

@Lord Bolingbroke: Re your request on my TP: I do not have experience with notability assessment. From WP:NOTABILITY, I infer that it is a question of international notability, in which case additional German-language references might not do much to support that status. Jmar67 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I would suggest merging Bagger 1473, Bagger 288 and Bagger 293 into Bucket-wheel excavator in a new section entitled "Examples". Jmar67 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that isn't a good idea because Bagger 288 and Bagger 293 have nothing in common with Bagger 1473 in context of their operational life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessel1512 (talk • contribs)

The article can be further expanded based on DE, but I don't want to do that if there is a question about notability. It seems like it is notable, at least very interesting to a broad audience. The relocation in 2003 is notable in itself, I think. Jmar67 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to explain, in broad terms, why this item is notable? I am finding it very difficult to glean from either the article itself or the discussion here. If I understood better why this specific excavator is notable (and not just interesting - that's not the same thing) then maybe I could help more with the article. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I don't know what the notability criteria are in this case. I have never dealt with notability. Its size, the fact that it was simply abandoned in a field, its nickname (which has a double meaning in German, not mentioned in the article), the relocation in 2003, and now the threat of being scrapped all seem interesting enough to justify an article. What would the requested additional sources have to claim that would establish notability in WP terms? Jmar67 (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia terms, per the WP:GNG, a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So, it's not up to us to judge whether the topic is interesting - it's simply a case of whether enough other, independent, reliable publications have been talking about it. In this case, I'm not really seeing that, although I did note a couple of German publications with articles on it, but I'm struggling to assess those. I guess that's where you might be able to help? Hugsyrup (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly willing to help, especially if it's a language problem. Jmar67 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, there are a lot of results here, and what I would be interested to know is why has this excavator received all this coverage, and would you consider these German sources to be reliable? Hugsyrup (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing references, in particular the articles from the Lausitzer Rundschau, a regional newspaper, are sufficient to establish notability according to the above definition. But some of the new refs will undoubtedly provide additional info, especially on the recent developments. Jmar67 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added info on designation as historical structure. Jmar67 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added section on relocation in 2003. Jmar67 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke and Hugsyrup: Can we revisit the notability question? I have added info from two new references and identified two more related to the current situation. Topic is fascinating and might be good for DYK. I can also fill in from the German WP article. Jmar67 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagger 258

The Atlas Obscura reference talks about 1473 as 258. Not sure why. There was a 258 in Garzweiler (NRW). These are likely serial numbers and not necessarily unique within Germany. Can anyone comment on this? Jmar67 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One reference gives 258 as the Bau-Nr. (manufacturer's serial number) and 1473 as the DDR-Nr. (presumably the number designation within the GDR, East Germany). Jmar67 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actical is a refrecne to the Misidentification of the Bagger 1473 wessel1512 (talk) 9:30, 13 Jun 2019 (UTC)