Talk:German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Russia

The link to the photo of the carrier being towed to Russia doesn't work - comes up with "You are not authorised to view this" or words to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.197.41 (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure any more whether it is credible that the Soviets towed the carrier from Swinoujscie to Leningrad and then back before sinking it. Would it really have made sense for them to take this gigantic ship without any power of its own on such a long round trip around the Baltic? Some other sources I am reading simply claim that the ship was found by the Soviets scuttled in Swinoujscie, raised, towed out into the Baltic and expended in weapons tests, without ever going to Leningrad. Does anyone have any solid information to clarify this point? Balcer 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This story can lead to an interesting development. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 11:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A summary of the Ullrich H. J. Israel book Graf Zeppelin (see References) omits the round trip to Leningrad, only a tow to off the Bay of Danzig (Gdansk). This summary also describes a different end and date. The carrier was used as target in Soviet bombing exercises; then the drifting ship had to be towed further out to sea. In deteriorating weather the tow lines were cut and the ship was sunk with two torpedoes on 18 June 1947.--Gamahler 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• ( See #fate, below. - SquisherDa (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC) )

For what it's worth, my late grandfather told me he personally saw the ship in Leningrad whilst there as a student. Surely there have to be first hand accounts by people alive back then who can attest to seeing the ship. Regards, Bogdan_Mihaiescu, 14 July 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

bad link

The reference to Allied Tripartite Commission is a bad link. No such article exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.179.175 (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epopt (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

proposed move

Shouldn't this be at Graf Zeppelin (aircraft carrier)? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia convention for aircraft carriers from countries without prefixes. See, for instance, Category:World War II aircraft carriers of Japan. I don't remember why. You may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships Rmhermen 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It would make more since to move it. I mean this would be a unique instance, cause this is the only time I've seen wikipedia articles titled like this. 74.137.230.39 02:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to a move. It is against convention. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for me, although I do think per other naming convention standards it would be more appropriate to use "Name", "Name (aircraft carrier)", "Name (country aircraft carrier)", and I don't think we'd need to go further since we could use whatever convention is used to tell them apart outside Wikipedia. Unless this conversation has been had elsewhere (as is sometimes the case when agreed-upon conventions seem unnecessary to the uninformed), in which case the status quo is fine; either way, it's a conversation to be had elsewhere IMO. Moulder 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Link

Please notice that when the picture link is clicked on, it comes up with a disgusting photo of something that could be considered pornographic at best. Please remove it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.90.6 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A user by the name of User:MooCowz69 has been persistantly uploading vulgar images to the original image Image:Graf zeppelin flugzeugtraeger modell 04.jpg. Because the image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, page protection on Wikipedia does nothing to stop this vandalism. I've temporarily uploaded the image to Wikipedia as Image:Graf zeppelin temp.jpg, which has been semiprotected against further vandalism. -Loren 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of model

Where is the model located, and who created it? The photograph of the model may be licensed under the GFDL, but it's a derivative work of the model it depicts, which is likely copyrighted. Postdlf 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the owner and creator of the model should be credited but is the model not a derivative of the ship?Wonnkabe 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the model is a derivative of the ship. I doubt that the ship itself is copyrightable (all function, no "expression"), but it requires some creative choices to translate anything into a model, so the model itself would be independently copyrightable even if the ship it depicts is not. The problem goes beyond mere credit; if the model is copyrighted, without a fair use rationale (and I can't think of one) we simply wouldn't be able to use the photos, regardless of whether we give credit. Postdlf 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

KMS Graf Zeppelin?

According to the Times of London, it's referred to as the KMS Graf Zeppelin... is that correct? Shouldn't we rename the article then? (Like HMS Ark Royal or USS Hornet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.84.189 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Searches for KMS Graf Zeppelin do yield considerable results, but I'm wondering if there was a conversation elsewhere about this, because on the German Wikipedia, it's "Graf Zeppelin (Schiff)" (Ship). Anyone know what the deal is? Moulder 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do know that during the Kaiserreich the ships were named with the prefix SMS, meaning Seiner Majestät Schiff (His Majesty Ship), like SMS Graf Spee. - However, I don't know if such custom existed during the Nazi period as well (and what the prefix was, if any). KMS could stand for Kriegsmarineschiff (see Kriegsmarine). MikeZ 07:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No KMS prefix in the german navy during that time. Several websites use KMS to separate ships of different periods with the same name like Graf Spee. --Denniss 15:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki MoS is nationality/ship type/ship name for cases like this, see German battleship Bismarck GraemeLeggett 15:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Then a whole bunch of articles need to be renamed, like HMS Ark Royal or USS Hornet ... MikeZ 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the case where there isn't a known unambigious form - see the MoS on ship naming. With several ships that have the same name, like HMS Ark Royal, the pennant number is also there to disambig. GraemeLeggett 08:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was Germany's only aircraft carrier during World War II

Except it never was an aircraft carrier. It was going to be, but it didn't make it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it was never put to active duty doesn't mean it wasn't an aircraft carrier. Not sure I'm getting your point. The USS Missouri is no longer in active duty - does that mean it's not a battleship? Please give a little more detail on what you're proposing.

Since the rest of the intro makes it pretty clear: "It was launched on 8 December 1938, but was never completed, never commissioned, and never saw action.", its hard for me to see why this is an issue. Warthog32 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Missouri is just mothballed, but basically complete? If so, I'd argue that it is an inactive battleship, which is a type of battleship. If it had never been completed, I'd argue that it wasn't a battleship. If it for eg no longer had its main guns, I'd argue that it was an ex-battleship, which is not a type a battleship. I don't know what would be a better intro. I just don't like the sentance because it strikes me as misleading, even if the rest of the intro makes the true situation clear. (For a while, that sentance was on the main page, without all the explanatory bits.) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting theories for Graf's doom?

According to the recent BBC article (the third reference) there is still disagreement as to how the carrier finally met its end:

'There are conflicting theories about how it was sunk. Some experts believe the Germans scuttled it in Szczecin (Stettin) in April 1945, just before the Soviet Army captured the city. Others say the Soviet navy used the ship for target practice and sank it as part of a training exercise in 1947. '

The current version of the wiki article seems to focus on the soviet explanation - are we missing information, or is the BBC article simply confused (since really, according to the soviet theory, the ship was both scuttled by the germans, and sunk by the soviets (after they refloated it). Anyone have any more references - I'm happy to do the editing if someone has some background material. Warthog32 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• ( See #fate, below. - SquisherDa (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC) )

She / It

Is refering to ships as females grammatically correct? (I realize that use of she for ships is widespread, but is it correct for Wikipedia?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.207.204 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Yes, it is correct for Wikipedia. "She" is used throughout Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships -- see [2], for example. --Mareklug ^talk 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an outdated colloquialism that has no place in grammatically correct English. When English had grammar, ships were males, not female. There is no justification for continued use of the word "she" in proper context. Yes, every specialty has their own colloquialism, but they get to intrusively insert their ungrammatical colloquialisms in their encyclopedia article.68.19.232.215 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In English, ships are usually referred to by the feminine personal pronoun "she". Your comments about grammar are complete bollox. In any case this issue was settled a long time ago and the talk page of a single ship is not the place to be arguing for a project wide change. If you want to open a debate about the issue please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Good luck with that. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

fate

The fate of the ship is not clear. It is possible that it sunk during a storm, while being transported to USSR, it is possible that it was sunk by the soviets due to some problems with transportation. It is doubtful but still possible that it was used for ordinary target practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.143.115 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The fate is clear, it was sunk as target ship. It was not just an ordinary target ship, they tried to simulate an aircraft carrier attack. They thought it might be of use in the now starting cold war as the US had lots of carriers. --Denniss 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article, I'm finding that by now there's consensus on the facts, and on what to say in the article: so what wants doing now is to polish the text.

Minor example: the article spoke of the ship being towed to her "final resting place". But that's the sea-bed, so she had to be sunk to reach it. I've edited to say she was towed to her final position.

I've also clarified that the harbor mentioned before that was Swinemunde. (On first reading, Western speculations mentioning Leningrad had left me faintly unclear.)

SquisherDa (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This page was proposed for a merge with Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier, as the majority of the content was duplicated (content from here was copied there in September 2010, with this edit, but not deleted here). The discussion there produced no consensus for a merger; however it was agreed that the duplication should not continue, and that as technical data fits better in a class article, the duplicated material here has been removed. I’ve also transferred any changes to those sections made here since that date (in practice, most of the changes had been duplicated to both articles). I trust everyone here is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

designation

Is aircraft carrier the correct description for this vessel? At the time of design weren't such ships known as "Aviation Ships"?AT Kunene (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, aircraft carrier is the correct designation, and is the term used at the time for ships of this type. And the German flugzeugträger quite literally means "aircraft carrier". Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible area of improvement for article

The entire time I am reading this article about this ship, I am getting a lot of dates and events, but I am still left wondering what was remarkable about this aircraft carrier for it's time. The Germans didn't build war machines that were equivalent to their foes, they typically went big and made engineering improvements that outclassed their rival's equipment. There must have been outstanding characteristics in the design of this ship or its capabilities. Other than it was the closest Germany got to having an active aircraft carrier in WWII, what made it better than or different than? 209.121.225.215 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC) respectfully submitted Regan Morben

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2016

. . . submit an edit request ? ? ? Why ? ? ? I will just be told that the numbers from my source (http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=Graf-Zeppeli-Flugzeugtrager-A) are wrong . . . with no explanation of why my source is dismissed out of hand as being wrong or where the questionable numbers cited on this page came from . . . numbers that don't make sense when used in conjunction with other numbers shown on this page . . . which I pointed out just before I was banned . . . and banning me doesn't change the fact that those numbers are still questionable . . . and I probably shouldn't point this out . . . lest another page be made questionable as well . . . but the numbers we're talking about are on another similar Wikipedia page . . . and they match the (incorrect ? ? ?) numbers from my source . . . and you wonder why people roll their eyes and snicker when Wikipedia is quoted as a source ? ? ? do whatever you want to do . . . it's your show. . . 2601:248:4C00:B7C3:519:B5F7:1EA0:D787 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your source is a random website that relies on user-generated content. The figure this article uses comes from Erich Gröner's German Warships 1815–1945. Gröner is an expert who was using official documentation when he compiled his book in the 1930s and 40s. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is she notable?

Greetings, I am an IP observer. I try to learn the Wiki rules before registering, and I saw on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide that warships are notable if they are commissioned, and Graf here...was never commissioned. Can I please get some clarification why she has an article then? 79.113.131.34 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the section on that page at WP:MILUNIT. It says:

"As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion"

The consensus is therefore that commissioned ships are "likely" to have "significant coverage", but that doesn't exclude ships that were never commissioned from also having significant coverage, even though it may be rare. As long as a subject has "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources", it's suitable for inclusion on WP as a subject. The list of sources for this article is extensive enough that I'd say it does meet the guidelines. I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1