Talk:SMS König

Start Class

I've expanded the article somewhat, I figure it rates at least a start class now. Carabaopower 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Repairs?

How much time after Jutland was required for repairs? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't seen anything specifically about the ship. I believe she was present at the fleet advance on 18-19 August, so at least before then. I'll try to see if I can find anything more firm. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find this out, add it. I'm going to pass this article as it is. A map would be helpful too, especially of the layout at Jutland, but not necessary. REALLy nice article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS König/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a well done piece of work!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I made a few copy editor's tweaks to reduce wordiness.

SIGH. forgot to sign this last week! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• "On commissioning she carried a crew of 41 officers and 1,095 enlisted men.": I don't remembering seeing this in the Construction section in other articles. - Dank (push to talk)

I can go through the others and add that info in. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, it doesn't sound like it's about construction, although I have no real objection to putting it in that section if that's what people do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I apparently don't do that normally, so do you think it'd be better to remove it in this case? I did write this article going on a year ago, and the way I format things has changed somewhat in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No preference. It wouldn't be out of place in Service. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll move it there tomorrow sometime (or you can if you like). Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• The question of how to handle the sharp S is always a tough one; I asked about it at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#German sharp S and got a lot of answers, running through most of June. A Google English-language search on "Großer Kurfürst" gives a large majority of hits on the spelling "Grosser Kurfürst" (with and without the umlaut), which isn't surprising. I see you use the "sharp S" sometimes and other times not; I'll go through and change it to "ss" everywhere, with the alternate spelling at the first occurrence. For words with a sharp S that almost never appear in English sources, the sharp S is fine with me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For a while I was sticking to using eszetts, but lately I've decided that we shouldn't because they won't be widely used in English publications (hence why I moved Grosser Kurfuerst and a few other articles the other day). I just didn't go through the articles and update the links yet. Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Amrun bank" needs something since the typical reader won't be familiar with it; I understand from a Google search that it's 25 (nautical?) miles north of Heligoland. Maybe a red link would be sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Source of name.

Unfortunately (especially since the article is featured today) the first line is wrong. When I first read it, I knew it did not make sense. Although Wilhelm was also King of Prussia, he would not be "honored" with "König" since he was also Kaiser. A rough translation from the German Wikipedia is, "It was named in honor of the dignity of the monarchical ruler of the Kingdom of Württemberg." This is also more in line with the other ships in the class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-sailor (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The German wiki article is completely unsourced, however, which does not permit a change here. If you have a source for the namesake of the ship, we could change it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

World Heritage Site?

Is written:Along with the other wrecks of Scapa Flow, she has been declared a World Heritage Site with strict regulations as regards to any interference.[45] But I can't find in the World Heritage Sites list anything about it, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/gb .--Demostene119 (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you, apart from that the paragraph was added here, sourced to the book by Rod McDonald. Unfortunately, the book cannot be previewed in Google Books, so the claim can't be verified easily. I can't find any other references to Scapa being a UNESCO site, which leads me to believe McDonald conflated Scapa with the neolithic UNESCO site on Orkney. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree about it, maybe the restriction of access on the Orkney site affected also the wreck site of König and this led to this error. In any case, there is no clue of whatever present or proposed world heritage site status of the wrecks of the german ships.Demostene119 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PS Soon I'll be ready with Italian version of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demostene119 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jutland damage

The section concerning the damage suffered by the ship during the battle of Jutland does not match the sources. Tarrant's book does not say on p188 or anywhere else that a shell "shoved the belt armour back". Nor can this be referenced to Campbell's fine book on the battle either. The description of the magazine fire does not appear in either book either. I seem to recall that Tarrant makes the point that the ship had lost relatively few crewmen killed or wounded, was capable of maintaining the squadron speed and had all the main armament still firing.

Tarrant's description can be verified by reference to Campbell's analysis of the fighting so can we please revise the entry so that it does match to Tarrant's book. Thanks Revisionist99Revisionist99 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was the armored bulkhead that was hit and shoved in, not the main belt - good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I referenced this as best one can against Campbell's book, the shell hit the corner of the forward transverse bulkhead and broke the fastenings bending the corner back, not pushing the whole bulkhead back. The 5.9inch magazine that was flooded was done as a precaution because of a fire in the ready ammo. When the section is corrected I do think that Tarrant's comment be included that Konig still had all main armament in action and was still capable of maintaining the squadron speed. I can't find the source now but somewhere I read that the Konig class had pumps capable of pumping overboard some 6,000 tonnes of water per hour, that puts the 1,600 tonnes of flooding into perspective. (Nice to meet you Parsecboy I've admired your work for a while)Revisionist99 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check Campbell last night, but I'm guessing that Tarrant read a bit too much into the damage. I didn't have Campbell when I wrote the majority of this article, and that is something of a problem. This and a few other early articles should probably be redone with Campbell. But yes, you're right, Tarrant's comment on the ship's fighting ability should be added - I don't know why I didn't include it initially. And nice to meet you as well, I'm glad at least one person is reading what I write :) I'm guessing you know about WP:OMT - we'd always love to have another member if you're interested in helping. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It was the word "shove" that caught my attention, perhaps we can agree to use Campbell's word bend and refer to the transverse bulkhead. The implication is that the stoved in armour plates contribute to the flooding which they didn't. As a newby around wikipedia I didn't know about the battleship project. Happy to assist!81.157.3.242 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I had lost track of this in the last few days. I looked at Campbell, and he says (on page 190) "The fastenings at the outer end of the armour bulkhead gave way, and the latter was driven 4 1/4ft aft." The drawing of the hit on page 186 is unclear, so it's hard to tell exactly how much of the bulkhead was pushed in. I did track down the line from Tarrant about the fighting efficiency of the ship, and added that, along with the specific casualty figures (König actually suffered the highest casualties from any of the surviving battleships, and was surpassed only by Lützow, Derfflinger, and Seydlitz). Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice reworking Parsecboy. My undestanding of the bulkhead it is that the shell hit at the end (near to the ship's side) and thus the armour plate bent backwards. It could have been serious as the citadel would have been compromised, the barbettes and ammo hoists vulnerable to shells. It perhaps explains why the ship was out of service so long.Revisionist99 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

American invasion

I wonder why so much of these articles are written in American English. I once changed Pearl Harbor to Pearl Harbour on an article about a H.M vessel, and I was greeted with incredulity, because apparently it should be spelt in 'American'. But it was a British article. Here there is an insistence British possessions, Scapa Flow, be described as a 'Harbor', whatever that is, and their movements as 'maneuvers' - which they were not. The American editors can't have everything their own way. Dapi89 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Americans are the ones taking the time to write them, in short. You would do well to review WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And as for Pearl Harbor, it's a proper noun and should be spelled that way; "the harbor at Scapa Flow" (or whatever else) is not a proper noun. I would likewise expect that an article on an American ship that spent time in Grand Harbour should spell it that way, for instance, regardless of the fact that it's an American ship. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice try. American ne "ns". Nouns are not the issue but within that sentence the writer is clearly making the link. This article writes that Scapa Flow has a harbor. It doesn't. Find the word "maneuver" (verb) in any British naval manual and I'll throw in the towel. I've seen WP:RETAIN overturned more times than I can remember. It is no real protection. One might say it's noun-sense.Dapi89 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What a bunch of bollocks. You would do better to run off and tell all of the authors who use "harbor" in conjunction with Scapa Flow that their books need to be recalled and corrected (such as Robert Massie's Castles of Steel, for instance). The simple fact remains that the article was created using AmEng and there is no good reason to change it (apart from your overly broad interpretation of WP:TIES, of course). Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and since you apparently think any mention of British people, places, or things require an article to use British English, does that mean that the bio for FDR should be written in British English because it includes reference to Churchill? Can you believe that Churchill agreed to a centralized command structure in the Pacific? And that he considered a postwar international organization? The horror! Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Just how ignorant are you? Have you ever mixed with any British writers that wish to publish in the United States? Do have the remotest idea how difficult Americans are? Have you ever published anything for that matter? In order for a British author's book to be distributed in North America, American distributors demand American English, regardless of where and what Publishing House is used, the subject, or the nationality of the author.

A useless point anyway. Robert K. Massie is an American! They do as they please. Find me a British author, publishing in Britain and from a British distributor that uses American English.

Don't be silly. That really is beneath contempt. Who cares what Churchill agreed to? He did not pen any such document using American spellings........did he?

I expected better Parsecboy. This was really weak. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And this is predominantly about the British. I don't see any other English speaking power that had any influence in the life of this ship. Bottom line. Dapi89 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I get it, you're upset that Americans don't want to use British spellings. That's really too bad. We don't write articles based on your personal feelings. But look on the bright side! This is nothing new!

Yes, Robert Massie is an American. And do you care to guess what my nationality is? Why then should I be expected to write an article about a German battleship in anything other than the variant of English that I am most comfortable with?

No, it is the logical extrapolation of your line of reasoning. British ships in an article about a German battleship necessarily must manoevre rather than maneuver. By your line of thinking, Churchill should agree to a centralised structure and an international organisation.

Primarily about the British? I forget, what shipyard laid down this ship's keel? Unless the answer to that question is somewhere in Britain, you are out of luck, because long-established policy and a very broad consensus supports my use of American English, not your insistence that British spellings are the only acceptable variant. You want to talk about weak arguments? Parsecboy (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You guys crack me up! I find this so amusing that I was laughing for minutes. May I suggest that you continue the conversation over the topic is it called Football or Soccer? LOL MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Misterbee, you do nothing to assuage stereotypes about German humour.

Now, that hurts my feelings. Don't Mention the War! MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't give a sh*t how Americans write about there own articles; just British related ones. The answer your question: Because this battleship did not cross swords with anything or anyone American.

If Parsceboy thinks that is logic there is something amiss with his thought processes. Aside from the original text being written in American English, Parsecboy has nothing to offer.....apart from shrill responses. Dapi89 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your confusion. The first three letters are SMS, not HMS. Joking aside, how "the original text [was] written" is how we determine what variant to use. And do you know why we have that rule? I'll give you a hint: it involves stopping editors who have nothing better to do than piss and moan because their preferred variant isn't used in a given article. And you want to talk about having nothing to offer?

Let me spell it out for you, and I'll try to use small words. WP:TIES only covers articles that are directly related to a certain country. That's what "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" means. That means that an article about a British battleship should use British spellings, an article about an American battleship should use American spellings, and an article about a German/French/Italian/Soviet/Brazilian/Chilean/Argentine/Greek/Ottoman battleship can use whatever the heck the primary author wants to use. Yes, Britain has a tie to this ship (and most other German warships of the WWI/II era) but it is not a "strong national tie", and thus this article (and indeed no other article on a German warship) is under no obligation to use a specific variety of English. Your line of reasoning has been shot down numerous times at FAC and elsewhere (and is why Japanese battleship Musashi, for example, is written in Canadian English despite the fact that no Canadian warship came within a few thousand nautical miles of Musashi—and indeed why I left Bismarck and Tirpitz in British English, even though it was a pain in my ass—does my being inconvenienced make us even, then?). If you want to disagree with WP:ENGVAR, you need to go there and try to convince everyone over there that your interpretation of TIES is correct. Until you do that, you are wasting your time here. This article will not be changed based solely on your opinion, so drop the stick.

I am, nevertheless, very impressed with your ability to discern the pitch of my responses, given that you are quite some distance away. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SMS König. 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/20120817040012/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Internment_at_Scapa_Flow.svg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Internment_at_Scapa_Flow.svg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501030004/http://www.scapamap.org/wrecks/konig.php to http://scapamap.org/wrecks/konig.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Commissioning date

In the lede the article says it was commissioned on 9 august 1914, whereas in the info box it says 10 august 1914 Which is it? Wandavianempire (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)