Talk:SMS Marie

Some of the content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at de:SMS Marie; see its history for attribution.

Better picture?

• SMS Marie at Wikiwand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It's on Commons here. It's probably fine to use. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

And now it's an even better picture. Thanks User:Doug Coldwell. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain Last sentence in article says: ...she was ultimately stricken from the naval register on 29 October 1904, sold in 1909, and broken up in Stettin.[13] The above sentence and the reference is in German. The postcard on its face says "1881." Therefore the picture was taken BEFORE 1909 and therefore BEFORE 1947 = public domain. The license I put in (that he removed) for the picture was correct.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Which photo are you talking about?

More importantly, there's a big difference between when a photo is taken and when it was published. Frequently, with old photos like this, we can't find a first publication, or even a pre-1923 publication, so we can't definitively prove it's PD by age. And EU copyright only cares about the date of death of the author. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Same photo. Postcard 1881. On its face, that is the publication date. One of our editors User: BB-PB is niffnawing about the publication date and which version of the card can be used. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Did you say the author is unknown? IF that is true does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Public_domain#General "Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain|PD-EU-no author disclosure" apply?] That would place any photo (with no author in EU) as public domain IF before 1947 = is that correct?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: The photo I am talking about is this one. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

BB-PB is my mobile account. The problem is with File:SMS Marie NH 88766.tiff, not the postcard.

Doug - no, that's not correct. What it comes down to is, us not knowing who published the photo in 2017 and it having been published at the time with no author disclosure (which is the requirement under EU law) are not the same thing. There very likely was a disclosure when it was first published, and the fact that you or I don't know now is not an exception to copyright law. That's the main problem with old photos like this - it's very difficult to research when the original publication was, and usually, the best you can hope for is a pre-1923 publication so you can at least prove it's PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Whatever you want to do is fine with me. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I think the picture I uploaded to Commons is a cleaner and better looking picture, that would look better in the article. It turns out the consenses is that pictures like this from the NHHC should be uploaded to Commons. There is Category:Images from the Naval History and Heritage Command that has some 3000 images.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That is decidedly not the case. Not all NHHC images are the same - they are in the case of foreign ships, frequently not the work of a US government employee, and thus must also be PD in the country of origin. We cannot prove this one is PD in Germany, so it should be kept locally (i.e., on en.wiki). And unless you edited the photo you uploaded, they should be identical, since they came from the same place. If you did work on the photo, feel free to upload it over the one on en.wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize public domain pictures couldn't be modified, so I reverted the 1918 postcard picture back to its original (from the cleaned version I worked up).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood - my point was that unless you had modified the NHHC image, it was identical to the version I uploaded, since they came from the same place. If an image is PD, you can do whatever you want to it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

But others crop a NHHC picture and upload it to Commons, Example is File:USS West Mahomet (ID-3681) cropped.jpg --Doug Coldwell (talk)

It is pointed out on above picture that it came from the Bureau of Ships Collection in the U.S. National Archives. Very likely where SMS Marie picture came from. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The photo of West Mahomet is of an American ship, which is why it would be in BuShip's collection. Most images of foreign ships came from ONI, which sought out photos of foreign vessels for recognition purposes (see for instance these). Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just going by their website, where they said they were the copyright owner. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple, since the photos of foreign ships came from abroad. They're PD in the US based on the NHHC, but we need additional proof that they're PD in the country of origin. In this case, for that, we'd need the original author and the date he died. While perhaps unlikely, it is possible that someone taking photos in the 1880s for a newspaper or postcard publisher was still alive in 1947, which is the date he'd have to have died for the photo to be PD in Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, 76+ years elapsed between 1881 and 1947. Assuming the photographer was of bare legal age (i.e., 21) when the photo was taken, he would have to have lived to be 97. If he was older when he took the photo, the numbers go up correspondingly. Given life expectancies at the time... So what are the probabilities here. This is a How many angels can dance on the head of a pin moment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The photo could not have been taken before 1883. 1947-1883=64. He might have been in his mid 80s in 1947, which was not a all uncommon. Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently math and actuarial probability were not your forte. If he took it when he was age 1, then he would only have to have lived to 75. Given the nature of photographic equipment at the time, higher ages are implicit. This is a the moon is made of green cheese argument. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't believe me? Plug it into a calculator. 1947-1883=64, not 74. You're also forgetting about the fact that labor laws were quite different then - the photographer could have well been significantly younger than 20. Regardless, the point of the matter is that we go by what we can prove, not by what we assume. Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently my fingers erred. It says "1881" on it. It would be 66 years from the date the picture was taken. Otherwise, my figures can still be adjusted, and the nature of this photographic equipment, and you are talking here about super annuation that was quite extraordinarily in 1947. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

1881 is obviously wrong. The ship is completed, and the photo could not have been taken before 1883. Likely it was taken later, during the period between 1886 and 1892 when she was laid up in the port in question. 1892 would reduce the age of the photographer considerably. The point remains, most of this is conjecture and we cannot prove any of it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Original postcard Kaiserliche Marine: German Imperial Navy Postcards, Set 18 Both sides. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Also reproduced here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The former probably needs to be mined (assuming they haven't already been uploaded – I haven't looked) but the latter looks to be a wiki mirror (see the "wp-content" in the URL string). Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Further reading and some text copied from Wikipedia DE:SMS Marie to EN SMS Marie See former articles history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Table for commanders

I disagree with the removal of that content. At least Herman Kirchhoff, Admiral is notable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times over the years at WT:SHIPS and the general consensus is that such tables are not advised. Notable officers should be incorporated into the text as appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you claim ownership (or at least act like it), I trust that you will be adding Herman Kirchhoff, Admiral yourself. Bon appetit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets remain civil, shall we? I've been writing these articles for a decade now, I know what WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST expect. And yes, I'll be adding him into the prose soon enough, but I'm traveling for the holiday and I don't have Hildebrand at hand. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Safe journeys. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK query

I'm no expert on the matter but is the following statement really true: ... that SMS Marie (pictured) was the first warship built in Hamburg? The article states that it was "the first time that a Hamburg shipbuilder received a contract for a warship of the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)." Given that Hamburg was a member of the Hanseatic League, a sea-trading confederation, I would have thought warships would have been build in Hamburg a long time before 1880. Or were these just armed merchant ships and not as such classed as warships? Could somebody please clarify? Turismond (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you are completely correct, it is not true. A quick search mentions at least one prior warship, the "Wapen von Hamburg", launched in 1669. Not sure if there were others before that one, but the "Marie" most certainly was not the first warship built in Hamburg. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention there were three other ships by the same name all lauched before 1880 (in 1686, 1722 and 1750 respectively) And other warships were the "Admiralität von Hamburg" launched in 1690 and the "Leopoldus Primus" launched in 1668 (maybe that one would be the first warship built in hamburg then). 91.49.87.145 (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, as you pointed out yourself, the article itself does not even make the claim of being the first warship built in Hamburg. Just the first one built for the imperial german navy and so was pulled off of the mainpage as factualy wrong(best to report any issues like this on the main page errors section if you see anything similar again. Reporting things there may get them fixed or pulled). So whoever suggested that hook bungled up rather massivly. Not to mention the person accepting it. Did either actually read the article? Even assuming good faith with the book source cannot explain how something that is not claimed in the article at all was accepted as fact without hesitation and second thought. But i guess we all make mistakes sometimes. I just hope a lesson can be learned here by involved parties. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)