Talk:Zoo Tower

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Untitled

Good pic of the Zoo Tower in 1946, hadn't seen that before.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo flak tower

Copied from the talk page of the Battle of Berlin

The Zoo flak tower was not fortified in the usual meaning of the term. It was an anti-aircraft platform not a fortress and to describe it as such is misleading. Further it is misleading to describe it as the "Zoo Tower" implying it is a proper noun, this is not a name that is usually used in reliable sources. See Google books:

Berlin "Zoo flak tower" About 586 results
Berlin "Zoo Tower" about 176

Which is a ratio of about three to one. So I think it is better to use Zoo flak tower in this article (battle of Berlin) and link in the new article to go into details of what precisely it was. -- PBS (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in reviewing the books returned by the searches. It seem to me that the majority of the better sources for "Zoo flak tower" are military history books such as Beevor and Le Tissier (both cited in the Battle of Berlin article), while the majority of the better sources for "Zoo Tower" are books dealing with the history of what happened to the artworks stored in the tower. -- PBS (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philip, yes good point about "zoo tower" v Zoo flak tower, I agree the later is more prevalent. It would seem to me that both terms were used, depending on context and user. For instance, it was also known more so as the "zoo bunker" by the residents of Berlin, as they saw its main importance as somewhere to hide and not be killed!

Yes, I agree, it was not fortified in the usual way you would refer to a fortification, however I think perhaps that is perhaps a term that could be used in that it certainly was used as a fortification, and was highly effective in this role eg from the "last battle" - "The complex was so well stocked with supplies and ammunition that the military garrison believed that, no matter what happened to the rest of Berlin, the zoo tower could hold out for a year if need be". Note Ryan also uses the term "Garrison"..a term used for a fort rather than a flak position. It would be hard to say if the engineers who built it expected it to come under ground based attack as well as aerial attack or not, without further investigation.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the revert of this edit. The Tower of London is usually referred to as "the Tower" but that is no reason to include it in the first sentence of the article. It is very common in English to shorten terms even in formal writing when the use in unambiguous, this is what is done in this article after expressing the full name at the start. the second paragraph introduces the shortened name "Apart from its primary designated role, the Zoo tower ...", so there is no need to place the short name in the first sentence which just overburdens it with unnecessary information. -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AA Gun calibre ?

The photo caption reads "10.5 cm flak on the Zoo tower" The article text reads "The roof of the facility had four twin mounts of 12.8 cm FlaK 40". Not consistent enough for an encyclopedia. Needs attention. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The tower was originally armed with 10.5s until the 12.8s became available. Adapted the relevant section. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial effort

Revision as of 00:33, 15 November 2018 by user:PainMan revered a revert.

The original text was "Even after the war, with full access and planned demolitions, only the Zoo tower was completely destroyed." the wording that was introduced by user:PainMan that replaced the original is "It required a substantial effort to demolish the structures after the war." This change or wording was originally made with a bold edit (Revision as of 20:42, 19 August 2017. I reverted that change the next day (Revision as of 08:20, 20 August 2017) with the editorial comment "Undid revision 796292892 by PainMan because the change implies that they were all demolished; they were not".

To expand on that comment in the section "Development" are the sentences "The Zoo tower was built close to the Berlin Zoo, hence the name, and is the most famous of the flak towers. It was the first one built and protected the government quarter in Berlin". IE the section mentions that the Zoo towers were not the only flak towers to be built. In the section "After the war and demolition" it is stated "". So the sentence user:PainMan changed is from one, while grammatically ugly, that is unambiguous, to a sentence that is ambiguous, because it can be read to mean that all the Berlin flak towers were demolished (they were not).

Procedural point: user:PainMan You have been editing Wikipedia since 13 May 2005 I presume that you are fully aware of WP:BRD. You made a bold edit I reverted it. Reverting a revert without first discussing it on the talk page is considered to be edit-warring. As you must be aware, you need to build a consensus for your change, before restoring it.

-- PBS (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]