User talk:ÄDA - DÄP/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hi!

Teahouse logo
Hello! ÄDA - DÄP, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of SM U-116

The article SM U-116 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

What makes an unfinished ship notable? Unreferenced state doesn't help this case.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SM U-115

The article SM U-115 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

What makes an unfinished ship notable? Unreferenced state doesn't help this case.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SMS Ägir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hulk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Fifi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello ÄDA - DÄP! Thank you for your contributions.
If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ranks in the Austro-Hungarian Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Officer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Austro Hungarian naval flag

As you can see here:

and here:

The true and exact flag (look the crown) is on my version, the file you are posting was previously correct until the fake redesign made by user:B1mbo who used the Spanish crown design to make his fake! Please do not restore the fake flag again. Thank you! --Nicola Romani (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I spent a good part of the day trying to validate the flag design you consider the "true and exact one". In vain. The discussion of the orginal ensign (Urflagge) says basically: three stripes, red-white-red, with coat of arms, red-white-red, and regal crown with 18 pearls. The flag you favour has multiple issues, namely that there was no Archduchy of Austria at the dates given and the crown is missing two hoops. Apart from that I am clueless as to where the blue comes from. Now, I may be completely wrong so it would be easiest if you provide some source saying that this - and only this - is the correct flag to use. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Komet

I'm sorry about that. The name seemed a little odd to me and I looked up a few ships, but the only ships I knew about are American and I see that the naming conventions are different. Thanks for letting me know! Eladynnus (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gananoque (ship)

Hi, do any of your references give information of the demise of the Gananoque, date, place, cause? Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No luck so far. Since she is listed in Lloyd's Register in 1880 but not in 1883, it is safe to assume she sank in 1880 or 1881. Need to track down copies of those lists. --ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-205, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Appolonia and Pola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SM UA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Type UC-III u-boats

Hey ÄDA-DÄP, I noticed you just created this article (mostly because I had looked for it yesterday and it wasn't there). I was curious, though, because the lead says they were 730-tonne boats, but the infobox says 474 tonnes surfaced and up to 582 tonnes submerged. Which is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Actually, they are all correct, I just forgot to specify the 730 tonnes displacement. It is the Formverdrängung - basically the displacement of the whole boat including the flooded parts. I am not quite sure what the equivalent is in English, possibly Gross tonnage. As this sort of measurement is only used in submarines - if not just U-boats - it is probably best to use the surface displacement instead. I will go and change that. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what the English translation would be. The English translation of Rössler gives submerged, surfaced, and total displacement, so that might be a good option. Thanks for clearing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of currently active German military aircraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EC 135 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

German Navy

Hi. In response to your reverts on the U-boat entries, I'd like to raise the issue of the historically proper designation of the German Navy, in English, in WWII. First, let me say that I have no sympathy whatever, in any way, for Nazism.

However, please note that:

* There was never any organization officially called the "Nazi German Kriegsmarine," which is the way it is styled in numerous entries related to vessels of the WWII German Navy.
* There is no accepted word in English called "Kriegsmarine" -- which of course is German for, literally, "war navy" or more loosely, "military naval force."
* No branch of the German armed forces in WWII officially included the word "Nazi" in their names, and officially there was never any country called "Nazi Germany," although the latter has become a convenient shorthand term among historians and journalists for Germany as it was in 1933-45. (Indeed, I believe that members of the German armed forces, except for the Waffen-SS, were officially prohibited from membership in the Party, but I'm not entirely sure.)
* The word "Nazi" itself was a slang contraction for National Sozialistische, in English, National Socialist — taken from the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei), which was the only 'legal' (in Nazi terms) political party in Germany after mid-1933. (The true Socialists, similarly, had been known as Sozis.)

I think the terminology used to designate the German Navy in WWII should be changed in all cases to simply "the German Navy" out of historical verity, to avoid broad-brushing all members of the German Navy as "Nazis," and as a matter of linguistic equity. (Hitler himself is quoted in several biographies I've read as saying, supposedly humorously, "I have a Nazi air force, a Christian navy and an imperial army," or words to that effect.) This would be in line with references to "the U.S. Navy," "the British Navy," "the Italian Navy," "the Japanese Navy," etc. Everyone knows that during World War II Germany was run by Hitler and the Nazi Party, and I don't see any value in designating all vessels in the German Navy of that war as politically "Nazi."

Sca (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind raising these issues with either the military history people or the Wikiproject Ships? You may have a point there, but I'm not the judge of that. The Wikipedia articles referring to the entities mentioned are called Kriegsmarine or Nazi Germany respectively. Nazi and Nazism meanwhile are common enough to merit articles on Wikipedia.
BTW, I am not saying every serving member of the armed forces of Germany during World War II was a Nazi, but since Third Reich is part of Nazi propaganda, Nazi Germany seems to me preferable.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you won't be able to use "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II vol. I" (published more than 50 years ago) as a source → WP:NOTTRUTH, and several other WP policies. Should you use this terminology without having non-dated academic WP:RS supporting your claim, you will be reverted. Please use sources by the current state of scientific/historiographic knowledge, and please refrain from using made-up pseudo-academic terminology. That being said - there are other methods to enforce the policies in question. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Now that the WikiProject Military history discussion is closed, the matter was decided by majority consensus anyway: ⇒ There was a clear result in favour of WP:COMMONNAME "Kriegsmarine" and "German Navy" ⇐ please reword wherever necessary. --IIIraute (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Well done on the hard work with the German U-boat articles. JetBlast (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

SM UB-48 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-49 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-50 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-51 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-52 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-53 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-60 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-61 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-62 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-63 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-64 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-65 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-66 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-67 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-68 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-69 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-70 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-71 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-72 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-75 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-76 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-77 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-78 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
SM UB-79 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi ÄDA - DÄP! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

SM UB-106 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Falmouth
SM UB-112 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Falmouth
SM UB-128 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Falmouth
SM UB-133 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochester
SM UB-136 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochester
SM UB-144 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochester
SM UB-145 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochester
SM UB-150 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochester
SM UB-154 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brest
SM UB-155 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brest
SM UB-48 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pola
SM UB-87 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Brest
SM UB-93 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rochester

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-133 (1941), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salamis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

German submarine U-51 (1938) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
German submarine U-52 (1939) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
German submarine U-53 (1939) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
German submarine U-54 (1939) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN
German submarine U-55 (1939) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to MAN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited German submarine U-304, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Farewell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lütjens

His body was never recovered. So he was lost and died at sea. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilhelm Dommes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buchberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am seeking clarity here

Hello,

I read your edit summaries in Heinrich Gontermann, and as I understand them, Gontermann was not Bavarian and thus not entitled to knighthood and pension by award of the Max Joseph. However, you also give the impression there were no such emoluments granted. This leaves me with two questions:

1. Were there such benefits for Bavarians?

2. Were there any privileges other than honor for non-Bavarian recipients?

If you could please answer these, I could use any additional information, as I often work on bios of one German ace or another.

Thank you.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the King of Bavaria could only ennoble Bavarian subjects (cf. German Wikipedia [1]). Since Gontermann was a Prussian subject he would not be entitled to call himself "Ritter". Nethertheless the honour bestowed on "foreigners" would not be diminished, as the number of pensions was limited in any case. I hope this helps to clarify the situation. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Meractor edit to reference.

I'm curios about your alteration to the Maling reference. I actually have the Pergamon second edition sitting on my desk at this minute. You have changed the reference to an Elsevier ISBN. (Pergamon is now part of Elsevier). However the physical Pergamon books still exist in the second hand book world so perhaps you should have both citations with a suitable link such as 'now published as . .' Peter Mercator (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find the ISBN 0080370333 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum number in the catalogue of any of the copyright libraries I checked. I was glad I found a "working" ISBN so I changed the reference. I now did some more research and found what's wrong with the Pergamion ISBN (they misprinted the number - it should read 0080372333) and made the appropriate changes. I hope you can live with this ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neman, Russia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Neman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Vermont Republic does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oswald Boelcke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kriegsschule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Italics

The practice of italicizing former place-names — however widespread it has become on Wiki — is simply incorrect. English grammar rules do not mandate italics for foreign place-names, historical or otherwise. The former name of New York City should be rendered in English as Nieuw Amsterdam (or, anglicized, as New Amsterdam) — not Nieuw Amsterdam. It would be different if one were employing a contemporary foreign-language version of an English place-name, such as Nowy Jork (Polish), since the city in question never was named Nowy Jork. In that case, Nowy Jork (in parentheses) would be correct.

I object to the automatic italicization of former German names of now-Polish or -Russian places because I believe it misleads casual English-speaking readers (who mostly don't know German) to think the former, historically actual German names are merely German versions of pre-existing Polish or Russian place-names, which often is not true.

In the case of the Kaliningrad Oblast, virtually every current Russian name is a post-1945 invention (the only exception I've noticed is Pregolya [Прего́ля] for the ex-Pregel River). True, some Polish place-names in ex-German areas are simply Polish translations of historic German names, such as Dobre Miasto (ex-Guttstadt) or Zielona Góra (ex-Grünberg), but many are not — and some of those are historically significant, such as Kętrzyn (ex-Rastenburg), a post-1945 invention based on a person's surname.

I don't know who instituted this policy on Wiki, but I can understand that it seemed logical and efficient to that person or persons at the time. However, it is incorrect.

Would you check with the template talk site and raise any issues there, please, before removing templates used on hundreds of pages?
— Where?

Why are you always dogging my steps? Sca (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel I am following you around. I have more than six thousand articles on my watchlist mostly related to the Modern German History - plus I got notified earlier today when you reverted my edit on an article in August. This said - I have no idea about the proper use of italics in either German, English, or any other language. And frankly, I do not care very much. I try to follow the conventions here - I think I linked that one referring to place names earlier. The problem with your edits was that you removed a template that among other things puts the name in italics. I would suggest you try the talk page of these templates - or the project talk page related to that template. That failing, you might raise the issue with the Geography people who deal with the naming convention in their field. I hope this answers your question. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why:
  • Former German names for places east of the Oder-Neisse border should be italicized?
  • Removing the template that contains such italicizations causes other problems?
PS: As you may know, in English syntax, italics also may denote titles of works of art, and names of ships.
PPS: I'm curious — why the photo of the Nauen radio building?
Sca (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. As I understand WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names), historic names are to be emphasized at first use. Since only the article title is supposed to be bolded, italics are next in line and therefore are to be used instead. This basically applies to the lead, thus if I follow the link 'Posen' in a biographical or historical article, I will get to the article on 'Poznań', where I will learn, that the place was formerly known under the name I clicked on. For the same reason 'Posen' is not italicised in 'Province of Posen', since that is a historical place name and is bolded at first use.
  2. The templates are there for a reason, eg to link to audio files or to the language used. I don't think there is a consensus to remove them all for matters of style.
  3. In literature, italics are also used to denote thought, I belief.
  4. I live close-by - and the station was used to communicate with u-boats.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


I haven't yet read WP:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) in detail, but I found it includes this advisory: "Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods."
This principle was established quite a few years ago in Talk:Gdansk/Vote — in which BTW I was quite involved — under which the city is properly referred to as Danzig, not Gdańsk or Danzig, in discussing most of its pre-1945 history. Similarly, the interwar city-state is referred to in English as the Free City of Danzig, not the Free City of Gdańsk or Danzig. It seems to me that the same treatment should be accorded to all formerly German locales in present-day Poland, Russia and Lithuania when discussing their pre-1945 histories.
However, I disagree with those current German media and other entities that still use the old German names in discussing current events. While I understand that many Germans may still think of, for example, Wrocław as Breslau, in my view the German names should be placed in parentheses (but not italics) after the current non-German names. Breslau, as it was, no longer exists. I said the same about Danzig in Talk:Gdansk/Vote. I mention this to show that, in regard to italicized names, I am not merely espousing a pro-German POV.
(And, having lived for a time in Vilnius, I think it should be referred to as Wilno only when discussing its pre-WWII history; those Polish entities that continue to refer to it as Wilno in the contemporary context — such as railroad and bus lines — are, unwittingly or not, practicing linguistic irredentism.)
As to the templates linking to audio files, I don't think it makes much sense to provide audio pronouncement guides for former names of places, be they German, Polish or sonst. At least, such audio files should be introduced only in historical sections discussing the historical periods when the old names were current.
To my mind, these considerations are particularly valid because so many places in the former German eastern territories were crucially important in recent history — still within living memory. It used to be that everyone knew that the first shots in World War II were fired in Danzig, but today very few English speakers, at least in the U.S., could tell you where "Danzig" is or was. Another example: Churchill, in his famous 1946 speech, said an "iron curtain" had descended across Europe "from Stettin, on the Baltic, to Trieste, on the Adriatic." Few English-speakers today know that "Stettin" is now Szczecin, Poland. (Never mind that Churchill got the northern terminus of the Iron Curtain rather wrong — he probably should have said, "from Lübeck, on the Baltic....")
Yes, in literature, italics are sometimes used to denote thought — and also foreign-language text, such as the lengthy French sections of The Magic Mountain (Der Zauberberg). I forgot to mention above that italics are often used for titles of books and publications, though sometimes quotation marks are used instead.
Re Nauen, I'm interested in the history of broadcasting in the U.S. and Europe. I have two old German Rohrenradios, one of which is a Telefunken Opus 9 from the late '50s that has nine tubes and six speakers, and still works well. In the '60s, when I was young, I used to listen to Kurzewelle on an old Philips tube radio we had, and I remember the sonorous voice of an announcer saying,"Hier ist die deutsche Welle." Sca (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Make that 'Deutsche Welle' with a capital D. It took me ages to figure out, that 'Sender Freies Berlin' did not mean, there were no broadcasting stations in Berlin. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk)
Ha! Home, of course, of the Free German Youth.

" to think the former, historically actual German names are merely German versions of pre-existing Polish or Russian place-names, which often is not true" this is correct. Most of names in this territories(which were Polish and Slavic before Germanization), are based on previous non-German names which were Germanized. Szczecin for example or Wroclaw come from Slavic city names, that exist long before any German settlement in them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Molobo! A voice from the past.... Sca (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
If we take Danzig/Gdańsk as an example, at the first occurrence in the lead, the name is set in italics, while in the rest of the article it is used in parentheses or brackets and only in the part on the pre-1945 history in plain text. When I am dealing with people born east of the Oder well before 1945, I would use the German name, linking to the present day name. In order to know, that I have come to the right place (which BTW is not always the case) I appreciate to have the German name in the lead - and custom has it, that its set in italics at first use. No where else would I expect it on italics, because its either the old name or the new name, according to the circumstances. And the lead is also the proper place to use those templates, so one can look up, what 'German' means and in some cases learns how it was pronounced. I don't think, we should go down the 'Livorno' way, which has the traditional English name in bold letters, too.
The current use of names in German media is governed by 'Häufigkeitsklassen' (I think they are determined at Leipzig University). Thus, its 'Moskau', 'Warschau', 'Breslau', and 'Wilna', but Tallinn (not Reval), Maribor (not Marbach), Zagreb (not Agram). And for practical - not to speak of aesthetic - reasons, you would not want Germans to try and pronounce 'Wrocław'. It's a bit of a tongue twister, isn't it.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That one's not so bad. An English prounoucer would be Vrohts' wahv, which most of us could manage. Now Szczecin, that's a tough one — Shchets' sin? — to say nothing of Günter Grass's old home turf, Wrzeszcz (ex-Langfuhr). What a language! When I was living in Warsaw, my favorite sentence was, "Czy mówić po angielsku?" Alas, in the mid-'90s, the answer usually was no. Sca (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrzeszcz actually comes from Wrzos, which was the original name of the settlement, before it was given a Germanized name Langfuhr.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

your recent deletion of sources

Please note that the use of the sources such as Fellgiebel, Range, etc. has been discussed multiple times here. The general consensus was use them and if they are wrong prove them to be wrong. Deleting them does no good because it deprives us to prove them wrong. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lorenz Harthan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reuth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sudeten German people

I agree that they were citizens, as that is a fact. But I do not think that they are "Czechoslovak" which is a term of ethnic nationalism, is it not? How can a German be "Czechoslovak"? They can be "Citizens of the Czechoslovak Republic", but I do not think they can be "Czechoslovak". I feel like that'd be a violation of NPOV to describe them as such. RGloucester — ☎ 14:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would say that sticking with the facts is pretty much as neutral as it gets when dealing with ethnic conflicts. In my understanding, Czechoslovak refers to the state, not a political movement or an ethnicity. Therefore I don't see anything wrong with putting Czechoslovak citizens in the same category tree as other Czechoslovak citizens, no matter what they consider to be their ethnicity. The fact, that German nationalists failed to create their own state does not mean, that we have - in order to stay neutral - to exclude all ethnic Germans from the population of Czechoslovakia. That was the solution applied by Benes in 1945. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The Germans excluded themselves from the Czechslovak Republic, merely not from the lands it claimed. Regardless, I understand what you're saying. But you must also know that "Czechoslovak" is an ethnically loaded term, referring not to a geographic area but to the ethnic groups known as Czechs and Slovaks. Claiming the German Bohemians as "Czechoslovak" is a subjecting them to an epistemic violence that denies them their own identity. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Sudeten Germans were not subject to violence - epistemic or else - until the final days of World War II. At some point German politicians even held government offices, a fact that precludes Germans in Czechoslovakia from being considered a minority. Whatever the politics in the 1930s and early 1940s were, there were many Germans who counted themselves lucky to posses a Czechoslovak passport once the Nazis took over in Germany proper - eg Thomas Mann. That said, how should the Sudeten German question be solved today? If they can't be Czechoslovaks, what else can they be? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The inability of the German Bohemians, Moravians and so forth not to form their own state, to be forced to subsist in a state that had a name which denied their ethnic existence, that was a violence, right at the end of the Great War. The quashing of German-Austria was a violence. However, that is not what I'm speaking of. I was speaking of denying their separate identity and history by terming them "Czechoslovak", which no one can doubt is an ethnically loaded term that is rooted in Slavic nationalism. They count as Ethnic Germans…I don't understand why this is difficult to understand. I'm not saying they "can't be Czechoslovaks", but that they are, as a group, not. Some chose to take up the Czechoslovak demarcation, and those did can have the Czechoslovak category. But the majority did not. RGloucester — ☎ 23:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably best not to put that label on people then, unless they do so themselves. We should go by “Czechoslovak people of German decent” then. For those born in Sudetenland between 1938 and 1945 I created the category “People from Sudetenland”. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need a new category? RGloucester — ☎ 14:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Basically, because there was no category containing those people who were born when the Sudetenland belonged to Germany proper and who were thus German citizens by birth rather than naturalization. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I suppose that makes sense. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

August Heissmeyer

Hi, I don't understand why you deleted the two categories from the above article - I've just checked and the categories still exist. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed two categories which I considered redundant as per WP:Overcategorization. As a 'Gauleiter' Heissmeyer is also in the category 'Nazi leader' and as a SS and Police Leader he also comes under 'SS generals', so I think we can do without those categories. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hallo, alter Bekannte. Also, wie man einer deiner Socken schon erklärt hat, entfernt man beim Hinzufügen von einer Unterkategorie die Hauptkategorie nicht (Hoffmann). Zudem vermüllst du - meines Erachtens - eigentlich die Artikel mit deinem massiven Beifügen von trivialen Kategorien und was mich eigentlich ärgert, hast nach allen diesen Jahren offenbar noch nicht den Sinn von Kategorien begriffen, da du sinnvollere mit trivialeren ersetzest ([2]). Danke im Voraus. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have more than 20,000 edits, many relating to categories. So far nobody had a problem with reducing overcategorization. Salzmann was a German Communist party politician and that category comes under Anti-facism. Now what is gained from putting one article in two separate sub-categories of the same category tree? The same is true for Hoffmann who has written exclusively on military history topics. According to the article he should be under German military historians as this is the most defining feature - and not the more general category German historians.
What you consider 'trivial' is actually relevant information in order to find people according to their place of birth in former German states. In Salzmann's case, Bad Kreuznach is today part of the German 'Bundesland' Rheinland-Pfalz. In 1903, when Salzmann was born, Bad Kreuznach belonged to the Prussian Rhine Province. Thus, if one were looking for people from Prussia, one would not find anyone from Bad Kreuznach since Rheinland-Pfalz is made up from territories belonging to several separate former German states.
I don't know what the conventions are on the German Wikipedia, but you should not transfer their policies to the English W. So, if you don't mind, I will continue to add 'trivial' categories and remove redundant ones unless you show me to be wrong on this. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Salzmann was a German Communist party politician and that category comes under Anti-facism - not every antifascist was a communist and, indeed, not every communist was specifically anti-fascist. This communist was an antifascist already due to his participation in the Spanish Civil War, hence both 'communist' and 'antifascist' make sense. I still consider your edits an example of overcategorization and a nuisance, but as indeed no-one else has objected so far, I can't be the policeman of Wikipedia, I lack spare time for this. As for the high edit count of your new account, well - I think Boris Fernbacher once put it thusly - Nicht jeder sitzt 24 Stunden am Tag vor dem Computer und editiert in Wikipedia. Manche haben auch noch anderes im Leben zu tun. Not everyone has time to perform massive bot type edits hour after hour. Greetings to sunny Berlin, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hadlow (ship)

I'd appreciate it if you would add the information mentioned at WT:SHIPS#Hadlow to the Hadlow (ship) article. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Done! ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE & Italic title prefixed

At this edit you replaced {{DISPLAYTITLE}} with {{italic title prefixed}}. Since the output of {{italic title prefixed}} is {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, was there any real benefit gained from this edit?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The principle aim is to add the template to articles that lack italic titles.The replacement is a side effect of doing smaller changes to the infobox template etc.with AWB. Apart from that, some of the "Displaytitle templates" seem to be broken anyways. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment question

When you assessed HMS Cossack (1907) - here, did you mean to classify it as a B or a Start? You filled in the class field as "Start" but all of the b-class fields as "y", meaning the template thinks its a B-class article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the start-field matters much once the B-class criteria are filled in. When all criteria are met the result is B-class, else C-class. I did not bother to change it, since the result will be the same (B or C, not start). If I ticked all the boxes and the template shows B, that's what the article is supposed to be. Unless you have a problem with that.17:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all - I was just checking that the result was as you intended.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

German submarine U-708 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grabe
German submarine U-709 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grabe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust perpetrators

Hello, I understand that it is technically an overcat to put Holocaust perpetrators on most of these Nazi pages. However, I believe the general consensus on the English Wikipedia is to include Holocaust perpetrators on all applicable candidates anyhow so as to keep it as a fully viewable listing of the perpetrators. An exception to the rule, you might say. I notice that you have removed the category from about 50-100 articles so far? Please let me know what you think.Hoops gza (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly see no need for a list of Holocaust perpetrators. Do you then plan to pretty much empty out the category into the subcategories? By the way, there is a List of major Holocaust perpetrators, you might find it informative.Hoops gza (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Found the list. So there is even less need to put people in this category. And no, I don't intend to busy myself sorting through Holocaust perpetrators. I was concerned with German military personnel, unfortunately a lot of the first group end up in the other group because the category trees merge at some points (eg SS officers) . ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Iron Cross categories

In some instances - not sure how many - you appear to have removed one or more of the following categories: Recipients of the Iron Cross (1914), Recipients of the Iron Cross (1939), Recipients of the Iron Cross, 1st class. Not always sure why. An Iron Cross 1st class of the 1939 issue was a pre-requisite of a Knights Cross, so there is scope for "over-cat reduction" there, but a 1914 issue Iron Cross 1st class (and earlier issues) had no link to the Knights Cross. Indeed, as I understand it, the Iron Cross was effectivly a separate honour for each conflict and in any case those awarded before 1939 were Prussian, not German, awards. So, it's not duplication to categorise both a 1st class 1914 Iron Cross and a Knights Cross for the same person. Sorry for my verbosity; hope I've contacted the right editor. Comments? Folks at 137 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But as the Iron Cross was a Prussian decoration until 1918 (or 1920, depends), there were several other decorations which superseded it, namely the Hohenzollern House Order and the Pour le Merit. Anyone who was awarded one of these had to have the Iron Cross First Class - or was awarded with it at the same time. The 1939 Knight's Cross is basically filling in for these more prestigious awards. So if I removed the 1914 Iron Cross categories, the respective are to be found with the recipients of the one or the other decoration. In the few cases when only the 1914 Iron Cross 2nd Class was awarded, the 1939 category should still be there. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Wasn't aware of those graduations between the Iron Cross and the Hohenzollern House Order and the Pour le Merite. It's not referred to at all in the Pour le Mérite article and in the Hohenzollern House Order one, it doesn't sound as definite as you suggest. It says "During World War I, the Knight's Cross with Swords of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern became in effect an intermediate award between the Iron Cross 1st Class and the Pour le Mérite for Prussian junior officers." So, it's limited to WWI (ie, not before?), to Prussian junior officers (ie, not from other German states nor other, less junior, officers?), with Swords and what about other grades of the Hohenzollern House Order? Presumably, we're only referring to the military version of the Pour le Mérite? Sorry to be picky, but these linkages and any others need to be written up better than they are and referenced, too. If they not sufficiently firm or clear, then this category reduction might not be reliable enough to implement. I'm unsure about this but the basic facts need to be referenced, if only to avoid challenges and repeated questions and repeated addition/deletion of categories by well-meaning editors. (Still too verbose. Oh dear.) Folks at 137 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
This is getting complicated and I am no expert in this field, I just read about this when dealing with German military personnel in WWI: Basically, in the German/Prussian system no decoration could be awarded twice, hence nobody who had already won the Iron Cross 1st Class could get another one. But there were plenty of other decorations for bravery to be one, so this did not matter. Since Wilhelm II was not only German Emperor but also King of Prussia, Prussian decorations were awarded to all German military personnel, to a lesser extent decorations of other German state were awarded to Prussian personnel. The Knight's Cross with Swords of the House Order is similar to the 1939 Knight's Cross except that the former was reserved for officers while the latter was explicitly open to all ranks (NCOs were given a Military Merit Cross instead). As the 1939 Knight's Cross implies that the lower classes had been won, too, the House Order and the Pour le Mérite (military class) induce the same.
As for categories, I am wondering why we need three categories for someone who has been awarded the same decoration twice (One for 1914, one for 1939, one for 1st class) And what is the significance of it? It is my understanding that only people otherwise notable should be categorized there, and only if this was the highest decoration they were awarded. With almost one in two German soldiers in WWI being awarded a EK, this is a very common decoration, second only to the Cross of Honor of 1934, which is more or less standard issue. So where is the point? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I see your points, more or less, but neither am I any expert. The various issues of Iron Cross (1939, 1914, 1870 & 1813) were effectively separate honours, albeit with the same name, so separation there seems appropriate (a recipient of the 1870 has little in common with one of 1939 and there is a clear separation). Unless one also subdivides each issue into 1st & 2nd, then the current categorisation is a compromise. Incidentally, a recipient of a 2nd class, only, in one war and a 1st class in another would have 4 categories! And a recipient of a 1st class in 2 wars has actually received 4 awards: a 2nd, followed by a 1st in each war. With categories, the idea was to break up one huge category (Recipients of the Iron Cross), which included everyone, from all periods. Similar sub-categorisation has been done elsewhere. As far as I know, no one is included in wiki purely because they received an Iron Cross, although a Knights Cross appears to have been a reason - I think the criteria were tougher than for the Iron Crosses. However, if someone is notable and has an Iron Cross, then that has been categorised. A clear case is Adolf Hitler who received a 2nd class award, only. I don't think we should be the arbiters of these questions - I suggest that we canvass for views in the ODM project, where categories have been a hot topic. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree (except Hitler had an EKI!) I was half-minded to create a new category like Category:Recipients of the 1939 clasp to the Iron Cross, 1st class, once. The ODM project however seems more interested in the decorations themselves than their recipients. But it's surely worth a try. Military biography might also be interested in this question. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:ÄDA - DÄP/List of German admirals, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No pix then ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Kronan PR

Hi. Thank you for your input on the Kronan PR. Is there anything you'd like to add regarding excessive details and such before I take take it to FAC?

Peter Isotalo 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sail ho, matey!
You're invited to comment on the FAC of the article on Kronan.
Peter Isotalo 14:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:ÄDA_-_DÄP/Archive_1"