![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SMS Lützow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | SMS Lützow is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | SMS Lützow is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of Germany series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 29, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To the editor who insists on using US English spelling and reverting British spelling:
MOS:TIES (which is part of WP:ENGVAR) explicitly states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
The Lutzow fought the British navy, not the US Navy, killed British sailors, was sunk as a result of British gunfire, and in consequence has recently been quite extensively covered on British TV due to the centenary of Jutland. All that seems to fit the MOS:TIES description above. So instead of reverting two separate editors, perhaps you might care to explain why it's not how ENGVAR works, despite what I've just quoted (both here and in the edit description) from the seemingly relevant part of ENGVAR, namely MOS:TIES. Meanwhile, until I hear such a satisfactory explanation I'm restoring the version that appears to be in conformity with MOS:TIES and consequently also ENGVAR. Tlhslobus ( talk) 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The first 3 paragraphs of the following discussion first took place on my Talk Page, but are more appropriately held here, so I'm copying them here as I said I would (but that was before I read your latest contribution above - see my surrender to that, in the 4th paragraph, below this copied stuff):
I suggest you actually read the section to which you linked. TIES only applies to topics from a specific English-speaking country. Since German ships are necessarily from Germany, they do not have a strong tie to an English-speaking country. The argument that Ship A only ever fought against English Speaking Country B, so the article on A should use B's variant was shot down a very long time ago. Parsecboy ( talk) 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, having read your latest contribution, I guess I'm wasting my time (and yours, sorry about that). I could try to change it back per WP:IAR, but it would just be unnecessary edit-warring in which the Wiki-lawyering REMAIN would eventually win out over what I still see as best for our readers. Assuming your interpretation of the current consensus is correct, and I've no reason to doubt it, then logically the thing to do is to amend MOS:TIES so that it no longer misleads editors like me who foolishly imagine that it means what it says (as well as wasting the time of editors like you who then have to reply), presumably by adding a sentence there saying that ships only fighting a particular English-speaking country don't constitute a 'strong tie' for the purpose of MOS:TIES. But if that were easily added it would probably have already been added, so I expect trying to do that would probably just waste more of my time in an unsuccessful effort to change 'consensus text', so I won't bother. Once again, sorry for wasting your time (and mine). Tlhslobus ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
AFTERTHOUGHT: On reflection, do you think the following might have a chance of getting added to MOS:TIES, or may at least be worth a shot, if only to avoid you having to repeat this argument with other editors in future?
Some examples of what do NOT constitute 'strong ties':
-German warship X only ever fought against the British Navy: this does NOT mean that that article on X must be in British English.
Tlhslobus (
talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Just as a quick note - as the article is article of the day today: the picture is wrong, showing an artist' impression of the Greek battleship Salamis which was built in Germany but never completed - and of which there is a pretty good article here using the very same picture:
/info/en/?search=Greek_battleship_Salamis
SMS Lützow looked quite different, see eg here in this Bundesarchiv picture:
Perhaps someone could at least delete the picture? Louis E Nolan ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The Design section says "The conning tower was protected with 200 mm (7.9 in) of armor plating". The info box says "Conning tower: 300 mm". Which is it? — Naddy ( talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SMS Lützow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | SMS Lützow is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | SMS Lützow is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of Germany series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 29, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To the editor who insists on using US English spelling and reverting British spelling:
MOS:TIES (which is part of WP:ENGVAR) explicitly states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."
The Lutzow fought the British navy, not the US Navy, killed British sailors, was sunk as a result of British gunfire, and in consequence has recently been quite extensively covered on British TV due to the centenary of Jutland. All that seems to fit the MOS:TIES description above. So instead of reverting two separate editors, perhaps you might care to explain why it's not how ENGVAR works, despite what I've just quoted (both here and in the edit description) from the seemingly relevant part of ENGVAR, namely MOS:TIES. Meanwhile, until I hear such a satisfactory explanation I'm restoring the version that appears to be in conformity with MOS:TIES and consequently also ENGVAR. Tlhslobus ( talk) 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The first 3 paragraphs of the following discussion first took place on my Talk Page, but are more appropriately held here, so I'm copying them here as I said I would (but that was before I read your latest contribution above - see my surrender to that, in the 4th paragraph, below this copied stuff):
I suggest you actually read the section to which you linked. TIES only applies to topics from a specific English-speaking country. Since German ships are necessarily from Germany, they do not have a strong tie to an English-speaking country. The argument that Ship A only ever fought against English Speaking Country B, so the article on A should use B's variant was shot down a very long time ago. Parsecboy ( talk) 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, having read your latest contribution, I guess I'm wasting my time (and yours, sorry about that). I could try to change it back per WP:IAR, but it would just be unnecessary edit-warring in which the Wiki-lawyering REMAIN would eventually win out over what I still see as best for our readers. Assuming your interpretation of the current consensus is correct, and I've no reason to doubt it, then logically the thing to do is to amend MOS:TIES so that it no longer misleads editors like me who foolishly imagine that it means what it says (as well as wasting the time of editors like you who then have to reply), presumably by adding a sentence there saying that ships only fighting a particular English-speaking country don't constitute a 'strong tie' for the purpose of MOS:TIES. But if that were easily added it would probably have already been added, so I expect trying to do that would probably just waste more of my time in an unsuccessful effort to change 'consensus text', so I won't bother. Once again, sorry for wasting your time (and mine). Tlhslobus ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
AFTERTHOUGHT: On reflection, do you think the following might have a chance of getting added to MOS:TIES, or may at least be worth a shot, if only to avoid you having to repeat this argument with other editors in future?
Some examples of what do NOT constitute 'strong ties':
-German warship X only ever fought against the British Navy: this does NOT mean that that article on X must be in British English.
Tlhslobus (
talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Just as a quick note - as the article is article of the day today: the picture is wrong, showing an artist' impression of the Greek battleship Salamis which was built in Germany but never completed - and of which there is a pretty good article here using the very same picture:
/info/en/?search=Greek_battleship_Salamis
SMS Lützow looked quite different, see eg here in this Bundesarchiv picture:
Perhaps someone could at least delete the picture? Louis E Nolan ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The Design section says "The conning tower was protected with 200 mm (7.9 in) of armor plating". The info box says "Conning tower: 300 mm". Which is it? — Naddy ( talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)