This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SMS Seydlitz 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 Seydlitz 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 Seydlitz 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 is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About the ship's motto: From my understanding, as native german speaker with only a minor understanding of English, "AlleN voran" should be translated as "ahead of all". Not as "all ahead" which to me seams to be a suitable translation of "AlleS voran". So my point is about the difference between "Allen" and "Alles". 86.56.43.209 ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have several books on German warships of the period, including Staff's German Battlecruisers: 1914–1918, and Gröner's excellent German Warships: 1815–1945, and they all treat the ship as its own design. Seydlitz was some 20 meters longer than Moltke, some 3,000 tonnes heavier, and had an entirely different propulsion system. Of course Seydlitz is a design that improved on the Moltke design, just as Moltke was an improvement over the Von der Tann design, but stating that Seydlitz was a "modified Moltke class battlecruiser" is overstating the relationship. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason "Kaiser" is italicised? I'd have thought this was a common enough word in English writing that we could leave it as normal... Shimgray | talk | 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but the sailor Wilhelm Heidkamp is credited with saving Seydlitz at Dogger Bank. I think this should be mentioned (with a link) in the article. Is he the executive officer mentioned.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed these from the article; overuse of words like this without real thought as to their meaning is a pet hate of mine. I hope you agree the article has lost nothing as a result and may read a little easier now. -- John ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ordinarily, I would regard this as a minor edit and let it go without comment, but there is a problem with the Wikipedia convert algorithm. The ship's beam is stated twice, first 28.5 meters, then, after the addition of torpedo protection, 28.8 meters. The trouble is that both figures were converted to 94 feet, despite the difference of 30 centimeters. I have fixed this in the text by converting the two beams by hand, to 93.5 and 94.5 feet, respectively, so there is no problem so far as this article is concerned, but editors of other articles should be aware.
PKKloeppel ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of conversion problems, I noticed that the section on torpedo armament suddenly switched from giving range in Meters to giving range in KILO-Meters! The article says initially she carried 19.7" G6 torpedoes with some 5000m range at 27 knots and 2200m range at 35 knots. The article then stated an upgrade to G7 torpedoes increased the range to 17,200 KM and 7,400 KM respectively...The problem is that this range is thousands of KM greater than even modern torpedoes. The article also originally got to these figures through the conversion of a number in miles, while the G6 torpedo was given directly in meters. I have kept the numbers, 7,400 and 17,200, but changed the unit of measure to more reasonable meters rather than kilometers. However these ranges are STILL greatly in excess of the figures given for the 19.7" G7 in my won sources so I'm not quire sure what's going on here. Perhaps there are different numbers floating around, or perhaps the wrong G7 (There was a WW2 era G7, a 21" weapon) was referenced?
Rightfully one of the best wikipedia's article. Greetings to all.
I've made a tiny change to the end of the Jutland sections, changing the fragment "Seydlitz herself fired 376 main battery shells, but only scored approximately 10 hits" to "Seydlitz herself fired 376 main battery shells and scored approximately 10 hits" The first version implies that Seydlitz's gunnery was of a poor standard, whereas actually she was one of the better shooting ships during the battlecruiser action. Her overall performance of about 2.7% is not spectacular by any means, but the hit a raio of 3-5% was the norm using period fire control and some of the fighting was carried out in very unfavourable visability conditions. I think in this case the original version misrepresents the situation and we should allow the facts to speak for themelves. Getztashida ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SMS Seydlitz 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 Seydlitz 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 Seydlitz 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 is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About the ship's motto: From my understanding, as native german speaker with only a minor understanding of English, "AlleN voran" should be translated as "ahead of all". Not as "all ahead" which to me seams to be a suitable translation of "AlleS voran". So my point is about the difference between "Allen" and "Alles". 86.56.43.209 ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have several books on German warships of the period, including Staff's German Battlecruisers: 1914–1918, and Gröner's excellent German Warships: 1815–1945, and they all treat the ship as its own design. Seydlitz was some 20 meters longer than Moltke, some 3,000 tonnes heavier, and had an entirely different propulsion system. Of course Seydlitz is a design that improved on the Moltke design, just as Moltke was an improvement over the Von der Tann design, but stating that Seydlitz was a "modified Moltke class battlecruiser" is overstating the relationship. Parsecboy ( talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason "Kaiser" is italicised? I'd have thought this was a common enough word in English writing that we could leave it as normal... Shimgray | talk | 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but the sailor Wilhelm Heidkamp is credited with saving Seydlitz at Dogger Bank. I think this should be mentioned (with a link) in the article. Is he the executive officer mentioned.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed these from the article; overuse of words like this without real thought as to their meaning is a pet hate of mine. I hope you agree the article has lost nothing as a result and may read a little easier now. -- John ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ordinarily, I would regard this as a minor edit and let it go without comment, but there is a problem with the Wikipedia convert algorithm. The ship's beam is stated twice, first 28.5 meters, then, after the addition of torpedo protection, 28.8 meters. The trouble is that both figures were converted to 94 feet, despite the difference of 30 centimeters. I have fixed this in the text by converting the two beams by hand, to 93.5 and 94.5 feet, respectively, so there is no problem so far as this article is concerned, but editors of other articles should be aware.
PKKloeppel ( talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of conversion problems, I noticed that the section on torpedo armament suddenly switched from giving range in Meters to giving range in KILO-Meters! The article says initially she carried 19.7" G6 torpedoes with some 5000m range at 27 knots and 2200m range at 35 knots. The article then stated an upgrade to G7 torpedoes increased the range to 17,200 KM and 7,400 KM respectively...The problem is that this range is thousands of KM greater than even modern torpedoes. The article also originally got to these figures through the conversion of a number in miles, while the G6 torpedo was given directly in meters. I have kept the numbers, 7,400 and 17,200, but changed the unit of measure to more reasonable meters rather than kilometers. However these ranges are STILL greatly in excess of the figures given for the 19.7" G7 in my won sources so I'm not quire sure what's going on here. Perhaps there are different numbers floating around, or perhaps the wrong G7 (There was a WW2 era G7, a 21" weapon) was referenced?
Rightfully one of the best wikipedia's article. Greetings to all.
I've made a tiny change to the end of the Jutland sections, changing the fragment "Seydlitz herself fired 376 main battery shells, but only scored approximately 10 hits" to "Seydlitz herself fired 376 main battery shells and scored approximately 10 hits" The first version implies that Seydlitz's gunnery was of a poor standard, whereas actually she was one of the better shooting ships during the battlecruiser action. Her overall performance of about 2.7% is not spectacular by any means, but the hit a raio of 3-5% was the norm using period fire control and some of the fighting was carried out in very unfavourable visability conditions. I think in this case the original version misrepresents the situation and we should allow the facts to speak for themelves. Getztashida ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)