This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vorpostenboot 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 |
A fact from Vorpostenboot appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,330 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I personaly think it's weird to use the singular form "Vorpostenboot', the word is used as a plural in the ntry and so are the translations, I would have changed it, but my German is rusty .. Remko2 ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A book, "Seas Aflame" by Hart is quoted twice as a source. This book is fiction and therefore an unreliable source. I would therefore suggest that it and the information derived from it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 ( talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have cleaned out the fictionally-sources information but something went wrong with the quotes. Help please?
I have checked, they are part of the novel and fictional. Incidentally they also contradict the other sources provided which are genuine. Please help with eliminating the references to the novel which must rank as the ultimate in unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 ( talk) 05:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Since there were some disagreements between me and Anonymous Dissident I would like to explain the one remaining issue:
I corrected the sentence, "Technical data and salvaged wreckages indicate that the Vorpostenboot was largely based on pre-war fishing vessels" as it contains misleading and factually wrong information for the following reasons:
So please refrain from again reverting to this faulty source of information.-- KuK ( talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. before I will alter anything I would like to have my new text in proper grammar, but my English skills have their limits. What do you think about the following:
I think the following would be better, grammatically speaking:
I've added that. Please feel free to discuss/edit. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
how are these related to Kriegsfischkutter (KFK)? (see Glossary of German military terms) -- Thefrood ( talk) 11:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
@ Mjroots and GraemeLeggett: thank you both for your help and suggestions the past few days! This is the first time I'm diving into this area of content so it is very reassuring to have a bit of a hand in the process. I've just finished what I think is a pretty comprehensive history section of this article, which was extremely fun to write. I think the article has further potential, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what that would look like. I erred on the side of throwing more information into the history rather than less, since I figured it would be easier to trim than to have to look additional things up. Beyond cleaning that up, I'm not quite sure what other sections are appropriate for this kind of article. I'd love to hear y'alls input and thoughts on the potential to eventually take this to GA at some point down the road. Very respectfully, Fritzmann ( message me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vorpostenboot 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 |
A fact from Vorpostenboot appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 10 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,330 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I personaly think it's weird to use the singular form "Vorpostenboot', the word is used as a plural in the ntry and so are the translations, I would have changed it, but my German is rusty .. Remko2 ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A book, "Seas Aflame" by Hart is quoted twice as a source. This book is fiction and therefore an unreliable source. I would therefore suggest that it and the information derived from it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 ( talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have cleaned out the fictionally-sources information but something went wrong with the quotes. Help please?
I have checked, they are part of the novel and fictional. Incidentally they also contradict the other sources provided which are genuine. Please help with eliminating the references to the novel which must rank as the ultimate in unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 ( talk) 05:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Since there were some disagreements between me and Anonymous Dissident I would like to explain the one remaining issue:
I corrected the sentence, "Technical data and salvaged wreckages indicate that the Vorpostenboot was largely based on pre-war fishing vessels" as it contains misleading and factually wrong information for the following reasons:
So please refrain from again reverting to this faulty source of information.-- KuK ( talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. before I will alter anything I would like to have my new text in proper grammar, but my English skills have their limits. What do you think about the following:
I think the following would be better, grammatically speaking:
I've added that. Please feel free to discuss/edit. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
how are these related to Kriegsfischkutter (KFK)? (see Glossary of German military terms) -- Thefrood ( talk) 11:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
@ Mjroots and GraemeLeggett: thank you both for your help and suggestions the past few days! This is the first time I'm diving into this area of content so it is very reassuring to have a bit of a hand in the process. I've just finished what I think is a pretty comprehensive history section of this article, which was extremely fun to write. I think the article has further potential, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what that would look like. I erred on the side of throwing more information into the history rather than less, since I figured it would be easier to trim than to have to look additional things up. Beyond cleaning that up, I'm not quite sure what other sections are appropriate for this kind of article. I'd love to hear y'alls input and thoughts on the potential to eventually take this to GA at some point down the road. Very respectfully, Fritzmann ( message me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)