This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good pic of the Zoo Tower in 1946, hadn't seen that before. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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 This change or wording was originally made with a bold edit ( Revision as of 20:42, 19 August 2017.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.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good pic of the Zoo Tower in 1946, hadn't seen that before. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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.