Talk:SMS Bayern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSMS Bayern 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.
Featured topic starSMS Bayern is part of the Battleships of Germany series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 18, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 27, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
January 6, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 1, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
August 25, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 12, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the battleship Bayern was the first German warship to mount 15 inch guns?
Current status: Featured article

Article needs expansion[edit]

Hi, this brief article needs the sources used to be cited wherever possible, and maybe to be expanded a bit by adding the usual sections. I'll try to find out additional references for this task. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly working my way through the German battleship and battlecruisers, and will eventually get here. It just takes time to get everything done, you know? Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SMS Bayern (1915)/GA1

Armor scheme drawing[edit]

Hello. Let me introduce this scheme:

Armor. Front view


It based on good Russian study of Bayern' history and construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrossomachin (talkcontribs) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Maxrossomachin (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks for the hard work! Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German naming conventions[edit]

I am currently involved in a discussion with another editor involving the use of a German place name, namely Heligoland. The original wording in the article used Heligoland, which is the most common English-language name. However, the editor in question changed the link to Helgoland (the native German spelling), which redirects to the English name. Per the MoS (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names#Place names), I believe that the wording should be changed to reflect the most commonly-used English name, which is Heligoland. In his edit summary, the editor wrongly asserted that the MoS makes no preference regarding place names, which is clearly countered by the page linked in the previous sentence. In addition, other English-language names are used in the article, including Bavaria. Since the MoS is very clear and rather explicit in this context, I propose that the name Heligoland be kept, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and common sense.-RHM22 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment here, the use of "Helgoland" is well attested in English-language sources, at least as far back as the early 19th century, before the islands came under the relatively brief British ownership. Please provide evidence that "Heligoland" is more often used in English than "Helgoland".
You'll note that my edit summary refers to policy, which is (generally) hard and fast; the MoS is not.
As for the original spelling in this article, you have no idea what you're talking about. The article, before I started editing it, was a stub that did not reference the island. And as for your assertion of what constitutes "common sense", I humbly submit that your perception is not objective fact. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on Parsec's talk page, Google Ngrams show that while Heligoland was used much more often in the early 20th century, the two are now used interchangeably. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) By "original," I meant the wording used before you changed it. It matters not that 'Helgoland' is used in English; we rely on what is the most common usage. The "Heligoland" spelling is used in The Guardian, The New York Times, The Daily Mail and numerous books and other references. Besides that, all Wikipedia articles relating to Heligoland use the English spelling, because we are an English-language encyclopedia. Your last comment does not reflect either of your edit summaries. In the first, you said (quoting verbatim, with explanation added in brackets): "German topic, should use the German spelling for the location" and "no policy or MoS prescribes that [the use of English-language names] and you'll note that throughout this article the German is used first." You'll note that all three statements you made in those summaries are incorrect, and in fact, you have now contradicted your own statements in the edit summaries by what you've said above.
Anyway, this is not my area of study, so I have no interest in pursuing this any further. The decision regarding which spelling to use is up to the editors who choose to weigh in here.-RHM22 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there was nothing for me to change. Why you seem intent on insisting that I changed the spelling is beyond me, as it simply isn't the case.
As for usage, sure, "Heligoland" is used in English, but the more important point is that so is "Helgoland". Your assertion that "Heligoland" is more common does not seem to be borne out by the evidence, as Ed pointed out above. And as for what other Wikipedia articles use, who cares? Completely irrelevant.
No, my edit summaries are mostly correct. This is a German article, and German words are used where appropriate (hence why we have, for instance, "Kapitän zur See (Captain at Sea) Max Hahn"). Second, you have yet to point to a policy that supports your argument, which I pointed out above and you have continued to ignore. Third, I stated that there was no MoS page that supported your argument. A ha, you got me there. That does not invalidate my position, however. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]