# Talk:Tegetthoff-class battleship

Is it certain that the name of this class was Viribus Unitis? Some reliably-looking sources I found (1 or 2) call it Tegetthoff instead. -- Sandius 18:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The german wikipedia says that the "SMS Viribus Unitis" was the first of the ships what was finished, so the class was named after it...213.47.166.181 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to name a ship after the first of the class, and if the dates here are correct, Viribus Unitis is the first. Stan 21:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It may be a standard, but there always are exceptions. For example this page, which is dedicated to Tegetthoff class, says: "SMS Viribus Unitis, the first ship of the Tegetthoff class, was launched on June 24th 1911."
I doubt all these pages are wrong. Given the fact, that it is common to name the class after its first ship, I'd rather expect them to follow this rule, unless they had some facts that are opposing it. And it seems to me they really have them. -- Sandius 23:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They can very well be wrong; in the process of our research we often find material, especially on the net, that is well informed on some things and poorly on others. In this case I find it curious that the departure from custom is not remarked upon, which means it's possible that these websites are copying somebody else's mistake - or not. I would recommend chasing down a more authoritative source, preferably in print and with an explanation, before fooling around with this name; although everything is fixable, it takes time to undo a hasty move turns out to be mistaken (I should know, I've made hundreds of that sort of mistake! :-) ). Stan 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's Tegethoff. I'll quote a book about the A-H navy: "The name of the class is Tegethoff, because the first unit was meant to be named like that, but Franz Joseph I wanted to name the first ship after his motto (lat. Viribus Unitis). Anyway, the class name remained as Tegethoff.
check: [1] and [2] 
--TheFEARgod 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to resolve the naming issue. I don't see a reason why the page shouldn't be renamed now. But perhaps you should also give us the title of the book you've quoted. -- Sandius 18:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Dario Petrović: The history of the K.u.k. kriegsmarine--TheFEARgod 20:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll wait a week and then move the page, if there is no opposition. -- Sandius 14:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK by me. Be sure to mention the naming oddity in the article (I didn't see it on a cursory reading), and cite the book in the references too. Stan 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Sandius 20:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It ıs saıd that the shıp wıtch was gıven to the new foundet SHS state was allready gıven to the SHS state and was actualy allready renamed Yugoslavıa when ıt was hıt.

The Article alludes to significant Design flaws in the class, but then does not elaborate upon them.  Could anyone bulk this out a bit as I'd always understood the Tegetthoffs to be a good design, built much too slowly... 
Also, perhaps some of the historical background could be shifted into the Individual ships entries...  Getztashida 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone, 
regarding  Siegfried Popper: it's not really true that he designed the ship, because it has been done from an italian engeneer Giorgio Napoli. I know because was my grandma's father. *** DrSoul, 23 Sept 2009

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tegetthoff class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JonCatalán(Talk) 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments:

Same deal as the last GA review.  If you think any of my edits are incorrect, go ahead and revert them.
The first paragraph of the construction section is largely uncited.  I don't know if the information belongs to cite #8, but if so the reference should be moved to the end of the paragraph.
I'm not sure about the image gallery, although I'll let that be your call.  Maybe a link to commons is better (like your other article).
The image gallery is used on the Szent Istvan article and I think it looks nice here but if you want it gone, you can remove it. No issues here.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"...which became a problem as the war gressed..." → I looked up the word "gressed" and could not find a definition.
Fixed to say Progressed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"After it was clear that Austria-Hungary had lost World War I, the Austrian government decided to give the ship, along with much of the fleet, to the newly-formed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs." → Which ship, this article is on a class?
I restructured that paragraph, as per above.
Just out of curiosity, you write that the sinking of the Szent Istvan was filmed.  Does this film exist?  Is it copyrighted?  It would be interesting to have a picture of the ship capsizing.
A picture does exist of the ship capsizing and the film was sold to the US to assist Austia in the inter-war years. There is a link to it on the Szent Istvan article and I can add it to this one as well if you want.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 22:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Done.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, this looks good. JonCatalán(Talk) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tegetthoff-class battleship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090805101618/http://www.hicon.pl:80/~pothkan/hhwn/AH-Maj.html to http://www.hicon.pl/~pothkan/hhwn/AH-Maj.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070624142613/http://www.marina.difesa.it:80/storia/movm/parte04/movm419.asp to http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/movm/parte04/movm419.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070624142358/http://www.marina.difesa.it:80/storia/movm/parte04/movm416.asp to http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/movm/parte04/movm416.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A recent edit did the above exchange. I am unsure whether this is correct, should be rather → Kr., or possibly even → Kronen. That is, I am unsure about "krone" being an official currency unit. The name of the currency is to my knowledge the "Krone" with plural "Kronen". I never saw in any historical document the use of "krone". The use of "Volts" and "Amperes" is quite common, if even when deprecated. Any specialists out there?  correction 07:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Purgy (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good question. I thought krone was the appropriate use of the word in the context that is being used in this article but the points you brought up are good ones.—White Shadows New and improved!
Thanks for the appreciation! I found this, but would not bet on the clerical detail at stake here: there are abbreviations "K" and "kr", both without a ".", and only the first in caps, and the pics describe one coin as, e.g., "5 Kronen" (even when there are no 5 coins, each worth 1 K, cf. "Volts"). My predominant optical remembrance of old documents is the "Kr.". Sorry for not being a decisive support. Purgy (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
One point to remember is that German nouns are capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that means whichever rout we take, the “K” will be capitalized.—White Shadows New and improved!

Triggered by the last edits, and not really always sure about boon or burden of specific WP-rules, I want to ask, whether an article of this here length can be overlinked at all. I think that some word being marked up is not a remarkable barrier in reading, and imagining the "mouse-over"-effects, being available also to users not logged in in future versions, is to me a promising vision of enhanced reading experience, especially when skimming over a small section. As longs as there are no annoying PR-pop-ups, links are fine with me. Just my 2cents. Purgy (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a very good question. I personally think things like the Armistice in November 1918 should absolutely be linked at the end of the article in the section that talks about it, regardless of where else it may be linked or not. But WP:MOS still takes precedence over personal preference.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your personal thought and for taking mine into consideration. I keep hoping for WP:IAR to outweigh the burdens of WP:MOS, at least sometimes. Cheers, Purgy (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)