Talk:LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin

message: When this article was created in March, 2004, the format correctly selected was M/D/Y and that was retained (as per WP:MOS guidelines 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.1.4) for almost FOUR years until it was arbitrarily changed to D/M/Y on January 28, 2008 without that either being noted in edit summary or the opening of a section here to discuss it. I eventually restored the original formatting last October and it remained that way for ten months without complaint until three days ago when it was again arbitrarily reverted to D/M/Y without any discussion in here.
:With respect to retaining original and/or existing date formatting (§2.4.1.4) WP:MOS says:
:Retaining the existing format
:* If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
:* The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.
:* Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
:... and with respect to "strong national ties" (§2.4.1.3) it says:
:Strong national ties to a topic
:*Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country [NOT country of origin of the topic] should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
:*Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.
Clearly the "English-speaking" with which this article has the closest "national ties" is the United States as the Graf Zeppelin never visited any other English-speaking country.
That being the case, the arbitrary change made on August 8, 2011, to change the dates to d/y/m was contrary to the guidelines of the WP:MOS.
*In summary: The WP:MOS guidelines state that the date formatting for an English language article on WP is based on a) the format used as the article was created and evolved, and; b) if applying the "strong national ties" to change that, the ties are to an "English-speaking" country for articles in English, and not the country of origin of the subject of the article. The d/m/y format for an article on the Graf Zeppelin in the German Wikipedia would be fine, but based on both of the WP:MOS guidelines on dates as they relate to this article in English, the correct formatting is clearly M/D/Y. Centpacrr (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, what an extraordinary amount of discussion for what seems to be a minor point. Firstly, to state my interest, I am closely related to Lady Grace Hay Drummond Hay and as such have "kept and eye on" and contributed to this article for quite some time. The edits you talk about were during the wiki era when dates were wikilinked to provide the format defined in the user's settings and thus transparent to registered editors and readers. With one or two minor exceptions, the spelling used in this article is UK ENG, and has been from the first edit. There are dozens of examples of UK ENG spellings throughout the article. There is certainly no wiki policy, to my knowledge, that states that an article could be in UK ENG yet use the date format peculiar to the US. One could argue that the change in date format was simply changing that format to match the language of the article. If you were to change to m/d/y then you would surely be suggesting the whole article should be in US ENG, which is not the language chosen at the outset. This seems to be far further against wiki policy than someone matching the date format to the language of the article 4 years ago. Cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that edits in the early years (2004-08) were from the era when they were wikilinked for user defined display, the way the dates appear in the article's html is still M/D/Y (see for instance here) and the issue here is date formatting, not spelling. Also the only English-speaking country with which the LZ 127 (and LZ 129) had a "close national connection" was the United States which is also the only English-speaking country in which either of the airships ever landed. In addition the USPOD created and issued four different postage stamps honoring the Garf and which were use on several of the airship's flights. (The Graf landed in Lakehurst, Chicago, Akron, Los Angeles, and Miami; the Hindenburg made eleven flights to Lakehurst where it also crashed.) They not only did not land in the UK, as I recall they were not allowed to ever enter UK air space because Zeppelins had bombed England during WWI. (Neither landed in Canada or any other Commonwealth country as well.) As for contributors to the article, only four of the 176 editors since it was created in 2004 have made more than ten edits to it, and 156 of those (88.6%) made only one. Centpacrr (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You state that the issue is not related to spelling, and that's where we differ. The article is clearly written in UK ENG. UK ENG and d/m/y are intrinsically linked and there seems to be no precedent to have an UK ENG spelling with m/d/y date formats. I wonder if you have found other articles where this is the case? Thanks MrMarmite (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only significant example I can see of "UK ENG" in the article is the spelling of "metre" (as opposed to "meter") and perhaps a few other minor differences in the first few boiler plate sections describing the airship. However the bulk of the article (most of which I have written over the past few years as its largest contributor) describing its operational career during the dozen years between its launching in 1928 and scrapping in 1940 is in US ENG. As noted above, the article also makes no mention of (and has nothing whatever to do with) the UK or any other Commonwealth or English-speaking country other than the US. Next to Brazil (which the Graf served strictly as a commercial air carrier), the airship flew between Germany the US more often than any other country. The WP:MOS guidelines (2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3) state that date formatting of article in English should reflect that of the English-speaking country with which the subject of the article had/has the strongest "national ties" which in this case is clearly the US -- the only such country with which the Graf had any ties at all, and the only one mentioned in the article. (You should also note that the LZ 129 Hindenburg article uses the M/D/Y formatting.) Centpacrr (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to change the format, most of the readers are able to read both formats without a problem, I find the the main reason to change that the LZ 127 visited the USA is not really a strong association, the German article doesn't use American dates. But it is not really that important so I would suggest just leave it as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it was incorrectly changed to D/M/Y just four days ago (August 8, 2011) based on somebody's "script" the article was formatted correctly as M/D/Y which is also the way it was created on March 31, 2004, and evolved for many years thereafter. M/D/Y is also the way the LZ 129 Hindenburg article is formatted, and is the formatting that both WP:MOS guidelines call for. There was therefore no reason to change it four days ago in the first place and it should be restored to its historically correct formatting. Centpacrr (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Centpacrr that was not clear, in which case I would suggest just revert the script edit back to the stable version. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Article extensively cleaned up and expanded, statistical details added, and original historic formatting restored per WP:MOS (2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3) as discussed above. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Bit dissapointed with never visited any other English-speaking country. above as I now find that the Graf Zeppelin had flown over England in early October 1928 a few days before its trip to the United States. So clearly a better claim for British English. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, sir, please tell me how do you could in any way conclude that a single "fly over" in 1928 constitutes a "clearly better claim" to a "strong national connection" with England than the Graf's long term relationship with the US which it visited in 1928, 1929 (twice), and 1933, landed in seven times in five different cities -- Lakehurst (three times), Miami (NAS Opa Locka), Chicago, Akron, and Los Angeles -- and even received a New York "Ticker-tape parade"? This is not even a close call as to which English-speaking nation objectively has the strongest national connection to the Graf Zeppelin. Centpacrr (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was answering the the statement that the airship had only ever visited the US and not other English-speaking countries, I was just making the point she had flown over England (and also by the way Gibraltar) before she crossed the Atlantic. I also note she landed at the British airship station at Cardington in 1930 as well (and a later flight over Scotland and north-east England in July 1930, and a flight over Norfolk and Yorkshire in July 1931, and a landing in London in Aug 1931, and another landing in London in 1932). MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding this information about visits to the UK which would seem to provide some relationship to England as well. WP:MOS §2.4.1.4, however, still calls for use of the "...date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used..." which was M/D/Y both when it was created on March 31, 2004, and the way it evolved uninterrupted for at least four years. An objective evaluation of any "strong national ties" to another English-speaking country required to overturn the use of M/D/Y still clearly fails, however, on both the grounds noted above and the provisions of WP:MOS §2.4.1.3. Another clear indication of "strong national ties" with the United States is the fact that the USPOD issued no fewer than four postage stamps (three in 1929, one in 1933) depicting and honoring the Graf Zeppelin ... more than the US produced for any other specific aircraft in history including the "Spirit of St. Louis" which only got two (1927 and 1977). Neither the UK or any other English-speaking country ever issued any. Centpacrr (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formatting (M/D/Y vs D/M/Y) in this article 

message: Added back the assesment as "B" class but I suspect it could be graded better, but it might be handy to do some copy editing and I will ask one of the guys with more expertise in assesment to see if it can be put forward for a higher grade. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all. Responding to the above request for copy editing, I have been shaking up the article a fair bit. Much of the prose seems to be translated from German, or perhaps written by a native German speaker. All comments and feedback are very welcome. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Rumiton, I had some comments from User:Sp33dyphil earlier:
#Footnote 6 is from the German Wikipedia
#There are unsourced paragraphs
#The lead doesn't completely summarise the article, and
#There are too many images compared to the amount of text.
The footnote was removed and the number of images was reduced to get a better balance. Need to look at unsourced paragraphs - (I know I owe a couple of citation which I will add soon). MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks for that. I'll keep looking at the prose when I find time. Rumiton (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Not sure why the images keep being removed by User:Centpacrr perhaps he or somebody can explain, are they the wrong images? are they better images? The idea is to improve the article and go for the next level of assesment, hence the copy edit and clean up. Removing nearly all the images is not really helping. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be helpful if User:Centpacrr drops in here to discuss these and some further edits. He/she has reverted my changes of mails to mail, cachet to stamp and untenable to unviable. The first is I believe, an archaic usage, and I do not think many readers will know what a cachet is, in this sense. Stamp is better. But while neither of these idiosyncratic words might trip up a GA assessor, untenable here is quite wrong. Ideas and positions that cannot be held against attack are rightly described as untenable. Projects that cannot be kept alive due to current circumstances are correctly described as unviable, "(un)able to live or exist in a particular climate" (Oxford Dict.) Synonyms are unfeasible and impracticable. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is undergoing major and somewhat contested changes at the moment. I will leave my attempt at copy editing until it becomes more stable. Then, if desired, please post a request for copyediting as before. Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Assesment

message: The great weakness I see in this article is the very poor documentation. Newsreels may have value as "see also," but they are not very sound as documentation. The same goes for web sites. The web is too ephemeral to use as a reference source or for citations and documentation. Nor is the picture of fans from Tokio (usage at the time) exactly a killer citation for the round-the-world flight.
Would not a better citation be the telegram from Commander Byrd on page 688 of the article "Honors to Dr. Hugo Eckener: The First Airship Flight Around the World, in The National Geographic Magazine, Volume LVII, No. 6 be a bit more substantial as well as source material?Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Documentation 

message: I intend to start documenting and editing on this article in a month or two. I am not a 'date' junkie. I collect books, not stamps. I wish to see the article documented and cited from reputable sources, not ephemera. The Graf Zeppelin was the best known aircraft in the world during the very late 1920s and mid-1930s. It was much more than just an airship. The Weimar government funded the construction because the airship could bring recognition to Germany, found an industry, and inspire a nation. It was a social icon to Germans. To the world it was not only colossal, it seemed the long-distant passenger transport of the future. The idea of passengers looking down as they flew over the vacant expanses of Siberia en-route non-stop from Germany to Japan, while partaking fine food and wines was MIND BOGGLING at the time. This article conveys little of that. Nor does it give a realistic idea of what it was like to fly as a passenger in an aircraft which was neither heated, or air-conditioned. These points, I feel, need a bit of attention.
My primary intent will be to document the article from sound sources. I don't wish to step on toes or unnecessarily offend some airship buff or stamp collector. I have been through the 'revision wars' with WikiGods who had a hobby horse to ride and have learned that facts do not trump connections. Nor do the endless carping on date formats in this talk page give me much hope of dealing with persons more interested in getting the job done than quibbling.
"The [airship] episode was interesting, but it has now become history (almost legend)." wrote Dr. Eckener to his friend Paul Jaray in 1950.Guillaume de Syon, 'Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship, 1900-1939, Baltimore & London.  Johns Hopinks University Press, 2002, p. 207.  The Graf Zeppelin was the hope of an industry, the pride of a nation, a wonder of the world, and a magnificent accomplishment. The facts of the airship, it's accomplishments, and the legend it created, seem what is important. This article should inform, and it should provide the means for Wiki users to pursue the subject further if they wish.Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some interesting ideas, the problem with not using contempary accounts is we dont give the feeling of support and pride that the Graf Zepplin inspired so a better understanding and explanation would improve the article. Just as an aside you said The Weimar government funded the construction  but most of the money came from public subscription which may explain more why it was important to Germans as well as Germany. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One brief point re the Graf's philatelic connections: they have virtually nothing to do with "stamps", the airship's significance is to "postal history" which is a very different thing. Centpacrr (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points, but should be considered within the structure of WP:Weight in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement of intent and request for input 

message: I am still working the other two subjects  (neither for Wikipedia) yet am also thinking about what needs to be done to make this a succinct and informative article about the LZ-127. Reworking an article is harder than writing one from scratch.
How 'accurate' must it be to not introduce confusing detail?
For example the information block lists Ludwig Durr as the 'designer', Yet he had not 'designed' a Zeppelin in a long time. Not since the old employee and ally of Count Zeppelin was 'kicked up stairs' to the position of 'Technical Director.' The real demands of war and the technical competition from Schutte-Lanz demanded that the Zeppelin Company adopt scientific instead of empirical methods of design. New men with new methods and approaches had to be brought in to keep the Zeppelin viable and competitive. I know who is responsible for the shape of LZ-127, and who was responsible for the approach to mathematic analysis which determined it's structure. Yet the 'common wisdom' is that Ludwig Durr 'designed' every Zeppelin. And, it must be said that he was "technical director," responsible for seeing that Zeppelins were designed and constructed.
So, do we need a couple of paragraphs to explain why the 'common wisdom' is not quite true? Or do we just roll with it because the article need inform the lay person and not appease the nit-picking that a highly informed scholar might demand?
I think the answer is that we address the layman's needs in accessing the Wikipedia for a concise and thorough overview, Yet the article should contain references be extensive enough that if that layman wishes to be guided to greater learning he might have what he needs.
There are a number of aspects of the article which need the same sort of editorial efficiency coupled with the references that might supply the leads to further information that need not be included.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many nits can you pick off the head of a pin? 

message: This article remains a very mixed bag. Poorly documented, some sections excellent, some bloated, and the most critical in the mind of Dr. Eckener, diminished to insignificance.
I finished works my works in progress and prepped to take on the task of turning the Graf Zeppelin into an article of scholarship worthy and true.
I re-read Botting's wonderful Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine, Dick's incredibly revealing (about technical operation) Graf Zeppelin & Hindenburg, Dr. Eckener's own operating manual for DELAG personnel, and had started upon Lessor's 'The Millionth Chance' about the R101, and a cautionary tale of how to do it all wrong. . . then a realization set in.
As fascinating as I once found the subject - fascinating enough to write, over 40 years ago, my historiography thesis on 'The Military Rigid Airship" - I had to face reality.
I am an old man. I must accept that I have only a decade or two ahead of me, and wasting my time editing  Wikipedia is not worth a second of the life I have left.
Adeiu gentlemen, I wish you all good luck.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for revision, citation, and improvement 

message: Hi guys.
I have a nice, original photo of the Graf Zeppelin - link is - http://nobandwagonhere.deviantart.com/#/d4y72yh
I also have 3 more, that are not uploaded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, unless you can prove that the photo is in the publc domain we can;t use it, no matter how good it may be. - Nick Thorne talk 23:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Scanning photographs and uploading somewhere doesnt give you any rights unless you took the image yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

text: That doesn't suddenly make it's copyright void; we can't use copyrighted images just because we think the copyright holder won't notice - we don't break the law here. Kyteto (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Can anyone add altitude figures, e.g. maximum, normal? I can't find anything in the article. --ML5 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altitude 

message: I challenged the addition of a conversion to Dollars in the article, this article is about a German airship and has no connection with the United States. As it has been challenged it really needs to gain a consensus before it is added, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-relevant Dollars

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006114513/http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/nautilus/nautilus.htm to http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/nautilus/nautilus.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This revision of the article seems to use UK English ("travelled", "aluminium"). Is there some reason it was changed? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this was discussed in 2011 and that a major editor of the article prefers US English. I think that if there is no consensus to change it, per MOS:RETAIN it should go back to UK. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Graf Zeppelin Weltflug 1929. Undated   2" Diameter silver coin. Obverse: Zeppelin and world map. Reverse: German eagle "Deutsches Reich 1930 3 Reichsmark."
Apart from this numista entry and assorted auction entires that's the best I can find. -84user (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I've just discovered that this edit from 2011-08-20 removed text incorrectly, including the Clarence Tehune story (added by me but with a typo which was later fixed). Likely an innocent oversight, but editors may wish to check that edit in case anything else was lost, there appear to be two or three other very short text passages removed. -84user (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I've restored the bit about his return to the US, which I didn't previously have in the sources. Are the New York Times sources accessible to you for checking? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect removal

message: Ok, I came here six weeks ago with a question about spelling. I've ended up rewriting the article, adding from dozens of high-quality sources, mostly ones that were already referenced here but being under-utilised. I've kept almost all of the original postal images which are beautiful and highly significant to the airship. I've added a few more historical shots to give balance as the article is longer now. Perhaps a little too long, but I've tried to move ancillary detail into notes. I've also tried to achieve a balance between technical data and cultural/historical stuff. I reckon it's pretty good, but I'd definitely welcome a critique from other editors who are watching this page. Does the King Kong story belong, even in a footnote? Anyway, thanks to those who started this and who have indulged me in the weeks I've been gathering and reading sources, writing, and editing. I've learned a lot about the subject and I've enjoyed it very much. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished? 

message: I really like www.airships.net as a site and I have read a fair bit of it. While there are very few out-and-out errors in it, it is a hobbyist site written and compiled by Dan Grossman. His sources are listed here. I don't think he has anything very much that we don't have access to ourselves, and it's therefore a tertiary source. I've therefore progressively reduced the article's use of it; from quite a lot it's now down to zero. I'm happy to see this article now pretty much all sourced to what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airships.net as a source 

message: After a request for review I've had a very quick look, it is busting MOS:SANDWICH a lot. It seems well written but too long, it could be split (WP:SPLIT) into child articles detailing the world tours etc. and expanded at the same time (win/win situation). 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Thank you. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am starting to do this work in my sandbox. If anyone strenuously objects, now would be a good moment to let me know. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

text: What do you think? Probably still needs a tidy, but in pronciple? --The Huhsz (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's getting there. Two things I didn't notice yesterday are the keyed diagram in the specs section (as clicking on the image enlarges it and reveals the key code the very long caption is not required) and a video in the 'See also' section (it is general convention not to have any images past the 'specs' section. The image sandwiching is better but there are quite a few displaced section headers (probably different on various display resolutions), it's possible that more images could be trimmed, either moved to the sub-article(s) or sent back to Commons. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

text: You just need to remember if you have copied text from here to your operational article you will need to attribute it back to this article for copyright reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  and . Anything else? --The Huhsz (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick glance 

message: This source gives 13 April 1935, and both Vaeth (1958) p 188 and Dick & Robinson (1985) p 57 give 25 April 1935. Any thoughts? --The Huhsz (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Recife accident