Talk:SMS Nassau

message: The three sisterships of Nassau were named after Prussian provinces: Rheinland, Westfalen, Posen; ergo, we can be boldly presumptuous that SMS Nassau as the lead ship was named after a region or province rather than a very small town.  Nassau is shown as a Prussian province or sub-province of Hessen-Nassau in Hammond’s Historical Atlas (today the Nassau region straddles areas of the modern German federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hessen [e.g., in National Geographic Atlas of the World]).  Further, suggest reinsertion of the previous infobox image of Nassau at Wilhelmshaven despite implied "questionable copyright status." This postcard is almost a century old; the Czech, German and Spanish language wikis are sufficiently certain of its status to use it.–Gamahler (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are both bad reasons to use an image; yes, most probably the postcard was published before 1923 (seeing as the ship was scrapped in 1920, and the Germans didn't want a reminder of their defeat and a ship that was no more). Our inclusion policies limit our content to that which is verifiable, not necessarily what is true. We'd need a publisher and publication date to use it in this article. The tag that's currently on the article is also probably wrong; the photo was most likely taken by a private firm, which falls under different copyright restrictions in the US than those taken by individuals (i.e., 120 years for unpublished works and 95 years for published works). Therefore, we'd need to know when it was published to know if it meets the 95-year rule. And as for what other wikis are doing, that's totally irrelevant. That they're using an image that violates our image use policy doesn't make it alright for us to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Parsec, you torpedoed my suggestion.  There seems to be a lot of wiki-lawyering over an old postcard.  As you pointed out, Nassau was transformed into Dutch or English nails; the photographer is dead; the printer no longer exists; the intellectual property was probably assumed by some public entity of the victorious allied powers via the Treaty of Versailles – and we fret over all this in 2009?  Go ahead, for heaven’s sake, put the blasted postcard where you had it before to make your good article a better one with an image of the ship.–Gamahler (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been through the image reviewing process at FACs more than 10 times now, and I know the objections that postcard would raise. It's precisely the reason that image isn't in Nassau class battleship, which is an FA. Yes, I personally think worrying about whether an image over 90 years old is still under copyright is not really worth our time, but Wikipedia still has policies governing the issue, and we have to abide by them. Parsecboy (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: According to the German Wikipedia the ships of the Nassau-class had 6 torpedo tubes, not 5. 1-1 each in the bow and in the rear and 4 on broadside (2-2 on each side obviously). This data might be right, because the austro-hungarian naval calendar ("Das Jahr 1913") mentions also 6 tubes (pages 351 and 526). --Andreas P 15 (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, that must've been a typo, as the text had it right. Thanks for finding that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I read it later on. In the text it was written the right way. Andreas P 15 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torpedo tubes