Talk:German battleship Tirpitz

message: There seems to be some confusion over the units and notation.  For example "Length: 253,6 m overall".  Shouldn't this read "2,536 m" (two kilometers long) or should it read "253.6 m"?  There are similar problems else where, for example speed is given as "30,8 knots" rather than "30.8".  Curioulsy the crews complement is listed as "2.608,", in other words just over two and a half men!  But others areas appear correct such as "3 three-blade propellers, 4.70 m ".  This needs sortign out as the article looses credibility.  --ManInStone 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The continental system has now bene changed to the English notation. GraemeLeggett 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Characteristics

message: I have added descriptions (some minor) of various attacks on the Tirpitz. It arguable that these should be described individually in separate articles. Could do this, but some are very minor and being together they show the progression and linkage between the attempts. Or should I expand the major ones into articles? Folks at 137 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British attempts to sink Tirpitz

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.See footnote 
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article.See footnote (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some�?, “a variety/number/majority of�?, “several�?, “a few�?, “many�?, “any�?, and “all�?. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.�?
See footnote
*The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bwhack 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: This:-
"She is also the biggest warship ever built in Europe"
Has been changed and reverted a couple of times; whats the thinking, here?
She was one of a pair, so there can't be much in it; and I thought the Hood and the Littorio's were about the same size, and that Vanguard was bigger (though that page says 48,000 tons, which seems too big). Any thoughts? Xyl 54 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 48,000 t is probably the full load displacement of Vanguard she is described as marginally heavier than Hood but Hood was longer. GraemeLeggett 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked Conway for this; unhelpfully, they don't give a standard displacement for Hood, but full load was 48,360t in 1940; Littorio was 40,724t standard, 45,236t full load. So they're a bit smaller. Vanguard was 44,500t standard, 51,429t full load; so, make of that what you will. A bit bigger when empty, a bit smaller when full. (Conway gives the same displacements as this page for Tirpitz). Xyl 54 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest?

message: I've re-written this section;
This : “On 4 July 1942 Tirpitz and her escorts left port to sail to a new base.�? Is misleading;
And this : “but due to the efficiency of the U-boats and aircraft in dealing with the convoy the sortie was aborted�? is plain wrong.
So I’ve corrected it.
(There is a discussion  here if anyone is interested).
Xyl 54 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosselsprung

message: I've removed the general CN tag.  I don't think it applies as a whole to the article.  I may add individual tags as are required. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CN tag.

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.   With proper referencing and inline citations, this article would easily qualify as B class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

message: Recent edits have imposed US spellings and terms on what is, primarily a British or European topic. I've added the "British English" banner to alert future editors and I'll revert the changes, keeping any substantive new info. No offence intended (note spelling!) Folks at 137 (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British English

message: I added "Verification needed" to two comments in this section.  First, regarding the sentence, "However, a large portion of the bow remains where it sank in 1944."  At least one photo exists that shows the tip of the bow being removed, and can be found (among other photos) at http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/gallery/themes/gallthemetirscrapping.html.  Also, regarding the comment, "the ship's electrical generators were used for a temporary power station", I question whether any of the ship's equipment would have been usable after the attack.  I think these two sentences are rather important, and as such should be verified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tirpitz as scrap - needs verification

message: While I realise that the fanbois need a way to justify this ship's career, I'd be interested to know how many additional RN units were deployed to the NE of the UK because of Tirpitz's existence. Somehow I suspect the answer is rather small. Any ideas for a reference? Greglocock (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For example: Operation Tungsten. Your recent edits regarding removal of the fleet-in-being information (stated by numerous authors btw) is not supported, either in this article or in the Bismarck class article. Would you kindly restore the previous consensus view? Yours truely, a 'fanboi' (please refrain from incivility in the future). Kurfürst (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that is a task force that was raised for a specific mission. A fleet in being succeeds if it locks up units on a continuous basis, otherwise it is merely an intermittent nuisance that you attempt to eliminate when you have spare capacity. So, I repeat, how any additional units were stationed off the NE of the UK specifically to suppress Tirpitz over the long term? A reference would be nice.  Greglocock (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I have to say what your (or my opinion) on the matter is rather irrevelant, as it would be OR, but you seem to wielding a hatchet against the so-called 'fanbois' rather than constructively editing. In any case, I have added the reference to Tirpitz role's as 'fleet-in-being', and hopefully, this is where it ends. Kurfürst (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dunlin and Garzke say nothing about "huge naval and air forces" so this source has been falsified. Dapi89 (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so the clue would be that anything that sounds like fanboi exaggeration (we actually have a different word) probably is. Well, K, you have two choices, if you wish to improve your rep then make sure the refs support the wording you use, or else leave me to clean up your mess. If the latter do not expect to  enjoy the result.Greglocock (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this as well. As can be seen from google books Garzke and Dunlin don't say either. More falsifications! Dapi89 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems this is merely much hair being lost and some undue excitement shown over basically nothing, with the basic statement - Tirpitz's role as a 'fleet in being' - remaining essentially unchanged. Kurfürst (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not kidding anybody Kurfurst. We know what you're about. Dapi89 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dapi89, not sure what you're message above is about, but it is perfectly reasonable to consider the Tirpitz as a 'fleet-in-being'. I have added a reference. Split Decision (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleet in being

message: I'm going to change the sentence, "The main part of the hull (less the decking) is clearly visible".  First, I just looked on Google Earth and a ship's hull is not visible anywhere in the area.  Not only that, but the given coordinates are incorrect; Tirpitz was actually much closer to shore.  At coords 60 38'49.80"N 18 48'26.21"E is a large rectangular shape, which may have been mistaken for the hull.  But it's actually a work platform from the scrapping.  Elsquared (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: APOLOGIES.  Google Earth was apparently experiencing some difficulty tonight.  Inputting the original coords did not send me to the correct spot.  They are correct, but I understand the object at that spot to be a work platform.  Possible corroboration is found at http://www.bobhenneman.info/Tirpitzwreck.htm, where an image shows what's left, but underwater.  I'm going to research this further to hopefully find a definitive answer.  Elsquared (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE.  A forum thread at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=84544 shows a good photo from the surface of this large object, which it indicates is, quote, "The remains of the dock on the photo is just were the Tirpitz was sunk. It was used when they scrap[p]ed the ship after the war."  Elsquared (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: correction re: coordinates of wreck

message: I've removed the link (for the second time!) to a  photoshopped image of Tirpitz, as its hardly encyclopaedic. 
OTOH the website has some useful views, so I've replaced it with another image from the same source.
If anyone wants to replace the original image, perhaps they should say first what on earth the point of it would be. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Faked image

message: To anyone who's interested, I've started a new draft of the article here with the goal of bringing the article eventually to FA. If you want to help with the project, feel free to do so, but only add material if you have a reliable source to back it up. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now moved the draft over to the article space. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Since I know that area of the Norway well I know 100% sure that this  image is Bogen in Ofotfjord in Evenes municipality near Narvik, and not Altafjord. I will give some sources. This source give some more images from Bogen/Ofotfjord: [here]. Better images here, as it provides images from Bogen then and now so it is easy to see this is the same fjord branch with the same hills and mountains. You can se the same image position in the first image as the image used in article. This is not Altafjord, not even close. It is Bogen in Evenes, near Narvik. Orcaborealis (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The image provider (the US Navy archives) captions the image as having been taken in Altafjord. That this is apparently incorrect needs to be supported by a reliable source, not what you know about the area or what either of us can tell from other pictures. One possibility is to contact the Navy archives department with the information you have, which should prompt them to correct the caption. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The link provided, showing Bogen then and now, with and without Tirpitz, is a good source. The article should be as correct as possible, and thus take this into account. If anyone know who to contact in US Navy, then this should be done as well. Orcaborealis (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the links I provided above - those websites are self published sources, which are generally not acceptable, especially for an article being evaluated for Featured status. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from Bogen/Ofotfjord wrongly labelled Altafjord 

message: I am dubious about this: "Many veterans of his unit regard him as having been a convenient scapegoat for his superiors' failures. " Even if referenced, this seems unsuitable for the article. What does the source say? --John (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm away for Christmas, but I should be able to provide you with the exact quotation in a couple of days. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I am familiar with the story, and I accept the truth and verifiability of the statement I quoted. However, I think there is a problem with NPOV here. It is a fact that the Norway-based arm of the Luftwaffe underperformed miserably. Whether it was Ehrler's fault seems to be under debate but I don't think what we have covers the complexity of the situation adequately. Let me also have a look for sources over the next days. --John (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited this section with an online source I found. I hope it is acceptable; it seems more NPOV to me. --John (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks fine to me. Thanks for working on this. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehrler 

message: I reverted a move of this article to Tirpitz (battleship) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) that states "For ships of navies or nations that don't have a standard ship prefix, name the article (Nationality) (type) (Name):" as Germany did not use a prefix in WWII. Courcelles 06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move reverted 

message: Operation Source, second para, second-last line cites historians "Robert Garzke and Robert Dulin" — but Operation Tungsten, second para, first line mentions "William Garzke and Robert Dulin"!
121.44.5.138 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historians 

message: I notice the article states (about the Spitzbergen operation) "in a ruse de guerre, Tirpitz flew a white flag on the approach to the island". I’m pretty sure flying a white flag is not a (legitimate) ruse of war, but an instance of perfidy; does anyone know what Sweetman (the source given) actually says? Did he describe it thus, or is it a piece of spin? But even if it is a direct quote, it is incorrect, and needs amending in some way. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Sweetman  Tirpitz was flying a white ensign, not a white flag. Somebody must have missed the difference. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, the quote is "Late on 7 September, with Tirpitz flying a white ensign as a ruse de guerre, the force reached..." Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh! Well, that clears it up nicely; I dunno where the slip came from; it seem to have been like that for a couple of years now. Anyway, I’ve fixed it in the text. Thanks for the replies, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German battleship Tirpitz. 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/20110611072431/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23512 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=23512
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) 19:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "A Model 30 radar, known as the Hohentwiel, was mounted in 1944 in her topmast, and a Model 213 Würzburg fire-control radar was added on her stern  Flak rangefinders."
According to Erwin F. Sieche this equipment was fitted only to the third AA director, just abaft the mainmast. This Wackeltopf was raised by 2 m for this reason. Not both the after rangefinders received each one, as the text suggests.--Andreas (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FuMO 213 

message: Another excellent source of infrmation worth including in the bibliography and further reading is Daniel Knowles, (2018) Tirpitz: The Life and Death of Germany's Last Great Battleship, Stroud: Fonthill Media. Geordie2405 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018 

message: Can we not agree that units of measurement should be expressed in BOTH English and SI units? I can do the conversions, but many cannot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbxstr (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One wonders where you see units that have not been converted. If you're referring to subsequent uses of a given unit (i.e., the examples of "38 cm" later in the article), those shouldn't be converted every time. Standard practice is to convert on the first use and then not thereafter. Parsecboy (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  English units 

message: Having read this article and Operation Catechism it strikes me that much of the the Commemoration section of Catechism would be better suited to this article. Particularly much of the following information would be worthwhile in this article: 
Is it worth expanding this article slightly with some of this information? Woody (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commemoration 

message: Operation Source - 22.09.1943 - "The ship's two Arado Ar 196 floatplanes were completely destroyed."
Operation Tungsten - 03.04.1944 - " … both Ar 196 floatplanes were destroyed."
If both floatplanes were completely destroyed in Sept. '43, how could they again be completely destroyed in Apr. '44? There's no indication that the planes were replaced; and "completely destroyed" suggests that they were irreparable.
Was the Operation Source paragraph copied and pasted for Operation Tungsten, but not properly modified?
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parsecboy, are you still editing/updating this article? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was more than half a year later; why wouldn't you think the aircraft were replaced? The article isn't explicit because the sources aren't. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  British attacks on Tirpitz 

message: Seems to be mostly of US Artillery in action, perhaps in France.
:Did you watch the first minute and 15 seconds or so? Parsecboy (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsreel? 

message: I feel an actual picture of the Tirpitz is more appropriate for the infobox. I think the following two images should switch places in the article. Thoughts? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason I chose the illustration as the infobox image was because there aren't any particularly good photos of the ship that I'm aware of that are also free to use. Many, like the two you've suggested, are low quality, grainy, low-resolution, or don't compress particularly well; your preferred photo has some particularly bad blurring at both ends of the ship. Bismarck, on the other hand, has some decent photos (like it's current lead image). The illustration is, in my opinion, the least bad of a set of bad options. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: This article claims Tirpitz was the heaviest 'built' battleship in Europe ever.
Obviously this is incorrect, the only internationally recognised rules of measurement at the time were governed by the Washington Naval Treaty. This establishment 'standard displacement'.
By standard displacement Vanguard is the 'heaviest' battleship ever built in Europe.
I'm removing this section. VSTAMPv (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source or stop wasting our time. It really is that simple. Wikipedia doesn't care what you think, we care what reliable sources state. And Garzke & Dulin, both respected naval historians, have made the claim, not me or anyone else here. Parsecboy (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaviest battleship