Talk:Blohm+Voss

message: So far, no response from B+V on when they adopted the + versus the &. Anyone have any insight? -Joseph (Talk) 03:26, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
:: Their logo has Blohm+Voss, without spaces, and & is the accepted way of abbreviating ‘and’ in text, both in German and English, so either way the current page title is wrong. 89.49.98.233 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  & versus + 

message: I would like to replace this page with a little introduction about the history of the company and its branches, then move on to two different pages: Blohm & Voss as shipbuilders versus Hamburger Flugzeugbau/Blohm&Voss aircraft from 1933 to 1945, Possibly with a third link to Hamburger Flugzeugbau as a production site since 1955
:mmmm! is that really necessary? I don't think you have built a case for persuading people that that is the way to go.Petebutt (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a new discussion here about which aircraft to discuss in this article and which at Hamburger Flugzeugbau. (sorry, only just noticed this thread). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blohm & Voss shipyards versus Blohm & Voss aircraft World War II 

message: I’ve removed this </br>
"The company's name is often found spelled Blohm + Voß in German (and occasionally English) sources" </br>
I have never seen the eszett used in the name in any English language source; all the standard reference works (Janes, Conway etc) use "Voss", as do English editions of German works (like Niestle). </br> 
And there is nothing at the note, or the company website, or the german WP articles on the company, or on Voss himself, to  support the statement that it is correct in German, either. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use the German Wikipedia, or any other language Wikipedia, as a reliable guide. His autobiography is titled Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben: Lebenserinnerungen und Lebensarbeit des Mitbegründers der Schiffswerft von Blohm und Voß (Memoirs of my life: Memoirs and life work of the co-founder of the shipyard of Blohm and Voss) and names him as Ernst Voß. I have seen both forms on different company source documents, it's not so much a correctness thing as a fashion thing (as is the typographical choice of "und", "&" or "+"). On the English Wikipedia, "Voss" is the more appropriate and the choice of "und", "&" or "+" should follow common usage too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

text: (Update) The eszett (scharfes ess) sometimes appears in old advertisements and other related material, and it is not always obvious at first sight that the caption is not in English and the character is not a stylised "B". It also exists in the titles of several redirect pages to one article or another. So I think it useful to disambiguate it in the article and I have restored it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  VoB? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blohm + Voss. 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/20090423004151/http://bundesrecht.juris.de/begdv_6/anlage_6.html to http://bundesrecht.juris.de/begdv_6/anlage_6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020618002000/http://www.blohmvoss.com:80/e/info/presse_02042002_2.html to http://www.blohmvoss.com/e/info/presse_02042002_2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020406124618/http://www.blohmvoss.com:80/d/info/presse_02042002_2.html to http://www.blohmvoss.com/d/info/presse_02042002_2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the article title be Blohm + Voss as at present or Blohm+Voss as per the company logo and commonly used, e.g. ? Is there some arcane Wiki law that says we must insert spaces? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The condensed form Blohm+Voss is used on the company web site and is the most widely used elsewhere, so that means we should use it here. I have moved the article accordingly. If anybody disagrees, please give your reasons here and agree a consensus before reverting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I have started a discussion here about which aircraft to discuss in this article and which at Hamburger Flugzeugbau. All contributions welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  B&V vs Hamburger Flugzeugbau 

message: The B+V web site includes offshore installations in their current product line. This is well cited in the article and should not be removed without forming a consensus here first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offshore work 

message: ;Facilities
As of 2017 the shipyard consists basically in an area of approx. 421,300 m², a Quay length of approx. 2,100 m , Covered manufacturing facilities of approx. 92,000 m² with those Dry docks:
1. Dock 17 : Length: 351.2 m, Breadth: 59.2 m, Draft: 09.7 m, For ships up to: 320,000 dwt, Crane capacity: 2 × 10 t, 2 × 50 t 
2. Dock 10 : Length: 287.5 m, Breadth: 44.3 m, Draft: 10.2 m, For ships up to: 130,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 50,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 15 t, 2 × 35 t 
3. Dock 11 : Length: 320.0 m, Breadth: 52.0 m, Draft: 10.8 m, For ships up to: 250,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 65,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 10 t, 2 × 35 t 
4. Dock 16 : Length: 206.0 m, Breadth: 32.0 m, Draft: 09.5 m, For ships up to: 032,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 20,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 15 t, 1 × 50 t 
5. Dock 06 : Length: 162.5 m, Breadth: 24.5 m, Draft: 08.0 m, For ships up to: 018,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 09,000 t, No Crane capacity 
6. Dock 05 : Length: 160.0 m, Breadth: 28.0 m, Draft: 08.0 m, For ships up to: 018,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 09,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 5 t 
	
7. Dock 12 : Length: 143.0 m, Breadth: 25.0 m, Draft: 08.0 m, For ships up to: 016,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 06,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 15 t, 2 × 35 t 
--user: 188.96.57.201.
:That is taken right from their website; Wikipedia is not a webhost.  If this were DUE there would be independent sources discussing it. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so sure of your facts, then it should be easy for you to verify them with citations from reliable sources, per WP:RS. Yes, that blue text is a link that I have given you to follow, read and understand. If you are not prepared to do that, you should not attempt to edit this encyclopedia. Until then, it is against the English Wikipedia policy to post unverified information, sorry. The eszett is being discussed in a different thread above this one. Sie sollen nicht vergessen auch, dass eingie Englische Menschen Deutsch haben, dass ist vielleicht ein venig besser als euer schreckliches Englisch. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read daily more newspapers before writing or, reverting facts of others, from theme you really do not know. And it is not constructive destructing an article created and studied precisely by me. --188.96.57.201 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  shipyard details 

message: User:92.76.27.83 you keep adding content conflating things related to the MKS180 and the K130.  These are two entirely different projects.  You are also trying to bury the fact that the German government eliminated Lürssen and  ThyssenKruppfrom the the MKS180 contract, apparently based on their poor performance on the F125.  This is absolutely unacceptable.  In any case please reply to my inquiry on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. I confess I was misled by the conflation, I'll take more care in future. But I do think that much of the detail being added is too low-level and transient to be useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some more of the story in this diff.  Conflicted editors tend to leave out the bad stuff. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Conflict + conflation = confabulation. But I am struggling to see any relevance to an encyclopaedic article about B&V. Had B+V been guilty of poor workmanship? Is their bid still under consideration? Given the company's long, busy and sometimes turbulent commercial history, is any of the tale really that significant to it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: yes there were problems with B+V's work on the K130 contract (the ships actually listed!).   I agree that keeping things NOTNEWS is important. Generally am happy to see detail trimmed. the contract for the MKS125 is still being figured out (with the exception of thyssen/luerssen being barred from bidding, which is a done thing and rocked the german shipbuilding world. i reckon that would be like lockheed martin being barred from bidding on a new warplane here in the US).  that is very much a developing story. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflated contracts