Talk:German cruiser Admiral Graf Spee

message: I question whether the title should be changed.  Graf Spee was not a 'battleship'.  She was an 'Armored Ship' or 'Panzerschiff', not a 'battleship'.
:By most english speaking countries she was referred to as a "pocket-battleship" because of here battleship size guns on a cruiser size hull. Wandavianempire (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a propaganda term, not a ship type. Also, please don't necro threads from 2005. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is simply a question, please don't take it as hostile in any way.
"Many German veterans do not approve of this restoration attempt, as they consider the wreck to be a war grave"
Is this true? Since Graf Spee was scuttled after the battle presumably it does not hold any bodies? Mucky Duck 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Grave 

message: I've failed this WP:GAC nomination because the article has no line citations.  Please review similar good articles and resubmit when ready.  In other respects this looks like it would qualify for good article status. Durova 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA with invitation to renominate 

message: :Image:Admiral Graf Spee Cruising.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Cruising.jpg

message: :Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Yes
:2. Factually accurate?: Yes
:3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
:4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
:5. Article stability? Yes
:6. Images?: Fair-use with correct rationale and public domain
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thank you very much. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: :Image:Graf spee.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Graf spee.JPG

message: The article refers to a recovered "gunnery range-finding telemeter". Is this an accurate description? What I see appears to me to be a range-finder itself, with the wings spanning the "base" of the rangefinder. I don't see what it has to do with telemetry. But maybe that is my ignorance. - N'Awlins Contrarian  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.230.2 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error re rangefinder? 

message: ...possibly in order to prove he had not acted out of fear for his own life. The fact that he wrapped himself in the Imperial flag before shooting himself may have been a mute admission that he had not fought in the tradition and spirit of the proud commander whose name his ship bore.
It is unclear why his use of the imperial flag gives the implication stated. This should be clarified, but it is not within my sphere. 
Best wishes,
Leonard G. (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear statement 

message: This must have been asked before but I can't find it: why is this article at German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee rather than Admiral Graf Spee (battleship) or something similar? Would seem to fit the naming conventions more. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Naming conventions (ships). All ship articles follow this format. Benea (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But we should look for a better name, the term "pocket battleship" was just a nickname given by the Brits. All others referred to them as armored or heavy cruiser. --Denniss (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, "Do not make up a ship prefix for a navy that did not use one" - I see now, but if what Denniss says has merit should we change it to battleship? --S.G.(GH) ping! 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you post a note at Wikiproject Ships if you are looking for input on this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is one of those situations where you will get people arguing for different classifications based on different facts and points of view.  The Germans actually never called this ship a "heavy cruiser" as the reclassification of the Deutschland class vessels did not occur until after the AGS was scuttled.  I like the term "Panzerschiffe" or "armoured ship" and some have pointed out that this ship shares a certain niche with the older class of armoured cruiser.  I preferred the term "pocket battleship" because despite it being something of a nickname it did allow this unique class to stand out from all other cruisers, which were armed with 6- or 8-inch guns.  The Alaska class, built years later, is the only "cruiser" to have larger guns to my knowledge, and many people including myself feel that the Alaskas were really battlecruisers due to their role as cruiser-killers.  the_paccagnellan (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Panzerschiffe were built as substututes for retiring pre-dreadnaught German battleships (check the Ersatz-namen). They were not battleships (eg, their armor was not proof against main guns of their own size). They were designed to out-gun any contemporary heavy cruiser, out-run all but a few ships that were better armed (HMS Hood, Repulse and Reknown), and were designed for long operating range as high seas raiders. They were a unique class of ship, not just cruisers. The term "pocket battleship" was used widely in the press of the 1930s and 1940s thus has historic notability. They are Panzerschiffe, a unique class of warship. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The ship was an over-armed cruiser, which the Germans themselves noted when they changed the ships' designation. As to the implication that Panzerschiff translates as pocket-battleship, I have no idea what you're talking about. The sentence reads "originally termed Panzerschiff or armoured ship", which is exactly what Panzerschiff means in English. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a quick fix done by me after the comment here, it's not ideal through. Maybe there's a better wording we could use in the class article and in the individual ship articles, covering Panzerschiff, heavy cruiser and the british nicknaming. --Denniss (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "cruiser" is ok, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships_from_navies_without_ship_prefixes: "Type - Do not be over-specific about the ship type: Japanese aircraft carrier Shōhō not Japanese light aircraft carrier Shōhō". First, the type of the Deutschland-class was "Panzerschiff" (armoured ship) and later "Schwerer Kreuzer" (heavy cruiser); that wording issue may also be caused by the Versailles treaty (using the French word cuirassé = amoured ship). Comparing battleships, battlecruisers, and cruisers the Admiral Graf Spree had the function of a cruiser, meaning cruising alone in long range missions and disturbing inferior ships while fleeing from superior gunned ships. --Gunnar (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: The following section is unreferenced, so I am moving it to the talk page until references are found:
Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Crew internment

message: Since 'German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee' redirects here, and "pocket battleship" was (and is) commonly used, (Per WP:BOLD) I added: "(... sometimes referred to as pocket battleship)..." (Even National Geographic uses that term).
Objections? Comments? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pocket Battleship 

message: Shouldn't there be a See also: section for related items?  For example, there's a National Geographic Special' on the Graf Spee: (on Hulu) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be 'External links' instead? Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: 

message: I added year to first instance of date per section.  Otherwise, reader must hunt for the year; often readers start from a section heading, without reading preceding sections, etc., and there should be a year associated with the first instance of a date.  Although this seems reasonable (to me, at least), I don't know if this is in accordance with WP's style guidelines. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 

message: There are several references though out the document of the Graf Spee 'steaming' from one point to another. The Graf Spee, unlike the three HMS ships against her was a Diesel, as such she didn't steam anywhere. I feel those words should be removed or perhaps an alternate word should be used to prevent confusion. Thoughts? Rjhawkin (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. I usually write about earlier warships, and was in the habit of referring to their movement as "steaming". I've removed all of those references in the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct term would have been motoring but I suspect that 'steaming' may have been used by the British side when referring to the Graf Spee's transits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steaming.... 

message: If you can use it, there's a great public domain (PD-Canada after 1949) photo here: http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/2118 - 216.58.86.215 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about Canadian copyright law, but when did it enter the public domain in Canada? Also, there's nothing that I can see on the image description page (the short or long form) that indicates that the photo is PD in Canada. Maybe there's a general disclaimer I couldn't find? Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Ok, here's another question. Was it PD in 1996? The URAA came into effect in 1996, and if the photo was already PD in Canada, it will be PD in the US as well (which matters because the Wikipedia servers are in the US). If not, the copyright would have been automatically extended in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

text: All Canadian photographs created before 1949 were subject to copyright for only 50 years after creation, so it became public domain in 1989. When Bill C-32: An Act to Amend the Copyright Act came into effect on January 1, 1999, photographs whose copyright already had expired remained in the public domain. - 216.58.86.215 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me then. I've uploaded the image and placed it in the article. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  scuttling photo 

message: The article talks of the ships “kitchens”, surely these should be called "galleys"?
194.176.105.141 (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's what the source says. Well, you can't expect anything else of a landlubber, can you? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitchens? 

message: there's an interesting story on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-30471063 that a massive bronze eagle ontop a swastika has been recovered and the debate about what should be done with it. Seems like the section on salvage is a bit out of date is anyone is still watching this article. Flagpolewiki (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does indeed mention the eagle crest (the last sentence in the article). Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 tonne Bronze Eagle with swastika  

message: The A.G.Spee was improved, as M.J.Whitley stated in his book (1989). As we can see even in dislacement increase, the belt was made of 100 mm steel. Some part of the decks were up to 70 mm, the barbettes were 125 mm since A.Scheer. The 105 mm guns were since beginning there, and with the proper 105 mm mounts (the Deutchland started with 3x88 mm, the Scheer had 6x105 mm but with 88 mm mounts adapted to the new task). Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.245.89 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: armour

message: Just found out that "graf" means "count". I am reading the article "Maximilian von Spee" and there is little mention of him having been royalty in his lifetime. It states that he was "Vice Admiral" and "Reichsgraf" which also translates as "count" or "count of the reich" -of the empire- so I'm not sure if he was posthumously awarded the rank of full Admiral and Count. At any rate, why is the "Reich" part omitted in the name of the ship? I mean why not "Vice Admiral Reichgraf Von Spee"? Perhaps a reader who speaks German Could clarify this.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Spee was born a count, the "Reich" part indicates that the family had been elevated by the Holy Roman Emperor. After 18067 there was no diffference to other counts. The "von/v.", which indicates nobility, is usually omitted when there is a noble title before it (Otto von Bismarck/Fürst Bismarck). Any admiral is addressed as "Herr Admiral", the other bits ("Konter-" or "Vize-") are omitted. So "Admiral Graf Spee" is the correct (short) name. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The Battle of the River Plate article mentions the call sign DTGS, would these have been Graf Spees Code Letters? Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was Graf Spee's international call-sign, the initial 'D' signifying a German ship ('Deutschland'). British ships' initial letter was a 'G'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Call sign

message: My recent edit to improve the accuracy of this article was reverted because "German guns are given in cm, not mm, see basically any relevant publication". Verifiability is laudable but in the truth v verification debate even JW has commented (Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52 UTC 1 September 2011) that editors shouldn't publish untruths, even if there are many independent citations to support the assertion. If more precise values are available, should we continue to display the imprecise ones simply to ensure consistency with one person's perception of third party published material? Astronomy Explained (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recent edit was completely unsourced - you provided no source to show that the 28 cm SK C/28 had a calibre of 283 mm rather than 280 mm or that the 15 cm SK C/28 had a calibre of 149 mm rather than 150 mm. In addition referring to a gun as an 88 mm is no more accurate than 8.8 cm.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no so much accuracy as those are the guns' proper names, irrespective of their actual bore diameter. The gun is a "15 cm SK C/28", not a "149 mm SK C/28". The nominal diameters of most small arm calibers are slightly (or significantly) different from their bore diameters, but that doesn't make an M1911 chambered in .451 ACP any more than Graf Spee was armed with six 283 mm SK C/28s. Parsecboy (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please don't necro old threads. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The article 28 cm SK C/28 naval gun gives the calibre as 283mm. I was informed a long time ago that we don't source internal material if the page is hyperlinked. The point regarding the names of the weapons is acknowledged, but I can't see why the actual calibres should be obscured. Astronomy Explained (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we use the proper name. As does just about every publication on these ships. That level of detail is useful in infoboxes in articles on the guns themselves, but it is irrelevant in other articles. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun caliber

message: "Scuttling" Section
"After arriving in port, the wounded crewmen were taken to local hospitals and the dead were buried with full military honours."
It's a ship at sea taking refuge in a foreign port.  One assumes the dead were buried on land, but possibly not. It would be an interesting addition if this detail could be added, at least to the extent that it rules-out burial at sea (if that did not happen).Tym Whittier (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Burial at sea is only done in deep water - otherwise bodies would wash ashore. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is to get the Article to say this.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it something that really needs to be said though? A ship can't very well bury its dead at sea if it doesn't go to sea. Parsecboy (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

text: No it isn't needed.. The statement is perfectly clear as it is. The ship was in port,,and the dead were buried.. Meters (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Buried dead" Where? 

message: The article would benefit from a consolidated list of the ships captured and/or sunk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of prizes, ships captured and sunk. 

message: In the introduction, the following sentence is completely incidental to the main subject, it ambiguous as to who reclassified it and requires a citation. It should therefore be removed, (or, perhaps moved to the Deutschland-class page, if a citation is available.)
:: The two sister-ships of her class, Deutschland and Admiral Scheer, were reclassified as heavy cruisers in 1940.
83.100.188.53 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidental introduction 

message: While reading this article and that of the Battle of the River Plate, I've noticed the two contradict each other. The Battle of the River Plate claims that 9 groups were formed by the Royal and French Navy to hunt down the Admiral Graf Spee, whereas this page claims that 8 were formed.
I am unaware of which is more accurate, so thought i should bring it to the attention of people who might now better.
Apologies if I've done something wrong, please bring it to my attention if i have.
SomePersons (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That page does not appear to have a citation; this one is covered by Rohwer, who is a well-regarded naval historian. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Contradiction with Battle of the River Plate