Talk:SMS Seydlitz

message: About the ship's motto: From my understanding, as native german speaker with only a minor understanding of English, "AlleN voran" should be translated as "ahead of all". Not as "all ahead" which to me seams to be a suitable translation of "AlleS voran". So my point is about the difference between "Allen" and "Alles". 
86.56.43.209 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Allen voran" is an idiomatic German phrase, perhaps it should be translated at an English idiomatic phrase such as "First in line" or "First of all"? Xatsmann (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I can only second the statement made here - "Allen voran" indeed expresses a location in front of anybody else. The suggested "First in line" would be a great fit if this was a ship of the line, which I think it is not and I also fear that "First in line" might be interpreted as pretence which the German phrase does not contain. I does not claim to come first but simply states the readiness or fact that the ship would be a leader. "All ahead" would be a completely wrong interpretation/translation. JB. --92.193.146.62 (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto

message: I have several books on German warships of the period, including Staff's German Battlecruisers: 1914–1918, and Gröner's excellent German Warships: 1815–1945, and they all treat the ship as its own design. Seydlitz was some 20 meters longer than Moltke, some 3,000 tonnes heavier,  and had an entirely different propulsion system. Of course Seydlitz is a design that improved on the Moltke design, just as Moltke was an improvement over the Von der Tann design, but stating that Seydlitz was a "modified Moltke class battlecruiser" is overstating the relationship. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique or modified Moltke class? 

message: Is there a reason "Kaiser" is italicised? I'd have thought this was a common enough word in English writing that we could leave it as normal... Shimgray | talk | 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose so. I wasn't sure when I did it, but I guess you're right. I'll remove the italics. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style note 

message: Just a thought, but the sailor Wilhelm Heidkamp is credited with saving Seydlitz at Dogger Bank. I think this should be mentioned (with a link) in the article. Is he the executive officer mentioned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the story, but I haven't actually seen it in any of the sources I have, which is why I didn't include it. Wilhelm was a Maat (the equivalent of a petty officer) at the time, so he was not the executive officer mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Staff's book mentions him, so I'll add a line for him. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wilhelm Heidkamp]] 

message: I removed these from the article; overuse of words like this without real thought as to their meaning is a pet hate of mine. I hope you agree the article has lost nothing as a result and may read a little easier now. --John (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me, although I'm fairly sure I know what the word means. Thanks for your edits. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome. Here's a neat resource if you haven't already seen it.--John (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 "However"s 

message: Rightfully one of the best wikipedia's article. Greetings to all.
:Thanks, I really appreciate that. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Great work

message: I've made a tiny change to the end of the Jutland sections, changing the fragment "Seydlitz herself fired 376 main battery shells, but only scored approximately 10 hits" to "Seydlitz herself fired 376 main battery shells and scored approximately 10 hits"  The first version implies that Seydlitz's gunnery was of a poor standard, whereas actually she was one of the better shooting ships during the battlecruiser action.  Her overall performance of about 2.7% is not spectacular by any means, but the hit a raio of 3-5% was the norm using period fire control and some of the fighting was carried out in very unfavourable visability conditions.  I think in this case the original version misrepresents the situation and we should allow the facts to speak for themelves. Getztashida (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiny change regarding Gunnery