Talk:SMS König

message: I've expanded the article somewhat, I figure it rates at least a start class now. Carabaopower 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start Class

message: *"On commissioning she carried a crew of 41 officers and 1,095 enlisted men.": I don't remembering seeing this in the Construction section in other articles. - Dank (push to talk)
:I can go through the others and add that info in. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the face of it, it doesn't sound like it's about construction, although I have no real objection to putting it in that section if that's what people do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I apparently don't do that normally, so do you think it'd be better to remove it in this case? I did write this article going on a year ago, and the way I format things has changed somewhat in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No preference.  It wouldn't be out of place in Service. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move it there tomorrow sometime (or you can if you like). Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: For a while I was sticking to using eszetts, but lately I've decided that we shouldn't because they won't be widely used in English publications (hence why I moved Grosser Kurfuerst and a few other articles the other day). I just didn't go through the articles and update the links yet. Parsecboy (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Unfortunately (especially since the article is featured today) the first line is wrong. When I first read it, I knew it did not make sense. Although Wilhelm was also King of Prussia, he would not be "honored" with "König" since he was also Kaiser. A rough translation from the German Wikipedia is, "It was named in honor of the dignity of the monarchical ruler of the Kingdom of Württemberg." This is also more in line with the other ships in the class.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-sailor (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The German wiki article is completely unsourced, however, which does not permit a change here. If you have a source for the namesake of the ship, we could change it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of name. 

message: Is written:Along with the other wrecks of Scapa Flow, she has been declared a World Heritage Site with strict regulations as regards to any interference.[45] But I can't find in the World Heritage Sites list anything about it, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/gb .--Demostene119 (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to tell you, apart from that the paragraph was added here, sourced to the book by Rod McDonald. Unfortunately, the book cannot be previewed in Google Books, so the claim can't be verified easily. I can't find any other references to Scapa being a UNESCO site, which leads me to believe McDonald conflated Scapa with the neolithic UNESCO site on Orkney. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about it, maybe the restriction of access on the Orkney site affected also the wreck site of König and this led to this error. In any case, there is no clue of whatever present or proposed world heritage site status of the wrecks of the german ships.Demostene119 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

text: PS Soon I'll be ready with Italian version of this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demostene119 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heritage Site? 

message: The section concerning the damage suffered by the ship during the battle of Jutland does not match the sources.
Tarrant's book does not say on p188 or anywhere else that a shell "shoved the belt armour back". Nor can this be referenced to Campbell's fine book on the battle either. The description of the magazine fire does not appear in either book either. I seem to recall that Tarrant makes the point that the ship had lost relatively few crewmen killed or wounded, was capable of maintaining the squadron speed and had all the main armament still firing. 
Tarrant's description can be verified by reference to Campbell's analysis of the fighting so can we please revise the entry so that it does match to Tarrant's book. Thanks Revisionist99Revisionist99 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, it was the armored bulkhead that was hit and shoved in, not the main belt - good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I didn't check Campbell last night, but I'm guessing that Tarrant read a bit too much into the damage. I didn't have Campbell when I wrote the majority of this article, and that is something of a problem. This and a few other early articles should probably be redone with Campbell. But yes, you're right, Tarrant's comment on the ship's fighting ability should be added - I don't know why I didn't include it initially. And nice to meet you as well, I'm glad at least one person is reading what I write :) I'm guessing you know about WP:OMT - we'd always love to have another member if you're interested in helping. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I had lost track of this in the last few days. I looked at Campbell, and he says (on page 190) "The fastenings at the outer end of the armour bulkhead gave way, and the latter was driven 4 1/4ft aft." The drawing of the hit on page 186 is unclear, so it's hard to tell exactly how much of the bulkhead was pushed in. I did track down the line from Tarrant about the fighting efficiency of the ship, and added that, along with the specific casualty figures (König actually suffered the highest casualties from any of the surviving battleships, and was surpassed only by Lützow, Derfflinger, and Seydlitz). Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jutland damage

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SMS König. 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/20120817040012/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Internment_at_Scapa_Flow.svg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Internment_at_Scapa_Flow.svg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501030004/http://www.scapamap.org/wrecks/konig.php to http://scapamap.org/wrecks/konig.php
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) 09:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the lede the article says it was commissioned on 9 august 1914, whereas in the info box it says 10 august 1914 Which is it? Wandavianempire (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioning date