Talk:Colditz Castle

message: Not to make mountains out of molehills here but is the part about Göring's title in the intro blob even relevant? It seems like a complete tangent to the rest of the information there. I could understand the rank showing some kind of maybe authority when he said what he said, but he was in charge of Luftwaffe operations.
: I agree it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant (and he does have his own page).  Cjrother 18:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant for 1 reason... Colditz was technically a Luftwaffe prison, as such Goering was the top most person in charge of Colditz. The title was included to show the guy basically responsible for everything to do with Germany's prison system was the one making the obviously false claim.  ALKIVAR™ 02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermann Göring's Title

message: Needs more:
* Colditz as Mental Institution
* Prisoner population changes 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945
Still to add:
* Section on the Nazi guards in command
*: I just added a partial list of the German staff at Colditz!
*:: rather sloppily though, it has since been spun off and cleaned up.  ALKIVAR™ 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Still to do:

message: Not to nitpick, but "deutschfeindlich" is an adjective in German, so "Anti-Germans" is a wrong translation. Besides, from the view of a native speaker, it just doesn't "sound right". Alternatives would be "deutschlandfeindlich", which would mean something like "enemy of the state", or "volksfeindlich", which was used heavily in Nazi propaganda and can be translated as "treasonous against the people". That would also be corresponding to the national socialist ideal of the "Volk", the people as a group, as opposed to the individual.
But again, that's just nitpicking from the native speakers ;)
:I understand where your coming from, as a non native speaker of German, I am forced to rely on other translations for my terminology. Both Reinhold Eggars and Henry Chancellor's books use the term "Deutschfeindlich" with the translation of "anti-German". Volksfeindlich seems the most likely replacement candidate based on Nazi propaganda as you mentioned. I was hoping someone who was a native German speaker would help clear this up :) thanks! I will make the changes later today.  ALKIVAR™ 09:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "deutschfeindlich" 

message: The Parker Bros. game I have had since I was a kid (devised by Pat Reid) has the following playing pieces:
:Black: German
:Red: British
:Blue: American
:Orange: Dutch
:Brown: French
:Green: Polish
Although not in the escapee list, were any US prisoners held there at any time, or was it simply an understandable marketing ploy of the game's manufacturer? Dainamo 11:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American captives? 

message: The article uses the terms liberation, liberated, etc. several times. Given that Dresden was always a German city, wouldn't capture, captured, etc. be more appropriate?
NB. I'd retain it in cases such as liberating the prison though.
Crebbin 17:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ''Liberation'' 

message: excellently done.  simple, easy to read and space-efficient.  and borders only when needed to divide data.  69.241.225.95 23:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glider table 

message: Other than that 1 reported death, was there any other deaths in the castle?
:Caused deaths? or deaths of natural causes? I'm doing research on this currently, so it will eventually be added, problem is different sources conflict, so it might be a while.  ALKIVAR™ 03:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths? 

message: This table is huge, perhaps someone has a better way we can work this in?  ALKIVAR™ 13:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should we work this data in a less obtrusive way? 

message: The article as it is currently is in blatant violation of several wikipedia policies, including WP:SP and WP:NPOV.  First, the subsections need to changed from slash titles to proper titles, as that form is deprecated (and has been since before they were created).  Second, a "suggested reading" list is inappropriate, as it is not wikipedia's place to suggest things or make recommendations, so it should be moved to "List of books about Colditz Castle" or something similarly neutral.  Third, the references section is a mess, and could use a good cleanup.  The text seems fine, but we shouldn't have blatant, easily correctible violations of basic wikipedia standards in a featured article.  I'd just go and fix it, but last time I tried, my changes were reverted without comment. Night Gyr 08:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I note that in the FAC nomination for this article, the sole oppose was based on the fair use photos. Does the current status of at least 4-5 fair use photos and diagrams, apparently mostly from the same source, cause a problem in anyone else's mind? -- nae'blis (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure issues 

message: This is an excellent article in every respect, but it's a bit obscure for the (very small) 0.5 version.  I've moved the listing to the held nominations page, where it will be considered for inclusion in one of the later releases. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that its obscure... several television shows, many many books, and several well recieved movies would counter the "bit obscure" part... not to mention it is a likely candidate for most famous of the Nazi prisons (not counting concetration camps) only prison to give it a run fame wise is Stalag Luft III.  ALKIVAR™ 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Obscure my eye! - It's the most famous POW camp in the world. Jooler 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V0.5]] review 

message: This article is growing to the point where it is becoming a daunting read. The part of the article that describes the different escape attempts is self-contained. I suggest that this part of the article be moved to an article of its own titled "Colditz Castle escape attempts". Cowpriest2 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colditz Castle escape attempts 

message: Within Category:World War II POW camps there is a growing body of articles about Oflags and Stalags.
I propose to split this excellent article into its two logical parts:
* Colditz Castle - description and history.
* Oflag IV-C - during WW II
possibly there should be a third article about the excape attempts as suggested above.
Syrenab 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per you comment at WP:MILHIST, I would support splitting the article into two, possibly three parts. As you suggest, a pre-WWII article and a WWII article. Escapes could probably remain in the Oflag IV-C article, although as someone mentioned above, the whole thing has become rather daunting, and a three-way split might be necessary. Carom 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split the article into two sparate articles
* Colditz, which includes Colditz Castle
* Oflag 4c, the whole of the present article about Oflag IV-C including the escapes. This should be renamed Oflag IV-C, but I have not been successful in opening it under this title - it always redirects back to Colditz Castle.
If this change is approved then the present article Colditz Castle  may be deleted and the bew article Oflag 4c moved to the correct name "Oflag IV-C"
I believe that this is the best solution. It fits in with the present organization of Wikipedia for all other Oflags and Stalags, and articles about places.
Syrenab 16:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been no further comment. Split has been completed into two separate articles:
* Colditz, includes history of Castle
* Oflag IV-C, includes stories of escapes.
Syrenab 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joelr31 has reverted to the original article, without any discussion (he never participated in any of the original discussion). If he objects to the way that I split the article, I suggest that he  suggest how to do it better, and not just revert.  Syrenab 16:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there has been significant discussion at WP:FAR, and Joelito's revert reflects the consensus at FAR as well as the MilHist group, which never supported the split to begin with.  Please see the FAR link at the top of this talk page.  Sandy (Talk) 18:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split of article

message: This section below is contradictory. Does anyone know which bit is correct?
"Pat Reid claims in Colditz: The Full Story that there were 31 "home runs". It should be noted that he includes prisoners from the hospital and prisoners being transported, who were not directly under Colditz staff control. Henry Chancellor in Colditz: The Definitive History claims 32 escaped but only 15 were "home runs": 1 Belgian, 11 British, 7 Dutch, 12 French and 1 Polish. The difference is that Reid claims any successful escape by an "official" Colditz POW a "home run" where most other historians only consider escapes from the castle or castle grounds itself as a "home run". Also a subject of debate is whether or not Millar's escape should be considered a "home run", but since he is listed MIA (unofficially he is assumed deceased), Chancellor does not count him as such."
-*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be contradictory?!?!? It quite clearly states why there is a discrepancy between the two counts!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statement 

message: There is a reference to the SS in the first paragraph. However, I read the Reid book and he indicates the camp was run by the Wehrmacht. Is this a contradiction or is there other historical data on this?--Silverscreen 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to SS in first paragraph 

message: Hi, I noticed several articles relating to Colditz castle and so have created a template to bring them together. At present it only includes the main articles e.g. castle, list of staff, escape attempts etc. However feel free to expand the template to include key people or other similar/related articles. LordHarris 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Colditz Castle. 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://archive.is/20041023211609/http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/besondere.htm to http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/besondere.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20040413092546/http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/historie.htm to http://www.schlosscolditz.com/Englisch/historie.htm
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) 10:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently describes in words many changes to the building over the centuries. These are pretty vague/confusing. Relevant illustrations (drawings/photos) would be helpful.-73.61.15.226 (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  illustrations needed 

message: Yesterday I reverted these edits: , which were made in March by an obvious IP sockpuppet, in evasion of a block, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc. - I have been going through their edit histories and doing cleanup.
The edits to this article added an extra level of subheaders, creating a "History" section and moving three of the four existing main sections under it. My revert was undone today by : , with the explanation "does seem to be a better structure". I'd like to suggest reverting again back to the version of the structure prior to the sockpuppetry, for the following reasons:
* I don't think the change is an improvement. The present article structure is simple. It's already obvious enough what the sections refer to, i.e. "Original castle", "Periods of reconstruction", and "Use as a POW camp". I don't think putting them under an extra level of indentation to indicate they are "history", as opposed to the one other section "Present", adds to the organization or understanding of the article at this time. More importantly, on the mobile phone version of Wikipedia, second-level subheaders are hidden in the table of contents, leaving only "History" and "Present", which is less useful than the previous version. It would be preferable to have all four descriptive sections listed in the table of contents as before.
* This blocked user has disrupted literally thousands of articles with superfluous additions of "History", and edit-warring over them, and contines to do so. Reinstating and approving their edits as being "useful" may encourage them to continue their disruption. While editors may reinstate the edits of blocked users, if they take responsibility for the edits, they should take into account the rationale explained in WP:BMB, and consider whether the value of the particular edit they are reinstating outweighs the overall damage to Wikipedia by allowing or encouraging the blocked/banned user to edit.
I hope that makes sense... --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings structure 

message: American war correspondent Lee Carson was assigned to the task force that liberated the Castle on April 16, 1945. It was then she took the only photograph of the "cock" glider in the attic. I have updated this information to now read correctly with sources and image. Thanks you. Maineartists (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Carson