Talk:German battleship Gneisenau

Rewrite

Just to note to those who might be watching this page, I'm working on a complete rewrite here, similar to the recent overhaul I did for Scharnhorst. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've since moved the new draft over. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German battleship Gneisenau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Give it another go-over; I found several typos.

   I looked it over again, and nothing showed up in Firefox. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

   I caught two typos on my first reading, but I'm not noticing any now.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Are any of the commanding officers really notable on their own? Otherwise work this section into the main text. There's a good account of the action with Glorious online by Howland. See that article for the link.

   It doesn't appear to be the case (at least since they don't have articles), though this was the solution that made MisterBee happy. The problem with working it into the text is uncertainty over specific dates. For instance, did Rudolf Peters (who took command in "February '42") command the ship during Cerberus or did he take command after the ship reached Germany? I'd wager the latter, but the source doesn't give specifics. It's also not clear what was going on during the overlap in Otto Fein's and Peters' tenures as commander.

   I added a bit from the article, but I've got a question. In your Glorious article, you have two different citations, one to page 61 and the other to 51. I figured it was a typo, but the online article doesn't give a page number. I guessed that you meant 61, as there are two citations to that page - is that right? Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

   I deleted the page # from your cite from Howland. I used the paper copy and should probably delete the page #s as well since I gave a web link. I'd delete whatever you cannot cleanly add to the text and we can fight about it with MisterBee at the ACR. If they weren't notable then I don't think he's got much of a leg to stand on. Overlapping commands usually means somebody was sick or on leave, but I'd not put that into the article without confirmation. Almost forgot, where are the armor stats? And be sure to cite them in the infobox or add a descriptive para with cites.

   Alright, I've split the first three COs into the text and dropped the last two, as it's difficult to place them with only the month they took over. Armor added as well, nice catch. Parsecboy (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   Be sure to add the armor cites to Scharnhorst as well if you haven't done so already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Lots of jargon needs to be linked, but that's not an issue here. Convert 22 knots. What corvette was sunk? Link Seetakt radar. What's AP? Are the British ships measured in GRT or long tons? I suspect the former.

   22kn converted, Seetakt is linked in the Weserubung section. As for the corvette, Garzke & Dulin, don't give a name. AP is armor-piercing, already explained on the first instance. Good call on the GRT - Garzke & Dulin don't say, but I'm certain its GRT. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

   Added a bit from Rohwer about the 8 June engagement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for finding that. Parsecboy (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gdynia/Gotenhafen

I recently took the liberty to set something straight and changed the Nazi name of Gdynia to its' official name. However, as the name of Gotenhafen is sometimes copied from Nazi sources to post-war English language books, I believe a mention of the Nazi name in brackets might also be informative. However, User:Parsecboy insists that we only use Nazi name as it was officially Gotenhafen at the time.

I believe this really doesn't matter. From the Allied point of view (and international law, and post-war arrangements), the occupations by Nazi Germany were considered illegal, hence the term "occupied France" rather than "Germany (former French territories)" or something similar. The same applies to occupied Poland. Whether the Nazis renamed Gdynia to Gotenhafen or not does not really matter, as one cannot argue that it was official.

But legality set aside, using Gotenhafen in this context is absurd. Would you use German names for occupied parts of France as well? If we applied the same rules in other cases, we'd have to call Channel Islands Kanalinseln and use German names for towns in Russia or Yugoslavia. Yet I see no such motion in English Wikipedia. Which means it wouldn't be consistent to apply it here. Or is there something I'm missing here? //Halibutt 01:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

English sources regularly use "Gotenhafen" rather than Gdynia for the port during the war. I don't know that any of the sources used in the article prefer Gdynia; for instance, Conways states "...the ship was towed to Gotenhafen (Gdynia)..." Williamson does as well: "under her own power, to Gotenhafen..." (see here). M.J. Whitley's Battleships of World War II also uses Gotenhafen (see here). These are but a few. The principle of least surprise is valid here (which is to say that people who have done some reading on the ship are likely to have seen the place of her sinking as Gotenhafen).

As to the Allied perspective (aren't we supposed to be NPOV?), that's irrelevant. If the article should have any perspective, it should be the German one, as it was their ship. Gdynia makes no reference to the supposed illegality of the name "Gotenhafen," just that it was the German name of the city during the war.

Lastly, it was the official name during the war. The Germans did rename the city, whether you or Churchill think it was legal or not. Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems even more sources use Gdynia, and especially those published in recent years. Compare Google Books hits: 720 vs. 327. So it seems that (per WP:NAME) we should stick with the majority of sources, as the name of Gdynia seems to be prevalent in relation to Gneisenau's past. What's more, many of those books do not even mention the Nazi name (NB the traditional German name of the town is Gdingen, Gotenhafen was used only by the Nazi administration). Robert Jackson's 101 Great Warships (2010), German Capital Ships and Raiders in World War II by Eric Grove (2002), War at Sea by Nathan Miller (1995) and so on.

Also in the case of other WWII-related topics double naming seems to be a common standard. Gdynia/Gotenhafen, Gotenhafen (Gdynia), Gdynia (Gotenhafen) and so on. Google it if you don't believe me.

That's why my proposal is to include both names. This seems like a pretty decent compromise, don't you think? I don't understand why you insist on reverting to a version that essentially reflects only one POV instead of both. Nazi POV was that the town was named Gotenhafen and was in Germany. The ROTW pretty much considered it part of occupied Poland. Some sources use one name, some use the other, why not mention both? So far you failed to provide any explanation why both names cannot be mentioned in the article when it is clear that both are in use in English language books on the topic (sometimes together, sometimes exclusively). Last but not least, you mentioned the Gdansk/Danzig compromise in your revert rationale. If so, then let's stick with that compromise here. In the case of Gdansk, the solution was to use both names, if memory serves me, in the form of Gdansk (Danzig), or the other way around, depending on historical context.

Following your suggestion I'm being bold and adding both names back, along with a source. If you insist I can add more books that mention the ship was towed to Gdynia rather than Gotenhafen. Though I believe it wouldn't really be worth our time and effort to quarrel over it. If the inclusion of both names of that city really bothers you - please leave a comment on my talk page. //Halibutt 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Gneissau misspelling

Some references to this ship on the internet use the name "Gneissau" - presumably an error multiplied through copying. Could someone set up a redirect on Wikipedia, so people searching for the Gneissau can find the Gneisenau. Thanks. 79.71.72.211 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible typo "Helgoland"

In the last paragraph of the Operation Cerberus section, there is a reference to "Helgoland." When you click the link, the article on "Heligoland" comes up. Also, there are references to Heligoland in other Wiki articles, for example, Largest Non-Nuclear Explosions. This may be simply a language difference. I am not qualified to resolve it. Fred4570 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Helgoland is the German spelling (see for instance SMS Helgoland, and since this article is on a German topic, I thought it was appropriate to use the local spelling (per the Danzig/Gdansk dispute, among others). Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm surprised this isn't here. G (gut minus the t) nei (ny as in Nyquil, the cold medicine) sen (sent minus the t) au (Ow! That hurts!) You pronounce the Gn as two syllables but let them "flow together." I have found a lot of people have no idea how to pronounce it or they think they do and are wrong. Traumatic (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)