Talk:List of Zeppelins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated CL-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CL This article has been rated as CL-Class on the quality assessment scale.


LZ69 and LZ11 are described as being 'halled in'. Is this a misspelling of 'hauled'? Given that a zeppelin was basically a balloon on a rope, it makes sense that one could have been hauled in. However, if they were stored in 'halls' it is also conceivable that this is a specialist term meaning 'put in its hall'. If the latter, perhaps we could do with an explanation of the term in the article? If the former, we need to correct the spelling. Brequinda 07:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The latter is right, to hall in is a jargon term. I am, however, not sure how commonly it was used in English, wheras the German analogue "einhallen" is frequently found even in recent publications on the subject. I will add a short note at the first occurence in the table. – J.Rohrer 15:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone did a lot of work on this list, but some of the information is wrong. For an early example, the cause given for the loss of L 2 was given as "exploding engine" when Dr. Robinson considered the cause was due to explosion of hydrogen drawn from the interior of the ship.

Can as there are NO sources provided, can anyone explain the origins of this listing?Mark Lincoln 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Article/List Credibility[edit]

This is an interesting and informative list but there doesn't seem to have been any further comment as to where the information is coming from. There is at least one potentially fairly defamatory comment, (which I've highlighted), needing citation; otherwise I'd suggest it should be removed. (Of course if its true and verifiably so, then it should stay). I'm no expert in this field but in terms of the list's overall verifiability, there would seem to be some serious questions. I'm hoping that these can be resolved with a bit of referencing and citation, from those in the know. Scoop100 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are sources for the King Stephen incitend:

- Andromedos —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Should these be identified as "LZ X" or "LZX" (or "LZ-X")? Both are in use across various WP articles - a choice should be made and consistently applied. Drutt (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


What is LZF? LZF currently redirects to List of Zeppelins, which currently never mentions "LZF". To satisfy the WP:R#PLA guideline, either this article should have at least a brief mention of LZF, or if LZF really has nothing to do with Zeppelins, LZF should be re-directed to some other usage of the term "LZF", such as TuxOnIce. --DavidCary (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC) This article is titled "List of Zeppelins". Do the new vehicles not qualify as zeppelins? Seems this article is inadequate in that it is not covering the complete list of zeppelins, regardless of what business concern technically built the zeppelin and in what era. Fiertek (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)fiertek


My father has a rather gruesome stereo photograph of the impression made by Kapitän Leutnant Heinrich Mathy's body when it hit the ground. Just thought you might like to know.Petebutt (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright text[edit]

Some of the article appears to have been copied from which is copyrighted, we may have to remove the text or rewrite so as not to cause a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I can certainly see striking similarities: the entry for LZ8 is identical to the wiki version before I did a copyedit on it (it was not as described in my source, which gives a fairly long and involved account). It is possible that they've swiped it from wikipedia, though. What gives you particular concern? I'm happy to copyedit.TheLongTone (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Smoking gun. The two accounts of L 6 are pretty conclusive, not simply because they are very similar in phrasing but because they have the same basic error: the attack was not repelled. (I've rewritten it) & will look further later, but it's bedtime.TheLongTone (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The Puget Sound Airship pages are copyrighted 2007, but both the above examples have been in the WP article since it was started, which was in 2004. They have an appeal for more informtion at the top of at least one page, suggesting tha they are not sitting on a substantial reference library. Both suggest to me that there isn't any copyright issue.TheLongTone (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Understood, I agree it could have been copied the other way, with the tweaks from your sources I dont think we have a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks....sometimes it's quite difficult to find a paraphrase for the simply factual entries.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)