User talk:Cosal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please stop[edit]

You are using a non-RS website to contradict an expert source, and moreover, a source who was writing at the time, and using official German records. I do believe Gröner knew what he was talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not from one single source, but widely reported and agreed that "Weser-1" (not "Weser") was the project name and appeared only in project planning documents, and that the ship itself was never renamed. Gröner is great, but not always 100 % correct or complete. Moreover, the Kriegsmarine already had a ship named "Weser", and according to its naming conventions a carrier would have received a rather more "appropriate" name. --Cosal (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What other sources support your assertion? I have addressed your point about the earlier Weser on the article talk page.
As for the naming conventions, other contemporary conversion projects were given single letter code names (as was standard German Navy practice for new ships) - see for instance German aircraft carrier I (1942) and German aircraft carrier II. Weser seems to be an entirely plausible name for an escort carrier, considering Jade and Elbe. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Parsecboy, but "Jade" and "Elbe" were also mere project codes and not actual ships' names, and as such they conceptually line up nicely with "Weser", all three being major rivers/bays on the German North Sea coast. Yes, the existing tender "Weser" could have been renamed to make room for the proposed carrier, but warships in the Kriegsmarine tended to receive more "martial" names or names recalling a certain naval or military tradition.
As I pointed out before, "Weser-1" (not "Weser") was the project name and appeared only in project planning documents, and the ship itself was never renamed. It was still called "Seydlitz" when it was scuttled in January 1945 in Königsberg.
Not that it matters that much (especially since later publications often contain better information than earlier works), but Gröner, incidentally, was NOT writing “at the time”; his major work on the German warships, Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe: 1815–1945, he compiled after the war; it was published posthumously in 1966.
As to other references, the website also notes that the ship itself was never renamed. See also this:
Greetings, --Cosal (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You do know that Groener's book was first published as Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe: 1815-1936, don't you? Yes, he compiled the updated version after the war, but very obviously he was working contemporaneously, and from the official records. Records that were since destroyed or otherwise lost. Parsecboy (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in that book the carrier projects Seydlitz, Potsdam and Gneisenau were obviously not covered. --Cosal (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Cosal. Your edits to Fritzlar are for the most part really helpful, with two exceptions: removing text without explanation from the "Geography" section, and introducing unsourced content to the "St. Boniface" section. For the geography passage, please discuss your concerns at Talk:Fritzlar before removing the text again. For the second, please see Talk:Donar's Oak#Fritzlar for prior discussion on the matter. If you have a reliable source that supports the information you'd like to add, please include it! Thanks, Ibadibam (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ibadibam: I removed plainly false information from the geography section: Fritzlar is a considerable distance from the Habichtswald and from the Kellerwald. The hills north of the town are the Langenberge, those in the South across the Eder river are the Hessenwald. Regarding Donar's Oak, see the discussion there. Cheers, --Cosal (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm unfamiliar with the geography of the area, so don't know whether the information was right or wrong, but without an edit summary, other editors have no way of understanding your intentions. I beg you to use the edit summary for every edit! Ibadibam (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Cosal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

John J. Pershing[edit]

Please do not remove a single blank line between a file specification and the text that follows. The single line does not render, so the elimination does nothing that the reader sees, but the blank lines makes it much easier to see where the images are when editing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The same goes for two spaces after a period or the end of a ref. The software compensates for the double space, and renders it exactly the same as a single space, but the double spoace makes the text easier to read when editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I used to operate the way you recommend, but found that such blank lines and double empty spaces are usually eliminated by formating sharks. Cheers, --Cosal (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If by "formatting sharks" you mean other editors, they are wrong to do so, and there is no need for you to follow their lead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)