Talk:SMS Schleswig-Holstein

Article name

Why is this article not just titled Schleswig-Holstein? Remy B 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I see. Why not Schleswig-Holstein (battleship) or Schleswig-Holstein (German battleship) then? Remy B 11:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be best titled SMS Schleswig-Holstein, like her sisters SMS Pommern and SMS Hannover are. I suppose the argument for keeping the article as it's titled now is that the Schleswig-Holstein (as well as her sister Schlesien) also served in the Kriegsmarine, so they did not have the SMS prefix (DKM, contrary to popular opinion, was never used), so it isn't entirely correct to name the article SMS Schleswig-Holstein. Parsecboy 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy concerning the ship's armament in 1939

The account of the shelling of Westerplatte in September 1939 mentions 15cm guns. However, the table of armament in 1939 does not mention this caliber. I suppose the table is inexact.

The corresponding Wikipedia page in German says the ship had fourteen 15cm guns in 1939. The Polish version mentions twelve such guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.223.33 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet use

I was surprised to read that the Soviet Navy commissioned Schleswig-Holstein as a battleship — under her original name, no less. Can this be correct? I would have thought she was badly damaged by bombing and scuttling, and would have been raised only for scrap. It just seems unlikely, particularly since she was by then old and obsolete. Sca (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: The German Wiki entry says: Es wurde nach Tallinn geschleppt und dort zum Zielschiff umgebaut — "It was towed to Tallinn and there converted into a target ship." Sca (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Compare to the postwar fate of German cruiser Prinz Eugen. Sca (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Erich Gröner, the ship was broken up in Tallinn. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Schleswig-Holstein/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A few clarifications are needed

   I saw only one clarify tag, does what I added make it clear? Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

   I dunno how good your German is, but there a book dedicated to this ship: Linienschiffe Schleswig-Holstein. Maybe it has some good info on her fate because Nauck quotes several sources as saying that she was scuttled on 21 March '45.

   There are actually several books on this ship (1, 2, 3), but no US library appears to have a copy of them, or at least according to Worldcat anyway.

   As for the scuttling on 21 Mar, Groner mentions that (not sure how I missed that before). Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   There's a copy of Linienschiff Schleswig-Holstein : Flottendienst in drei Marinen at Vanderbilt under 75350253. Gotta check every edition, that's one of the PitA's with OCLC. I won't hold things up at this level, but I'd strongly suggest that you get it before the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Is there a typo in the dates in the second para of the WWI section? The first para of the Interwar years has a bunch of extraneous material on her sisters as well as some clumsy phrasing. Add conversions for the armor in the infobox. Add engine and boiler info to the infobox.

   Yes, it should be 1915, not 16. I added conversions and engine info to the infobox. Does the Interwar section look better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   IMO the infobox for a ship article should be as complete as the class article. I just copy over the latter and adjust for the individual ship. And it does read better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   That's usually what I do too, but I apparently forgot in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (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:

   Any pictures available from WWI, before her rebuilds?

   None that I've seen that could be proved to be PD. All of the Bundesarchiv photos on Commons are Reichsmarine or after. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

You're missing a couple of publisher locations in your refs, but you've got time to fix those.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

It was apparently sunk in 1944 so that makes me wonder how it was scuttled in 1945, or maybe what is meant by scuttled. Was it somehow raised out of the water or was the water so shallow that it simply grounded the ship but not cause it to sink below the water surface. Was it used for anything in between these times if it had been salvageable in some way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the crew just wanted to make sure the wreck was as destroyed as possible. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

January 2014 review

Reading the "World War 2" chapter I found some mistakes:

1. Westerplatte wasn't any "fortress" - this is tipical German interpretation.
2. The battle of Westerplatte ended on September 7, not 8; in my opinion huge mistake.
3. Gotenhaven - what should be explained - was Nazi's name of Gdynia, Polish sea port turned into the safe Kriegsmarine base.
4. Schleswig Holstein was bombed by the allied aircraft at the Bay of Gdańsk, that's why its crew could be send to nearby located Marienburg, and that's why the ship was taken after the war by Soviets.

I believe it will help to improve this featured article. belissarius (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Save for later

Ref for more details on the action at Westerplatte here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SMS Schleswig-Holstein. 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/20121027232117/http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/242302/the_battleship_that_started_world_war_two.html to http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/242302/the_battleship_that_started_world_war_two.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The exact time shelling Westerplatte started

I've changed at to around. I am now improving the battle of Westerplatte article, and sources vary - 0445 is very common, 0447 and 0048 less. I did find a source on this, but it is in Polish and I've only a snippet view, sufficient however to write that "Polish historian Jarosław Tuliszka in his monograph on the battle discusses this discrepancy, noting that 0445 was the planned time of the attack, 0447 was the minute the order to open fire was given by Kleikamp, and 0448 was the minute the guns actually fired.". I think this a bit too much detail here, through if anyone wants to reuse it (maybe as a footnote) go ahead. Proper cite is given in the boW article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I know it's of little importance but I've checked a primary source - the captured War Diaries (German Naval Staff Operations War Diary - 15 Aug to 30 Sept 1939 ) and on 1 September 1939, the very first entry of the day is thus: "0545 - Report from Commanding Admiral, Baltic: The SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN carried out surprise fire; assault detachment broke into the Westerplatte and is fighting there". I think the time difference is based on GMT, not local time - so 0445 would be accurate.DarkLight753 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLight753 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)