Talk:SMS Weissenburg

GA review

NIce article. There were some clarity points in the text, which I fixed. It's not going to hold up the GA, but for the next stage, you'll need to explain what it was the Ottoman ship did that caused Russia to declare war, etc. Also, the use of "notes" in the lead is very distracting, so if it's important enough to include, include it, otherwise, consider saving the note until later in the text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not A Dreadnought

This vessel is listed as a Dreadnought, though it clearly isn't. I don't know how to fix this, but she should not be listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.230.253 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in this article, it isn't; it clearly says "pre-dreadnought", which is what this ship was. Now, if it's being called a dreadnought in other articles, they need to be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On the "List of Battleships of Japan" page, she is the first vessel listed under the heading "Dreadnoughts". She is also listed as a WWI war prize, as she is; I suspect that whoever put the list together assumed that all capital warships taken at the end of WWI were Dreadnoughts, and included her under that heading for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.230.253 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I suspected it was on another article, I just didn't know where. I removed her (and Nassau and Oldenburg as well), as she actually was never transferred to Japan, I don't know why someone thought that. And even if she had been, including her on the list implies that the Japanese got some service from the ships, which is certainly not the case, quite unlike the Russian ships captured in 1905. Thanks for bringing this up so I could fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Preserved turrets of Turgut Reis

Two of the ship turrets are preserved - the only Europian predreadnought turrets preserved. I have discussed it thoroughly with Parsecboy in Brandeburg class page. I have sent him the photos. But my edit was reverted by him. Is it necessary to specify the source, when I describe buildings which EXISTS and everybody can see them personally or at the satelite map or at the hundreds photos all over the Internet?

Yes, you need a source. Please see WP:V. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

We were talking about the facts before. I would think reversion is the last option. You could send me the message or write "citation needed". However, can I ask you (or anybody else) for a favor? I am not so familiar with the formating tags of Wiki. Could the reversion be canceled and the source added (in a right manner): "Forrest, Michael (2012). The Defence of Dardanelles. Barnsley: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-78159-052-2" "page 218". Thanks :-)

This is a Featured Article, and material should not be added to it without a source (that applies to other articles as well, but it's more important for highly-rated articles to be maintained properly). I have restored the material with the source you provided - thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)