Talk:Helgoland-class battleship

German Dreadnoughts???
Hey, "Dreadnought" was a British class of warships. How can a German vessel be member of the Dreadnought class while sailing under the German flag? 93.104.40.40 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From the first sentence of the dreadnought article:
 * The dreadnought was the predominant type of 20th-century battleship. The first of the kind, the Royal Navy's Dreadnought had such an impact when launched in 1906 that battleships built after her were referred to as 'dreadnoughts', and earlier battleships became known as pre-dreadnoughts.
 * Dreadnought can refer to more than just the British class of warships, but the new pattern of battleship design that many nations followed copying it.--86.129.7.162 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 86.129.7.162, you are right. Thanks for the help! — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations
Similar articles (St Vincent-class battleship, HMS Neptune (1909), Colossus-class battleship (1910), Nassau-class battleship, etc...) do not have "An illustration of ..." in the images. In fact, I don't remember seeing any article where images are captioned "An illustration of ..." (besides this one). It is my opinion that it's unecessary (readers aren't that dumb, come on) and just verbose. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Some readers are viewing these articles on mobile devices with small screens, and it may not be readily apparent that the images in question are illustrations, not actual photos. There are plenty of articles that describe illustrations like this one does - SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II comes to mind. Thankfully, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Kaiser-class battleship, König-class_battleship, Ruggiero di Lauria-class ironclad, SMS Erzherzog Albrecht, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're sadly wrong again. (link corrected below) shows that the first picture is not an illustration but an actual photography. The second image is not just a random illustration but a drawing by the RN, so it would be better identified (if it's necessary to) as such, like here. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Check that link, it's just to the empty search page. In any event, if it is a photograph, it's so heavily retouched it might as well be an illustration. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it's just a reproduction of an old photograph and the quality isn't exceptional (that's what the German text says). Try http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1497365456/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=1 (copy the whole link, somehow it doesn't display correctly because of the [] in it). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's very heavily retouched - the original is this one: http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/1497365456/1497365995/_1497366002/?search[view]=detail&search[focus]=36 . Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Both images I see (http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/1497365456/1497365995/_1497366002/, nos. 2 and 3) look similar enough - if you wish, do put the "original" one in the article, but it still is a picture, which is something that doesn't require being pointed out to the reader (we agree it's not an illustration/drawing). I will change the caption of the other one so that it fits what is shown, like at Nassau-class_battleship#Battle_of_Jutland (it's a drawing by the RN). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)