Talk:List of Zeppelins

Untitled
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
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: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9804EED7173AE433A25750C0A9659C946696D6CF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/02_february/15/io_airraids.shtml

- Andromedos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.97.5 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Style
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)

LZF
What is LZF? LZF currently redirects to List of Zeppelins, which currently never mentions "LZF". To satisfy the WP:R 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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin_NT 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

LZ72
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
Some of the article appears to have been copied from http://www.pugetairship.org 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)

Suggestion for a new section
How about a "Popular culture" section?

I know many of these airships appeared in film -- either as background / establishing shot or as main part of the story.

For example, LZ 36 was fictitiously used in the 1971 movie Zeppelin.

Or would this be considered "too trivial"?

Just curious. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just remembered another "appearance" -- postage stamps. Especially the three highly collectible Graf Zeppelin airmail postage stamps issued in 1930 by the USPS.

I know Zeppelins have appeared on numerous stamps; so, instead of getting too dragged down in really trivial info. listing/mentioning all those appearances, I think a sentence that acknowledges their numerous appearances would suffice along with a very brief coverage of the more well-known postage stamp issues -- like my Graf Zeppelin example.

And there probably other 'places' where Zeppelins made appearances or were used or mentioned -- like in books, comics, radio programs, advertising (especially in travel posters), etc. And these could be as general or specific as need be.

Just an idea. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Zeppelins. 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/20081112071329/http://www.onesuffolk.co.uk/ThebertonPC/History/ to http://www.onesuffolk.co.uk/ThebertonPC/History/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703212224/http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Geschichte/MMAG/MMAG_Zeppelin/Alltag/alltag.htm to http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Geschichte/MMAG/MMAG_Zeppelin/Alltag/alltag.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

LZ 31
This airship links to LZ 72, which is a completely different airship of a different type. I can't figure out how to change it. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply knock out the link.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

some info
"An experiment that might have afforded a greater defensive capability had taken place on 26 January 1917. The airship Zeppelin LZ-80 L-35 took off with an Albatros D.III fighter suspended beneath it, which was successfully dropped from a height of some 1.200 meters and flew safely away."