Talk:SMS Gneisenau

Gneisenau, Chile, etc.
Here a transcription of User:Parsecboy's messages in my talk page:


 * ''Hello Keysanger. Please stop adding the "continental" bit to the SMS Gneisenau article. No one would reasonably think "the coast of Chile" refers to Easter Island; it would be like assuming that "the east coast of the United States" might somehow refer to Puerto Rico. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy,

the Easter Island is part of Chile, so, the "bit" continental coasts of Chile is an appropiate hint for the reader that the ships were all the time navegating between Chilean territorial waters and not Puerto Rico or the United States. I reinsert the "bit" and hope you give some good reasons for a revert. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 12:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrase "coast of Chile" unambiguously refers to the mainland. If Easter Island was the intended location, one would say "the coast of Easter Island". When referring to a state, the mainland (as opposed to outlying territories) is assumed to be the subject. "Continental" is needless verbage and should not clutter up the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, I have posted this request for wider input. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we have just been reading about Easter Island, the qualifier continental is justified. Dankarl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "After a week off Easter Island, the ships departed for Chile." possibly ambiguous? Do you honestly think anyone would think this means the ships left Easter Island and...headed to Easter Island"? Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that most readers aren't going to know that Chile owns Easter Island, I see no need to add "continental".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding "continental" in this context is poor writing. While I don't think you need to qualify coast, "mainland" would be much preferred to "continental". —Diiscool (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not "After a week off Easter Island, the ships departed for Chile" is ambiguous is a moot point, but I find it positively misleading as it strongly implies that Easter Island and Chile are different countries. Given that, as Sturmvogel says, most (or at least many) readers don't know of the territorial connection, a qualifier assists understanding. In English, like Diiscool, I much prefer "mainland" ("continental" sounds like a translation from Spanish) - "the Chilean mainland" would be my preference. Davidships (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A ship can sail from Helgoland (Germany) to Hamburg (Germany) or she can sail from Helgoland (Germany) to Rotterdam (Netherlands). In the first case you can't say "the ship departed for Germany" because the ship is in Germany.

The issue is, if the ships departed for Chile, in which country were they moored until its depart?. Parsecboy, Sturmvogel 66, can you answer this question?.

I replaced continental with Chilean mainland. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 09:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying the same thing twice three times over
...........here in the lede...............

The ship was laid down in 1904 at the AG Weser dockyard in Bremen, launched in June 1906, and completed in March 1908, at a cost of over 19 million goldmarks. She was armed with a main battery of eight 21 cm guns, had a top speed of 23.6 kn, and displaced 12985 MT at full combat load.

........here in "Construction"............

Gneisenau was laid down at the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen, Germany in 1904, under construction number 144. She was launched on 14 June 1906, and commissioned into the fleet nearly two years on 6 March 1908. The ship cost the German government 19,243,000 goldmarks. The ship had been designed for service with the High Seas Fleet, though they were found to be too weak for service with the battle fleet; instead they were deployed overseas, a role in which they performed well.

Gneisenau was 144.6 m long overall, and had a beam of 21.6 m, a draft of 8.4 m. The ship displaced 11616 MT standard, and 12985 MT at full load. Gneisenau's crew consisted of 38 officers and 726 enlisted men. The ship was powered by coal-fired triple expansion engines that provided a top speed of 23.6 kn

Gneisenau's primary armament consisted of eight 21 cm (8.2 inch) SK L/40 guns, four in twin gun turrets, one fore and one aft of the main superstructure, and the remaining four were mounted in single wing turrets. Secondary armament included six 15 cm (5.9 inch) SK L/40 guns in MPL casemates, and eighteen 8.8 cm (3.45 inch) guns mounted in casemates. She was also equipped with four 44 cm submerged torpedo tubes. One was mounted in the bow, one on each broadside, and the fourth was placed in the stern.

I would suggest to shorten the story. Should I do it?. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 11:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you shouldn't. Obviously, the introduction should summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. The infobox should also be expressed in prose to explain the figures for non experts. Please leave writing these articles to those who actually know how to write them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it is enough to say two times that The ship was laid down in 1904 at the AG Weser dockyard in Bremen, launched in June 1906, and completed in March 1908, at a cost of over 19 million goldmarks. She was armed with a main battery of eight 21-centimeter (8.3 in) guns, had a top speed of 23.6 knots (43.7 km/h; 27.2 mph), and displaced 12,985 metric tons (12,780 long tons; 14,314 short tons) at full combat load.. This information is given already (twice) in the infobox and the "Construction", except the price that is given only in "Construction". Therefore I would delete this part of the Lede. What do you think?.
 * Regarding "to explain the figures for non experts", I dont see any differences between the lede, text of the article and the infobox.
 * I don't respond Ad hominem arguments. Please, focus on the issue at discussion. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the lead should summarize the entire article, per WP:LEAD. Do yourself some good and read it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you unconditionally want to repeat that the ship was so long I would suggest to create a with something like and the ship was 144.6 m (474 ft) long. Then, you could insert it in every section and subsection of the article! so many times as you like it!. That were my 2 cents for your article. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 13:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, if you want to tell me how to write articles about warships, I would suggest you come back after you've written a few dozen FAs. Until that time, how about you defer to the editorial judgement of those of us who have that level of experience? Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)