Talk:SMS Lützow

British English
To the editor who insists on using US English spelling and reverting British spelling:

MOS:TIES (which is part of WP:ENGVAR) explicitly states "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation."

The Lutzow fought the British navy, not the US Navy, killed British sailors, was sunk as a result of British gunfire, and in consequence has recently been quite extensively covered on British TV due to the centenary of Jutland. All that seems to fit the MOS:TIES description above. So instead of reverting two separate editors, perhaps you might care to explain why it's not how ENGVAR works, despite what I've just quoted (both here and in the edit description) from the seemingly relevant part of ENGVAR, namely MOS:TIES. Meanwhile, until I hear such a satisfactory explanation I'm restoring the version that appears to be in conformity with MOS:TIES and consequently also ENGVAR. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See your talk page. That argument was shot down quite a long time ago at FAC and elsewhere. Fighting against a particular English-speaking country is not a "strong national tie" - it's at best a weak national tie. As such, RETAIN carries the day.
 * If you don't like that, you ought to head over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and try to convince the broader community that you are correct; you'll get nowhere here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The first 3 paragraphs of the following discussion first took place on my Talk Page, but are more appropriately held here, so I'm copying them here as I said I would (but that was before I read your latest contribution above - see my surrender to that, in the 4th paragraph, below this copied stuff):

I suggest you actually read the section to which you linked. TIES only applies to topics from a specific English-speaking country. Since German ships are necessarily from Germany, they do not have a strong tie to an English-speaking country. The argument that Ship A only ever fought against English Speaking Country B, so the article on A should use B's variant was shot down a very long time ago. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I not merely read the section, I explicitly quoted it in the edit description, and now in Talk. I had already replied to this in the Talk Page. The relevant rule does NOT say "From" a particular English-speaking country, it says "with a strong link to a particular English-speaking country." And one of the examples it gives is Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English) - I should point out that the institutions of the European Union are NOT 'from' Britain, and they are NOT 'from' Ireland. I have already explained the strong link of this warship to Britain and to Britain's history. On the other hand there is no link whatever to US English and no reason at all why US English should be used in this article, in a way that is likely to unnecessarily annoy British readers.


 * So perhaps you could give us a link to where 'this argument was shot down a long time ago'. It would not surprise me if it was - Wikipedia can usually be relied upon to produce questionable and arguably perverse decisions like that, which are contrary to the plain meaning of its own rules and can be relied upon to annoy and waste the time of yet more editors into quitting Wikipedia, as well as unnecessarily irritating its readers. But even supposing the decision was taken by some properly constituted consensus, I still see no reason why US English is to be preferred to British English in this particular case. Meanwhile I'm copying both your comment and my reply to the article's Talk Page where it belongs, while I ponder whether or not to restore what still seems to me to be the more sensible spelling in this context. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, having read your latest contribution, I guess I'm wasting my time (and yours, sorry about that). I could try to change it back per WP:IAR, but it would just be unnecessary edit-warring in which the Wiki-lawyering REMAIN would eventually win out over what I still see as best for our readers. Assuming your interpretation of the current consensus is correct, and I've no reason to doubt it, then logically the thing to do is to amend MOS:TIES so that it no longer misleads editors like me who foolishly imagine that it means what it says (as well as wasting the time of editors like you who then have to reply), presumably by adding a sentence there saying that ships only fighting a particular English-speaking country don't constitute a 'strong tie' for the purpose of MOS:TIES. But if that were easily added it would probably have already been added, so I expect trying to do that would probably just waste more of my time in an unsuccessful effort to change 'consensus text', so I won't bother. Once again, sorry for wasting your time (and mine).Tlhslobus (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

AFTERTHOUGHT: On reflection, do you think the following might have a chance of getting added to MOS:TIES, or may at least be worth a shot, if only to avoid you having to repeat this argument with other editors in future?

Some examples of what do NOT constitute 'strong ties': -German warship X only ever fought against the British Navy: this does NOT mean that that article on X must be in British English. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A line about ships is unnecessarily specific for a broad guideline like TIES. A better option would be to clarify what "strong national ties" means (i.e., topics from a specific English-speaking country, not topics that are tangentially related).
 * The whole point of that section in the MoS is to prevent edit-warring over spelling variations. TIES is basically a compromise position to prevent, say, an article on a British monarch from using American spellings, or an article on a Canadian city using Australian spellings. The article on Jutland should use British spellings, since it was one of the two participants, but an article about a German ship that was only ever operated by Germany has no such requirement (obviously, a vessel like U-570 does have a strong tie).
 * As for discussions, one that I recall taking part in is here, which started as an extension of the article's FAC. I know it'd been discussed previously, but I don't remember where.
 * Thanks, but there's no need to apologize. Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 1-Thanks for the link.


 * 2-Unfortunately, at least as far as I can see, it gives no indication of any clear consensus back then (June 2013). The last two contributions are by an anonymous contributor giving my point of view, and then by Sturmvogel 66 which begins 'Call me crazy, but...' before giving your point of view, and doing so in a way that ignores the actual wording of MOS:TIES (he bases his argument on the statement that a ship's strongest tie is to its long-term owner, which is true but irrelevant since MOS:TIES says nothing about strongest ties, but merely mentions strong ties to an English-speaking country, and common sense would suggest that being part of the military history of that English-speaking country would seem to be such a strong tie, as argued earlier by his opponent). The two previous contributions are jokes (including one by Sturmvogel 66) that a hypothetical article should be in French English, and Sturmvogel 66's previous contribution the day before expresses the completely different view that it should be whatever the current main editor feels comfortable with. I may perhaps have missed something somewhere, but at least on first and second reading I didn't notice anybody claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that there is some long-established consensus on how to interpret TIES in this context. Incidentally both Sturmvogel and his opponent seemingly 'lost' in the sense that they're both seemingly giving different arguments for American English, and British English wins (for reasons not entirely clear, but seemingly by default and/or what had eventually become convenience and/or exhaustion), so the outcome is not convincing evidence in support of a supposed consensus for either point of view (though it arguably is weak not-particularly-convincing evidence against my point of view).


 * 2b-Your own very sensible contribution there used WP:IAR to argue (rightly in my view, but unsuccessfully) in favor of American English there, again with no mention of any supposed consensus on the TIES interpretation. (Your contribution gets rejected by someone who at least appears to think that British English is 'international English' and thus somehow superior to American English).


 * 2c- The Talk Page to which you linked has a dead link to another discussion, which however can seemingly be found here, but it is very brief and just as inconclusive, and has 'John' briefly saying that maybe the Japanese battleship is linked to its American opponent, and Sturmvogel 66 briefly disagreeing (with little or no justifying argument, and then switching to a different subject), but neither mentioning any supposed consensus on the TIES interpretation.


 * 3-Consequently I cannot try to clarify MOS:TIES on the basis of this supposed consensus on its interpretation without any clear evidence that any such consensus exists, and when my proposed clarification would seem to be contrary to the common sense understanding of the current wording of TIES (as well as tending to disimprove the encyclopedia, contrary to WP:IAR).


 * 3b-Indeed I could use this apparent absence of clear evidence for the alleged consensus on the question as another argument to go back to 'harbour' here (also additionally backed by WP:IAR), but it just doesn't seem worth the effort, so I won't bother. (It might also be unfairly and foolishly 'punishing' you for your kindness in giving me that informative link).


 * 4-Meanwhile, since you clearly feel it should remain in American English, it might help avoid future rows if you put an American English tag at the top of this Talk Page (much like the British English tag at the top of the Talk Page to which you linked). I'm not going to put it there myself since I think American English here is contrary to both MOS:TIES and WP:IAR, but if you stick it up I won't take it down, as I just don't think it worth the effort involved in arguing about it.


 * 5-Regards and all the best. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that the argument that since Musashi only ever engaged American forces, American English should be used was rejected. It therefore follows that simply engaging the forces of a specific English-speaking country does not constitute a "strong national tie". It's been discussed elsewhere, that's just the one I remember and can find.
 * Also, this would be the first non-stub version of the article, and it uses American spellings ("armored", "caliber", etc.) - that's where RETAIN comes into play.
 * A spelling tag might be worthwhile. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture is wrong
Just as a quick note - as the article is article of the day today: the picture is wrong, showing an artist' impression of the Greek battleship Salamis which was built in Germany but never completed - and of which there is a pretty good article here using the very same picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_battleship_Salamis

SMS Lützow looked quite different, see eg here in this Bundesarchiv picture:

https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dev01/barchpic/2014/06-30/16/e9/99/athene-6fy91e1ow8gbr6w07c0_layout.jpg

Perhaps someone could at least delete the picture? Louis E Nolan (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You're quite right - the issue was halfway resolved at Greek battleship Salamis (over a year ago), but I forgot to fix it here. Thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Conning tower armor
The Design section says "The conning tower was protected with 200 mm (7.9 in) of armor plating". The info box says "Conning tower: 300 mm". Which is it? —Naddy (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 300 is correct - thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)