View source for Talk:Tegetthoff-class battleship

{{Old peer review|archive = 1}}

{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=16:09, 6 October 2010
|action1link=Talk:Tegetthoff class battleship/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=389122845

|action2=GTC
|action2date=03:27, 6 December 2010
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive1
|action2result=promoted

|ftname=Battleships of Austria-Hungary

|currentstatus=GA
|topic=war
|action3 = WAR
|action3date = 07:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
|action3link = Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tegetthoff-class battleship
|action3result = not approved
|action3oldid = 867807653
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
{{WikiProject Ships}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|A-Class=fail|Maritime=yes|OMT=1|Balkan=yes|WWI=yes}}
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=low}}
}}

==Naming==
Is it certain that the name of this class was ''Viribus Unitis''? Some reliably-looking sources I found ([http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyAustrian.htm 1] or [http://www.stile.coventry.ac.uk/cbs/staff/beech/ahnavy/index.htm 2]) call it ''Tegetthoff'' instead. -- [[User:Sandius|Sandius]] 18:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The german wikipedia says that the "SMS Viribus Unitis" was the first of the ships what was finished, so the class was named after it...[[Special:Contributions/213.47.166.181|213.47.166.181]] ([[User talk:213.47.166.181|talk]]) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

:It's pretty standard to name a ship after the first of the class, and if the dates here are correct, ''Viribus Unitis'' is the first. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 21:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::It may be a standard, but there always are exceptions. For example [http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/5294/constr.html this page], which is dedicated to ''Tegetthoff'' class, says: "SMS Viribus Unitis, the first ship of the Tegetthoff class, was launched on June 24th 1911."

::I doubt all these pages are wrong. Given the fact, that it is ''common'' to name the class after its first ship, I'd rather expect them to follow this rule, unless they had some facts that are opposing it. And it seems to me they really have them. -- [[User:Sandius|Sandius]] 23:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::They can very well be wrong; in the process of our research we often find material, especially on the net, that is well informed on some things and poorly on others. In this case I find it curious that the departure from custom is not remarked upon, which means it's possible that these websites are copying somebody else's mistake - or not. I would recommend chasing down a more authoritative source, preferably in print and with an explanation, before fooling around with this name; although everything is fixable, it takes time to undo a hasty move turns out to be mistaken (I should know, I've made hundreds of that sort of mistake! :-) ). [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's Tegethoff. I'll quote a book about the A-H navy: "The name of the class is ''Tegethoff'', because the first unit was meant to be named like that, but Franz Joseph I wanted to name the first ship after his motto (lat. ''Viribus Unitis''). Anyway, the class name remained as ''Tegethoff''.

check: [http://www.kuk-kriegsmarine.at/] and [http://people.freenet.de/kriegsmarine/basis.htm] 

--[[User:TheFEARgod|TheFEARgod]] 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

: That seems to resolve the naming issue. I don't see a reason why the page shouldn't be renamed now. But perhaps you should also give us the title of the book you've quoted. -- [[User:Sandius|Sandius]] 18:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

: Dario Petrović: ''The history of the K.u.k. kriegsmarine''--[[User:TheFEARgod|TheFEARgod]] 20:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:: Thanks! I'll wait a week and then move the page, if there is no opposition. -- [[User:Sandius|Sandius]] 14:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

::: OK by me. Be sure to mention the naming oddity in the article (I didn't see it on a cursory reading), and cite the book in the references too. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: Done. -- [[User:Sandius|Sandius]] 20:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

== Vırıbus Unıtıs  Yugoslavıa ==

It ıs saıd that the shıp wıtch was gıven to the new foundet SHS state was allready gıven to the SHS state and was actualy allready renamed Yugoslavıa when ıt was hıt.

==Design Flaws==
The Article alludes to significant Design flaws in the class, but then does not elaborate upon them.  Could anyone bulk this out a bit as I'd always understood the Tegetthoffs to be a good design, built much too slowly... 

Also, perhaps some of the historical background could be shifted into the Individual ships entries...  [[User:Getztashida|Getztashida]] 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding the designer  Siegfried Popper ==

Hello everyone, 
regarding  Siegfried Popper: it's not really true that he designed the ship, because it has been done from an italian engeneer Giorgio Napoli. I know because was my grandma's father. *** DrSoul, 23 Sept 2009

{{Talk:Tegetthoff class battleship/GA1}}

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Tegetthoff-class battleship]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=704433344 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090805101618/http://www.hicon.pl:80/~pothkan/hhwn/AH-Maj.html to http://www.hicon.pl/~pothkan/hhwn/AH-Maj.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070624142613/http://www.marina.difesa.it:80/storia/movm/parte04/movm419.asp to http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/movm/parte04/movm419.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070624142358/http://www.marina.difesa.it:80/storia/movm/parte04/movm416.asp to http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/movm/parte04/movm416.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 15:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

== ?&mdash;Krone → krone&mdash;? ==

A recent edit did the above exchange. I am unsure whether this is correct, should be {{nowrap|rather → Kr.,}} or possibly {{nowrap|even → Kronen.}} That is, I am unsure about "krone" being an official currency unit. The ''name'' of the currency is to my knowledge the "Krone" with plural "Kronen". I never saw in any historical document the use of "krone". The use of "Volts" and "Amperes" is quite common, <s>if</s> even when deprecated. Any specialists out there? <small><small> correction 07:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)</small></small>[[User:Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy]] ([[User talk:Purgy Purgatorio|talk]]) 16:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
:This is a good question. I thought krone was the appropriate use of the word in the context that is being used in this article but the points you brought up are good ones.—[[user:White Shadows|<span style="color:#003153">'''White Shadows'''</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<span style="color:#DC143C">'''New and improved!'''</span>]]</sup>
::Thanks for the appreciation! I found [[:de:Österreichische Krone|this]], but would not bet on the clerical detail at stake here: there are abbreviations "K" and "kr", both '''without''' a&nbsp;".", and only the first in '''caps''', and the pics describe ''one'' coin as, e.g., "5 Kronen" (even when there are no 5 coins, each worth 1&nbsp;K, cf. "Volts"). My predominant optical remembrance of old documents is the "Kr.". Sorry for not being a decisive support. [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy]] ([[User talk:Purgy Purgatorio|talk]]) 07:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
::One point to remember is that German nouns are capitalized.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
:::I suppose that means whichever rout we take, the “K” will be capitalized.—[[user:White Shadows|<span style="color:#003153">'''White Shadows'''</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<span style="color:#DC143C">'''New and improved!'''</span>]]</sup>

== My thoughts on overlinking ==

Triggered by the last edits, and not really always sure about boon or burden of specific WP-rules, I want to ask, whether an article of this here length ''can'' be overlinked at all. I think that some word being marked up is not a remarkable barrier in reading, and imagining the "mouse-over"-effects, being available also to users not logged in in future versions, is to me a promising vision of enhanced reading experience, especially when skimming over a small section. As longs as there are no annoying PR-pop-ups, links are fine with me. Just my 2cents. [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy]] ([[User talk:Purgy Purgatorio|talk]]) 06:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
:*This is actually a very good question. I personally think things like the Armistice in November 1918 should absolutely be linked at the end of the article in the section that talks about it, regardless of where else it may be linked or not. But [[WP:MOS]] still takes precedence over personal preference.--[[user:White Shadows|<b style="color:#003153">White Shadows</b>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<b style="color:#DC143C">Let’s Talk</b>]]</sup> 19:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your personal thought and for taking mine into consideration. I keep hoping for WP:IAR to outweigh the burdens of WP:MOS, at least sometimes. Cheers, [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy]] ([[User talk:Purgy Purgatorio|talk]]) 09:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)