Talk:LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin

Date formatting (M/D/Y vs D/M/Y) in this article

When this article was created in March, 2004, the format correctly selected was M/D/Y and that was retained (as per WP:MOS guidelines 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.1.4) for almost FOUR years until it was arbitrarily changed to D/M/Y on January 28, 2008 without that either being noted in edit summary or the opening of a section here to discuss it. I eventually restored the original formatting last October and it remained that way for ten months without complaint until three days ago when it was again arbitrarily reverted to D/M/Y without any discussion in here.

With respect to retaining original and/or existing date formatting (§2.4.1.4) WP:MOS says:

Retaining the existing format

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.

• The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.

• Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

... and with respect to "strong national ties" (§2.4.1.3) it says:

Strong national ties to a topic

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country [NOT country of origin of the topic] should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

• Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.

Clearly the "English-speaking" with which this article has the closest "national ties" is the United States as the Graf Zeppelin never visited any other English-speaking country.

That being the case, the arbitrary change made on August 8, 2011, to change the dates to d/y/m was contrary to the guidelines of the WP:MOS.

• In summary: The WP:MOS guidelines state that the date formatting for an English language article on WP is based on a) the format used as the article was created and evolved, and; b) if applying the "strong national ties" to change that, the ties are to an "English-speaking" country for articles in English, and not the country of origin of the subject of the article. The d/m/y format for an article on the Graf Zeppelin in the German Wikipedia would be fine, but based on both of the WP:MOS guidelines on dates as they relate to this article in English, the correct formatting is clearly M/D/Y. Centpacrr (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, what an extraordinary amount of discussion for what seems to be a minor point. Firstly, to state my interest, I am closely related to Lady Grace Hay Drummond Hay and as such have "kept and eye on" and contributed to this article for quite some time. The edits you talk about were during the wiki era when dates were wikilinked to provide the format defined in the user's settings and thus transparent to registered editors and readers. With one or two minor exceptions, the spelling used in this article is UK ENG, and has been from the first edit. There are dozens of examples of UK ENG spellings throughout the article. There is certainly no wiki policy, to my knowledge, that states that an article could be in UK ENG yet use the date format peculiar to the US. One could argue that the change in date format was simply changing that format to match the language of the article. If you were to change to m/d/y then you would surely be suggesting the whole article should be in US ENG, which is not the language chosen at the outset. This seems to be far further against wiki policy than someone matching the date format to the language of the article 4 years ago. Cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that edits in the early years (2004-08) were from the era when they were wikilinked for user defined display, the way the dates appear in the article's html is still M/D/Y (see for instance here) and the issue here is date formatting, not spelling. Also the only English-speaking country with which the LZ 127 (and LZ 129) had a "close national connection" was the United States which is also the only English-speaking country in which either of the airships ever landed. In addition the USPOD created and issued four different postage stamps honoring the Garf and which were use on several of the airship's flights. (The Graf landed in Lakehurst, Chicago, Akron, Los Angeles, and Miami; the Hindenburg made eleven flights to Lakehurst where it also crashed.) They not only did not land in the UK, as I recall they were not allowed to ever enter UK air space because Zeppelins had bombed England during WWI. (Neither landed in Canada or any other Commonwealth country as well.) As for contributors to the article, only four of the 176 editors since it was created in 2004 have made more than ten edits to it, and 156 of those (88.6%) made only one. Centpacrr (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You state that the issue is not related to spelling, and that's where we differ. The article is clearly written in UK ENG. UK ENG and d/m/y are intrinsically linked and there seems to be no precedent to have an UK ENG spelling with m/d/y date formats. I wonder if you have found other articles where this is the case? Thanks MrMarmite (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The only significant example I can see of "UK ENG" in the article is the spelling of "metre" (as opposed to "meter") and perhaps a few other minor differences in the first few boiler plate sections describing the airship. However the bulk of the article (most of which I have written over the past few years as its largest contributor) describing its operational career during the dozen years between its launching in 1928 and scrapping in 1940 is in US ENG. As noted above, the article also makes no mention of (and has nothing whatever to do with) the UK or any other Commonwealth or English-speaking country other than the US. Next to Brazil (which the Graf served strictly as a commercial air carrier), the airship flew between Germany the US more often than any other country. The WP:MOS guidelines (2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3) state that date formatting of article in English should reflect that of the English-speaking country with which the subject of the article had/has the strongest "national ties" which in this case is clearly the US -- the only such country with which the Graf had any ties at all, and the only one mentioned in the article. (You should also note that the LZ 129 Hindenburg article uses the M/D/Y formatting.) Centpacrr (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the format, most of the readers are able to read both formats without a problem, I find the the main reason to change that the LZ 127 visited the USA is not really a strong association, the German article doesn't use American dates. But it is not really that important so I would suggest just leave it as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Until it was incorrectly changed to D/M/Y just four days ago (August 8, 2011) based on somebody's "script" the article was formatted correctly as M/D/Y which is also the way it was created on March 31, 2004, and evolved for many years thereafter. M/D/Y is also the way the LZ 129 Hindenburg article is formatted, and is the formatting that both WP:MOS guidelines call for. There was therefore no reason to change it four days ago in the first place and it should be restored to its historically correct formatting. Centpacrr (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Centpacrr that was not clear, in which case I would suggest just revert the script edit back to the stable version. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Article extensively cleaned up and expanded, statistical details added, and original historic formatting restored per WP:MOS (2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3) as discussed above. Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bit dissapointed with never visited any other English-speaking country. above as I now find that the Graf Zeppelin had flown over England in early October 1928 a few days before its trip to the United States. So clearly a better claim for British English. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, sir, please tell me how do you could in any way conclude that a single "fly over" in 1928 constitutes a "clearly better claim" to a "strong national connection" with England than the Graf's long term relationship with the US which it visited in 1928, 1929 (twice), and 1933, landed in seven times in five different cities -- Lakehurst (three times), Miami (NAS Opa Locka), Chicago, Akron, and Los Angeles -- and even received a New York "Ticker-tape parade"? This is not even a close call as to which English-speaking nation objectively has the strongest national connection to the Graf Zeppelin. Centpacrr (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I was answering the the statement that the airship had only ever visited the US and not other English-speaking countries, I was just making the point she had flown over England (and also by the way Gibraltar) before she crossed the Atlantic. I also note she landed at the British airship station at Cardington in 1930 as well (and a later flight over Scotland and north-east England in July 1930, and a flight over Norfolk and Yorkshire in July 1931, and a landing in London in Aug 1931, and another landing in London in 1932). MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this information about visits to the UK which would seem to provide some relationship to England as well. WP:MOS §2.4.1.4, however, still calls for use of the "...date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used..." which was M/D/Y both when it was created on March 31, 2004, and the way it evolved uninterrupted for at least four years. An objective evaluation of any "strong national ties" to another English-speaking country required to overturn the use of M/D/Y still clearly fails, however, on both the grounds noted above and the provisions of WP:MOS §2.4.1.3. Another clear indication of "strong national ties" with the United States is the fact that the USPOD issued no fewer than four postage stamps (three in 1929, one in 1933) depicting and honoring the Graf Zeppelin ... more than the US produced for any other specific aircraft in history including the "Spirit of St. Louis" which only got two (1927 and 1977). Neither the UK or any other English-speaking country ever issued any. Centpacrr (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Assesment

Added back the assesment as "B" class but I suspect it could be graded better, but it might be handy to do some copy editing and I will ask one of the guys with more expertise in assesment to see if it can be put forward for a higher grade. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Responding to the above request for copy editing, I have been shaking up the article a fair bit. Much of the prose seems to be translated from German, or perhaps written by a native German speaker. All comments and feedback are very welcome. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rumiton, I had some comments from User:Sp33dyphil earlier:

1. Footnote 6 is from the German Wikipedia
2. There are unsourced paragraphs
3. The lead doesn't completely summarise the article, and
4. There are too many images compared to the amount of text.

The footnote was removed and the number of images was reduced to get a better balance. Need to look at unsourced paragraphs - (I know I owe a couple of citation which I will add soon). MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll keep looking at the prose when I find time. Rumiton (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why the images keep being removed by User:Centpacrr perhaps he or somebody can explain, are they the wrong images? are they better images? The idea is to improve the article and go for the next level of assesment, hence the copy edit and clean up. Removing nearly all the images is not really helping. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It will be helpful if User:Centpacrr drops in here to discuss these and some further edits. He/she has reverted my changes of mails to mail, cachet to stamp and untenable to unviable. The first is I believe, an archaic usage, and I do not think many readers will know what a cachet is, in this sense. Stamp is better. But while neither of these idiosyncratic words might trip up a GA assessor, untenable here is quite wrong. Ideas and positions that cannot be held against attack are rightly described as untenable. Projects that cannot be kept alive due to current circumstances are correctly described as unviable, "(un)able to live or exist in a particular climate" (Oxford Dict.) Synonyms are unfeasible and impracticable. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is undergoing major and somewhat contested changes at the moment. I will leave my attempt at copy editing until it becomes more stable. Then, if desired, please post a request for copyediting as before. Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi

It seems to me that there are far too many postage stamp related pictures in here. While I appreciate historical imagery, this seems a little over the top. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

These are not "postage stamp" images but they are "postal history" (ie flown cacheted, postmarked, and backstamped covers and ppcs) images. As described in the article, it was the funds generated by the carriage of these mails that were needed to make the flights on which they were flown possible financially. They are also by far what both the LZ 127 itself, and the flights described in the text on which they were carried, are best remembered for today. The LZ 127 was scrapped seven decades ago leaving these items of postal history as virtually the only verifiable artifacts of the airship and its operations that exist today. In a very real sense, without these mails there almost certainly would have never been a Graf Zeppelin at all. Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but must agree with Chaosdruid. A reader looking up LZ 127 would be looking for information that directly relates to the aircraft and its usage. Commemorative stamps, while of interest, are peripheral. Perhaps a separate article might be created to deal with this side of things, and content hived off. Rumiton (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect you are completely wrong on this point. The carriage of these mails was never a peripheral activity of the Graf Zeppelin and they absolutely do "directly relate to the aircraft and it usage" as this was the key to making all its operations possible. Until the Graf began commercial passenger service to South America in 1932, the Zeppelin Company depended almost entirely on the income generated by flying such souvenir mails to be able to finance its demonstration and experimental flights. Without them most of these early (1928-32) flights would have never even taken place.

Dr. Eckener tirelessly pursued governments to produce special premium fee "Zepp" airmail stamps for use on flights to their countries, and making it possible to send and receive cacheted Zeppelin posts was also the principal way the Graf was promoted to the public. (The USPOD, for instance, alone issued four such stamps in 1930 and 1933 -- more than for any other aircraft or ship either before or since.) Seventy plus years after the last Zeppelin airship flew these mails are still actively collected and exchanged by hundreds of thousands of enthusiasts worldwide. I expect, in fact, that these collectors probably represent a very significant percentage (if not the majority) of people who are likely to come to the Graf's WP page to find out about the history of the LZ 127 and the flights that it made. They are the world's largest interest group with a demonstrably abiding interest in the history of these airships.

In many ways these mails were the raison d'etre and life's blood of the Graf Zeppelin during its career and not the other way around. Without the funds they generated, the Graf could not have ever been operated at all. Centpacrr (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

While extremely interesting, and already mentioned in the text, that does not really give a sound argument for why there should be so many images of postage stamps. The article does seem a little like a "History of the Postage stamp" encyclopaedia article than one on the Zeppelin with the images inflating that impression. I understand that this is something close to your heart, but that should not prevent other editors having their own opinions.

Your statement, Centpacrr "you are completely wrong" is actually the reverse. The other editor said that commemorative stamps are peripheral to the article, not that they were peripheral regarding the raison d'etre of the Zeppelin. We do not have articles on mail trains that have ten commemorative stamp covers, nor should we have. Four or five I could understand: one or two commemorating the aircraft; one or two showing its first delivery; and perhaps one or two more as this particular Zeppelin was the first to circumnavigate the globe, and the first to cross the Atlantic. Here we have nine and for me that is excessive. I cannot see why we should not simply have the excess images in a link to a commons page stating that there is a gallery of commemorative stamps and covers available, any who are interested will go and look. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted all my philatelic material as well as other apparently unrelated or non-neutral contributions, and have restored Bzuk's preferred date formatting. Perhaps I'll create a separate article on Zeppelin postal history one of these days with what I took out, or maybe not. Anyway even though I have been working on this article off and on for more than three years, I've decided that I'm going to just move on to something else and not interfere further. It's been an interesting discussion but life's too short to keep this up. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of guideline, date formatting, the importance of mails to the history of the LZ 127, and leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted what appeared to be a rather childish revert. Saying that there are a few too many postage stamps on the article does not mean that it should be completely reverted to an early state of development. He didn't even say he thinks they should all be gone but I think I counted 8 which seems a bit much to me as well. Centpacrr I can appreciate that you have spent a lot of time on the article but you should try not to take things so personally and remember we don't own the articles. --Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Documentation

The great weakness I see in this article is the very poor documentation. Newsreels may have value as "see also," but they are not very sound as documentation. The same goes for web sites. The web is too ephemeral to use as a reference source or for citations and documentation. Nor is the picture of fans from Tokio (usage at the time) exactly a killer citation for the round-the-world flight. Would not a better citation be the telegram from Commander Byrd on page 688 of the article "Honors to Dr. Hugo Eckener: The First Airship Flight Around the World, in The National Geographic Magazine, Volume LVII, No. 6 be a bit more substantial as well as source material?Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates

After voluminous amounts of dialogue/diatribe on the issue, most editors in the WP:Aviation group would assign D/M/Y dating to this article to recognize the subject's national origin. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Good Idea. Should we substitute periods for commas in numerals as well?Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Periods are not used in British-English. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Lincoln actually makes a good point here which should not be so casually dismissed. It is my understanding that the reason for the proposed change in date formatting to D/M/Y from the long standing M/D/Y is because the article's "national origin" is German, as opposed to American, British, Canadian, or relating to any other English-speaking country. If that is truly the reason, then to be consistent with the LZ 127's German origin shouldn't the date formatting reflect German usage (which places a period after the numeral for the day) as opposed to American or British (which use a comma or neither)? Just wondering. Centpacrr (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not German Wikipedia; we write in English. WP:TIES applies only to English-speaking countries; German usage has no bearing.

So really German usage is also not a particularly good reason to use DDMMYY, but I don't care — it really doesn't matter which one we use, and as long as it's settled for this article, I'm happy. But that's not an excuse to import usages that aren't English (language) at all. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, that's been my point all along. There's actually no reason to change it from M/D/Y (the US formatting used when the article was created and how it developed) to D/M/Y British-usage because the article is "about a German subject" if you are not going to use German formatting. That whole argument is really just a straw man after all. Centpacrr (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not again, look at the article, it and every other Zeppelin-related article uses the conventions that attribute it to a German aircraft. FWiW, I will now call for a consensus to decide the issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

I'm just pointing out that the reason offered for the proposed change does not really appear to me to be the actual reason because it is based on a false premise. But as I said earlier, I am not going to fight this issue any more and thus have chosen to withdraw from making further contributions to Zeppelin related articles to avoid any further potential conflicts. As I see it, a small but determined group of aviation editors here who all appear to be based in Commonwealth countries insist on British English usage (as Trovatore perceptively points out here) as being the "international default" for all articles irrespective of the subject's "national origin", how an article was originally created and developed, or how WP:MOS guidelines relating to usage and formatting are written, and that American English should thus be considered to be "a mere regional variant." While that view does not appear to conform to either the letter or spirit of the WP written MOS guidelines, it does seem to be the "consensus" position of this group of editors so I guess that is what is going to happen. "FWiW" Centpacrr (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue has arisen here, as in other articles on wiki as the first spelling variations favoured the ENG spellings whereas the first date formats favoured the US format, albeit wiki-linked so that registered users would see the dates in the format they preferred. As an Anglo-American I don't have a huge issue either way, but I have to say, I think the ENG spellings, of metres for example, would indicate an ENG start-point for this article.MrMarmite (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was created using American English and date formatting (M/D/Y) on March 31, 2004 by User:Lestatdelc who self identifies on his user page as being from Portland, Oregon. The word "metre" did not appear in the article for the first time until four years later when it was added on March 6, 2008. Centpacrr (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See later note, the above is inaccurate.

*I stand by the above the accuracy of which the wikilinks it contains support. Centpacrr (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

English? Like most in this nation I speak American not English. See: H. L. Mencken, The American Language. It seems we have an intense discussion of how many dates can dance on the head of a pin. The 'American' usage is not even universal. One of the few 'growth' industries in the USA is the armed forces and they use the D/M/Y format for VERY sound reasons. If one does not wish to confuse "Boobus Americanus" as Mr. Mencken deemed him, then just put the month in letters. and all is solved. Then Boobus will be a happy camper and we can quit arguing about how many anal-retentives can dance around a toilet. If not, the would it not be best to use the oldest calendar still in use and call this Av 29, 5771?Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was created from its very inception to reflect that it was about a German topic, and used metric information, foreign word usage and stays that way through 850 edits and 100 editors. In 2004, almost all of Wikipedia had a US-centric "look" and only in 2007, were dates being discussed and a MOS establishes that US dating applies to US subjects, other topics use the dates and word conventions that are consistent with that country. FWIW, this is an article about the German Zeppelin designed, constructed and operated airship. Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Also note until fairly recently the date format was invisible to most users as it automatically displayed the local format, when this was removed inconsistencies in date formats appeared. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted an abusive and unhelpful post. If the originating editor would care to repost his/her ideas without the personal attacks they will be given every consideration. Rumiton (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As for a response, I do not necessarily have a fetish for dates, as another editor stated, other things, yes... One of the main issues that I have tried to work around in the wikywackyworld is that there is a Catch 22 in the Wikipedia premise, and that concerns the ability for an intelligent, well-meaning but ultimately disruptive editor to WP:PUSH a theory or concept. In the case of the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, in 2008, one editor out of the hundreds that edited the article, decided to put a personal "stamp" (read philatelic) on the article and wanted to establish that it had a US-centric basis (the MO was already established previously in the Charles Lindbergh and other articles that had used what was at the time, an "international" standard for topics in WP:Aviation that were significant to anyone in the world). Since the dates, imperial measures and unique spellings that comprise the US conventions, are not generally followed by other nations (except Canada, on occasion), it did make sense (again, at the time) to use a style that most people would understand, however, the current standard is now to present US-related topics in a US-style (except the military subjects which retain military style dating that matches the date style of other countries). Now for the crux of the problem, wherever there is a MOS (Manual of Style) dictum, editors follow that format (the comma instead of the period falls into that arena as the measures were taken care of by a declaration that a comma is used to separate blocks of numerals). Once the style is set up, most editors simply follow that style, and whenever there are questions, a consensus is required in order to establish a divergent or exception to the rule. In dating, the MOS date section reads as:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
• The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.
• Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

In the case of the Graf Zeppelin, the strong national ties to the topic is that it is a German airship, and that the conventions of a "German" topic should prevail. HOWEVER, even if a Wiki consensus is called for, the business model of consensus is for all parties to agree or at least, live with the decision made by the group. It isn't a "vote-counting" exercise, although that can be a deciding factor. In this case, there is one (maybe more) obstinate advocate that will never agree with a consensus decision. In that case, the only thing that can happen is that you can only hope that the discussion/arguments/discourse set out the arguments and that even if nothing shakes the foundation of beliefs that dictates a US-centric dating, the resolution than is moved to another forum, that is to ask for "requests for comment" where knowledgeable "experts" take a look at the issues, and recommend, if not adjudicate a decision. More to come on this topic... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

With regard to American aviator, explorer, and peace activist Charles Lindbergh mentioned above, when his biographical article was started on September 9, 2002 it properly used US English and date formatting (Month/DD/YYYY) and remained that way for four-and-a-half years until the above editor unilaterally and arbitrarily imposed his preferred "international" date formatting on May 10, 2007 despite its being about a clearly a "US centric" topic. The only reason the editor gave for this was to "rationalize dating conventions".

I first began to contribute to this article in late March, 2008, and restored the correct historic US date formatting (which is also the same formatting Lindbergh used in his many published books and other writings) called for in the MOS to the US centric article on April 22, 2008. This is the format which it continues to use to this day. If the reason that the above editor gives for insisting upon using the so-called "international" style for the LZ 127 article is because the airship was of "German origin", then to be consistent he should certainly support the use of US English and date formatting for a biographical article about a prominent American individual.

With regard to the "personal "stamp" (read philatelic) on the article" material and images that I have contributed to the LZ 127 article over time mentioned above, as I have explained many times I added this information because it was the carriage of such mails that provided the Zeppelin Company with the majority of the income it needed to support the operations of the airship over its nine year active career. Flying these mails was, in fact, the primary raison d'etre for many of its most famous flights, and is also what the Graf Zeppelin is clearly best known for today. To ignore this central element of its operational history would thus be editorially and encyclopedically irresponsible. Centpacrr (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article, I repeat, ad nausueum is about a German airship, and should use the standards consistent with that subject, a Wiki article about an American subject takes the US-style conventions. Can this not be any clearer? The first "major contributor" to work on the date convention established the style, and it was consistent with that of a German subject. All the rest is so much obfuscation... FWiW, B, we have to move this type of conversation out of this forum, as it is becoming a he said, she said argument, and detracts from the actual need to establish a consistent format. "Your place or mine?" but perhaps better served offline via email. Bzuk (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Selling stamp covers was NOT the primary reason for 'many' of the Graf Zeppelin's flights. Rather it was a means of financing flights to prove the then unique capabilities of the airship and garner favorable publicity. The goal of Hugo Eckener was never to pander to stamp collectors. It was to promote the commercial airship. I think there are too many stamps in the article. Thank god they never gave S&H saving stamps with the few tickets they sold.Mark Lincoln (talk) 16

29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The question I posed above had to do with your raising the formatting in the Charles Lindbergh article in this discussion, and asked why you did not appear to support applying the same "rules" regarding national origin to that article that you want applied to the Graf article. I fully understand your position (although I disagree with your interpretation of what the style and date formatting was when the LZ 127 was established and evolved), however you have still never provided me with any hyperlink(s) to any provision in the MOS (or even a previous forum discussion) that supports it. That's all I have ever asked for. Centpacrr (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My response, your page, let's reserve this forum for the development of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Announcement of intent and request for input

I intend to start documenting and editing on this article in a month or two. I am not a 'date' junkie. I collect books, not stamps. I wish to see the article documented and cited from reputable sources, not ephemera. The Graf Zeppelin was the best known aircraft in the world during the very late 1920s and mid-1930s. It was much more than just an airship. The Weimar government funded the construction because the airship could bring recognition to Germany, found an industry, and inspire a nation. It was a social icon to Germans. To the world it was not only colossal, it seemed the long-distant passenger transport of the future. The idea of passengers looking down as they flew over the vacant expanses of Siberia en-route non-stop from Germany to Japan, while partaking fine food and wines was MIND BOGGLING at the time. This article conveys little of that. Nor does it give a realistic idea of what it was like to fly as a passenger in an aircraft which was neither heated, or air-conditioned. These points, I feel, need a bit of attention.

My primary intent will be to document the article from sound sources. I don't wish to step on toes or unnecessarily offend some airship buff or stamp collector. I have been through the 'revision wars' with WikiGods who had a hobby horse to ride and have learned that facts do not trump connections. Nor do the endless carping on date formats in this talk page give me much hope of dealing with persons more interested in getting the job done than quibbling.

"The [airship] episode was interesting, but it has now become history (almost legend)." wrote Dr. Eckener to his friend Paul Jaray in 1950. The Graf Zeppelin was the hope of an industry, the pride of a nation, a wonder of the world, and a magnificent accomplishment. The facts of the airship, it's accomplishments, and the legend it created, seem what is important. This article should inform, and it should provide the means for Wiki users to pursue the subject further if they wish.Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Some interesting ideas, the problem with not using contempary accounts is we dont give the feeling of support and pride that the Graf Zepplin inspired so a better understanding and explanation would improve the article. Just as an aside you said The Weimar government funded the construction but most of the money came from public subscription which may explain more why it was important to Germans as well as Germany. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

One brief point re the Graf's philatelic connections: they have virtually nothing to do with "stamps", the airship's significance is to "postal history" which is a very different thing. Centpacrr (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

All good points, but should be considered within the structure of WP:Weight in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Ok, everyone on board, great. I did some work for now. Not much, just enough to give an Idea of how I work and where I am going.

I have NO problem with contemporary, or especially 'source' material. Given that this is an encyclopedic work it should be considered that we are not 'writing' history, we are reporting it in article form. Thus the use of reduced data and historical works is of great advantage. A magazine article delightfully revealing of the hype of the times does add color. As does a newsreel. They do little to provide a reader with a concise and coherent view of the subject. Contemporary material is often, usually, inherently too close to the subject for an encyclopedia article.

There ARE historical works which DO give great color. For example Dick's "Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg," is a first hand account of flying as a crew member on both ships, and of being involved in the design, construction and testing of the Hindenburg. De Syon's "Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship," or "Botting's "Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine." address the popular and cultural impacts of the Graf Zeppelin. Botting covers the round the world flight from the aspect of being a fulfillment of a dream. De Syon treats the Graf Zeppelin, the entire subject of Zeppelins, from the standpoint of it's significance to the nation which created them.

It is the Historian's toil to pick through the rubble of history, deduce patterns, analyze causes and effects, draw conclusions and produce enlightenment. The author of an encyclopedia article has to assemble what is known and accepted, then put it in a concise form accessible by the novice.

That Eckener used postal covers to help finance the Graf Zeppelin is a important part of it's history - remember, however, it is the history of the Graf Zeppelin, not postal history we are addressing.

Aéropostale was providing REAL regular intercontinental postal service between Europe and South America BEFORE the Graf Zeppelin ever flew. Eckener unabashedly create 'events' and then sold covers to cover part of the cost of his publicity stunt. Historical? Yes. Yet of what real consequence besides recording a stunt?

I have a couple of books to read on another and quite different subject which I am revisiting now, and will revisit another curiously related incident next month. Then I will dig in on this article. I hope we can improve it together.Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How many nits can you pick off the head of a pin?

I am still working the other two subjects (neither for Wikipedia) yet am also thinking about what needs to be done to make this a succinct and informative article about the LZ-127. Reworking an article is harder than writing one from scratch.

How 'accurate' must it be to not introduce confusing detail?

For example the information block lists Ludwig Durr as the 'designer', Yet he had not 'designed' a Zeppelin in a long time. Not since the old employee and ally of Count Zeppelin was 'kicked up stairs' to the position of 'Technical Director.' The real demands of war and the technical competition from Schutte-Lanz demanded that the Zeppelin Company adopt scientific instead of empirical methods of design. New men with new methods and approaches had to be brought in to keep the Zeppelin viable and competitive. I know who is responsible for the shape of LZ-127, and who was responsible for the approach to mathematic analysis which determined it's structure. Yet the 'common wisdom' is that Ludwig Durr 'designed' every Zeppelin. And, it must be said that he was "technical director," responsible for seeing that Zeppelins were designed and constructed.

So, do we need a couple of paragraphs to explain why the 'common wisdom' is not quite true? Or do we just roll with it because the article need inform the lay person and not appease the nit-picking that a highly informed scholar might demand?

I think the answer is that we address the layman's needs in accessing the Wikipedia for a concise and thorough overview, Yet the article should contain references be extensive enough that if that layman wishes to be guided to greater learning he might have what he needs.

There are a number of aspects of the article which need the same sort of editorial efficiency coupled with the references that might supply the leads to further information that need not be included.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Need for revision, citation, and improvement

This article remains a very mixed bag. Poorly documented, some sections excellent, some bloated, and the most critical in the mind of Dr. Eckener, diminished to insignificance.

I finished works my works in progress and prepped to take on the task of turning the Graf Zeppelin into an article of scholarship worthy and true.

I re-read Botting's wonderful Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine, Dick's incredibly revealing (about technical operation) Graf Zeppelin & Hindenburg, Dr. Eckener's own operating manual for DELAG personnel, and had started upon Lessor's 'The Millionth Chance' about the R101, and a cautionary tale of how to do it all wrong. . . then a realization set in.

As fascinating as I once found the subject - fascinating enough to write, over 40 years ago, my historiography thesis on 'The Military Rigid Airship" - I had to face reality.

I am an old man. I must accept that I have only a decade or two ahead of me, and wasting my time editing Wikipedia is not worth a second of the life I have left.

Adeiu gentlemen, I wish you all good luck.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Hi guys.

I have a nice, original photo of the Graf Zeppelin - link is - http://nobandwagonhere.deviantart.com/#/d4y72yh

I also have 3 more, that are not uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless you can prove that the photo is in the publc domain we can;t use it, no matter how good it may be. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded the photo (that's my DA page) and I have the originals that I scanned.

Via DA I have granted it Creative Commons license, just acknowledge the source! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Scanning photographs and uploading somewhere doesnt give you any rights unless you took the image yourself. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the original photographer is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't suddenly make it's copyright void; we can't use copyrighted images just because we think the copyright holder won't notice - we don't break the law here. Kyteto (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Altitude

Can anyone add altitude figures, e.g. maximum, normal? I can't find anything in the article. --ML5 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-relevant Dollars

I challenged the addition of a conversion to Dollars in the article, this article is about a German airship and has no connection with the United States. As it has been challenged it really needs to gain a consensus before it is added, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dollar equivalent of fares on D-LZ127 "Graf Zeppelin"

Another editor has now twice reverted a recent addition of sourced information relating to the US Dollar equivalent then (1934) and now for passenger fares on the German airship "Graf Zeppelin" that is already supported by at least two other editors (the original poster and myself) as offering a modern basis upon which readers can understand how relatively expensive transatlantic travel was on the Graf. The reason given for reverting is that it "Dollars doesn't [sic] appear to be relevant to Germany or Brazil". I strongly disagree with this. As the borders, government(s), and financial systems in Germany have changed several times since the 1930s and WWII while there has been continuity and stability in the US Government, its financial system, and monetary denominations, the US Dollar, as the world's leading international exchange/accounting currency (the "Euro" did not exist until January 1, 1999), is by far the best unit of exchange existing in both 1934 and today to help readers understand the relative cost of travel on the Graf from Germany to Brazil. For that reason this information should be restored to and kept in the article unless and until there is consensus to remove it, and not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I presume the other editor is me and I had already started a discussion on this above. But sorry a conversion to Dollars is meaningless to most readers and do not give any indiction of the relative cost and show an American-centric view. As a point challenged additions need a consensus to be added not removed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect, sir, your unsupported claim that a conversion of 1934 RM to contemporary US Dollars and their equivalent today is "meaningless to most readers" and "does not give any indication of the relative cost" is, for the reasons below, in my view just without merit. It also has nothing whatever to do with with an unencyclopedic, prejudicial claim of this being "American-centric" whatever that is supposed to mean.

As I pointed out above, as the borders, national government(s), and financial systems in Germany have changed numerous times since the 1930s, there is threfore no meaningful way to compare the value of the 1934 RM with the Euro (which did not even exist until 1999) or any other monetary denomination used in Germany since the end of WWII let alone in 2014. On the other hand, the United States (which was also the only other country to which the DZR ever provided regularly scheduled transatlantic airship service starting two years later in 1936 with the D-LZ 129 "Hindenburg") has not only had continuity and stability in its government, financial system, and monetary denominations over this period (and for much longer), but the US Dollar is also the global economy's leading internationally traded exchange/accounting/reserve currency by far and has been since 1921. (The US Dollar represented 60.9% of the world's reserves in 2014 (Q-1) followed by the Euro at 24.5%, the Yen at 4%, and the £ at 3.9%.) The US produces 22% of all world economic output, and by virtue of being the world's largest economy the accumulation of US Dollar denominated financial assets dominates the global financial system.

For all of these reasons, the US Dollar by far the best monetary unit of exchange existing in the world economy in both 1934 and today to use to help readers understand the relative cost of travel on the Graf from Germany to Brazil. Again with respect, sir, offering as a reason to ignore this long standing international economic reality that it is "America-centric" is just an empty, prejudicially based argument not worthy of being seriously made on WP or in any other reference source. Transatlantic travel by airship from Germany to Brazil in 1934 (and from Germany to the US in 1936) was a very expensive way to travel, and this was especially so then as the world economy was also at the height of the Great Depression. Thus giving the cost of a ticket only in 1934 RM, a currency with no 2014 equivalent, while seeking to prohibit providing access to a well sourced way for the readers to use to understand what its relative cost would be in today by relating it to the US Dollar, the world's leading reserve currency, because it is personally "meaningless" to one individual editor amounts to encyclopedic malpractice.

The contention that reliable, well sourced, and relevant material challenged by a single editor without giving any reasons beyond he/she personally thinks its "meaningless" (or especially is "American-centric") needs a consensus to be added, not removed, is thus patently ridiculous. The "burden of proof" to achieve consensus to remove this type of material must logically be on the proponent of deletion for the WP to be edited and grown effectively. In addition, the fact that a challenging editor may also be a sysop gives no special weight to his/her position over that of any other editor. It would seem to me as just a regular editor that, as experienced users, sysops should actually be expected to always provide an affirmative, reasoned argument first to support his/her position. Just because something is "meaningless" to one person does not mean that it is to others, and using such a personal, subjective claim as a justification to remove relevant reliable, verified, sourced material is, well, "meaningless". Centpacrr (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification that comment on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Dollars. MilborneOne (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear if the consensus is to include then so be it but you still need to get a consensus for it to be added here when an addition is challenged, even if you think its worthy, thats the way wikipedia works. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a long explanation to read but as I said before I cant be the only reader who has no idea what the Dollar is worth today never mind in 1934 so any comparison as I said is meaningless to non-American readers, so although you mention "longstanding international economic reality" I cant see that helping the reader. It may come as some suprise but not everybody in the world has knowledge or experience of the the dollar and particular its worth hence the American-centric comment, I have no idea if $590 Dollars in 1934 is small change or a fortune and similar $10,000 dollars sounds a lot but I would need a calculator to make any sense of it. Now if it compared the 1934 cost to something like a first-class liner crossing then you can get some idea of the relative work, again in 2014 values if it was compared with a first-class airliner fare on the same route it would give the reader a better picture. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Again just because YOU or any other single editor doesn't understand something, in this case the concept of the relative value of one currency (RM in 1934) then and over time and how it relates to an existing widely known currency today (the world's largest reserve currency, the US Dollar) as an indication of the 1934 RM's relative value then and now, doesn't mean that millions -- actually hundreds of millions -- of other potential readers DO understand that and find it valuable information. With respect, sir, WP does not exist only for you or any other single user or reader, but for everybody. Your view that a single challenge, especially when unsupported by any reasoning ("It is meaningless to me" is clearly NOT a valid reason) flies in the face of the entire purpose of the Wikipedia Project as well as violates WP:REMOVAL (see next paragraph). It is unhelpful to the project to allow a single user (or even a small group) who doesn't understand relative value of currencies over time to impose his/her (their) lack of understanding on the rest of the Community. The readership of en:Wikipedia is also not made up of exclusively "non-American readers" (which are actually probably a minority of its readership), and even if it were, using this as a reason to delete material betrays a level of xenophobia (if not outright jingoism) that really has no place in WP or its administration. In addition comparing the 1934 fare for passage on the Graf and a "modern day airfare" is equally ridiculous as it is grossly unrepresentative of the relative cost to an airship passenger in 1934. Many, many tens of thousands of people routinely cross the world's oceans by air now EVERY DAY whereas transatlantic travel on the Graf was limited 10 to 15 passengers every couple of weeks. There is just no comparison here at all.

Again you are free to attempt to achieve consensus to support removal of this information if you think you can, but per WP:REMOVAL the burden for that is on the challenger as it states the project's policy on this as: "When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained content removal when the reason for the removal is not obvious is open to being promptly reverted." Your removal of this material is, again, unexplained and unsupported as being anything other than your own personal and subjective view that it is "meaningless'' to you and that is just not the standard for the project. So unless you can achieve a clear consensus that this material should not be included, under the policy stated in WP:REMOVAL your deletion is going to be "promptly reverted." As you say, "that's the way Wikipedia works.". Centpacrr (talk) 18:35, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

• Additional comment to above: To give, sir, as a "reason" to delete this material (which consists of all of five words, a number, and two linked references) on the value of the US Dollar compared to the RM in 1934 and today, because you think th US Dollar is "meaningless to non-Americans" (whom you apparently claim to speak for as a whole) is about as vapid and counterproductive an argument as can be made. There are lots and lots of things that I don't understand or are "meaningless" to me, and one of the places I go to find out about and start to make them "meaningful" to me is Wikipedia. If the value of the US Dollar is "meaningless" to you, WP has an extensive article on that very subject including sections on the Dollar's value and exchange rates over time. So instead of just blindly deleting material you don't understand, use WP to find out about it. There is nothing wrong with learning stuff after you have finished school. I am almost 69 years old and am delighted to say that I learn new things every day! Try it, you'll like it. Please, however, do not unilaterally delete reliable, well sourced, and verified material from WP articles. That is violation of WP:REMOVE. The information you twice deleted here was put there by another editor (not me) to help WP's readers to learn something themselves. Deleting it without very good reasons (you gave none) just serves to defeat the whole purpose the project! Centpacrr (talk) 20:50, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

The addition of prices then, and what they would be worth now all comes across as a mixture of Synthesis and OR. It is a conflation of the then exchange rate - which is not the same as relative value of the RM and $ then, and the determination of what that alleged $ value is equivalent to now. The cited source itself gives values for $390 in 1934 as being from $8,000 to $148,000[1] depending on which of the "Seven ways" is chosen. And the website explains this [2]. CPI - for instance - is based on a bundle of items (none of which would be an airship passage) and they change with time. Much more in the way of caveats needs to be added to the values given, if they are to have even a snowball's chance of staying. as suggested, better to compare to the contemporaneous cost of a liner-crossing, or an average wage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is "wanting", why not fix it (which I just did), not delete it. Centpacrr (talk) 20:50, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Just adding "CPI" to the article is not fixing it. It just shows which of the seven values you chose. I think you need a more reliable indication that CPI is the correct value to give and not either of the other purchasing power values. CPI is a measure of goods and services people routinely purchase - which suggests it is not the thing for a rarity like a trans-Atlantic flight in a airship. Is there not a source on the Graf Zeppelin that actually gives an opinion on the relative cost of a ticket?

As to deletion, I have outright deleted use of CPI calculations in some articles where it was definitely used inappropriately - eg using the CPI to give a current day value on wartime economy production "price" of a fighter aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't choose any of these as the original posting is not mine. The link the OP gave as a reference includes details of all the criteria for each of the seven ways of figuring relative worth. None of these were the justification that MilborneOne gave for deleting it, however, which instead was that in his personal opinion (really speculation) that US Dollars are "meaningless to non-American readers", a clearly insufficient reason to delete anything. Centpacrr (talk) 21:35, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the misattribution. MilborneOne has given their reason for removal. I have not concerned myself with their reason as I identified an alternate reason based on policy. It also relates to giving the reader an understanding but I think is of greater concern; going beyond the question of relevance of values to some readers they may not be the right values. Combining source A (RM cost of a ticket) with source B (1934 exchange rates) is analogous to giving the conversion of a person's height from metres to feet and inches. So long as the conversion is reasonable (contemporaneous or international standard) it comes under "routine calculation" as far as I am concerned. However picking one of several values given in source C (which doesn't have any overlap with source A) to then say the worth of that ticket price is such-and-such a value is a piece of original research. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see this as "original research" in any way on the part of the OP. The Consumer Price Index is a long established (BLS, 1919) and well understood concept in both US and global economics, and the OP also provided reliable links for both conversions ("A to B" and "B to C"). The "overlap" in both conversions is the US Dollar, a currency that existed in both 1934 and 2014, as well as continuously as the world's leading reserve currency since 1921. Centpacrr (talk) 14:52, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

[though I'd posted this about an hour ago but it was an edit-conflict, and just then another one] The author of the measuringworth website in the FAQ in a reply to the question "....Can you really compare relative value over time?", gives "The sophisticated answer is that economists have fancy formulas that compute the value of a new good relative [to] existing ones...The straight answer is you can't..." (I've only given the briefest excerpt from question and answer but the gist is that it's difficult to relate past value with current). I really think if there is a price/value comparator to be me made, that it does have to be shown to encompass airship travel or similar, and not just rely upon the relative cost of a loaf of bread on the table and a pint of milk in the fridge. But others may have different opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"continuously as the world's leading reserve currency since 1921" ? - I've seen graphs that show the USD not overtaking the sterling until 1955.[3] A paper that suggests the USD overtook sterling in the 1920s also says that sterling took the top position back in the 1930s.[4] GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• See The Global Reserve Currency: A “Changing of the Guard”? which states: "Starting in the 1920’s a taxing world war, heavy borrowing, high inflation, a suspension of the gold standard, and the rise of the United States as an economic super power started to close the curtain on British sterling’s enduring reign after an over a hundred year tenure. Most experts put the dollar’s unofficial arrival at the reserve currency helm at about 1921." Centpacrr (talk) 20:18, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Eichengreen-Flandreau paper ("The Rise and Fall of the Dollar, or When Did the Dollar Replace Sterling as the Leading International Currency?") which says in its abstract: "Contrary to the presumption that the pound Sterling continued to dominate the U.S. Dollar in central bank reserves until after World War II, we show that the Dollar first overtook Sterling in the mid-1920s." While it indicates that there was a temporary rebound by Sterling for a part of the interwar years (primarily in the mid-1930s) in the relative reserves in the holdings of some central banks, it also concludes that the Dollar remained strong as a reserve currency with Sterling and the Dollar thus constituting a "duopoly" between them during that period. They state at p. 3: "A plausible reading of our evidence is that Sterling and the Dollar shared reserve currency status, more or less equally depending on year, for much of the interwar period. The prewar oligopoly described by Lindert (1969), where market share was split between sterling, the French franc and the mark, was displaced by a sterling-U.S. dollar duopoly." They also state later at p. 18: "With the approach of World War II, non-Empire-and-Commonwealth sterling area countries increasingly moved their holdings toward dollars. When the war erupted, most reserves were again in Dollars." At p. 21 they conclude: "Once the economic and commercial imbalance between the two countries swung decisively toward the United States after World War II, there then occurred an irreversible switch from Sterling to the Dollar."

The other link you provided says "Full text not currently available" so I have no way of knowing what this article says.Centpacrr (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. 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/20081006114513/http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/nautilus/nautilus.htm to http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/nautilus/nautilus.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

This revision of the article seems to use UK English ("travelled", "aluminium"). Is there some reason it was changed? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I see this was discussed in 2011 and that a major editor of the article prefers US English. I think that if there is no consensus to change it, per MOS:RETAIN it should go back to UK. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Now done. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• And I changed more that the spelling. I've tried to check (almost) everything against quality sources. Most (but annoyingly not all) of the book sources in the article are at least partly accessible to me through Google, Amazon or OpenLibrary, and I've mostly relied on Lehmann 1937 (obviously a primary source but a very good one and presumably solid on facts and dates as they will have been taken from documentation), de Syon 2005, Vaeth 1958 (the most enjoyable source to read IMO and available in full on OL), and Dick & Robinson 1985. In all important respects most of the four all agree with each other.
• I've added the rather good Hammack 2016; the bit I can access is actually an appendix, a report from V C Richmond and F M Rope following a visit to Friedrichshafen in 1930. It's full of good detail and fascinating insights; they mention the smell of the Blau gas and describe the heating system in detail, also making a point of how nice and warm the cabin was on their flight of April 1930. So I don't think we can state that the ship was unheated. That always did strain the credulity, that in an airship intended to travel in winter and at high latitudes, German engineers would install cooking, washing and toilet facilities, but no heating. It's more believable that the heating was inadequate on some of the colder sectors they flew.
• The article used to state (without a source) that Grace Marguerite Hay Drummond-Hay, the British journalist, was the first woman to fly transatlantic on the outward leg (in October 1928); there's no source for that, and I don't think it's true. I believe that Amelia Earhardt flew (as a passenger) with Wilmer Stultz in June 1928, before her famous solo flight of 1932. In any case, we no longer state that.
• Added (and sourced) a few great stories; the forced landing in Recife, the African mail shuttle, the echo sounder, the stowaway, the 1930 Cup Final, and a few other bits and pieces. The gorilla King Kong story was too good not to use, but could perhaps use better sourcing. Removed as the sourcing wasn't good enough. I'd be grateful for a good source for this story.

Also aboard was the film-maker Merian Cooper, who was fascinated by the gorilla and the airship, and may have been influenced to make the film King Kong as a result.

• Hope anyone reading this agrees the article is better now (it's certainly better-sourced). I am very happy to discuss anything I have done that displeases anyone here. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the commemorative 3 Reichsmark coin for the 1929 world flight, this might be a source:

• https://utd-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/10735.1/5114/Guide%20to%20the%20Ronald%20Day%20Collection,%202nd%20revision,%202016.10.10.html?sequence=3 for Box 7 Object 25:

Graf Zeppelin Weltflug 1929. Undated 2" Diameter silver coin. Obverse: Zeppelin and world map. Reverse: German eagle "Deutsches Reich 1930 3 Reichsmark."

Apart from this numista entry and assorted auction entires that's the best I can find. -84user (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The source for the Neutrality Act 1937 paragraph is archived here, although it is does not specify any particular restricted material (and helium is not in the text). -84user (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Links that were removed that might still be of interest, some archived to avoid link rot:

• LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin : Bilder aus dem Luftschiff specifically the photo showing the twin generators
• Graf Zeppelin Floats Over U.S. Capitol
• Graf Zeppelin 1932 at Hanworth Air Field
• video of Graf Zeppelin over Wembley football field 1930
• Pathe video Flying Down to Rio on board the giant liner of the skies, the Graf Zeppelin, 1932
• Danish postal museum articles from 2006 Jan 1: Luftskibet kommer!, En flyvende telegrafstation and Ferdinands scrapbog; Fascinationen varer ved from 2006 August 1 (added -84user (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC))

-84user (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. De Syon just has "a commemorative coin"; of course, I believe in the 3 RM piece and have seen photos. But there were many commemorative 3 RM coins and I think it's fine just to give what the good source says. On the other hand, if a high-quality freely-licensed picture of the zeppelin coin was available, I'd take that gladly. We could use it to replace one of the eight stamp images; they are beautiful and stamps are an important part of the story, but eight are perhaps too many. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've implemented this; what do you think? It seems there was a 5 RM coin as well.. for now, let's just leave it in the text per the source. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Incorrect removal

I've just discovered that this edit from 2011-08-20 removed text incorrectly, including the Clarence Tehune story (added by me but with a typo which was later fixed). Likely an innocent oversight, but editors may wish to check that edit in case anything else was lost, there appear to be two or three other very short text passages removed. -84user (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've restored the bit about his return to the US, which I didn't previously have in the sources. Are the New York Times sources accessible to you for checking? --The Huhsz (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see only the limited free preview example showing headlines and a tiny thumbnail with the LZ 127's path down coast of France and Spain and its return to Germany. (EDIT adding this and that. -84user (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)) In the past I have made requests for old media pages with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request and I see others have successfully used it for The New York Times. -84user (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Finished?

Ok, I came here six weeks ago with a question about spelling. I've ended up rewriting the article, adding from dozens of high-quality sources, mostly ones that were already referenced here but being under-utilised. I've kept almost all of the original postal images which are beautiful and highly significant to the airship. I've added a few more historical shots to give balance as the article is longer now. Perhaps a little too long, but I've tried to move ancillary detail into notes. I've also tried to achieve a balance between technical data and cultural/historical stuff. I reckon it's pretty good, but I'd definitely welcome a critique from other editors who are watching this page. Does the King Kong story belong, even in a footnote? Anyway, thanks to those who started this and who have indulged me in the weeks I've been gathering and reading sources, writing, and editing. I've learned a lot about the subject and I've enjoyed it very much. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Airships.net as a source

I really like www.airships.net as a site and I have read a fair bit of it. While there are very few out-and-out errors in it, it is a hobbyist site written and compiled by Dan Grossman. His sources are listed here. I don't think he has anything very much that we don't have access to ourselves, and it's therefore a tertiary source. I've therefore progressively reduced the article's use of it; from quite a lot it's now down to zero. I'm happy to see this article now pretty much all sourced to what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick glance

After a request for review I've had a very quick look, it is busting MOS:SANDWICH a lot. It seems well written but too long, it could be split (WP:SPLIT) into child articles detailing the world tours etc. and expanded at the same time (win/win situation). 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am starting to do this work in my sandbox. If anyone strenuously objects, now would be a good moment to let me know. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you think? Probably still needs a tidy, but in pronciple? --The Huhsz (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting there. Two things I didn't notice yesterday are the keyed diagram in the specs section (as clicking on the image enlarges it and reveals the key code the very long caption is not required) and a video in the 'See also' section (it is general convention not to have any images past the 'specs' section. The image sandwiching is better but there are quite a few displaced section headers (probably different on various display resolutions), it's possible that more images could be trimmed, either moved to the sub-article(s) or sent back to Commons. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You just need to remember if you have copied text from here to your operational article you will need to attribute it back to this article for copyright reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus227 and MilborneOne. Anything else? --The Huhsz (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Date of Recife accident

This source gives 13 April 1935, and both Vaeth (1958) p 188 and Dick & Robinson (1985) p 57 give 25 April 1935. Any thoughts? --The Huhsz (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)