Talk:Gordon Gollob/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"originally" Scottish?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Either his father was Scottish or he wasn't. Is "originally Scottish" supposed to mean he was born in Scotland, naturalised Austro-Hungarian, or of Scottish ancestry? Binabik80 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

interview in February 2000

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Johannes Steinhoff said about Gollob in an interview with World War 2 Magazine in February 2000:

Johannes Steinhoff 15 September 1913 - 21 February 1994

Hello I am from Germany. You say, Mr. Steinhoff gave an interview in February 2000, but Mr. Steinfoff ist dead since 1994. I think there is something wrong. Rainer

Indeedy - first printed in feb 2000 it should read - as it does now Abel29a 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gollob is a Polish last name. For the origin of his name read Günther Fraschka's "Knights of the Reich" (ISBN-10: 0887405800). As for "to become more "Germanic"", there were thousands of German soldiers and SS-members with non-German(-ic) names. They were germanized Slavs, huguenots etc. No-one cared for their family names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.184.115 (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Date of death in the beginning of the article (sept 8) differs from the one in the end (sept 7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.252.211 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Could the reverting editor please clarify what the objections are? For example, this edit addressed a variety of issues (diff:

Austrian ''[[Austrian Armed Forces|Bundesheer]]'' (Austrian Armed Forces) was simplified to Austrian Armed Forces, since this is what the article is named.
Similarly, ''[[Generalfeldmarschall]]'' (Field Marshal) [[Gerd von Rundstedt]]'s [[Army Group South|''Heeresgruppe Süd'']] (Army Group South) to Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group South. This is overlinking and unneeded Germanisation of unit names and ranks. Many other examples, such as diff: Operation Taifun for Operation Typhoon, Panzergruppe for Panzer Group.
This edit (diff) removed the Wehrmachtbericht reference which was cited to the collection of the transcripts, a primary source. I believe that the matter has been settled a while ago with the consensus that the broadcasts should not be mentioned unless covered in a 3rd party source.
This was a copyedit for concision and clarity, as "dismissed from the party" is not the typical usage.
Additional edits along the same lines

A clarification as to the objections would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Good morning, evening where ever you are. An A-class article generally meets the expectations, criteria and best practices of Wikipedia. It would be better for the team spirit is you would announce and motivate your intended deletions and changes before you take out the red pen, otherwise it can be perceived as POV behavior. Having said that, I added a second source to the reference of the Wehrmachtbericht, this was a good suggestion. Regarding best practices on uniformity within an article, style guide for German military ranks and units, I suggest that you reach out to more knowledgeable and experienced editors than you or I are. I recommend that you talk to @Dapi89:, a professional historian, or @Peacemaker67:, both have a track record of high quality German military articles here on Wikipedia. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, I support German versions of ranks, particularly when there is potential for confusion within an article due to the non-equivalent Generalmajor (Major general) and Generalleutnant (Lieutenant general), but also where other rank equivalents are not obvious. I also think it is best to maintain one style (either German or English) in one article, rather than swapping between the two, so if there is a need to use the German for one rank, I tend to use it throughout for consistency. Equivalents can be easily provided in notes where German versions are provided in text. Generally I support English translations of units (1st Panzer Division) rather than the German version, but this can result in some confusion when dealing with Luftwaffe units due to their lack of direct translation to the British/American equivalent, so sometimes I choose to use the German version to achieve greater clarity ie with Jagdgeschwader and similar formations. Hope that helps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: Could you please indicate which specific edits you found objectionable? A-class and F-class articles are still subject to normal editing. This edit addressed POV issues, such as "finally being released from captivity". Gollob was released when the relevant authorities determined that it was time to release him, not "finally". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

BRD

Editor has not come back to the discussion, in view of the ping here and a Talkback message left on Talk page: diff. Regarding the unit names above, my edits were solely to align the unit names to how they appear in Wikipedia articles, such as Army Group South, and not "Heeresgruppe Süd", for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Second BRD

@Dapi89: Please indicate which specific edits you disagree with; stating "Illogical" in the edit summary is not sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The editor has not come back to the discussion, in view of the ping here and the Talk page message: diff. Since no specific objections have been expressed, I'm reverting the revert, per WP:BRD. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Please indicate which edits are considered problematic. Reverting without discussion and labeling the edit "disruptive" is not how WP:BRD works. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: and @K.e.coffman: Please cease from your edit war. Hash out your differences here. K.e., just because you've become impatient about an editor not showing up for 3 or 4 days does not mean you can proceed. It just means that this person is busy. You've been asked frequently to stop this arbitrary editing of articles simply because you do not like the article. auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been through this before. The original contributor gives a through translation, albeit briefly, in the article. It is helpful and informative to the read and does not require them to seek clarification of the text's meaning anywhere else. Dapi89 (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Could the reverting editor please clarify what the objections are? For example, this edit addressed a variety of issues (diff:

Austrian ''[[Austrian Armed Forces|Bundesheer]]'' (Austrian Armed Forces) was simplified to Austrian Armed Forces, since this is what the article is named.
Similarly, ''[[Generalfeldmarschall]]'' (Field Marshal) [[Gerd von Rundstedt]]'s [[Army Group South|''Heeresgruppe Süd'']] (Army Group South) to Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt's Army Group South. This is overlinking and unneeded Germanisation of unit names and ranks. Many other examples, such as diff: Operation Taifun for Operation Typhoon, Panzergruppe for Panzer Group.
This was a copyedit for concision and clarity, as "dismissed from the party" is not the typical usage.
Additional edits along the same lines

The latest comment by Dapi89 does not address why the revert was performed. For example, from the above comments on the "disruptive" & "POV" edits, it's not clear why [[Army Group South|''Heeresgruppe Süd'']] (Army Group South) is superior to Army Group South, and why the article needs to emphasise that the subject was "finally" released. Why was the descriptor "right-wing" removed from "the Federation of Independents, a right-wing political party in Austria"?

More substantive comments would be appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV noticeboard

Although the discussion was not specific to this article, I believe that the results apply here. Please see the NPOVN: Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr. The feedback was that the guiding principles were WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. Would there be any further objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither editor has come back to the discussion, so I reinstated the changes, as meeting WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISH and WP:NPOV. Pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no issues with some of your changes but I do think you should retain the details of his schooling. Please address them accordingly. Until done so, the article should reflect in its reviewed state. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have done so. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected some of your changes as they do not reflect consensus, example military ranks should be in German, removal of citations MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gordon Gollob. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)