Talk:Günther Lütjens

External links

Re: edit summary ("opinion"), the removed external links were of dubious accuracy; please see WP:EXT. The article is quite extensive, and these links do not provide anything useful.

Additionally, a consensus is not required to remove external links; please see WP:NOCONSENSUS, specifically:

• "In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them."

Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There is only one opposing it. The consensus has remained for several years. Reverted. Dapi89 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when one person opposes the links, and one supports them, this is called "no consensus". Re edit summary "rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive", please see WP:NPA.

What is the value of having these links in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Please advise. Your position as to why these links should be kept is unclear. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dapi, you call them "useful links to databases", but these are personal, self-published web sites of unknown accuracy. The links in question are:

• "Günther Lütjens". Bismarck: Portrait of the Men Involved. Retrieved 9 July 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
• "Günther Lütjens". Battleship Bismarck. Retrieved 9 July 2012.
• "Günther Lütjens". kbismarck.com. Retrieved 19 January 2015.
• "Günther Lütjens". Maritime Quest. Retrieved 19 January 2015.
• John Asmussen. "Operation Berlin". Scharnhorst Class. Retrieved 19 January 2015.

For example, one of them (http://www.battleshipbismarck.info/about.htm states: "This website was created by Aziz Evliyaoglu in 2000. Later it changed ownership on the 7th of November, 2005. Calcio Network © Copyright 2000 - 2007". Another one is http://www.maritimequest.com/ "© 2005-2017 Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com". I don't see linking to these sites being of service to the readers.

In any case, I've requested a WP:3O. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion Request: The request for a 3O has been removed (i.e. rejected). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. With one editor having made only one comment, above, no thorough back-and-forth discussion has occurred here. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear that these links are either reliable, or useful to the article. I would be interested to see evidence on either of those points, and we should have such evidence before they are re-inserted. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Since when does a link have to be proven reliable, when they are supported by the information in the article? Dapi89 (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:EXT:

• No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

No justification was presented, so I will remove the links. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Reverted. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So I see. Again, can you make any argument that these links are either reliable or useful? I'd say that none are reliable and that none contain any further information of significance to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already done so. But I'll repeat myself. This is not an argument, but a fact. Don't mistake the two. Read the article, follow the citations given, and apply them to the links. Perhaps then you will see the connection between reliability and the externals. Dapi89 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Please add the IPA of name's pronounciation.Propatriamori (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)