Talk:Blohm+Voss

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blohm+Voss article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Brands Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany: Hamburg Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Hamburg portal This article is supported by the Hamburg task force (assessed as High-importance).

Industrial design High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / European / German / World War I / World War II / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

& versus +

So far, no response from B+V on when they adopted the + versus the &. Anyone have any insight? -Joseph (Talk) 03:26, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Their logo has Blohm+Voss, without spaces, and & is the accepted way of abbreviating ‘and’ in text, both in German and English, so either way the current page title is wrong. 89.49.98.233 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blohm & Voss shipyards versus Blohm & Voss aircraft World War II

I would like to replace this page with a little introduction about the history of the company and its branches, then move on to two different pages: Blohm & Voss as shipbuilders versus Hamburger Flugzeugbau/Blohm&Voss aircraft from 1933 to 1945, Possibly with a third link to Hamburger Flugzeugbau as a production site since 1955

mmmm! is that really necessary? I don't think you have built a case for persuading people that that is the way to go.Petebutt (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new discussion here about which aircraft to discuss in this article and which at Hamburger Flugzeugbau. (sorry, only just noticed this thread). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VoB?

I’ve removed this
"The company's name is often found spelled Blohm + Voß in German (and occasionally English) sources"
I have never seen the eszett used in the name in any English language source; all the standard reference works (Janes, Conway etc) use "Voss", as do English editions of German works (like Niestle).
And there is nothing at the note, or the company website[1], or the german WP articles on the company[2], or on Voss himself[3], to support the statement that it is correct in German, either. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the German Wikipedia, or any other language Wikipedia, as a reliable guide. His autobiography is titled Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben: Lebenserinnerungen und Lebensarbeit des Mitbegründers der Schiffswerft von Blohm und Voß (Memoirs of my life: Memoirs and life work of the co-founder of the shipyard of Blohm and Voss) and names him as Ernst Voß. I have seen both forms on different company source documents, it's not so much a correctness thing as a fashion thing (as is the typographical choice of "und", "&" or "+"). On the English Wikipedia, "Voss" is the more appropriate and the choice of "und", "&" or "+" should follow common usage too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) The eszett (scharfes ess) sometimes appears in old advertisements and other related material, and it is not always obvious at first sight that the caption is not in English and the character is not a stylised "B". It also exists in the titles of several redirect pages to one article or another. So I think it useful to disambiguate it in the article and I have restored it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blohm + Voss. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Should the article title be Blohm + Voss as at present or Blohm+Voss as per the company logo and commonly used, e.g. [4]? Is there some arcane Wiki law that says we must insert spaces? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The condensed form Blohm+Voss is used on the company web site and is the most widely used elsewhere, so that means we should use it here. I have moved the article accordingly. If anybody disagrees, please give your reasons here and agree a consensus before reverting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B&V vs Hamburger Flugzeugbau

I have started a discussion here about which aircraft to discuss in this article and which at Hamburger Flugzeugbau. All contributions welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Steelpillow do vandalism in editions, while after Lürssen got the Yard, only ships and yacht repair is to be done with less personnel and costs from today. A guy in United Kingdow does not know the daily news of Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore work

The B+V web site includes offshore installations in their current product line. This is well cited in the article and should not be removed without forming a consensus here first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

shipyard details

Facilities

As of 2017 the shipyard consists basically in an area of approx. 421,300 m², a Quay length of approx. 2,100 m , Covered manufacturing facilities of approx. 92,000 m² with those Dry docks^{[shipyard 1]}:

1. Dock 17 : Length: 351.2 m, Breadth: 59.2 m, Draft: 09.7 m, For ships up to: 320,000 dwt, Crane capacity: 2 × 10 t, 2 × 50 t

2. Dock 10 : Length: 287.5 m, Breadth: 44.3 m, Draft: 10.2 m, For ships up to: 130,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 50,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 15 t, 2 × 35 t

3. Dock 11 : Length: 320.0 m, Breadth: 52.0 m, Draft: 10.8 m, For ships up to: 250,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 65,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 10 t, 2 × 35 t

4. Dock 16 : Length: 206.0 m, Breadth: 32.0 m, Draft: 09.5 m, For ships up to: 032,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 20,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 15 t, 1 × 50 t

5. Dock 06 : Length: 162.5 m, Breadth: 24.5 m, Draft: 08.0 m, For ships up to: 018,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 09,000 t, No Crane capacity

6. Dock 05 : Length: 160.0 m, Breadth: 28.0 m, Draft: 08.0 m, For ships up to: 018,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 09,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 5 t

7. Dock 12 : Length: 143.0 m, Breadth: 25.0 m, Draft: 08.0 m, For ships up to: 016,000 dwt, Lifting capacity: 06,000 t, Crane capacity: 2 × 15 t, 2 × 35 t

^ Map with Information+Facts

--user: 188.96.57.201.

That is taken right from their website; Wikipedia is not a webhost. If this were DUE there would be independent sources discussing it. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. According the new German language, Eszett is old. 2. Offshore is no longer a product. It was British Star Capital Product connection 3. It is not a shipbuilding anymore, just shipyard, while since 1 year, no new entire construction is in pallet, just repair. 4. 1/3 of entire facility stays, the rest would be rented for third people. In city the docks are a important reference 5. Since is in german hands again, it concentrates in Bremen Yard tasks.

So, the ones who does not know German language, can't read local german newspaper to be updated. It is the life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.57.201 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so sure of your facts, then it should be easy for you to verify them with citations from reliable sources, per WP:RS. Yes, that blue text is a link that I have given you to follow, read and understand. If you are not prepared to do that, you should not attempt to edit this encyclopedia. Until then, it is against the English Wikipedia policy to post unverified information, sorry. The eszett is being discussed in a different thread above this one. Sie sollen nicht vergessen auch, dass eingie Englische Menschen Deutsch haben, dass ist vielleicht ein venig besser als euer schreckliches Englisch. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should read daily more newspapers before writing or, reverting facts of others, from theme you really do not know. And it is not constructive destructing an article created and studied precisely by me. --188.96.57.201 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflated contracts

User:92.76.27.83 you keep adding content conflating things related to the MKS180 and the K130. These are two entirely different projects. You are also trying to bury the fact that the German government eliminated Lürssen and ThyssenKruppfrom the the MKS180 contract, apparently based on their poor performance on the F125. This is absolutely unacceptable. In any case please reply to my inquiry on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I confess I was misled by the conflation, I'll take more care in future. But I do think that much of the detail being added is too low-level and transient to be useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more of the story in this diff. Conflicted editors tend to leave out the bad stuff. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Conflict + conflation = confabulation. But I am struggling to see any relevance to an encyclopaedic article about B&V. Had B+V been guilty of poor workmanship? Is their bid still under consideration? Given the company's long, busy and sometimes turbulent commercial history, is any of the tale really that significant to it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes there were problems with B+V's work on the K130 contract (the ships actually listed!). I agree that keeping things NOTNEWS is important. Generally am happy to see detail trimmed. the contract for the MKS125 is still being figured out (with the exception of thyssen/luerssen being barred from bidding, which is a done thing and rocked the german shipbuilding world. i reckon that would be like lockheed martin being barred from bidding on a new warplane here in the US). that is very much a developing story. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Map with Information+Facts

[shipyard 1]