Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) 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

Archives: 1, 2

Skip to table of contents

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 9, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 13, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 31, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 8, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
July 19, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
February 20, 2009	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
April 12, 2022	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted
May 25, 2024	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

I added something to the article but it got removed. Why?

In all probability, what you added was unsourced information or information cited to an unreliable source; such information is usually removed quickly because of the article's Featured Status. Featured Articles on Wikipedia require reliable sources for an independent verification of the facts presented, consequently any information added to a Featured Article without a reliable source is subject to removal from the article at any Wikipedian's discretion.

I see information in the article that has no source. What should I do?

This sources used in this article are cited at the end of each paragraph (known on Wikipedia as "per paragraph citation") so a check of the numbered note at the end of the paragraph should provide the source for the information. If this does not work, then add {{cn}} to the suspicious information to draw attention to information that may not be cited by a source. Alternatively, you may add reliable sources to the uncited information by using ref tabs (<ref></ref>). If you do add a source to the article consider using one of the citation template(s) to ensure that you add all necessary information from your source to the article.

The entire article makes reference to the ship as "she", shouldn't the battleship be referenced as "it"?

This is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and the consensus of the editors for the Military history WikiProject and its contributors is that ship articles on Wikipedia may use an all "she/her" format or an all "it" format, but the article may not alternate between the two forms of reference. The primary source of U.S. ship articles is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS), which refers to all ships as "she" or "her"; as a result, is it easier for some members to simply carry that format through the rest of the article.

Something in the lead section doesn't have a footnote. I'm going to put a {{fact}} tag on it right now.

This article (like many others) uses the approach of putting no citations in the lead section. This is because everything in the lead is also found in the body of the article along with its citation, as the lead functions as a summary of the entire article.

I added pop culture reference(s) to this article, but they were removed. Why?

The pop culture reference(s) were removed in accordance with the Military history project's guidelines governing the inclusion of popular culture material in military history articles. Although we are aware that the Iowa-class battleships have appeared in a number of books, games, and movies, a conscience decision was made to eliminate all pop cultural references from the individual battleships articles and consolidate them into a single section in the Iowa-class battleship article. Before adding an pop culture reference to the class article though you should read the FAQ located on the Iowa-class battleship talk page and the hidden note located in the pop culture section on the class page, both of which outline very specific guidelines for the inclusion of pop culture material.

This article is long!

Yes, it is. In part due to its length, general and specific characteristics have been split: general information on the class history can be found on the article Iowa class battleship, info on the weapons used by the battleship can be found at Armament of the Iowa class battleship, and the history of each ship can be found on that ship's individual page.

Military history: Maritime / Memorials / North America / United States / World War II / Cold War / 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

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

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin High‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Float planes

As far as I know she carried float planes (mostly in WWII), but how many and what type? And what about the helicopters? 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading preservation section?

Congress had ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Wisconsin could be returned to active duty if needed:

She must not be altered in any way that would impair her military utility;
The battleship must be preserved in her present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16 in (406 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Wisconsin, if reactivated;
The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Wisconsin should she be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.

These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the Nation Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Wisconsin while she was in the Mothball Fleet. It was unlikely that these conditions would impede a plan to turn Wisconsin into a permanent museum ship at her berth in Norfolk.

So it's this section here, I haven't been able to find the actual phrase in the 2006 National Defence Authorization Act. There is mention of:

(d) Authority for Reversion in Event of National Emergency.--The Secretary of the Navy shall require that the terms of the transfer of a vessel under this section include a requirement that, in the event the President declares a national emergency pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the transferee of the vessel shall, upon request of the Secretary of Defense, return the vessel to the United States and that, in such a case, unless the transferee is otherwise notified by the Secretary, title to the vessel shall revert immediately to the United States.

but the 4 point preservation condition doesn't appear. The second point appears in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, but in reference to the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. 12.151.56.2 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of the inside of the boat?

I think an added section about the inside of the ship would be a good addition, definently not something i could do, as this is far from my usual topics i edit, although i do remember there being an oddly red lit room when i recently visited. ¿V0id? {have a great day!} (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 closed recently, for another Iowa-class vessel. Essentially, that FAR determined that the ship's description needed expanded with material on things such as fire control and overall armor protection, and that some of the significant scholarly print literature on the Iowa-class needed incorporated. This article is largely sourced to DANFS and a ship's organization, which while not bad sources, are not necessarily a broad view of the performance and nature of these vessels. Hopefully improvements can be made and featured article review avoided. Hog Farm _Talk 20:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temper Temper

An apocryphal but unverified story is after the Wisconsin destroyed the North Korean battery is that an escort flashed a signal stating "TEMPER, TEMPER". Research gathered from logs doesn't indicate much but it could have been impromptu. Regardless, I think this should be included due to many people becoming familiar with the Wisconsin through this story. Recommended action should be this be included in the notes section. Usaf2222 (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usaf2222: You would need to provide a reliable source to support this anecdote, otherwise it's considered original research, which is kinda' like hearsay in court... it can't be used. - wolf 09:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it could be added and just noted that it is a common story but has little official documentation. Jason741776 (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd need a source that supports that it's a common story (or whatever is written). North8000 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason741776: Interestingly, a search for "temper, temper" (in quotes) + Wisconsin + battleship on Google Books and Google Scholar does not reveal a single academic source that can speak to this. That surprised me. I'm wondering if it's one of those urban legends that has bounced around for so long that everyone thinks it's true? The second answer in this forum discussion (it's not a reliable source, but they cite primary sources we can chew on) did not come to a solid conclusion either way. Either way, we can't include this information without some sort of reliable source being able to speak to its truthfulness and/or popularity. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally think it should be a note and maybe a redirect. It's definitely Apocryphal as no ship log recorded the transmission but it could definitely be within the realm of possibility. However, since it's repeated enough, maybe some context as to the story would be appropriate, if at least to dispel some rumors since it's a very popular urban legend.

My two cents anyway. Usaf2222 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usaf2222: We can't include information that isn't supported by a reliable source. Verifiability is one of our three core content policies here. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put a note on talk page for USS Buck (DD-761) pointing to this discussion. This legend has been added to to USS Buck a couple times. Thank you for the skeptics stackexchange link above that indicates USS Duncan rather than Buck. Honestly, even if this had a reliable source, it just seems like a 70+ year old joke that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WoWS

I'm adding this to raise awareness about the game's efforts to support admission for vets. All of the proceeds generated will be donated. I will likely delete when the event is over. Jason741776 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason741776, and thanks for joining Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this sort of information is often not suitable for Wikipedia as it is/will be at best a minor footnote in the ship's much larger history. If the event has been covered in a reliable and secondary source, we can discuss it—but I'm thinking it's too off topic. I also don't think any of the websites I can see [1] [2] [3] meet the reliable source criteria. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was adding it not really for the game related content (as much as I like the game) but more to do with the partnership between World of Warships and the museum itself, where proceeds from the game went to free admission for vets. If it was unclear from my addition that's what I was going for. I would also be happy to rephrase it as well. I thought that would be a noteworthy collaboration. Jason741776 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason741776: Without a reliable source speaking about it, I'm afraid there's no chance of us including it here. I'm already thinking it's of borderline relevance to this article's topic (the battleship), and I'm guessing other editors around Wikipedia would agree. It may be suitable for the World of Warships article, and given that article's more clearly related scope, it may be fine to cite a primary source like a devblog. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes "reliable"? I've seen several definitions floated around by different people so I'm wondering what you're going off of. If a devbolg or something would make more sense then Will try to find the actual article. I thought the collaboration made sense given its nature as a museum, and the partnership between the two orgs for museum admission Jason741776 (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason741776: Our definition of a reliable source is located at WP:RS! Speaking generally, museums partner with people, organizations, and companies all the time. That's why the bar for considering it here is it being reported in a reliable secondary source, which can range from global news sources down to regional newspapers. For the game's article, our consideration can be a bit different—it could be a big enough change or notable moment in the game that it deserves mention in the article, even if the only source for it is primary. Others may disagree on that, though. Everything here operates on consensus and agreement, and in an ideal world big changes or moments would be notable for their coverage in secondary sources. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]