Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

No missiles showing in 'Circa 1990' Wisconsin pic?

I thought I remembered that one of the many upgrades prior to 1990 included missile arming on Wisconsin. I can't see any in the picture. Or was said addition not visible in the whole-ship, bow view? Perplexed? [[Visitor]

A guide to the 1980s weapons systems on an Iowa-class battleship

They use the ABL launchers, which you can just barely see in this picture. They just look like a box on its side, and aren't that visible. --Jkonrath 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ABL=Armored Box Launchers. Look above and behind the pair of 5" turrets on the port side, near the top center of the superstructure, forward of the stack. You will see two boxes about the size of a small semi trialer athwartship. Aft of that on the same level is another set of boxes mounted at a 45 degree angle from the keel, alongside the stack. I believe the forward ones were the Tomahawks and the aft were Harpoons. More modern ships use a Vertical Launch System (VLS) and all you'd see would be a grid of hatches on the deck. Gone are the days of the Tartar and Terrier where you have a turret with two missile rails.--J Clear 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Were you originally looking for something like this?--J Clear 22:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, second group of large boxes at 45 deg. are also Tomahawk. In between the two groups are the shorter Harpoons. You can see everything much better at the ABL article. Zoom in on the broadside picture there.--J Clear 22:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin is struck

I was a little bit saddened yesterday when I noticed in the NVR that Iowa and WisKy had been struck in March. It took me until today to find that the Wiki was on top of it. I swear I looked yesterday and it wasn't there, but edit histories don't lie.

Anyway, it seems like the details of the fire support controversy, 1996 and 2006 Bills are triplicated in the Wiki in the Class, BB-61 and BB-64 articles. Perhaps there could be less generic detail on the BB-61 and BB-64 pages for that topic, leaving it on the Class page. Or could the whole topic have its own page? It doesn't seem like much of a stretch when individual TV episodes get their own page. Since it involves another class of ship, DD(X), that's another justification.

Also saw that there were still vairous present tense references to the ships being in reserve. Maybe I'll tackle those after another cup of coffee. I'm not feeling bold enough to do fire support stuff w/o discussion. Not when there are 16" guns involved.--J Clear 13:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just take it all out - in all the articles. There is no need for the fire support discusion if there is no ship re-activation. And there won't be. Spejic 05:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a relevant point, as that was the reason they were maintained on the NVR past 1992. The info here is small because a good discusion used to be found on the DD(X) destroyer page, although all that info has now been removed, and on the Iowa-class page. IMHO it should remain in the article until the USN officially transfers the battleships to their memorial/museum associations. TomStar81 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of paring down the individual ship pages to details that were unique to the ship. For instance the three item list from the 1996 bill seems more apt for just the Iowa class battleship page. At the moment it is duplicated at least three places. It seems to me that items that effect multiple ships of a class should be covered heavily on the class page, and only on the individual ship page to the extend the issue effected that ship uniquely (e.g. the dates it changed status with a very brief, linked, explaination).--J Clear 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the section down some, drawing on your suggestion to outsorce the information. Is this better? TomStar81 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Better. Thanks. But that three item list is still stuck in my head as belonging only on the class page. I know I'm cajoling when I could be editing, but I'd rather convince those who've invested in the page to date. Hmm, there seems to be a gap between the 1996 Act and 1998 when the article says she was relisted, did it really take 2 years to put her on the register? Also when did she move to Nauticus?--J Clear 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can not seem to find the info pertaining to 96-98 relisting, so I have removed that until I can source it (it may be from one of my books). The Move to Nauticus was completed 7 December 2000, a date since added to that section. I will lokk at the three point system and see about reorganizing it after dinner, but right now I gotta go because I am holding up the meal (and getting bad looks from the family ;) TomStar81 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some things are more important than the Wiki.:-) --J Clear 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed down the article even more. Is this closer to what you had in mind? TomStar81 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. I did think that should be replaced that with a single sentence which included a link to (possibly) the Iowa class battleship#Reactivation potential. Of course having a Naval fire support debate (1991-) article to link to would be nice--J Clear 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

An even better article would be one for the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996. TomStar81 03:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Availability for Donation

Federal Register: Notice of Availability for Donation (3/29/2006) Pages 15708-15710, in case someone wants to work it in as a ref or extenal link. 6 Months to submit complete application. Let's hope that Norfolk's omitting the required tow plan doesn't complicate things. Likely easier to hire a tug for an hour than explain why there's no tow plan. If nothing else, the tug could stretch out the mooring chains a bit for testing and inspection.--J Clear 15:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Future

Not quite dead yet. While this is still a long way from law, you might be interested in Pages 68 and 193-4 of NDAA 2007 Commitee Report. Basically page 68 saying that the Iowa's status should be "Mobilization Asset", which looks a lot like the Act of 1996 requirements (mothballed, ammo, logistics), except for being stricken and transferred. And page 193-4 mentioning fire support and lack of progress thereon.--J Clear 15:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

She?

Why is it refered to as female so many times?

In english (and many other languages) ships are are often affectionally referred to as she. Raul654 03:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A reading from The Hunt for Red October: "Ryan smiled to himself. An American or allied ship was a she; the Russians used the male pronoun for a ship; and the intelligence community usually referred to a ship as it." TomStar81 03:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"A ship is always referred to as she, because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder." — Admiral Chester Nimitz

—wwoods 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's silly, affected, and very jarring... but I am certainly not going to fool with a featured article until I get a lot more experienced. :) kdogg36 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be but we've always referred to our ship (USS Missouri) as "She". It's just tradition. Every U.S. Navy sailor I've ever met referred to his (or occasionally her) ship as "She." ---B- 05:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same point came up when USS Missouri was on the mainpage back on September 2nd, and many of the same points were raised in that discussion as well. TomStar81 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Ship?

The intro has a line about the ship being the US Navy's second ship; what does this mean? Is there a list? If so, there should be a link, methinks. I don't know enough about the matter to take action, I'm afraid. Great article, though. Kudos! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We are refering to the second ship the navy named in honor of the US State of Wisconsin. The first USS Wisconsin was a battleship, the nineth to be exact, while the second USS Wisconsin was the 64th battleship, and the two witch this talk page is devoted. More information about ships named USS Wisconsin can be found here. TomStar81 08:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I see it now. Thank you. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Only THREE planes in WWII ?!

During Wisconsin's brief career in World War II, she had steamed 105,831 miles (170,318 km) since commissioning; had shot down three enemy planes; had claimed assists on four occasions; and had fueled her screening destroyers on some 250 occasions.

Judging from the information before, this number seems incredibly small. --Sandycx (Talk)18:08 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And the inclusion of the 250 fuelings makes her sound like a replenishment oiler. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That info comes from DANFS, so its taken on an "as is" basis. TomStar81 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If 106k miles is nautical miles, then it's 196k km. —wwoods 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"If ... then it's 196k km"... better make that 196k nm... [[Visitor]

The preceeding numbers were task force counts. WisKy would have been near the center of the formation, ringed by a destroy screen whose job it was shoot down the plane before the could get to the capital ships. Guess is says something for the tin can sailors that WisKy only had three. Look around for the photos of what happens when a kamikazee gets through to an Iowa class BB. Possibly on the Missouri article, as she got "hit". I've seen the "dent" in the rail. You have to look hard or have someone point it out to you.--J Clear 22:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Struck from the NVR

The intro states it was in 2006, the Museum Ship section says it was 1995/96. Surely one or the other ... --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

An oversite on my part. Information I had on Wisconsin stated that she had been struck in ’96, then reinstated to the NVR in ’98. I have a feeling that 1996 Defense bill had something to do with that, but I have no proof. Its the little things that get ya ;) TomStar81 08:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

NVR says decommissioned in 1991, stricken in 2006. NavSource says stricken in 1995, reinstated in 1998. DANFS is woefully out of date. —wwoods 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I could not find the NavSource version of the info when prompted, so I removed it for lack of a source. "Better safe than sorry", as they say. TomStar81 23:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Museum ship?

The article says (paraphrased): Wisconsin currently functions as a museum ship at the Nauticus National Maritime Center. Wisconsin is currently awaiting donation for use as a museum ship. I don't understand - is she a museum ship now, or will she become a museum ship? - Brian Kendig 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Until this April, WisKy was still on the NVR and considered mothballed. The Navy graciously allowed Nauticus to park the WisKy at their pier and allow visitors on the weather (outside) decks. The interior was sealed up in "mothball" condition. She has since been struck from the NVR, but the Navy still owns her. I'm sure there is a move afoot to transfer title to Nauticus or a related Museum ship group. When this happens they will likely open up the interior for touring. But it looks like the article could explain it better.--J Clear 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture removal

Removed initial picture, which previously had obviously been replaced by an onscene image showing someone defecating. Sorry, but this was an emergency measure, June 9, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.31.36.36 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 June 2006.

Removing the image was pointless and accomplishes nothing to prevent vandalism. --Crossmr 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of that exchanged picture was NOT pointless, it at least prevented others from seeing this really ugly and apalling pic. I know that that doesn't prevent vandalism, but since I'm not a wikipedia writer (don't have the time, I don't registrate to prevent wikipedia editing from becoming a habit), this was the only thing I could do. So if you have a better idea, please tell me what to do in this case. IMHO I did what was necessary to prevent disgrace to USS Wisconsin and those that served on her, helping to secure our freedom. Luckily now everything is fixed and there is now a pic representing the ship!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.31.36.36 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 June 2006.

Edits

Do the changes always become so fast and furious when an article gets "featured"? Or is this nothing compared to others? Yes I'm new around here, why do you ask? ;-) --J Clear 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually the "fast and furious" changes occur when an article is on the mainpage, as this puts the largest limelight availiable on the article and draws out people who would otherwise not go looking for it. Often the activity is only for the 24 hour period the article is on the mainpage, after that it tends to settle down. TomStar81 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wisky

The following quote was in the Article Wisky. It had no reference. User:ches88 redirected it here, but gave no reason. I'm cleaning up orphaned articles. Any help would be appreciated. meatclerk 07:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wisky is the nickname of the USS Wisconsin (BB-64). The nickname started when the damaged bow of the Wisconsin was replaced with the bow removed from the incomplete Kentucky. KY is the abbreviation for Kentucky. So Wis + ky = Wisky.

I think at one point that Whisky was the radio code for "W", if it isn't still.--J Clear 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It still is, or at the various least, it is still used as the NATO reporting name for "W". TomStar81 (Talk) 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I should have know they wouldn't have changed "Whisky Tango Foxtrot", over.--J Clear 11:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

This article's featured status is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64). I would think addition of a FAR tag would merit more than a minor tag with no edit summary. --Dual Freq 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Is far as I'm concerned the DANFS article is reliable enough to single source the items double sourced with DANFS and USS Wisconsin Assoc. If they conflict something should be done to figure out which is correct. I would be satisfied to source each paragraph only one time with the source most appropriate. If a question arises in the future, someone can check it with the paragraph source or add a new source to the new or questioned material. Are there any suggestions or volunteers? --Dual Freq 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] is an example of what is proposed. --Dual Freq 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Only a few sections left to remove over citations, "The Korean War (1950-1952)" is one. --Dual Freq 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ulithi?

There is a part upfront that I believe to be erroneous: "During her career Wisconsin served in World War II, where she shelled Japanese fortifications at Ulithi and Leyte Gulf, ..."

I believe the tiny atoll of Ulithi was undefended by the Japanese, and seize for the large lagoon it provided (a safe anchorage). Thus, I don't think the Wisconsin - or any ship - shelled Ulithi.

I do not, however, have a source to back me up.

Tom Scout1026

I dropped the shelling mention from the header since the Ulithi article seems to back your version. Thansk for pointing this out. --Dual Freq 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

FAR comments Introduction and Contents

1. First use of "BB" in battleship articles should explain that it is a hull classification for American battleships. The article should stand alone, this one is closer than most I have read on Wikipedia in doing so.
2. International, so you have to say "Philadelphia Navy Yard" in Pennsylvania.
3. She "Japanese fortifications at Leyte Gulf" in the Phillipines, or better, confine it to the battle if this is the case. The second part of the sentence should be closed, "and screened US aircraft carriers as they conducted air raids against enemy positions during this battle."
4. All her WWII battles were in the Pacific Theater, so this should be stated at the beginning.
5. Don't abbreviate first usage of UN, spell it out.
6. Put the year of each decommisioning in. Put "mothball fleet" in parantheses only the first time.
7. Don't use parantheses on "600-ship Navy," and explain it parenthetically (in commas probably) with a statement or two. It's not central enough to the article that the reader should have to go elsewhere to find out what it is. Include a date to this.
8. "Battle stars for war service" is redundant. Remove "war."
9. "and is currently awaiting donation for permanent use as a museum ship." Donation to Nautilus? Or what?
10. Needs a section on its armaments, as it's a battleship. I realize it's in the table, but it needs a discussion in comparison to other vessels of its class, and what it has before you talk about using it.
11. Maybe need specific sections or subsections on its decommisioning.

KP Botany 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. These issues will be adressed shortly. Thank you for your input. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR Construction

1. Armaments should come right after this.
2. "Wisconsin was one of the "fast battleship" designs planned in 1938 by the Preliminary Design Branch at the Bureau of Construction and Repair." How about an explanation that this is the US Navy's design wing at that time?
3. "She was the third of the four completed ships of the Iowa class of battleships.[1]" Explain Iowa class briefly, but the article needs to stand alone and this is critical information in the context of US battleships, and this makes the following sentence understandable to an uninitiated reader.
4. "Although Wisconsin is numerically the highest numbered US battleship built, she was actually completed before USS Missouri (BB-63), making Missouri the last completed US battleship.[1][2]" Include its number in parantheses as a reminder, since this is the specific topic. Don't worry about being too redundant all the time, which other editors will tell you.
5. "Her keel was laid down on 1941 January 25, at the Philadelphia Navy Yard." Connect to the keel article, and maybe add a brief comment, in some way, to let the uninitiated know that this is the start of the shipbuilding process.
6. "She was launched on 1943 December 7, sponsored by Mrs. Walter S. Goodland, wife of the governor of Wisconsin, and commissioned on 1944 April 16, with Captain Earl E. Stone in command.[3][4]" Use her full name, this is not a salutation or address to her, "sponsored by SomePrettyNames Goodland, wife of Walter S. Goodland, then governor of Wisconsin." Again, be redundant, "Captain Earl E. Stone of the United States Navy." With each introduction of an officer you should state that he is US Navy (or Marine Corps or whatever).
7. Maybe mention that US Navy no longer builds battleships explicitly, and what they are replaced with. I guess aircraft carriers and those smaller ones with the VTOL and helicopters and their destroyers? Something simple, but clear.

KP Botany 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. These issues will be adressed shortly. Thank you for your input. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

FAR World War II

1. "following her shakedown" ---> "following her shakedown cruise" for readers who did not live most lf their lives around shipyard workers and US Marines.
2. "1944 September 24" This format is awkward for me for reading. I don't know what WP:MOS says about this, but this format is usually only used for paranthetical citations rather than for inline discussion of a date. Someone wouldn't say "On nineteen forty four September twenty four Wisconsin sailed for the west coast." But they might say, "On September twenty four nineteen forty four Wisconsin sailed for the west coast." Also your names were irregularly formatted throughout, use one format the entire article, especially within the same sentence, as you end this one with "2 October."
3. "On 1944 September 24, Wisconsin sailed for the west coast, transited the Panama Canal, and reported for duty with the Pacific Fleet on 2 October." -->"On 1944 September 24, Wisconsin sailed for the west coast, transiting the Panama Canal, and reporting for duty with the Pacific Fleet on 2 October." sounds better to me, you may disagree.
4. "The battleship later moved to Hawaiian waters for training exercises and then headed for the Western Caroline Islands." Was she stationed at Pearl Harbor? Be specific whenever possible.
5. "Upon reaching Ulithi on 1944 December 9, she joined Admiral William F. Halsey's Third Fleet.[3]" ---> "Upon reaching Ulithi in the Caroline Islands she joined US Navy Admiral ..." Always include an officer's branch of service unless an article is limited to one branch of service, but especially when dealing with military ships where you are likely to have Naval, Marine, Air Force and Army officers on board, even if it is an obvious naval rank and position.
6. "Wisconsin had arrived at a time when the reconquest of the Philippines was well underway." When? "Wisconsin arrived in ______ when the reconquest of the Philippines was well underway."
7. "The next day the weather turned sour for Halsey's sailors." To use this sentence you need a firm date in the previous paragraph, first sentence, the point just above this one. I would say for Halsey's fleet, rather than sailors, although they're the ones dealing with the bad situtation, so might be okay.
8. "A furious typhoon struck his fleet, catching many ships refueling and with little ballast in their nearly dry bunkers." Can you link this to a specific typhoon and mention it by name? Also, wasn't the issue of needing ballast in a storm still open for debate at this time, so it was speculation that lack of sufficient ballast was an issue? And, do ships contain ballast in their bunkers? You have to tie the mention of the empty bunkers into the typhoon. Aren't the bunkers for fuel? I can ask and find out if you don't know.
9. "Three destroyers, Hull (DD-350), Monaghan (DD-354), and Spence (DD-512), capsized and sank. Wisconsin proved her seaworthiness as she escaped the storm unscathed.[3]" Would "escapted the storm without damage" be preferable, as "unscathed" sounds rather like adventure novel writing. Stylistic, though, you decide.
10. "Wisconsin’s next operation was in the Philippines, specifically the occupation of Luzon." Sounds like they were in Philippine waters already, so "also in the Philippines." Or Wisconsin's next operation in the Philippines." And "specifically the occupation of Luzon," "support for air strikes before landings at Luzon" or whatever.
11. "Bypassing the southern beaches, American amphibians went ashore at Lingayen Gulf, the scene of the Japanese landings nearly three years before.[3]" "American amphibious forces went ashore at Lingayen Gulf, the scene of initial Japanese assaults to take Luzon nearly three years before." or something that lets the reader know this was the scene of one of the very earliest Japanese assaults on the Philippines in World War II.
12. "Wisconsin, armed with heavy anti-aircraft batteries, performed escort duty for TF 38's fast carriers during air strikes against Formosa, Luzon, and the Nansei Shoto, to neutralize Japanese forces there and to cover the unfolding Lingayen Gulf operations." "... to cover the unfolding Allied Lingayen Gulf operations."
13. "Those strikes, lasting from 3 January to 1945 January 22, included a thrust into the South China Sea, in the hope that major units of the Imperial Japanese Navy could be drawn into battle.[3]" Why? "... could be drawn into the battle on an additional front" or "... could be drawn into battle there away from the planned landings." Whatever the reason for the attempt to split the Japanese forces, name it.
14. "Wisconsin’s carrier group launched air strikes between Saigon and Camranh Bay, Indochina, on 1945 January 12 resulted in severe losses for the enemy." "... air strikes between Saigon and Camranh Bay, French Indochina on January 12, 1945 resulting in severe ...."
15. "TF 38's warplanes sank 41 ships and heavily damaged docks, storage areas, and aircraft facilities." Including landing strips? This mattered severely to allied plans so should generally be mentioned when specifically listed in battle reports.
16. "Formosa, already struck on 3 January and 4 January, was raided again on 9 January, 15 January, and 1945 January 21." Again the awkward dates.

KP Botany 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I will adress the issues you have brought up shortly. Thank you for the input. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)