Jump to content

Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reusing references

I stumbled across the FAC comments and saw that this article had issues with reusing a reference multiple times. I ran onto this last year with List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) when we went past lz. Cite.php appears to have been updated recently so that backlinks now work up to zz, but this really makes for an ugly cite in the references section. I think a better way is to use the {{cref}} system that I just found. We updated the Eagle Scout list with this if you want to take a look. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref 13 from FAS where is that statement or source material? It is not on the FAS link mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.37.17 (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Length.

The Wisconsin is actually the longest battleship to serve in the US Navy. When they placed the Kentucky's bow on her, it made her nearly 2 feet longer than any of the other Iowa class ships.

From the History Channel.

65.29.159.92 03:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Pete

According to one of the guides aboard the ship, she actually isn't. As Kentucky's bow was identical in design and construction to Wisconsin's, she's exactly the same length as the other three Iowa-class ships, and the "eleven inches longer" is a persistent myth. Though if it is a myth, it's one that one of Nauticus's exhibits repeats. Binabik80 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Temper, Temper

I was recently at the USS Wisconsin museum in Norfolk. One of the exhibits recounts her only damage by direct fire, the incident in the Korean war. The article mentions that she was hit by 4 rounds, however the museum exhibit says that she was hit by one round of a four round salvo. The exhibit also mentions that after destroying the offending battery, one of her escort ships flashed the message, "Temper, Temper." Although not particularly historic, I think the remark should be included in the article. It humanizes an otherwise dry account of her missions during the Korean War.

Nylotic 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the name of the escort by chance? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Without a name I can not check the DANFS entries for the destroyers to confirm the story, but assuming this is true our mystery destroyer was probably operating with Destroyer Division 71. At present that is the best I can do to narrow down the ship. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Miles

Mileage figures have been converted to kilometres assuming that they are statute miles (=1.609 km), e.g. "105,831 miles (170,318 km)". Isn't it far more likely that they should be nautical miles (=1.852 km)?
—WWoods (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No sources in the lead?

Hi guys, seriously great article. But just a point of curiosity, How comes there are no references in the lead? I only ask as I'm trying to improve a ship article myself (to embarrassed to say this early on) and although I'm using the relevant project's guidelines, I've sort of adopted this article for inspiration (because it's FA) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that, just found my answer here. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A similar answer can be found on the FARC page for this battleship; it was brought to my attention that if the info in the intro was cited and elaborated on further down the page then it didn't need to be cited in the intro paragraph. Good luck with your article. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers mate, when I'm done I usually put an article up for all the peer reviews it's eligible for, I'll post a note here when it's up. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Past tense in reference to guns

Hi guys, me again. Wisconsin's a museum ship now I know, but she still has her guns (and I presume they could be made to work again). Do we definitely have to refer to her armament in the past tense? e.g. "Wisconsin’s main battery consisted of..."

Or should we always use past tense on ships that have been decommissioned? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say past tense for ships that are decomissioned, as there is little chance that a decomissioned ship would be reactivated for the hell of it. In this case the guns were refered to in past tense to keep with the tone of the article, which is largely a look back at her history. Regardless of whether you use the past tense or the present tense, make sure the tense you use remains consistant across the board. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes good idea, I shall have to be mindful of that, it's particularly tricky to remember when referring to modern weapons systems that may have been added later on (I expect u know what I mean, in regards to the cruise missiles). Ryan4314 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Main articles: Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship"

Hi guys, I've been reading Wikipedia:Layout#"See also" for one section, do we think the {{Main}} template is entirely appropriate for the link to the "Iowa class battleship" and "Armament of the Iowa class battleship" articles at the top of the "Construction" section?

It's just that upon further reading of {{Main}}, it implies the template should only be used on an offshoot article. Now I see the logic obviously in regards to "Iowa class battleship", but "Armament of the Iowa class battleship" seems like the offshoot of this article, perhaps {{See also}} would be more appropriate? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In general FAC bound articles attempt to lose the "see also" section becuase those who contribute to FAC have in the past voted against the promotion of articles with see also sections. In this case the class page and the armament page serve as the base articles for the small constructions sections, and thus are the main articles for the construction section, hence the main tag for the section. BTW, you are correct in your assumption that the armement page is an offshoot of the original class page: at one time the Iowa class article did contain all the information present on the armement page, but after an in house peer review it was decided to split the material out into its own article to keep the size for the class article down. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OIC, sorry to continue being a nuisance, but does anyone know why there isn't a {{Main}}, {{See also}} or any sort of template at the start of the WW2 section linking to the WW2 article for instance? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The answer to that question is that our WWII article deals with the war in its entirety, while this articles deals with the contribution of one warship to the conflict. With the exception of the signing of Japanese instrument of surrender, which is linked from the appropreite section in the article USS Missouri (BB-63), the WWII sections speak only of the battleship contributions to the war. In theory we could link to the pacific theatre articles, but there wouldn't be much to gain from that since the battles and campaigns that these battleships participated in should already be linked from the subsections in the WWII sections, thus removing the need for {{main}} and {{See also}} sections in those subsections. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OIC, that is most helpful thankyou, although say for example there was an article called "American naval forces during the Korean War" or something, would that qualify for a link? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It would depend on the composition of that article and on the contributer's judgement as to whether or not the article contains usefull information. Remember, its your rewrite, so if you judge something to be worthy of inclusion you should endovour to put it in the article any way you can. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see, well I'll whack a {{Main}} tag on it, just so u can see what I'm on about nearer the time, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask, what inspired you to put the images where you did? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my ability, I have tried to match the photographs with the camparable time period in the article. For example, on the USS New Jersey page the image of the plane about to strike intrepid is placed near a paragraph about kamakize strikes on the task force. In this article the image of Wissonsin steaming with the carrier in the background roughly corrosponds to that time frame. Images of Wisconsin's crushed bow roughly coorspond to the discussion of the incident with Eton. Photos of all four of the battleships undergoing modernization corrospond with a discussion of the modernization. I find this to be the best methode for judging where to put pictures becuase it takes most of the guesswork out of the placement. Just be careful not to put in to many images, or those users with higher moniter resolutions may see large white spaces between the text of the article and the images in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are FA class articles not meant to have any red links? If so, is it standard practice to simply create a stub Ryan4314 (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"The number of redlinks in an article should go down as the article's quality goes up. If your article is well-cited but has a large number of redlinks, it may be a good idea to invest some time in creating articles for the missing links or finding existing articles on Wikipedia that can serve as acceptable substitutes for them. Note that an article need not necessarily be completely redlink-free; but, in general, fewer redlinks visible in an article correlate to a higher chance of passing a featured article candidacy successfully."
—MILHIST FA advice. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, it's just because someone added a PROD tag to one of the pages I created to remove a red link. I don't suppose you could give me a link to where it says this please. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, does Wisconsin have a "motto" or crest? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:USS Wisconsin (BB-64) coat of arms.jpg, the motto appears to be "Forward for Freedom", the state of Wisconsin's motto is "Forward", it is also on the state's flag. Image:Flag of Wisconsin.svg. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What size does the crest have to be? I mean, coz it's an FA, is there a MOS guideline on it or anything? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle Stars

Tom, if BB-9 had any battlestars, would you add them to BB-64's in this article? (is that understandable?) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't, BB-9 and BB-64 were two different ships with two different service records. Unless they both happened to be involved in eerily similar actions which earned each ship the same award (like if BB-9 shelled a normandy beach in WWI and then BB-64 shelled the same sector of the same beach in WWII and each got battlestars for it) I wouldn't add such mentions to the article becuase the articles are pretty big as is, and we need all the space we can get here for information relevent to BB-64. (Incidentally, you may note that one instance of this does appear over at USS Missouri (BB-63, where BB-63 is mentioned as the first ship to circumnavigate the globe a mention is made of BB-11, which did the same thing with the great white fleet). TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, I should've explained better. In the UK, we have this thing (it's not major, just mainly for nostalgia purposes really) where a ship is sort of eternal, through her name. A good example might be; In WW1, there was naval battle around the Falklands Islands between the Germans and the British. HMS Glasgow (1909) was involved in it, so when the Falklands War of 1982 began, in which HMS Glasgow (D88) participated, people often referred to her as returning to the islands, even though it was that physical ship's first time there. LOL does that make sense?
In regards to battle honours, a ship like HMS Invincible has 8, even though the current incarnation has only gained 1 of those 8 (Falklands). An issue was raised on Cardiff's FAC, where a user believes that Cardiff's WW1 & WW2 battle honours should be added to her current incarnation's article. I, assuming this "system" was universal, was trying to find out the Wiki policy on this from you. Having said that, after looking at Ark Royal and Invincible (some of Britain's most prominent ship names), it seems simpler/less confusing to have the total number of honours on the disambig, what do you think? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Having dug into this some I can not find any instances of this having appeared here on Wikipedia before, so I would say be bold and do both: first discuss the awards earned by the current Cardiff, then add the awards earned by the predecessors. Thats what I would do anyway. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, the USN's Battle Stars don't follow the RN's battle honours system; the honors go to the individual ship, not the name. However, I do think that the Battle Stars sections of each USS article should include the individual awards (e.g., "Coral Sea 1942" and "Midway 1942" (among others) for the Yorktown. Perhaps Battle Stars should be a subsection of a Commendations and Battle Honors section (including Efficiency awards, Gunnery awards, et al) in the USS template? WeeWillieWiki (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

"While berthed in the Philadelphia Naval Yard, Wisconsin fell victim to an electrical fire, which damaged the ship and left her as the Iowa-class battleship in the worst material condition prior to her 1980s reactivation."

I can't think of how it could be reworded, however. Enigma message 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest "While berthed in the Philadelphia Naval Yard, an electrical fire damaged the ship and left her the Iowa-class battleship in the worst material condition prior to her 1980s reactivation." I'll wait a few days before making the change. 08:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seki1949 (talk • contribs)

USS Wisconsin in Texas

NO WHERE IN ANY OF THE ABOVE ARTICIALS IS THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS BAUGHT AND PAID 15 MILLION DOLLARS FOR HER TO THE GOVERNMENT AND HAD HER TOWED TO INGLESIDE TEXAS AND MOORED AT THE NAVEL PORT OF CORPUS MANY OF US WHO DONATED MONEY WERE INVITED TO BORD AND VISIT HER SHE WAS TOWED AROUND CORPUS CHRISTI BAY SAVERAL TIMES FOR EVERYONE TO SEE AND TAKE PICTURES WE WRERE PREPARING TO PUT HER ON AS A MUSIUM NEXT TO THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER LEXINGTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE NEXT THING I KNOW THE BATTLESHIP DISSAPPERED FROM INGLESIDE NO ON KNEW WHAT HAPPENED TO HER WE BAUGHT HER BECAUSE WHENSE WAS OFFERED TO THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY DIDENT WANT HER WE STILL DO HOW AFTER PAYING 15 MILLION DOLLARS FOR HER DID WE LOOSE HER OVER THE YEARS I HAVE WRITTEN TO HUNDEREDS OF OFFICIALS ASKING THIS QUESTION AND ONLY TODAY WHYLE SURFING THE NET I CAME ACCROSS THIS SITE HOW DID YOU COME BY ALL THE UP DATED MATERIAL AND NOT KNOW ABOUT WHAT I AM SAYING WHAT IS THE DEEP DARK SECRET ABOUT THIS ????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.207.165 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on dates? I see the stuff from the 1980s that says Lexington and Wisconsin were to be ported at Naval Station Ingleside and that the plan collapsed in the early 1990s.[1] I'm not seeing any reference in news databases for a Wisconsin museum there. I did find a brief note from 2003 saying, "[Wisconsin] made its only visit to the Coastal Bend in 1989, which was to be its homeport. On Sep. 30, 1991, it was decommissioned for the third time and is now berthed at the Nauticus and the Hampton Roads Naval Museum in Norfolk, Va." (Saturday Briefing; Corpus Christi Caller - Times. Corpus Christi: Jan 25, 2003. pg. B.1) Are you thinking of the visit in 1989 or did this event occur after the 2003 article that claims Wisconsin had only been there once? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't think this can even be mentioned in the article unless a better source is found since (I believe) that the source has been ruled unreliable at FAC. (Although I have seen artists renderings of the two (Wisconsin and Lexington) docked side-by-side at Ingleside). -MBK004 04:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying Global security is not reliable? Most of the stuff I see there is just copies of old US Navy website material anyway. Though I can't find any museum info, I have found a large number of articles in newspaper archive and proquest about the planned homeporting of Lexington and Wisconsin at Ingleside from mid-1980s to early-1990s, but nothing on the museum. I also found 2 Texas newspaper articles about the September 1, 1989 visit of Wisconsin to the area. It was a big deal, tugs led the ship around the bay and 40,000+ visitors were expected to tour the ship. (Battleship's arrival previews homeport. Kerrville Times. Kerrville, Texas. Thursday, August 31, 1989. Page 11) and {Photo caption from Galveston Daily News. Galveston, Texas. Friday, September 01, 1989. Page 9}. I can't dispute that there were plans to homeport Lexington and Wisconsin at Ingleside, but I can find nothing about a museum. The anonymous editor needs to give us a more accurate time frame to narrow the search. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Global Security is considered a reliable source, although members of the community who are attuned to sourcing matters usually like to see the material backed up by at least one other source (hence the reason why many global security mentions also have federation of american scientist mentions or other webiste where the same material is discussed). As for the museum bit: I vaguely recall premilinary plans to possibly put Wisconsin in Texas as a mueseum after her decomissioning, but that plan fell through. Perhaps if we reorient our search to the time from of the navy's selection of the museum home port we will be able to find a mention of the other homeports and work backwads from there. In the case of New Jersey, the announcement of camden also mention the runner up, so the same could be true of the Wisconsin museum ship announcement. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They've also left a message at Talk:Naval Station Ingleside after the above attempts to figure out what they meant. I think they are remembering the September 1989 port visit, since based on the local article, as of 2003 Wisconsin had only been there once. You're saying to look for Texas museum attempts between 30 September 1991 and 15 October 1996? Are we confident that Wisconsin never left the Norfolk area after 15 October 1996? --Dual Freq (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of 40 mm Bofors guns

Is the number of 80 40 mm Bofors guns really verified? I couldn't find any referense verifying that? Ghostrider (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wisky" or "WisKy"

are "Wisky" or "WisKy" nicknames for the ship? I just wanted to maybe set em off with commas instead, so as to avoid double sets of parentheses (as per MoS guidelines). --Pgecaj (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are. The former is supposed to refer to the state of Wisconsin, while the latter is suppose to be a combination of the words Wisconsin and Kentucky since BB-64 carriers the bow of the battleship BB-66. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Commissioning history

How can the ship have been decommissioned and recommissioned on the same day? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of inches and millimeters/conversions

There are differences in the article regarding the inches/millimeters of the guns between the section "Construction" and in the left hand panel "General Characteristics" and elsewhere. Why can't it be made consistent? The "Construction" section is correct and the conversions in the "General Characteristics" is not. This occurs in so many articles when referring to the armament of warships, where the conversion from inches to millimeters are inconsistent and not correct. Joedumlao 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Joedumlao (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)'

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on USS Wisconsin (BB-64). 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: 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) 06:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Wisconsin (BB-64). 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: 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) 22:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Wisconsin (BB-64). 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: 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) 01:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)/Archive_2&oldid=1137279450"