![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can I ask, what inspired you to put the images where you did? Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:36, 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)
Hi again, does Wisconsin have a "motto" or crest? Ryan4314 ( talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How can the ship have been decommissioned and recommissioned on the same day? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
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).
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can I ask, what inspired you to put the images where you did? Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:36, 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)
Hi again, does Wisconsin have a "motto" or crest? Ryan4314 ( talk) 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How can the ship have been decommissioned and recommissioned on the same day? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
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).
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |