Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Close paraphrase

Back in January, an editor tagged the article as being too close to one of the sources: [1]. Could someone familiar with the topic review that article and make sure we're not plagiarizing it? It'd be great to take down that big template.   Will Beback  talk  06:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I see that an editor has nominated the article for GA, but it can't succeed until this issue is resolved.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no close paraphrasing, which means that there must be some difference of opinion on what exactly constitutes close paraphrasing. To me, it means that 99% of the sentence is copy/paste material, and I see nothing of that sort in the article. To be fair though I am willing to address the issue if someone wants to pick at some instances of it and add said examples here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Following a long tradition (Strike --Brad (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)) of sweeping problems under the rug in order to keep the article at a wished for level the paraphrase tag was removed by Tom stating that not seeing any close paraphrasing, maybe its been dealt with, or maybe my idea of close paraphrasing is different than the tagger's idea. While some of the problems I originally tagged the article for have been taken care of there still remains a problem in the section on Iowa.

• Source says: She went to European waters in 1985, 1986 and 1987 through 1988, with the latter cruise continuing into the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. On 19 April 1989, an explosion of undetermined cause ripped through her Number Two sixteen-inch gun turret killing 47 crewmen. Turret Two remained unrepaired when she decommissioned in Norfolk, Va., for the last time 26 October 1990
• Article says: Reactivated in the early 1980s, Iowa made several operation cruises in European waters. On 19 April 1989, an explosion of undetermined origin ripped through her No. 2 turret, killing 47 sailors. The turret remained inoperable when Iowa was decommissioned for the last time in 1990.

That sort of looks like paraphrasing to me and additionally I called into question the reliability of FAS as a source because they blatantly ripped article text from the US Navy without proper credit being given; read plagiarism. But this is just business as usual for the Iowa articles. --Brad (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(sigh} This issue again. It was so simple that I never even thought to look at it. I'll concede that this looks like close paraphrasing, but to me its a philosophical problem. I'll let Socrates explain since his words were so eloquently blessed for the task:

"...if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,' —then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you."

Put in simpler terms, there are only so many ways to say the same thing until its all been said. If it would help the article regain its FA star I will change the text, but I offer food for thought on the matter since I am sure that as a fellow contributor to ships articles you can relate at least on some level. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am 100% with Brad here. There are plenty of other words you could use than "undetermined", "ripped", etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I expected you would be. In fact, I would be very, very surprised if anyone agreed with me on the issue, that is why I conceded the point so easily and changed it. I'm not to going to debate/argue/fight with anyone over this, I already know that it will be a losing battle; all I want is specific examples of where the problems are and I will fix them. I'd say thats a pretty good deal. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel this is the minor issue you make it out to be. The article was paraphrasing copyrighted text. Paraphrasing public domain text is a whole other matter of less consequence. At the FAR I specifically pointed out the above problem but it got swept under the rug like a lot of the issues people have pointed out in the various FARs and PRs this article has been through. What annoys me more than anything else is that I have to come back and be the bad guy to make sure the problem is corrected. You're not the only one who is tired of debating/arguing/fighting over these articles. --Brad (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever it is, let's just fix it. There must be dozens of decent sources for this topic, we don't need to slavishly copy or follow FAS.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask how the link pointing to my edit was poor. I worked hard trying to translate that Polsi hmagazine into English. It has that info in there. Buggie111 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Was that something I did? If so it was unintentional. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you meen linking to my edit, then that was Brad. Buggie111 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm striking that link. I had intended to address it separately here but I don't believe that conversation should influence whomever does the GAR. I will answer you more in depth on my talk page. --Brad (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

--Cmagha (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha; added bit on Iowa's record at Vieques, including cite.

Notes in article

There are currently 17 notes in the article which is excessive. Most if not all of them could be eliminated by making the explanation in the appropriate area. There are notes serving as citations which they should not be doing. Additionally there are notes which could be taken away entirely as they aren't saying much of anything. I removed one note this morning because it was just silly-stupid. --Brad (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging that there are other points of view, I totally agree with Brad. I've criticized articles with exceptionally well-written notes because there were just too many of them; it doesn't match what people are expecting from an A-class or Featured Article. If there's no significant opposition, I'll start working half of them into the text or pruning them in a day or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, notes are sometimes necessary but what we have here seems to be unnecessary. I would like to work on the ones in the infobox. The infobox is more verbose than necessary but the sources there are good and can be moved elsewhere. Brad (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Garzke and Dulin

It's been mentioned that Garzke and Dulin (see the Bibliography) would be an excellent source for design history and service history for all 4 ships. I have the book here, but I'd rather not insert the information directly into the text, because that wouldn't respect all the conflicts and compromises that are part of the history of this article and the articles on the 4 battleships. I'll put the information here, and I'll try to do a good job of paraphrasing and of selecting the information that has been deemed important in various other battleship articles, and anyone who wants to take a whack at it can move this information into the article. I'll be working on this all day today. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Armament is well-covered (including many cites to G & D) by the FA Armament of the Iowa class battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• The 6 ships in this class (4 retired, 2 never completed) are all FAs. USS Iowa (BB-61) cites G & D only for the infamous turret explosion, the other 3 retired ships don't cite this book, and the 2 ships never completed don't cite any information from this book that's useful for this or the other articles. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• I've added some refs to the service history for Iowa, with minor tweaks, and G & D doesn't dispute anything there. This article says "New Jersey reported to the gunline off the Vietnamese coast, delivering nearly 6,000 rounds of 16-inch (406 mm) gunfire ..."; G & D says (p. 129) "During her 120-day Vietnam deployment, New Jersey fired 10,000 shells, including 3229 16-inch." Another discrepancy is on p. 134: "... 26 February 1955, when she was placed out of commission in reserve at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard ...". The date when Wisconsin was laid down is given as 25 January 1941 (p. 134). G & D, p. 243, says USS Wisconsin was "decommissioned on 3 September 1991 [not 30 Sept], and later moved to Philadelphia, where deactivation was completed." Otherwise, I see no discrepancies in the service histories, although different engagements are often mentioned in G & D. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sleuthing is in order when you have a discrepancy. The DANFS article for New Jersey closely agrees with your G & D reference. When you have two sources that closely agree with each other and one that is wildly off, change the information and cite it accordingly.

But now you should call into question the Polmar source which is currently tagged to say there were 6000 rounds fired. Remove the Polmar cites that make that claim. If no one can get a copy of the Polmar book to verify his information then you need to completely throw him out of the article as a source.

The NVR article for Wisconsin says 30 September. Always use the NVR for dates of this nature. They are the official record of US Navy ships. Brad (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dank, thanks muchly—what you are doing is very helpful. Everyone, keep in mind that we need two things at minimum before this article (should) make it past GA: the close paraphrasing/copying of DANFS needs to be reworded, and the sources of the service histories need to be diversified past the DANFS articles, similar to what I did with North Carolina-class battleship. That is at minimum. There are other things, like how the two paragraphs in the "Radar and electronic warfare systems" section are supposed to jive with one another (a victim of the earlier ruthless cutting?), the "Popular culture" section (talked to Tom about the problems there already), or the "Reactivation potential" section, which needs to reflect the extreme unlikeliness of their reactivation among other problems. In short: this is not near even GA yet in my opinion. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that the G & D book that has a passage about the BBG conversion proposal? If so, it needs to be in the article. I wish people would go back and look at the last FAR. There are a lot of comments about the problems this article had or still has. Brad (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I know Friedman has some. Does G&D have some or more? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

From the FAR:

Conversion to BBG I consulted a Garzke and Dulin book printed 1976 which claims that the entire class was considered for conversion to guided missile battleships. This is only mentioned as applying to Illinois and Kentucky. This needs to be clarified. --Brad (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And Ed replied:

I have that book and remember reading about it when I was looking at the conversion proposals for the North Carolina class battleship#Post-war alterations and proposals section. I'll try to add something, but I may not be able to get to it soon; have a lot of schoolwork still to do. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the FAR!!!! *SMACK* Brad (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh look at that, there is a section in Friedman... it can be confirmed with my own quote! ;) Read the FAR, and there are a lot of outstanding issues. Dank, if I add a section on this, would you be able to change my page numbers to the corresponding ones in your book? I'm assuming—as the 1935–1992 edition is just an update—that the information itself will be unchanged from my older United States Battleships book (library). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to check page numbers for both Friedman and G & D (mine is the 1995 edition btw). - Dank (push to talk) 10:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I can steal the Friedman workload, if you guys want. Buggie111 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a paraphrase of G & D's paragraphs on the BBG conversion discussions. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 204: Rear Admiral W. K. Mendenhall, Chairman of the Ship[s] Characteristics Board, offered a proposal in 1955 that $15 to $30 million be spent completing Kentucky as a guided-missile battleship (BBG), carrying eight Regulus II guided missiles with a range of 1000 nmi. He also suggested Terrier or Talos missile launchers to supplement the AA guns, and nuclear shells to supplement conventional shells for the 16-inch guns. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• [Two "schemes" proposed in 1956 are mentioned on p. 209 that would have included IRBMs, costing up to $282M; I'm not including them because they are described as "doomed", and there's no indication who suggested these designs.] - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 209: The Navy's Long-Range-Objectives Group, formed in 1954 to study warship technology, suggested converting Iowa-class ships to BBGs. In 1958, the Bureau of Ships offered a proposal based on this idea that replaced the 5-inch and 16-inch gun batteries with "two Talos twin missile systems, two Tartar twin missile systems, an ASROC antisubmarine missile launcher, and a Regulus II installation with four missiles", as well as flagship facilities, sonar, helicopters, and fire-control systems for the Talos and Tartar missiles. 8600 additional [long] tons of fuel oil was also suggested, serving in part as ballast ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 210: ... and in part for refueling destroyers and cruisers. However, at an estimated cost of $178 to $193 million dollars, this proposal was rejected by the Ship[s] Characteristics Board [sources disagree on whether it's "Ship" or "Ships" or "Ships'"] as too expensive; they suggested a design with one Talus, one Tartar, one ASROC and two Regulus launchers and changes to the superstructure, at a cost of up to $85 million. "Early in 1959 this design was to have been revised to accommodate the Polaris Fleet Ballistic Missile", and the Ship[s] Characteristics Board commissioned a study of two schemes, neither of which was ever authorized. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• [There were other suggestions made concerning possible conversions in '62, '74 and '77, but I can't tell if they're related; should I include those?] - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break from G & D to address the points in the GAN review; if anyone else wants to jump in or correct me, jump right in. Anyone mind if I change the note format from "A 1", "A 2" to "N 1"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not from me (I use "N 1" now all the time anyway... :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The first three Friedman refs check out. I'll tackle the other ones a tad later (hour maybe). Buggie111 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Friedman's page numbers should be just fine, considering that (I think) I added them all. :) It's if/when I add material from my 1976 book--I want it to be standardized to Dank's 1995 edition. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Back to G & D. On p. 212, they say that one of the main problems with any conversion to a BBG was that sensitive electronics within 200 ft of any 16-inch gun muzzle were likely to be damaged, given the likely uses and the firing arcs of those guns. However, G & D don't say why they believe this or where the information comes from. They say that interest in BBG conversions "waned" in 1960, because the hulls were considered too old and the conversion costs too high. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• p.212: The deactivation of the Iowas meant that Marine amphibious operations didn't have the same gun support available as they did in WWII and Korea. 16-inch guns were considered 4 times as effective at penetrating heavy fortifications as 8-inch guns. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. [the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?] was Chairman of the Amphibious Warfare Evaluation Board at the time [they don't say when, but it must have been 1960, 61 or 62], and he recommended that the Iowas be modified so that they could transport a Marine Corps battalion of 1800 men, by replacing the aft 16-inch turret with facilities for helicopters, boats and landing craft. He also suggested that the 16-inch guns be adapted so that they could fire nuclear shells. [Huah!] The Bureau of Ships completed a study in 1962 along these lines [but with no specific mention of the nuclear option], but the "conversion cost of $64 million did not attract enthusiastic supporters". - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• [Side note that only a copyeditor could love ... I think the "s" in Iowas should be italicized because I really doubt that you'd see "I was on an Iowa" in a reputable source ... you'd see "I was on one of the Iowas" or "I was on [the] New Jersey" ... and if the singular Iowa doesn't mean "one of the Iowas", then we shouldn't pretend that it does ... but G & D and Friedman all disagree with me, apparently, so I give up.] - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I can't come up with a good paraphrase that preserves the nuance so I'll quote, p. 212: "The four Iowas remained in reserve from 1954 into the 1980s, with the New Jersey having an austere reactivation in 1967 for a brief stint in Vietnam. For the most part these ships were kept mothballed with minimal care." President Nixon asked in 1972 if reactivation of New Jersey was possible so that she could be sent to Vietnam within 30 days, and was told that it couldn't happen that quickly. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• On p. 213, there's some discussion of a study conducted by the Center for Naval Analysis in 1974 by adding missiles ... anyone care enough about this to include it? p. 214 of G & D begins the section called "Reactivation of the Iowa Class", but much of this is covered in the individual ship articles; I can summarize if anyone wants me to. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iowa class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I know you're trying to save a featured topic here, but this article has a long history, and several review processes in its past. Nothing we can't get through, but it will take me a few days to read through everything and have a review posted. Courcelles (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to say how much better this article looks than when the FAR was initiated, and even than when it was closed. The entire popular culture section disappeared today... good decision. The stuff about "A Glimpse of Hell: The Explosion on the U. S. S. Iowa & Its Cover-Up" belongs more on Iowa's article than here, and the rest of it was a bit crufty.

The only thing Thompson's book is citing, is the turret explosion, as far as I can see presently. If I find something else to cite with, I will. Brad (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing. Pick a date format- there's "yyyy-mm-dd" and "dd Month yyyy" scattered in roughly equal numbers.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are the DANFS sources included in References and the Bibliography sections? It seems to me that references without a need for page numbers should be cited in in full in the references section, and the Bibliography section limited to books that are referred to by page number in the references section?

All DANFS templates and sources have been updated correctly and removed from the biblio. Brad (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Displacement- from the infobox: "45,000 tons (Standard);[8] 52,000 tons (mean war service); 58,000 tons (full load)[8]" If the citation is going to be repeated for the Standard and full load numbers, why not for mean war service?

I removed the first of those refs. These days, SHIPS people don't generally put the refs in the main infobox, and if I had done most of the editing and this were a new article, I would get rid of most of them. When there's been a lot of arguing over an article, I generally just try to stick to what needs to be done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The "armor" section has never returned.

I restored the armor section as it was when removed. Still needs reliable refs. Brad (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming soon. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've summarized G & D on the talk page in a section called Armor. Anyone want to weave this into the text? It's sufficiently different from the original G & D text, except of course for the parts in quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC) tweaked 03:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing me. The Washington treaty allowed 16-inch guns, then the next paragraph talks about an escalator clause in Second London allowing 16-inch guns, an increase from 14-inch.

Doing Done. I hope that's clearer; in any event, it reflects the cited sources better. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a terrible article, but is it worth linking Escalator clause?

I got rid of "escalator"; the two paragraphs using the word needed tightening anyway. The phrase "escalator clause" means a clause that raises a price to most readers, so it wasn't terribly helpful here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (despite the fact that both Friedman and G & D use the word ... our readership is more likely to be confused by it than theirs IMO). - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The year of Second London should probability be mentioned for context.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

""[t]he prospective effect of flooding was roughly halved and the number of uptakes and hence of openings in the third deck greatly reduced."" Pedantic, but a citation is needed after a direct quote.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"U.S." or "US"? Be consistent.

Done, US -> U.S. Kind of a shame really, some of the MOS folks would really like to see us standardize this, because it's generally "US" outside the U.S., and US doesn't look totally awful to Americans, but there's just no chance that "U.S." won't wind up littering the page since it's ubiquitous in American sources. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a Wikipedia standard on this one, along with UK vs. U.K., but making each article consistent internally is about as good as we can hope for. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Each battleship was modernized to carry electronic warfare suites, CIWS self-defense systems, and missiles." I think you either should bypass the CIWS redirect (so hovering provides the full term), or just spell it out. This acronym means nothing to the average person.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Recalled to duty in 1968, New Jersey reported to the gunline[27] off the Vietnamese coast, delivering nearly 6,000 rounds of 16-inch (406 mm) gunfire and over 14,000 rounds of 5-inch (127 mm) shells before departing the line in December 1968.[27]" Can't believe I'm saying this, but is that first [27] needed here?

The Polmar source has been called into question; in the meantime I removed the double cite. Brad (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Missouri was donated to the USS Missouri Memorial Association (MMA) of Pearl Harbor" As far as I can tell, the MMA acronym never makes a repeat appearance... so why introduce it?

Done --Brad (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"In 1956, the bow of the uncompleted USS Kentucky was removed and grafted on Wisconsin, which had collided with the destroyer USS Eaton. " Citation?

Done --Brad (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"All four Iowa-class battleships were outfitted with Oerlikon 20 mm and Bofors 40 mm," Any chance we know how many of each were installed?

The totals are in the infoboxes of the 4 ships, look for "20 mm" and "40 mm". The totals vary by ship and over time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"ECM level background" I know what it means, but this needs at least a link to Electronic countermeasures as an acronym that everyone won't know.

Done ... now it reads "The AN/SPS-49 performs accurate centroiding of target range, azimuth, amplitude, electronic countermeasures level background, and radial velocity with an associated confidence factor to produce contact data for command and control systems." So I still have no idea what it means :) Help, someone? - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"In response, the Navy has pointed to the cost of reactivating the two Iowa class battleships to their decommissioned capability. The Navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[73][74] but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe." This passage, and these numbers, need a year for context. (refs 73 and 74 give full explanation, but what year dollars this is in would still be helpful in the text."

The section has been deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me I'm nuts, but the Notes section would read better formatted like Jupiter_Trojan#Notes with superscript numbers instead of full references- especially since they're all repeated in the next two sections. (Especially since Note 9 uses a superscript reference) These full citations make the notes hard to read.

Yep, doing. And you're nuts. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

:What makes http://www.navweaps.com/ a reliable source?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fnavweaps.com. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'll go through the referencing with a fine-tooth comb over the next couple days. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• One more, Single page: "Johnston, The Battleships, pg. 161" " Friedman, U.S. Battleships, 311" "Garzke and Dulin, Battleships, p. 3" and "Friedman, pg 449". All slightly different in the pages formatting. Multiple pages, "Newhart, pp. 90–101", "Friedman, U.S. Battleships, 311–312" and "Garzke and Dulin, Battleships, p. 218–222" Each of these groups should be a single style. (I'm being harder than the GA criteria here, so feel free to tell me to stuff it.) Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• No you're right, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

The lead writer of this article and the whole class of battleships in general, User:TomStar81 has given up in many BB related matters. I hope that he will return to editing these articles as we need his help but If not, then I hope that this GAN will continue. If no one is willing to keep the nom going (though there does seemt o be several people working on it) I'll do what I can to save this FT. If anyone else is willing to continue this, be my guest since I have not made even one edit to this article and my own niche at OMT is Italy and Austria-Hungary. Thanks,--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Stale GA review?

Haven't been any edits to this review page for about 10 days with the review initiated 22 days (three weeks) ago. Is this review at the stage of being wrapped up? WTF? (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I need to get more involved; I'll integrate the material I added to the talk page into the article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... I've been rather busy. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What still needs to be done here? It appears to me that Dank or other editors have addressed the issues you've raised, Courcelles. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed/improved before you're satisfied with the article? Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've been swallowed up in flagged revisions stuff on-wiki the last few days... I'll read this again tomorrow and see, alright? Courcelles (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

List?

Hey Courcelles, can you put together a list of any remeining issues for us to tackle so this can pass sooner? Thanks.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fresh look towards wrapping this up

• The two things on top of the Further reading section need to be formatted like the rest.
  • I've moved them to External links, since that's what they really were anyway. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (EC) Done.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Referencing formatting; date format inconsistency on refs 36, 37, 51, 53, 65, 67, 68, 70, 81 and 82.
  • Done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Orange level tag on the "Reactivation potential" section- orange tags are show-stoppers for the GA criteria
  • Not really sure why this is even there. I see what the editor who added it to the means on the talk page, but I don't think the tag was appropriate and have removed it and renamed the section to "Reactivation proposals" to address his point. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Same story with the unreliable source tags on the Armor section
  • We can source this up with some additional refs, but I'm not nearly as familiar with the refs as other editors are. I'll let them pick which ones are the most appropriate to cite. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not much left to do, but still some work needed, I'm afraid. Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed

There's a few issues left, but the article has been significantly improved since this process began- and the remaining issues can be easily handled at an eventual ACR. Passed. I'll go do some paperwork. Courcelles (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Polmar

Copied and paraphrasing from above thread:
This article says "New Jersey reported to the gunline off the Vietnamese coast, delivering nearly 6,000 rounds of 16-inch (406 mm) gunfire ..."; G & D says (p. 129) "During her 120-day Vietnam deployment, New Jersey fired 10,000 shells, including 3229 16-inch." - Dank (push to talk) 10:53 pm, 26 May 2010, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

The DANFS article for New Jersey closely agrees with your G & D reference. But now you should call into question the Polmar source which is currently tagged to say there were 6000 rounds fired. If no one can get a copy of the Polmar book to verify his information then you need to completely throw him out of the article as a source.

Strike two for Polmar. Currently in the Missouri section we have Missouri participated in Operation Desert Storm by firing 28 Tomahawk Missiles at Iraqi targets and firing 759 sixteen-inch (406 mm) shells.(Polmar 120) but DANFS says: She fired her first Tomahawk missile at Iraqi targets at 0140 on 17 January, followed by 27 additional missiles over the next five days. [....] firing 112 16-inch rounds over the next three days until relieved by Wisconsin (BB-64). Missouri then fired another 60 rounds off Khafji on 11-12 February before steaming north to near Faylaka Island. After minesweepers cleared a lane through Iraqi defenses, Missouri fired 133 rounds [....] So we have agreement on the tomahawks but a big discrepancy again with the 16" shells. Can anyone get the Polmar book to see what's going on here? What does G & D say about this particular count? This article is giving me a headache. Brad (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

G & D doesn't give a total. p. 239: "After this bombardment of Kuwait City, the Missouri and Wisconsin alternated positions on the gun line, using their heavy guns to hit specific ... targets ...". - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Stillwell's Battleship Missouri states there were 112 shells at Khafji on 2–5 Feb, 60 more rounds at Khafji the following week, and 133 rounds on 25 Feb. It later gives the figure of 759 rounds as the total ammunition expenditure (page 327). Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I backed up Polmar with Stillwell on that particular entry. We still have the discrepancy with New Jersey though. Brad (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rogue sources

• The Floating Drydock. United States Naval Vessels, ONI 222-US, Kresgeville, PA 18333

I removed the above from the biblio as it doesn't seem to be used in the article and doesn't seem to have any "further reading" value. The closest I could find for this source was something at WorldCat. Otherwise I've no idea why this was here. --Brad (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Johnston, Ian C.; McAuley, Rob (2002). The Battleships. London: Channel 4. ISBN 0752261886. OCLC 59495980.

The above book is (as of this minute) used in citation 5 as Johnston and McAuley. Citation 24 and 58 are credited to Johnston. So, is this a different author or the same as Johnston and McAuley but incorrectly cited.? --Brad (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Bridgeman, Leonard (1946). Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II. London: Studio. ISBN 1 85170 493 0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The above book needs clarifying. According to WorldCat Bridgman only did one Janes in 1989 and the isbn given above does not match. Brad (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reactivation section

It's fairly obvious now that the ships won't be reactivated as they've all been struck and donated except for Iowa. The problem with the section as it stands is the tone and context. I would consider reactivation a dead issue and something of the past; not the present. Rather than just delete the whole section I think it could be ground down to one or two paragraphs describing that Congress at one time required some of the ships to remain in reserve in case of emergency. A congressional act that had effects on the ships is important enough to mention but all of the debate, costs and comparisons can be dumped out. This is essentially what the update tag is asking for. --Brad (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My latest brainstorm would be to move mention of this event into the same section for the BBG proposals. This way you sort of have a "Worthless proposals" section. I'm not sure if it's planned to put the BBG proposals into an ongoing GAR. --Brad (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Congress has required that Iowa and Wisconsin remain in a state suitable for reactivation even after being transferred as museum ships. While at this point it is indeed unlikely that they'll ever be brought back into service again, it's officially not a dead issue yet. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the status of the Iowa, but the fact that the Wisconsin has been stricken from the NVR and officially handed over the city of Norfolk means that the she is no longer under the restrictions of Pub.L. 109-163. --Dukefan73 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Iowa has been stricken and is available for donation. Therefore as you say, these actions are going against what the last Congressional act specified. What needs to be researched is if there were some sort of clause in the original act that allowed expiration of the directives after a certain date. Or maybe there has been further legislation on this topic that hasn't been found. There is also the debate over the Zumwalt destroyers which were supposed to have replaced the Iowa ships for firepower. The Zumwalt program was at one time canceled but it now appears that three of them will be constructed. I believe all of these factors have some influence on the Iowa ships being struck and donated. Brad (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Wisconsin, it is "donated" to the city of Norfolk, but it is not a museum ship, you can only go on the deck on not inside at all. The ship maintains all the armaments, for the most part, and systems upgraded in the early 90s. The ship could at any point have an fuel ship fuel the ship and it get under way under its own power. Speaking in person with the Navy members that are still assigned to the ship, there isn't any doubt to the unlikely reactivation for anything, but it can be if for whatever reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.24.143 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is true up until December 2009, when the USN officially transferred her to the city of Norfolk. As I stated previously, she is no longer subject to the provisions of Pub.L. 109-163. Refer here: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/12/navy_wisconsin_transfer_121409w/ --Dukefan73 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's simply not a matter of putting fuel in it, turning the key and driving off. It's likely that her engines haven't been fired in almost 20 years. Brad (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the section from "potential" to "proposals" to address this concern and removed the tag. The section does discuss some of the historical precedent for this. Please feel free to add some referenced content about how they have been stricken and given away, but realize that adding most anything else at the moment creeps closer to OR than I'd be comfortable with during a GAR. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Armor

Here's what G & D have to offer:

• They attribute this to an unnamed source answering a question from the Chief of Naval Operations, but they say "two basic points were made", suggesting that they believe this to be accurate. p. 115: "Basic protection of the BB-61 is directly patterned after that of BB-57. The only area where the ship suffers by comparison is the greater unprotected length [56 feet] forward. This is offset by the greater subdivision of the larger ship." - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 140: The greater displacement was most accounted for in mostly due to the extra weight of the machinery plant and the greater length of the ship, both of which were used to increase the ship's speed [by 6 knots over the South Dakota class, but that's not mentioned on this page]. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC) tweaked 02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 140: "The 12.1-inch main side belt armor of the Iowa was superimposed on 0.875-inch STS backing plates. The armor system was inclined outboard some 19 degrees from the vertical, giving protection equal to that of 17.3-inch vertical plates. The lower side belt plating, with the same inclination as the heavy main belt, tapered from 12.1 inches at the top to 1.625 inches at the bottom." - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 141: "Details of the side protective system are still classified ..." (presumably as of 1995!) - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 141: Bombs dropped or fired from planes could in theory have a vertical trajectory, which made it easier for them to penetrate deck armor. High-level bombing was not considered sufficiently accurate before World War II to pose a great threat, but the threat steadily increased during the war, and the design process for the Iowas was too far along to compensate. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• p. 140: The deck armor protection was heavier than for previous classes: 1.50 inches for the main deck, layers of 4.75 inches and 1.25 inches for the second deck, a splinter deck over machinery of 0.625 inches, and a third deck that varied from 0.5 inches to 1.00 inches. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• There's a little more, but this seems to more than cover what we have in other articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• • That's it for me guys, unless our GAN reviewer has new requests, or anyone wants more from G & D (if so, please ask on my talk page). I'm assuming we can eventually get through GAN and take this to A-class, and I'll do the usual copyediting then. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job revamping the armor section. Would Anti-torpedo bulge or torpedo bulkhead help to explain what is being described? Maybe the illustration would help. Brad (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE

Running down the list of FAs at WP:SHIP, I can't find any with italicized words in the article title, so I've removed {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Iowa'' class battleship}}. It seems to me we should either do this on all of them or none of them. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put them in a couple of mine, the Brazilian ships and the North Carolina class article. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see italics in article titles much on Wikipedia, following the journalistic and publishing convention. Here's the list from WP:MOSTITLE; they are italicized in the text, but these are rarely italicized in article titles:

• Certain scientific names
  • Genera and all lower taxa (but not higher taxa)
  • Genes (but not proteins encoded by genes)
• Court cases
• Named vehicles
  • Trains and locomotives
  • Ships
  • Ship classes
• Works of art and artifice
  • Art exhibitions
  • Books
  • Cantatas and motets
  • Comic strips and webcomics
  • Computer and video games (but not other software)
  • Feature-length films and documentaries
  • Long or epic poems
  • Multi-episode television serials
  • Musical albums
  • Musicals
  • Operas, operettas, oratorios
  • Orchestral works
  • Paintings, sculptures and other works of visual art
  • Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)
  • Plays
  • Television series and serials

If we don't italicize those, then why ships? - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On another subject, you reverted my addition of "or the Iowas", but I don't know what we do about WP:LEAD#Abbreviations and synonyms: "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. ... Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye and caustic soda, is ...". This gets back to my objection the first time I saw "the North Carolinas" ... it's reasonably common naval jargon, but it's not at all common in other fields, so if we're going to use it at all, let's make sure the readers know what it means. WP:LEAD appears to require that synonyms of the title used in the article appear bolded in the first paragraph, so if we're headed to FAC, I'd recommend we either explain the exception, change WP:LEAD, remove "the Iowas" from the article, or put "or the Iowas" back in the first sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Museum ships

Are the Iowas the only class in which every member has been preserved as a museum ship? I'm not aware of any other, and if so that seems worth mentioning. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, all 4 are either museum ships or anchored, and I recently added that to the lead. (Mothballed actually, but since that can easily change, I didn't mention "mothballed"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was why I said "or anchored"; more detail than that is always welcome (maybe not in the lead section, but somewhere), but I wanted to use a word that was likely not to get outdated every time someone signs another piece of paper. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the Nautilus and Albacore classes... 24.16.181.1 (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Single-ship classes make it easy to preserve the entire class. :p —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. However, two of the Iowa's were scrapped before they were completed, namely the Illinois and Kentucky. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kill Kim!

Is it possible to quikly reactivate one or more Iowa-class ships and use their immense protection+firepower to sail up on North Korea's shore or maybe even up the river and erase from the face of Earth any communist and military structures within range of the 16" artillery?

Bikini trials suggest a 20-50kT simple atomic bomb, like those possessed by the dprk, has little structural effect on a battleship, unless its a direct hit, which is unlikely considering a BB can manouver at 25knots or more.

The sight of such "giant mecha" roaming freely within the dominion would probably break the back of DPRK, just like Perry's "black steam fleet" forced shogunate Japan to surrender and open up to the world.

Their presence would be impossible to supress by communist orwellian media, because they are so big and probably seen/heard by a large part of the DRPK population using just the naked eye/ear.

Berseking with an Iowa is certainly a better idea than sending a CVN, which owing to her mere 8" aluminium armor belt (that's like ~100mm steel) is highly vulnerable to massive anti-shipping missile strikes or maybe even a lone electric submarine lurker firing torpedos, as the poor Chonan found out... 91.82.32.0 (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Intended Role

I believe by the footnotes the basis of these statements is Hough

"Conceived, constructed, and commissioned at a time of changing naval strategy, the Iowa class was built with an intended role of defending United States aircraft carriers from enemy attack rather than for engaging in battleship on battleship gunfights. To this end, these battleships followed the design pattern set forth in the preceding North Carolina- and South Dakota-class battleships, which placed great emphasis on speed as well as the secondary and anti-aircraft batteries.[8]"

I don't see that the features of these ships support a conclusion of an intended carrier protection role despite what might have been published. Certainly it would have been convenient to say such was the intended role after the war, considering how the ships were used.

If an AA platform for carrier protection was desired, 5 DDs would have provided 20 5/38s at a lot less expense with the additional advantage of not having to devote anything to their protection, being fairly disposable. The armor and armament of these ships shows concern for surface action. The construction of the Alaska class with the role of CA killers again shows the USNs concern that air power was not the complete answer, and maybe not even half the answer.

I not saying this information isn't attributable. I'm saying it doesn't make sense. Bradkay (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's rather different from the account in Friedman, which is about the Iowa design being intended to hunt down Japanese cruiser-carrier taskforces and the Kongo class, not "defending aircraft carriers". I believe that if that's what Hough says, then he has the wrong end of the stick. Also the lead section is far too long. The Land (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Hough's book in the references but here's what Hough says in The Hunting Of Force Z.

"In reviewing the weight of confidence vested in the big gun in 1941... The United States Navy's attack strength still lay primarily in the battleship, of which there were ten building or completing in American yards in the summer of 1941, at a cost of around one hundred million dollars apiece. Here, maritime power still rested on a single pillar, traditionally architected, although a second support strut was discernible. There were even senior officers to be found in Washington and with the fleet who believed the Pacific naval war would be fought mainly in the air and under the ocean; but they made up a small minority, their forecasts still unheeded. The 'battlewagon' remained the prime arbitor." - page 61.

So, if the forecasts of the air power proponents were unheeded, the Iowas couldn't have been built to protect carriers from air attack. That's my take on it, anyway. Bradkay (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick note

I got some copyediting done on this, but on second thought, I'd rather stick to my usual pattern of waiting until there's been some reaction at A-class before I copyedit, since copyediting is traditionally one of the last steps in the process. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote Box in Background Section

I am wondering why the Quote Box from Friedman's book was placed in the Background Section. The point seems to be to get to the final sentence: "Ten thousand tons was a very great deal to pay for 6 knots" If that is Friedman's opinion then you could say that in a sentence, if you thought it was relevant to the article. The point of the Iowa class battleships is that they would be fast. 6 knots makes all the difference in the world. If your chief asset is your fast carrier strike force that is moving at 32 knots, what good does it do if their protective battleship force is moving at 26 or 27 knots? If there are large surface threats, it makes sense to build a class of ship to deal with large surface threats and that can keep up. The ships were planned and laid down long before the war was won, and their design makes sense from that perspective. The quote box is an editorial comment that I think should be removed, as it adds little to the article.

Also I agree with The Land about the lead section. It contains too much detail, detail which is better placed in the body of the article. I would move to shorten it and move the detail down into the body of the text.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote sums up the premier US naval historian's opinion of the class... it's not an integral part of the article, but I do believe it adds value. As for the lead, it has been shortened and made less detailed from before – see what the lead looked like when The Land made that comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Forty years later the ship is still keeping pace with the Navy of the 1980s. Could that have been said of the North Carolina's or the South Dakota's? Ten thousand tons, 6 knots and forty years viability. Would Friedman have made that statement if he realized that speed difference made them serviceable for such a tremendous duration of time? Hard for me to imagine. Anyway, it's a very good article all the same.Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm, considering that the NCs and SDs frequently escorted carriers in WWII anyway (North Carolina-class battleship#Service) and no battleships escorted carriers after WWII (rendering the speed difference moot), that's a poor argument. All three classes could have performed the roles played by the Iowas post-war. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether the argument is poor or not, the ships you suggest are all decommissioned and retired from service by 1947. It is a time honored tradition that the Navy will make use of whatever means are available. The service records reflect that. However, if you scroll down a tad further from the link you cited you will see why the Navy thought keeping the SDs and the NCs decommissioned was the right decision (North_Carolina-class_battleship#Post-war alterations and proposals), the key sentence being:

the North Carolinas and South Dakotas would be excellent additions to task forces—if they could be faster.

The point I am after is Friedman's contention that it was not worth the effort to gain 6 knots in speed. 6 knots is a big difference. Without it the Iowa's never would have sailed again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I know the sentence, I wrote the article. :P I see your point more clearly now, and I'm going to reply on a different tack. I think Friedman was after a different point – in the context of battleship design at that time (a battleship escorting an aircraft carrier? Laughable!), 10000 tons was a lot of extra money and weight for 'just' six knots. Speaking post-war aka hindsight, of course the additional speed, shorter service lives, and great length (allowing more AA guns/missiles) favored the Iowas. Friedman is writing in the context of the late 1930s, however. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He's also referencing the little-to-no improvements in technology over the SDs, as when you boil it down, all the 10000 additional tons bought was a slightly more powerful gun and six knots of speed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One more question

The following sentence:

It also allowed the draft of the ships to be increased, meaning that the ships could be shortened (lowering weight) and the power reduced (since a narrower beam reduces drag).[14]

to my mind does not seem correct. How is it that the increase in draft relates to a shorter length? Also, as length and beam are different terms, the explanation in the parenthesis does not seem to tie together. As an aside, when trying to increase speed one looks to make the vessel longer and thinner. Though shorter may be lighter, it is not necessarily faster.Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

If anyone wants to rename the article please discuss it here first.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite.... your attention is drawn here. NB, protecting the article is a little redundant since both the person who moved it, and the person who reverted the move, are admins... The Land (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Move protection should get admins to discuss before moving. I don't see a clear consensus glancing at the linked discussion.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

I don't see it mentioned here, but it is likely worth mentioning. Throughout the history of these ships there was always a less influential party at the table interested in keeping them in service. Through each discussion, whether Korea, Vietnam or any of the between combat periods, one branch of the service was always interested in them being kept available, and that was the United States Marine Corps. They wanted the big gun support, the reliability, the ongoing presence. That's a big stick that doesn't go away easy, and the Marines were never convinced there was an adequate replacement. I know I can source it. If so, perhaps I should give it a go?Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I see I am late to the discussion, as you already have a whole article on the issue here:United States Naval Gunfire Support debate.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move: Add a hyphen

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship → Iowa-class battleship – The sequence of words "Iowa class battleship" should be interpreted to mean "battleship of the Iowa class", not "class battleship of Iowa", or something. Hence the hyphen. —Saric (Talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: "Iowa-class" is a compound modifier of "battleship" and therefore should be hyphenated. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• What is the common usage? That matters more to me than correctness. This naming convention needs to be decided with a Wikiproject request for comment since a thousand or so articles use the standard non-hyphenated format. Marcus Qwertyus 01:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment wasn't a mass rename of this nature rejected at WP:SHIPS recently? 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 26#Bot request. —WWoods (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose In terms of consistency, hyphens aren't employed for ship classes. That's not to say the concept does not have merit. This has implications to a vast number of ship articles and as such the wider community should be consulted. Since I see no indication that this is something coming from WP:SHIPS (there is no posting on the WP:SHIPS talk page when I last looked) I oppose.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this proposed move impacts a huge number of articles and should be discussed at a more-encompassing venue. As mentioned there was a lot of discussion about the use of hyphens on ship class articles last time it was suggested (read about it here). Upshot was that a mass moving to hyphenated form was rejected. (aside - For all I know the related hyphen/dash war may still be running elsewhere on wikipedia.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support The MOS tells us there should be a hyphen in the phrase. The title should match the MOS guidelines. However, this has been debated (badly) before. The last request for a bot move for all ship class articles was derailed by a precipitate move campaign by one editor. The whole issue needs to be debated properly, and not here. Shem (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Normal publications in the English language do not use hyphens in ship class names in headings. Wikipedia should follow convention and not innovate.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, you've said this before. Where is your evidence that reputable publications suspend the hyphen in class names when they use it in the text? Shem (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan of the clipped text in a Google-books search on "Iowa Class" shows both forms used in body text and a predominance of the unhyphenated form in titles and chapter headings. Dankarl (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So usage out there in the big old world is inconsistent - which is why Wikipedia has a Manual of Style. Shem (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what I wrote, instead of beating up a straw man. I said that reputable publications (for example: Jane's Fighting Ships and books published by the US Naval Institute) do not use the hyphen in headings. I see no evidence of the world being inconsistent here - quite the reverse. It is not the role of Wikipedia to rewrite how English is written.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Easy, tiger. All I wanted was what you've told me - you're talking about Janes and the US Naval Institute. Does that mean Janes and USNP use hyphens in the text, but not in the headings, or just that they don't use them at all? I don't have copies of either to hand.

What I'm interested in knowing is: are you against hyphens per se for class names, or just in titles? Please be gentle with me - I just want to understand your point, not create difficulties. Shem (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article size

Size is determined by word count; not the total article size seen in the history.

• This article: (8100 words) "readable prose size"
• Illinois: (1176 words) "readable prose size"
• Kentucky: (1002 words) "readable prose size"
• Total of all three: 10,278

Keeping in mind that there is a 10,000 word upper limit on article size, an entire merge would exceed that limit. But.. it's very likely that each article merged would have redundant wording that would not have to be repeated once it's merged here. This article already covers the conversion proposals and an overview of each ship so I think that a merge would add very little to the word count. Brad (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This article has an "Illinois and Kentucky" section now with summary text. Looks like the main sections to merge here are the Development and Scrapping sections from the Illinois article and the Construction and Fate sections from the Kentucky article. I'd expect the total to be maybe 9,000 words after selective merging. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)