Talk:USS Connecticut (BB-18)

Workbench

• Total cost of Connecticut: $7,911,175. per [1]
• Cost $374,000 more than Louisiana. per [2]

• Need to source:
  • "The ship sailed on its first mission to Cuba in January 1907, but was immediately recalled to New York after an outbreak of Typhoid fever among the crew. Immediately after setting out again, Connecticut ran aground at Culebra, Puerto Rico. According to the Washington Post, Swift acted against the advice of his navigator and ordered the ship to pass on the wrong side of a navigational buoy and caused it to strike a shoal."

• The bit about sabotage attempts before the launching could use some more explanation. I get the implications from rivets being bored through in the keel, but the average reader might not. Also, what problem does the bolt in the launching timbers cause? (I'm assuming that it was in a key support timber, and if it was weakened when the ship started to move, it could collapse and cause the ship to roll over, but that's just a guess). It may be useful to use footnotes with the <ref group> parameter to explain it instead of adding more text to the paragraph.

• presuming this for what needs work, the section Flagship of the Great White Fleet appears as if it been broken out but not closed off as the section continues on into WWI thruogh until it scrapped. Also 4 paras on the first 2-3 months then 1 para to close the last 8-9 months of the voyage makes it seam unbalanced, IMHO at this rate its going to be too much info on the voyage. Gnangarra 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's not finished yet, and that just dawned on me that it will be too much info. =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Need to add in a wikilink to Charles Stillman Sperry. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding fast-tracking to FAC

I don't really recommend rushing to nominate this at FAC, for a few reasons.

• A lengthy mass of text on a FAC page scares away potential reviewers.
• Once someone !votes 'oppose for x' (and they will, if the page is under major reconstruction), you will have more work, because you'll have to ping that person once you've resolved the issue, plus there's the chain effect of others opposing per that person, etc.
• It's way more difficult to manage lengthy back-and-forth discussions at FAC (no section headers, no edit breaks, no archiving resolved sections).
• You've already been given moderate assurance that it has a chance at TFA on the 22nd if it reaches FA in time.

I would allow for 2 weeks at FAC, and therefore plan to nominate it by a week from today (7 Feb), if it were up to me. I'll be glad to help with copyediting and MOS, but I'll be mostly offline for the next few days. Maralia (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving in to my prepositional scruples...

Connecticut sailed out of New York and onto the ocean for the first time on 15 December 1906, becoming the first ship in the U.S. Navy to ever go to sea without a sea trial.

Onto or into? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say into, yeah. Icy // ♫ 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Any "nays"? :P —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But she's not going into it was my thought (i.e. not sinking) :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Omg. That was a terrrrrrrrible pun. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If that was a "he," I'd be bawling right now. Dirty mind is chronic, so have mercy.

Ja, well, she's going into the boundaries of the sea, (e.g., like on a map).

Ooo. How sad. </terrrrrrrible sarcasm> —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, w/e. Not a big deal. Which is more grammatically correct? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was asking. :) I am predisposed to "into", though, as is Icy. But it's ultimately up to you big MILHIST fellas. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I dunno. Let's wait for someone else to come along. ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question.

The Navy did not release any information about the incident until press dispatches from San Juan carrying news of the incident reached the mainland on the 23rd.

What's the term for a ship that has hit a reef? "Landed" or something? It's on the tip of my tongue - but this word-searching is only necessary since "incident" is repeated twice in that sentence. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 03:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - found a third time in that same paragraph. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Grounding"? ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I find myself liking you to an uncomfortable degree, yet again. Pray stop, upon my honor, before it does irreparable damage. *flees* Thx ;) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Swift court-martial ref?

• [3] ([4]) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He was sentenced to "one year's suspension from duty", which was later reduced to nine months, then after six months' suspension the remainder was remitted.

"Capt. Swift is Reprieved.; But Suspended Commander of the Connecticut Gets No Ship." (pdf). New York Times: p. 7. 25 October 1907.

I am nearly done; have a few suggestions I will add below with Bellhalla's. Maralia (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A question

Here's a question: do we know why the ship went to sea without undergoing sea trials? If so, that would be a useful addition to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

She shuttled refugees from Mexico to Galveston and carried officers of the Army and representative from the Red Cross back in the opposite direction.

Back where? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Galveston -> Mexico :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

*after re-reading sentence* Shoot. I'm missing too many details today. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moar prepositions

Connecticut then went to Maine and the Virginia Capes for battle practice, after which she went into the Philadelpiha Naval Yard for an overhaul.

"Into" or "to"? I have a feeling the answer might be an easy one, though. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia is spelled wrong lol...

And into is used right there, I think. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Should have seen that typo. >.>

If you say so, there it shall stay, my prince. Any third opinions? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification, pretty please.

Rear Admiral H.O. Stickney then broke out his flag on the ship, making her the flagship of Pacific Fleet Training.

What does "broke out" refer to here? This is not just out of curiosity - if I don't understand this lexicon, most others won't, either. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

read the lead of flagship, then change it to what you think is best. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done - *dance* —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ship notes"

Does anyone have any idea what this refers to? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Educated guess: the date the ship was ordered. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. See the original and where it went wrong. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC notes

Macro issues

• Only brief discussion of construction and almost no information on design. Perhaps a "Design and construction" section? It could include things like dimensions and displacement, discussions of weaponry, armor, powerplant, etc. Other quesions:
  • Were there design or construction challenges?
  • What distinguished Connecticut (and the class) from the Virginia class battleships?

Micro issues

• I've done a dab check and it comes up clean
• Infobox issues:
  • The propulsion item in the infobox is missing the type and number of engines.
  • There is no mention of armor plates, thicknesses, etc. in the infobox
  • Armament doesn't include all listed at Connecticut-class battleship
• What made the launch actually "controversial"? It seems more like it was plagued with problems than anything else. Also, anything in later sources that corroborates the sabotage angle presented in the various NYT articles?

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Friedman's U.S. Battleships should cover all of this except the launching, and I've got it up here at college with me.
  • As to the "controversial" part, that was probably the wrong word to use. But the only sources I found on the possible sabotage was NYT articles - Albertson didn't cover that at all. :/
  • And thank you so much for the help you all have given me...it's a godsend! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit: Are you sure "First tried" supports all parts of those statements? Some parts that I added (rivets in the keel plates bored through, protruded some 5 inches) came from the "Armed tugs" article, although they could be present in both. Maralia (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm an idiot. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But you mean well, right? ;) — Bellhalla (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"The design...was began"??? Good grief. You might be one :) Can I copyedit this now without ecs? Or shall I wait? Maralia (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL Bellhalla. You don't let up, do you. :D

Go ahead. I wrote that fast, in between looking up at Psych and down at the keyboard. Probably shouldn't be doing that... :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm as done as I'm gonna get anytime soon. I'd like to see the addition of the infobox data Bellhalla mentioned, as well as the court-martial result (I added some info above). Otherwise, good to go. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Working on the infobox now, and I'll do the court-martial stuff after. Thank you both so, so much! (I'm going to go hunt down some barnstars after I nom this...) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just turned H.O. Stickney blue. I *hate* making crappy stubs (you have no idea how this pains me!) but at least it's not red anymore. Maralia (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bah, don't worry about it...a bluelink is so much better than a redlink, and that's what most of the old admiral article look like...

How is the infobox looking in my sandbox? (outside of propulsion) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardize your inches — 'in' is okay for abbreviations (4 in), but 7-inch gun, 12-inch gun, etc (not 7" gun). Also fix '0.30 machine guns'. You have a broken ndash in belt armor. And last: what on earth does '11/2.5/9 in' mean, in the turret and conning tower armor? I'm off to bed; will catch up in the morning. Maralia (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done except for '0.30' and '11/2.5/9 in' - I stole them from Friedman w/o clarifying becuase I don't know what he means. The only change from Friedman I made was to the second one, to go away from using "in" too much (11in/2.5in/9in). I don't have a clue as to what it means, but...I figured that it should be there. :/

Ya, I'm off to bed too. My friends are coming here tomorrow though, so it may be the evening when I get on (depends on when I get up and when they arrive and leave...) Thanks again, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo [sic]

Guantanamo is American. Furthermore, American English does not have whatever that letter is when you spell it the Spanish way. This is the English language Wikipedia. We transliterate from foreign alphabets, and even if we didn't, the common, long-established spelling uses the 26-letter alphabet. Also, I'm still trying to get the hang of Wikipedia, so I hope someone can tell me who has the right to just go in and revert another editor for no reason with no discussion and what the accepted response to that is by the revertee. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Bellhalla is a very experienced WP:SHIPS member with many FA's, and a crapload of MILHIST A's, GA's and like 40-come-odd DYK's, so it's not like he randomly did that without a reason. As long as he sees this, he'll get back to you, I'm sure. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My point is that I've come to expect a little respect, myself, and even if I hadn't done anything to merit repect, it should be given here up front for wiki-smurfiness. Thanks again. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Naval Base is American, yes—but the text you changed referred more loosely to the Bay, which is certainly not American, and our article for that is titled Guantánamo Bay. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), there is no requirement to transliterate a name from a Latin alphabet, nor is there any rule prohibiting certain characters in article titles. Thanks for your other edits, though. Maralia (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A non-English spelling for the place is POV (and that's actually what I was upset about above when I had time to wonder what I was ranting about). You see this same thing all over Wikipedia—political POV-pushing through orthography (you should hang around with the Eastern Europe gang for a while if you really want to see some)—and it is in direct opposition to the whole spirit of this encyclopedia. That they caved over at the Guantanamo Bay article is no reason we should here. We use a 26-letter alphabet. I sincerely doubt that more than one percent of Americans even know what that letter is called. This is the Engish-language Wikipedia. The MoS also says at namimg conventions "Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich, not Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich", which means that if there is a standard, established English spelling, use that. Thanks for your input, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the core principles of Wikipedia—specifically, item 3—you will see that anyone can edit a page. So the same right you have to make edits is also the right I have as well. If you will notice, I did not post a rant (using your word) about someone changing the accented spelling to the non-accented version. I just made the edit that I felt improved the encyclopedia. Given that the article on the bay is at Guantánamo Bay and not at Guantanamo Bay (although that redirects there), I believe the appropriate spelling is that reached by consensus at the Guantánamo Bay article. (And since when is consensus caving?) In any case, the same assertion of POV can be turned right around and used to justify the accented spelling: if the Guantanamo spelling is "American", isn't that also POV, considering it's for a Cuban geographical feature? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course; I was a dick. Forgive that, please. No, it's not POV to use the English alphabet when writing the English language. To say it is turns the whole matter on its head. It's too bad that all caps has fallen into disfavor, because they are called for sometimes: <allcaps>Politically motivated orthographical oddities are POV. The English language does not have that letter any more than it has "ṣ". We don't know what it is.</allcaps> --Milkbreath (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Knots

The knot is an SI unit. Why convert to km/hr? Wouldn't we also have to show mi/hr then? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The knot is not really an SI unit, but it's been accepted for use in SI. So it's as much sense to convert to km/hr as it is to mi/hr. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes it an SI unit. What I mean is that ordinarily, we convert for the convenience of the other camp, but when the unit is both nautical and accepted in both systems, there's no need to convert. But if you must convert, to convert to only the standard SI unit and not the Imperial unit is unfair to those of us who use the Imperial system, who remain in the dark as to just how fast 18 knots is in mph. I hope I made myself a little clearer that time. I'm contending that it is wrong to convert knots. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of conception of what a unit means. If I encounter information that tells me that a park is 400 hectares in size, I know that a hectare is a unit of area, but I have no real concept of how large that is, having grown up in the US with the customary system. But if someone says that the park is 400 hectares (990 acres), that gives me a concept of how large it is. Similarly, the kilometers per hour conversions are done for those who have no real concept of how fast or slow a speed in knots is. But as far as a statute mile-per-hour (mph) conversion is concerned, at typical ship speeds, knots are reasonably close to mph. If you feel strongly that mph should be there, too, by all means add it in. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't actually feel very strongly about this, and I never did want to add anything. I repeat, it seems wrong to convert knots at all. You may know that a nautical mile is not much different than a statute one, but we don't convert for people like you and me, who know practically everything. I think we must assume that a person resorting to looking in Wikipedia for information has no clue what a knot is. They should learn, so we wikilink it, rather than make a big, clumsy-looking double conversion. The single conversion leaves the matter half-addressed, but a double one is anomalous and clunky. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Date format

Is there a reason this article is not in the standard U.S. date format? United States Navy for example is in the U.S. format, so if the reason this article is in the day-month-year format is because the U.S. Navy uses that, then that article needs to be changed. If this is not the case then this article should be changed to the month-day-year format. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The official site seems to use both formats in various places but it definitely uses the day-month-year format too, so the article is probably fine the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MOS on dates has this mentioned specifically and it came up in the article's FAC: See this section Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic

articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field

-MBK₀₀₄ 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, I have read that guideline. The anomalous thing is the article United States Navy currently uses the month-day format. I would think that if it's standard to put U.S. Navy articles in the day-month the main U.S. Navy article would do this as well. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Date for new guns?

The photo in section "Design" describes new twelve-inch guns being mounted on 31 January 1908. This date seems pretty unlikely since elsewhere in the article, it is clear that Connecticut was at sea as part of the Great White Fleet and did not receive a refit at that time. A further read shows that the refit and the accompanying design changes are mentioned nowhere else in the article. This seems like a pretty large omission for a featured article. I'll start looking around for information, but perhaps other editors can do so as well. Mmccalpin (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the tag; that date is definitely questionable, given her being elsewhere at that time. Text (and cites) in the infobox do support the assertion she was fitted with 12-inch guns at some point, but the date and details of a refit do appear to be missing. Maralia (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The tag on the image at Commons (which is supported with an OTRS ticket) indicates that these guns were installed at the New York Navy Yard. However the cited text in the article clearly states that Connecticut left the yard on December 5th, 1907 and did not return to U.S. waters until it sailed the Golden Gate on May 6th, 1908. My presumption is that some of the numbers got transposed when The ed17 inserted the image and caption. However until we can get it fixed, I have removed the date altogether. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the date on the photo is consistent with the sources of the photo, so any error isn't Ed's, but yeah, something is off here. Maralia (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that DeGuilian had a typo? I'll send off an e-mail. Thanks for noticing! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

As this article is being vandalised every 10 minutes or so at the moment and I don't see any productive edits by IPs since this appeared on the front page, I've semi-protected it for six hours. Established editors are still able to edit the article. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we protect main page articles on the basis of six vandalism edits an hour? This hardly meets the "extreme levels of vandalism" criteria described in Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, the vandalism was not that bad. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to protect pages, especially main page featured articles, and there's plenty of editors to revert vandalism promptly. LonelyMarble (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You want I should unprotect it then? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done per consensus here, and per WP:NOPRO. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've ridden shotgun over a number of main page articles over the last year, and have never seen as much vandalism as this article was receiving. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Main page articles are probably getting more vandalism now than a year ago, but this is only because our project is becoming more popular. Sometimes concerted efforts are made to vandalize the main page article in which it is vandalized multiple times a minute. This is one of the only times I'd recommend protecting it. Best thing to do is to have faith in loyal Wikipedia vandal fighters, unless the article is getting absolutely bombarded. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about our close air support either: AVBs pick up on and revert major vandalism, enabling faster reversions of vandalism these days. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are the anti-vandal bots ? These are the ones I have found:

# AntiVandalBot

# Wikipedia:CLUEBOT

# Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool

# VandalProof

# Vandal Fighter

# WikiMonitor

# WikiGuard

# IRC Bot

# IRC Bots

# Young Orphans

# ShadowTool

# Wikipedia Vandalism Watch

# Huggle

#WatchlistBot

# WikipediaVision

# *See the list of Wikipedia's most vandalized pages. The related changes link will display recent changes to all pages listed on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages, for those who wish to follow vandalism on Wikipedia but who are unable or do not desire to use IRC bot tools.

# User:Adam1213/warn is a page that simplifies the process of warning vandals by allowing warnings to be submitted to specific users directly from the page.
--Stadt (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any further vandalism (so far!) since the protection was removed - it must be past bedtime ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete?

Although she was the most advanced ship in the U.S. Navy when she was commissioned on 29 September 1906, she was obsolete before she entered service due to the Royal Navy's commissioning of HMS Dreadnought seven months earlier (hence the terms "pre-dreadnought" and "dreadnought").

"Obsolete" can either mean "not the newest tech" or "no longer useful". The latter is the most common term (according to Merriam Webster). "Obsolete" should be changed to some other term. Tempshill (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed "obsolete" to "outmoded". Tempshill (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I feel that the term obsolete should remain in the article as it appears in the statement above. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. Obsolete is the better choice of words in this situation. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can you support why? To me, obsolete really does mean "no longer useful". Tempshill (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

According to my dictionary (the book kind), obsolete is defined as "No longer in use or fashion, out-of-date". To me, obsolete is perfect for use becuase of the latter explination, "out-of-date". Every book I have ever read on the introduction of HMS Dreadnought qualifies here appearence as rendering all other battleships obsolete, and if obsolete is and has remained the prefered word for this event then I see no reason to change whats worked for 100+ years.

I agree that "obselete" is a better term. When someone says "obselete" I think "out-of-date", and I['ve seen it used a lot when reading about pre-dreadnaught battleships.--Patton^t/c 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

From a professional Operational Capability perspective the term obsolete has a very specific meaning in terms of supportability, and from that perspective the usage in the article is incorrect, although it's unusual to apply the supportable/ obsolescent/ obsolete terminology to a whole system, but rather to component systems. In this sense the ship itself was supportable rather than obsolescent or obsolete, although the military capability that it delivered was already superseded.

I would agree that obsolete is probably inappropriate, from a professional military perspective, but the vast majority of readers are not military professionals so would tend to read the wording according to common usage. In this sense, whilst obsolete is not the correct term, it is commonly accepted. Since wikipedia preference is to dumb down to the lowest common denominator, perpetuating inaccurate usage, then there is probably limited development opportunity.

ALR (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives these meanings for "obsolete": "No longer used or practised; outmoded, out of date." People are going to associate "obsolete" with either the first definition or the second. I personally use the former, and I'm sure many other people do as well. If ships like Connecticut were outclassed and outmoded by Dreadnought and her successors then why not just say so instead of using a word with an ambiguous meaning? Just because other books use the word "obsolete" hardly means that they are right to do so. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 11:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Use "obsolescent". Kablammo (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than argue about the subtleties of obsolete vs. other terminology (which can drift into an OR-ish direction), perhaps we can cite sources that call Connecticut obsolete:

Although she was the most advanced ship in the U.S. Navy when she was commissioned on 29 September 1906, [Source1, Source2, etc.] refer to Connecticut as obsolete even as she entered service.

Be descriptive, not prescriptive. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Belhalla (notwithstanding my suggestion above). By what criteria was the ship "obsolete"? Was she intended to fight in European waters? Or was she intended for the defense of the coasts and possessions of the United States, and if so, was she fit for those purposes when commissioned? No doubt she became obsolete (as eventually do all technologies), but it may go too far to suggest that she was obsolete from the moment of her commissioning. Kablammo (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means, if there are sources which use the term "obsolete" and explain why then utilise them in the text. However, I rather suspect that some books will just use the word out of convenience. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence does not belong in the article at all. It is in the introduction but is not a summary of anything that appears later. See WP:LEAD. It is not really on-point; this is an article about a specific vessel, not the development of the all-big gun ship. Other articles handle the latter point.

While the shibboleth that Dreadnought outclassed all prior designs and in some sense made them obsolescent may be generally true, it probably is hyperbolic to state that Connecticut was obsolete upon commissioning. Predreadnoughts continued to be used; they were the principal naval component at Gallipoli and were with the German fleet at Jutland. And in the Western Hemisphere Connecticut and others of her class had no rivals for some time, did they?

Even apart from the terminology dispute above, the sentence should be taken out. Kablammo (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree that it's hyperbolic to state that the ship was obsolete/outmoded/whatever by the time it was commissioned. Yes, pre-dreadnoughts continued to be used in some areas, but they were seen as expendable ships, and couldn't fight dreadnoughts on equal terms. Take Gallipoli, for instance: the pre-dreadnoughts were used because they could be risked in the heavily mined waters off Turkey, but they couldn't have dealt with Goeben, lurking on the other side of the Dardanelles. Queen Elizabeth had to be brought down to deter the ship from attempting to raid the Allied ships. And the German pre-dreadnoughts at Jutland was a terrible mistake; their slow speed forced Scheer to commit to a battle that might have resulted in the utter destruction of his fleet. It's a bit telling that the fleet advance just 6 weeks after Jutland saw the II Battle Squadron remain in port. And as for Connecticut's rivals in the Western hemisphere, less than 4 years after she was commissioned, she was totally outclassed by Minas Gerais. That's a pretty short period of time for something as expensive as a battleship. Parsecboy (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside: "couldn't fight dreadnoughts on equal terms": I'd take issue with that, because the Russians demonstrated rather well what pre-dreadnoughts were capable of in the Battle of Cape Sarych (hmm, we need an article there). The only time Goeben and Breslau headed out of the Dardanelles in 1918 there were no pre-dreadnoughts there for the first time in years.

Your point on the Germans and the pre-dreadnoughts in their line of battle is well-made, but the British had only removed the Third Battle Squadron of pre-dreadnoughts from the battle line earlier in 1916, a decade after they were made "obsolete". --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 15:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, 5 pre-dreadnoughts against 1 battlecruiser isn't exactly "equal terms" to begin with (i.e., 5 defending ships with a total of 20 heavy guns vs. 1 attacker with 10 heavy guns, not to mention Souchon could not afford damage to his ship). As for Goeben and the Dardanelles, it attempted to raid the Allied fleet in 1915, but retreated at the sighting of QE (see: Bennett's Naval Battles of the First World War, p. 46). Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since when is 5 v. 1 "equal terms"? ;) Also remember that Goeben was not a dreadnought, but a battlecruiser; her armor was thinner and not designed to hold up against the biggest guns on those pre-dreadnoughts (although that armor should have been fine against the more numerous smaller guns the old ships mounted, which was exactly why pre-dreadnoughts were superseded by Dreadnought :-) )

But why would you remove ships that could still have some impact? Sure, a dreadnought, having more speed, more armor distributed better, and more than double the number of main guns, would most likely rip a pre-dreadnought to shreds one-on-one. However, when part of a battle line, they would be subject to less hits while their guns, although few, might get lucky and hit an ammunition locker. Every single big gun that was available would be added; that's why battlecruisers, although clearly not meant for the role, were added at times.

So we've determined that (a) "obsolete" is a ambiguous and (b) it should probably be changed. The question is now changed to "what should we change the word to?" —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly endorse Kablammo's point about removal. I think it's spot on. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

As a veteran of the US Navy, a fan of Battleships and the fact that I grew up in Connecticut I took a personal interest in BB-18. I have several photos of Connecticut, all of which are easily found on the internet. When I found this article I looked at the pictures and noticed several serious discrepancies.

• The one in the legend taken in 1906 looks like Connecticut, as does the rear-facing shot from the commissioning ceremony. Both have side casement guns, and lattice-work masts, but it has no bow crest.
• The next photo of the speed trials in ca. '06 or '07 is labeled BB-8 (Alabama, which has none of these.), shows a battleship with no casement guns, has a bow crest and solid masts.
• In addition, the next one of her leading the Great White Fleet also shows a battleship with a bow crest. It's possible the crest could have been added for her role as flagship, but I can't see the masts being changed or the casement guns being removed within such a short time.
• There are a lot of photos on the internet showing both configurations, but none of them show any identifying markings.
• What I don't understand is the quick change in major configurations within a year without any mention of any of it in any of the history of the ship that I can find. MR2David (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture in the infobox was taken shortly before WWI, and if you look closely, the speed trial photo has casemate guns. I suspect, though, that some are covered up for the high-speed run. I also suspect that the cage masts were added in 1910 or 1912, but I don't have evidence to support that. Thanks for your comments! It's nice to know that people really do read these articles. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

12-inch guns?

Two photo captions refer to 12-inch guns, but the text mentions only 3-, 6-, 7- and 8-inch guns. Nor does Connecticut-class battleship's text mention 12-inch, although they're listed under General Characteristics there too. Seems a rather serious flaw in both articles. Sca (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Connecticut (BB-18). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808061116/http://www.navy.mil/gwf/battleships/bb-18.htm to http://www.navy.mil/gwf/battleships/bb-18.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Dreadnaught

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I presume that the Connecticut was a pre-dreadnaught battleship. Should the article say this somewhere? Peter Flass (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it should - I've added it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Japanese men-of-war?

The section on the Great White Fleet mentions the Americans were escorted by "three Japanese men-of-war and six merchantmen", linking to man-of-war. The reader might conclude the Great White Fleet was escorted by wooden sailships, but was this truly the case? It seems to me that "man-of-war" in this context is just a generic term for warships (ex. 1, ex. 2). Serraria (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point - it's also a bit too flowerly in my opinion. I've changed it to the generic "warships" (@The ed17: - if you know what types, or even better, which ships specifically, feel free to add them). Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Serraria and Parsecboy! I can try to find the book, which I believe is in a box somewhere. What a strange turn of phrase for me to use, but then again that was 14(!) years ago. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)