Talk:List of battleships of the United States Navy/Archive 1

Lists
The two lists used to be the same length, indicating that the contents of the two lists are the same, differing only in sorting. Could the people who messed this up please fix? Stan 16:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The length doesn't match because of the added line caused by the comment after USS Wisconsin's entry in the numeric list. -B- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.74.48 (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2005 (UTC)

Request for Change
Near the top of the article is the statement "Thus, the US Navy never matched or even closely rivaled the line of battle of the Royal Navy in sheer numbers, but tended to have more powerful ships which could take more damage." There are (at least) two issues here: (1) "The" Royal Navy? I assume the author is talking about the UK's Navy. This should be made explicit. (2) I would venture a guess that the statement is no longer true. I assume the author is talking about the 19th Century, or something like that. This should be made explicit as well. I am not making either change myself because I am not knowledgable enough on the topic - I'm just guessing (though confident) in both cases. - Rwv37 June 28, 2005 04:31 (UTC)


 * Well, there's only one Royal Navy. :-) The statement is true throughout the battleship era, which for the US is ca 1890-1945, so could be clarified that way. Personally, I think the whole para is irrelevant; this is supposed to be just the list of ships with no distractions or ramblings, and other articles have plenty of design philosophy and fleet doctrine. Stan 28 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)


 * There are any number of "Royal" navies - indeed every country with a monarchy has one - the Dutch for example (and yes to the Dutch, their navy is just called the Royal Navy, albeit in Dutch, i.e., Koninklijke Marine). As for the idea that the Royal Navy had a larger fleet than the U.S., this ended pretty much with Washington Treaty when both countries negotiated parity in capital ship tonnage which was considered the number that really mattered (by international treaty no less).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose Split
On: It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article.

See also: Category:Battleships of the United States and Category:Battleships of the United States Navy.
 * With a 'List of' title, the second half of this article is more like what one would expect to find in a main article.
 * Add in there is no main article matching either of the the two categories above (Why there are two is itself unclear).
 * I'd postulate there is a fair amount of material that could be incorportated into such a main article, certain more interesting historical highlights now in individual BB articles, and perhaps some comparision data to other world class navies in the day and period 'head to head'. In short, this article having a list title can't use some of the text that could easily be pulled together into a main article on the Battleships of the United States Navy (Alternative and perhaps better name).
 * In sum, there is no overall class article or History of article, and such a major 'projector' and factor in world politics and warfare pretty much demand that there indeed should be one. // Fra nkB 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The two categories allow for instances where the US built battleships that did not serve with the Navy, eg building them for some other country - as in the case of GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2007
I have edited the section on the Iowa class which originally mentioned that the refit removed 6 of the 5 inch guns. This makes no sense. Guns are paired in turrets, and so to remove 6 guns, you would have to remove three turrets, leading to one side of the ship having more guns than the other. In reality, 2 turrets were removed from each side, for a total of 8 guns removed of the original 20. This is reflected in the article about the Iowa class, and can readily be seen in this picture. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg -EO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.196.202 (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ship list changes
I think the current format of the Ship List section is terribly ugly. The whole list only takes up about half the width of my monitor, leaving a lot of empty real estate on the right. As a result, there's not enough width on the "By hull number" column to display both the text and the images without links being bumped down to the next line and justified (see BB-16 New Jersey or BB-26 South Carolina). On the plus side, the images in that column pretty much match up in position to the ship link they describe. In the "By name" column, the text is fine. But since there's only one image in the column, and its at the end, it really stands out and screams "why is this image here?!"

I've played around with changing the width values for the box but I just can't get it to work right. There has got to be a better way of displaying this information, but unfortunately I'm not very current on wiki formatting. Can anyone clean this up? Dziban303 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Littorio/Italia
How does the Italian battleship Littorio/Italia fit into the information given here? The ship was ceded to the US (like Radetsky, etc. after WWI), but doesn't seem to have been commissioned (unlike Radetsky, etc.). Should it be mentioned here? --98.204.140.83 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Ships destroyed in battle
I have a question regarding the last statement at the bottom of the "Ship List" section, which states "only USS Arizona (BB-39) and USS Oklahoma (BB-37) were permanently destroyed as a result of enemy action." I don't understand why the USS Utah (BB-31) is not on this list, considering it is nearly identical in status to the USS Arizona (currently resting in the middle of Pearl Harbor). Further, I'm not sure USS Oklahoma should be one of the 2 ships mentioned, since it was actually raised, partially repaired, but then was not returned to action (a political decision, not a direct result of enenmy action, one could argue).

I believe the "2 ships destroyed by enemy action" are more correcty the USS Arizona and the USS Utah. Perhaps there is some specific, technical reason that this is is not true, but if that is the case, this article should explain why the Utah is NOT in this group and the Oklahoma IS. It would remove the confustion. Thanks.

Cbuzan (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Major "overhaul"
with this edit (edit summary: AMERICAAAAAA (Overhaul begins, to match the fleets of Europe!) you made major changes, including the removal of significant content and numerous links. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "match the fleets of Europe!", but all these pages of the US Navy have a standard format that has been in place for some time. I have reverted it for now, but that doesn't mean that's the end of it. I'm sure some of the content and sources you want to add could very well may be worthwhile, but overall, such a major change should be proposed first. The link to your version of the page is available for others to review. I suggest posting notices at WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. Allow other major and regular contributors to these pages (and interested editors in general) a chance to review your proposed changes, determine what should go in, what should come out, and any other suggestions to go along with yours, as well as whether the layout should be changed. Thanks for your contributions - the WOLF  child  11:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm working as part of Operation Majestic Titan, and the format used for this list is List of battlecruisers of the United States Navy. I'll do as you suggest, but I don't appreciate hours of work be reverted. – Vami _IV✠  19:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate these edits, but I strongly urge that the prose before the list be retained and that the category headings ("Pre-dreadnought"; "Dreadnought"; etc.) also be retained. The prose was very helpful in giving context, and the category headings gave the page more meaningful structure. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm working as part of Operation Majestic Titan - and that's a great project.
 * and the format used for this list is List of battlecruisers of the United States Navy - and that's a good article, but different that this one in some respects. I also don't see any single major over-haul type edit in that page's history.
 * I'll do as you suggest, but I don't appreciate hours of work be reverted - that's something that I both understand and appreciate, really, but all that work does not have to be for nothing. Like I said, much of the content and sourcing you brought to this page appear to be worthwhile additions. But you also removed significant content and changed the layout, work that other's have also put effort into building and maintaining. That's why I've asked that you collaborate with some of the other editors here that may have an interest in this article. Really, I'm not looking to start any kind of pissing match with you here. I'm sure this can get sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers - the WOLF  child  04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Overhaul deliberations
If I can't be bold in the wikicode, I'll be bold in the wikitalk. Here's the case for my work.

The style of my work is the same as every other list of battleships and battlecruiers in the navy of a nation: lead that discusses the development and history of that nation's battleship/cruiser force, the key, and then the list, followed by the references section. For all my work in Operation Majestic Titan, I have referred to the corresponding list of battlecruisers, as all of those are already Featured Lists - List of sunken battleships (battlecruisers), List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy (battlecruiers), and List of battleships of the United States Navy.

There is no need for a preliminary list to what is already going to be a list of battleships. I will add the hull number (ex: BB-9) to the name box of each respective ship as on List of battlecruisers of the United States Navy. There is also no need for the "lead" to be a completely lackluster three sentences that contains an untruth ("...consists of all ships with the hull classification symbol "BB"."). The consensus on leads of these lists is plain to see on List of battleships of Germany, List of battlecruisers of Germany, Itlay, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Greece, in addition to the corresponding lists of battlecruisers and all aforementioned lists for either (this is also visible in lists that are not A- or FL-Class but I highlighted them for their quality). I would be very very happy if I didn't have to do the research and writing for the lead (in fact I hope at the moment to get to do that as he is also working on American battleships), but there should not be three sections for the lead.

Review of List of battlecruisers of the United States Navy appears to show a collaboration between users and ; if you would like to be my partner or editor, then all the better. I have previously had a beneficial if ad-hoc relationship with on List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy.

X – Vami _IV✠  21:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just realized my earlier comment was ambiguous. When I said that I disagreed with the lose of prose at the beginning of the article, I meant I disagreed with the removal of text that was under the headings "1880s–1910s" and "1930s–1940s". I have no objections to the article lead you proposed; it reads well and the information removed was trivial. I also don't object to the removal of the "index", which I agree is redundant. Thanks for your hard work. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My only issue is that as a "List of..." article, that the list(s) actually be retained, along with links to the classes and individual ships. I otherwise agree with "Aoi"'s comments, and thank you for your efforts. - the WOLF  child  01:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, there is no reason for a list article to start with "This list is" or "List of" because those terms are self evident in the title and the formatting of the list itself. Even the Featured list promotion process do not want it. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I was referring to the title. Thought that would be obvious. That aside, how would someone with a single day's experience and a handful of edits know what the "Featured list promotion process wants"...? - the WOLF  child  17:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already a wikilink to the ship in each box under "Name" and a Template:Main article link to the ship class. As an added bonus, you can hop to that specific section [via the table of contents]. I appreciate your cordiality. – Vami _IV✠  04:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I added in brackets a tidbit of text I should've included when I wrote this. – Vami _IV✠  08:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here quick to say that I support Vami's changes to this list to bring it up to standard. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Vami_IV, thank you for leaving the prose (giving background of the design of battleships between the 1880s and 1910s and 1930s and 1940s) at the beginning of the article. I know it's a bit counterintuitive since this is a "list" article, but I think it was good for establishing context (though the text itself admittedly needs a lot of work--I'll try to help with this since I'm the idiot who asked that it be left in). The new tables look great. If it's OK with you, I'm also going to restore the headings for "Standard battleships" and "Fast battleships", because these titles clearly delineate major changes in American battleship design philosophy. Let me know if you disagree. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this article is significantly degraded since my last visit - several years ago. Ok - older classes of Battleships have tables - then that discontinues mid way - My memory is that used to be there for all classes. Look that the List of Cruisers of the U.S. Navy What about modify this page to match that page is style/layout format.   Wfoj3 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)