Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)/Archive 2

The Date, Month and Year
The ship is made in the US, so are the other warships made in this country. I think we should change the Date/Month/Year to the American Month/Day/Year to those articles, including the article of the USS Missouri. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Virgule-separated date elements are discouraged by WP:DATEFORMAT regardless of which element is first. See also WP:STRONGNAT because modern US military.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding the sequence, WP:STRONGNAT supports the sequence proposed by BattleshipMan. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye, but WP:STRONGNAT then goes on to say "articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." Because WP:STRONGNAT specifically addresses US military articles, that is the date format that applies.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Giving the circumstances, I agree to what North8000 said about my proposal on the date sequence. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What circumstances? Dmy dates were introduced to the article with the addition of the infobox at (the eleventh edit after the article's creation).  At the time both mdy and dmy date formats were in use.  The article's transition to a uniform date format was more-or-less complete complete by  of the article.  The transition was not controversial.  There has been no discussion of date formats in the whole history of this article.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * US Military articles are free to use dmy date format per STRONGNAT. No need for change, nothing's broken. Binksternet (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 29th addition
Something needs tweaking (even if the source said it) It says that she was not open to tourists in her last stay in Brememton. I went aboard as a tourist there in 1995; I remember it well and just looked at the dated photos. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid reference
In the alternate history video game Metal Gear Solid 4, a character from the first game known as Mei Ling was said to be working on the Missouri following its recommission. I'm not sure if this is worth putting in the article, but I found it interesting.

Hemi9 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Its actually already mentioned over at the main class page, see Iowa-class_battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But why not include it here if there's a reliable source? See, WP:PERFECT (specifically "Is nearly self-contained"), and the numerous comments over the last couple years. Clearly people think this information is important, would like to read about it in this article, and have no idea that the class article's cultural significance section exists. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just beat the game, and it actually has more significance than I originally thought. Mei Ling is the Captain of the Missouri, and the ship actually makes an appearance in game as the final US military ship able to mobilize because it is the last one in service prior to the system in game which stopped all military equipment from functioning. The Missouri is extremely important to the story of that video game, so I believe it is worthy of being in this article. Hemi9 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was a bit annoyed to find my edit removed. The game specifically makes use of the Missouri. It's not just some generic Iowa-class ship that could have been named after any state, the game specifically uses the Missouri, as well as a ton of info related to it: it being docked in Hawaii, it being decommissioned, its age as a battleship compared to the state-of-the-art one Liquid was using. The final mission briefing takes place on the Missouri. It is absolutely a use of the USS Missouri in popular culture and belongs on the appropriate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.6.216 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed it as it has cites no reliable sources detailing its impact on popular culture. Being significant to game play is not enough, and not the purpose of such sections. Per WP:MILPOP: "'In popular culture' sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic." Thanks, and please do not add this back to the article until there is a consensus among other editors that these qualifications have been net. - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't completely understand. It's not just that it's significant to gameplay, it's that the Missouri itself is a vital plot point. In your post on your talk page you mentioned that because filming didn't take place on the Missouri, games are pretty much excluded - which seems intensely biased against the medium, for one thing. However, games generally do location scouting. So if, hypothetically, I could prove they did location scouting on the Missouri, which was then used in-game, would that be a viable source?

Even without that I feel the reference alone suffices. As I said, this is anything but a throwaway reference. Missouri's place in history is vital to its place in the game. No other ship could serve the purpose Missouri did there. Missouri impacted on popular culture because an entirely new generation of people were able to learn about the ship, its history, etc through that game. That's how I ended up on the page. Surely that's the impact right there? TheMPC (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No its not. Lemme try and explain this in simpler terms: Missouri is not a main character in MGS4, shes a backup character. Because of that, any attempt to include her in the article is going to be difficult at best due to the absence of any information in movie magazines or papers or circulars or gamer related magazines or so forth in that manner. If it isn't mentioned in anything third party related then WP:MILPOP stipulates it should not be included in the article. Its worse for you here because of the FA-status, editors watch this article like hawks and in defense of the FA-star will remove anything - and I do mean ANYTHING - that remotely puts the article at risk for a "citation needed" tag. It was with this exact situation in mind that I pushed so hard to corral all this information into the class article since collectively the four ships have enough information to squeeze out a paragraph or two on cultural references, but since that is now no longer the case refugee references in the article are going to experience an iron curtain of quality control from people out to protect these featured articles from any kind of FA-compromise "cruft" put in them. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Back and forth over role in plot of movie "Battleship"
I noticed that this was put in, removed, and put back in. IMO it should probably not be in there. But I could be convinced otherwise. At one time I argued for inclusion a mention in the role in the film "Under Siege" but I gave in on that. I really don't follow the guidelines of the 9 projects that consider this article to be "theirs", but, unlike the Cher video, the actual ship was not involved. And we gotta draw the line somewhere. That might be a good place. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a reason for not including the information. Popular culture or not (and like it or not), these movies are a part of the ship's history now. Not including them isn't going to make them go away! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm near-neutral on this. Let's see what others say. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that I am strongly against the inclusion of any pop culture in the individual ship articles because of the foot in the door phenomenon that they create. With the addition of the Under Siege material in this article we can no longer adhere to a position of having the material appear only in the class article, so I removed the material only until a reliable source could be provided. As upset as I am to see this type of BS in the article the current consensus is that pop cultural appearances can be placed in the individual articles, so all I really have to protest with is the lack of a reliable source, and now that a source has been provided we do not have a good reason to exclude the inclusion of the battleship mention despite the fact that the battleship appeared in less than a fourth of the total film. We need better guidelines for notability here, but for the time being it should be in the article. (Again, let me reiterate that I am STRONGLY against this, its just that no one else is with me, so consensus wins the day here). TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not alone. I have no use for pop culture in ship articles.  I think that pop culture is simply trying to gain credibility by associating with a famous ship.  Do away with all pop culture references in ship articles (and in class articles too).
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, "Under Siege" is not in the article (except as a "see also"). The Cher video is.  This was the result of extensive discussion, and I was a proponent of inclusion.  Presumably the fact that the Mighty Mo and her crew actually participated was a key point. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, like it or not, we can't cover our ears and pretend Missouri had no role in popular culture. Featured articles are supposed to be able to stand on their own, and excluding this information&mdash;which may not be our preferred military history, but is certainly of encyclopedic interest in the ship&mdash;is a disservice to readers, who I guarantee will be looking for this information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just read the article on the movie. It appears that the ship itself participated in the making of the movie. If that is the case, then I'd switch my recommendation to "put it in", as such would be a part of the actual ship's history. The current attempted insertion makes no mention of this. But it should cover the ship's actual participation. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't simply do away with all pop culture references in ship articles simply because you don't like them. This article is about the history of the ship. When that history includes something that is considered pop culture, excluding it from the article simply because it is pop culture is not a good reason. Everytime a ship appears in a movie shouldn't be noted, I heartily agree. That is a reference to the ship, and not part of the ship's actual history. But when the ship is heavily involved in the actual production, then its participation is part of the history. You can't tell me it isn't noteworthy that while a museum ship in Pearl Harbor active duty Navy sailors were brought on board to tow the ship out to sea. But then it becomes suddenly un-noteworthy because the reason it was towed out to sea was so it could be filmed as a major Hollywood movie. We can't decide what goes into articles based on what category of information it is. If it is noteworthy and relevant enough as a non-pop culture fact, then we can't exclude it because it is.Dworjan (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, and already agreed with you. Not sure if you read my final post. Actual participation of the ship in something should be covered. Also some thoughts to the contrary fail to make the distinction when the article is about a particular item, not just a type of item where there are multiple copies of it and participation of one of this "copies" does not make such participation notable. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion, mine was a general reply to several of the above posts, not to yours specifically. I see that you and I agree on this point.  If something is part of the history of the ship, then it is part of the history of the ship, even if it is "pop culture" in nature.  For example, there is no reason to include things like "Under Siege" or any songs that may mention the ship in them, because the ship had nothing to do with them.  Those movies or songs may have everything to do with Missouri, but if Missouri had nothing to do with the production then it isn't part of the history.  However, when the ship and crew do something, even if that something is host a music video or get underway for a film production, then that is part of the ship's history.Dworjan (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Alas, there is no general "policy" for trivia mentions because of WP:TRIVIA.
 * I concede if President Obama visits Tinytown, North Dakota. It might wind up in their "History" subsection. Nothing like that has happened to that town EVER. But if the President visits New York City, it is a big yawner. So what? Doesn't every president?
 * In other words, who is doing who any good here? Is the President doing Tinytown any good? It would appear so. They are basing their history on the President's resume. Not so for NYC.
 * Is the Missouri doing any good for the film? Or is it vice-versa? What is the topic of the film? The Missouri? Or just "some ship?" Student7 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As awful as the film Battleship is, Missouri is a fairly large part of the film's plot, which seems to have been written specifically to make connections to Missouri's history and presence in Hawaii (i.e. writing in a part for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and setting the film in the Pacific). The film strikes me as being about the battleship Missouri, rather than being about a battleship which happens to be Missouri. As an article about the ship, it seems reasonable to me that the article mention the film. --IxK85 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you mean by "awful", "financially unsuccessful" and not "artistically unsatisfactory", then it appears that the film is here as promotion. i.e. WP:SPAM. That is, the film stands to benefit by its association with the battleship, and not the other way around. It should not be included for that reason. Student7 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That argument strikes me as spurious - the film is no longer recent, and a line in a Wikipedia article hardly promotes the film. Given that the film is about the ship, the film is part of the ship's history, and as such a reference to it in this article (of an appropriate level of detail, for instance a single sentence) seems appropriate to me. --IxK85 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The reason for inclusion here isn't simply because "Battleship" is about USS Missouri.  It should be included because USS Missouri was heavily involved in the production of the film. "Under Siege" was about USS Missouri, but since (other than some stock footage) Missouri wasn't involved in the production, including it here would be more in the realm of spam or pop culture.  Looking at other facts that are included in this article such as port visits, dry dockings, etc, a single sentence mentioning the ship was towed out to sea with the assistance of active duty Navy sailors to film scenes for the movie Battleship seems entirely reasonable.  The ship went out and did something noteworthy (how many museum ships get underway...?), and it happens that what it did was film scenes for a movie.  If it was towed out to sea with active duty sailors onboard in order to be used for a sonar test or drone testbed, that fact would already be in this article without any debate. Dworjan (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Addressing other concerns while recapping, it is an over-generalization to lump questions about non-military-service-items into military equipment articles together as some have been doing. Four of the main defining attributes are that the article is about a single entity, and that entity actually participated in the event. Also the participation and the resulting prominence is significant.  Lastly, the movie has surpassed the low bar of rw:notability for inclusion in an article, having even met the higher standard of having established wp:notability as evidenced by having its own article.  North8000 (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Missouri kind of a prop here. A ship that old, which hasn't moved lately, can't really move itself without a lot of work. So towing presumed.
 * Goes to show, pay the Navy enough and they will haul the Arizona up and out to sea for a day! Or maybe the Constitution! Student7 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is why it should be included here. It was a lot of work to tow her out to sea for the filming.  And it is something very atypical for a museum ship, and therefore worth mentioning.Dworjan (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters much but Missouri was already scheduled to be under tow en route from dry dock back to her pier. She wasn't pulled away from the pier JUST for the movie. It was a happy coincidence for the film makers that she was already going to be out on the water - they only had to pay to have her out on the water a little longer than originally planned. #trivia ---B- (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Rehashing the film question
Why in the world are the two films that prominently featured Missouri not even mentioned (until I added the 2012 flick just now, that is)? They're a pretty notable part of the ship's later career, and I imagine the majority of the younger public knows about battleships only though them. It's like writing about USS Dallas (SSN-700) without noting the very public roles the ship played in Tom Clancy's novels and the major Hunt for Red October movie. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed unsourced information
The following material was removed from the memorial section, and may be readded to the article when a reliable source is located for the information given. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The final move to her current resting place coincided with what amounted to a brief "maintenance run" under her own internal power ( sadly not under her own propulsive power ) in the form of a days shooting for the 2012 film Battleship, representing the last time that the "Missouri" has been taken ( albeit briefly ) out to sea.


 * It's false. I was there. At no time was there even a remote attempt to fire up the engines (which means the SSTGs wouldn't run either). We never even fueled her. She DID go out to sea for the day for the film crew to get shots for Battleship but she was being towed the entire time and any on-board power was provided by portable generators brought aboard for the day. ---B- (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Missiles
When Missouri deployed, we had 31 Tomahawks on board. One cell was intentionally empty and the crew used it for training purposes (launching and misfire scenarios). At the end of our operations in the Gulf, we had 1 inop missile, one had restrained, the remaining 29 had been launched.

Paul Sweeney, FCC(SW) GM div, USS Missouri.


 * There's a lot of confusion around this. The National Desert Storm War Memorial repeats the claim I'd heard which was that only 28 were fired in Desert Storm. It's not clear to me which is accurate but most of the sources I've seen say 28. ---B- (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What's "Man of War"
What is this supposed to mean: "100 staff to USS Missouri BB 63 at Guam from Man of War.[9]" This makes it sound like man of war is a ship or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea, it has been removed. Llammakey (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on USS Missouri (BB-63). 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/20061207125512/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-5.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-5.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707073746/http://beta.abcnewsvsource.com/search/index/keywords/NEWS-NY?page_id=1289 to http://beta.abcnewsvsource.com/search/index/keywords/NEWS-NY?page_id=1289
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/ffg/FFG-33-USS-Jarrett.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009235230/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb63.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb63.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Missouri (BB-63). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6E8es066M?url=http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6E8es066M?url=http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Commanding Officers
I would think that with a ship this well known there would be a section listing the commanding officers.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on USS Missouri (BB-63). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219024924/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_history/3037591.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_history/3037591.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/m12/missouri-iii.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seaforces.org/usnships/ffg/FFG-33-USS-Jarrett.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Missouri (BB-63). 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/20061205205911/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/index.html to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Appearances in popular culture vs. actual participation in popular culture==

I think that the article is fine as-is in this area. But in view of past debates and a potential flood of possibilities, I think that a distinction needs to be made between "participation" vs. "appearance". Being towed for appearance for "Under Siege" and being actively involved in the Cher video are actual participation of the ship. This is different than being included in books, movies, games etc. where the actual ship did not participate.  North8000  (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, as long as those participations cite reliable sources. Beyond that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I regularly remove non-notable appearances and mentions from this page (and just removed another one), but haven't removed those two. What am I missing here? - BilCat (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I mostly wanted to reinforce that those two (where the Mo actually actually participated) are a different situation than "appearances" and should stay.  North8000  (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. Now I understand. - BilCat (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Missouri (BB-63). 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/20071218082715/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en417/8023_034_0000001.htm to http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_refs/n52en417/8023_034_0000001.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205005224/http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/ to http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)