This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Is this the same Iowa whose gun turret exploded in 1989? -- Zoe
Yup. But it's not recorded in DANFS yet, so the facts are too much in dispute to record here. :-) But seriously, the article is still missing all the 1980s action... Stan 03:21 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
What was the name of the sailor who was accused of blowing up the turret intentionally because of his being upset over the ending of an alleged homosexual relationship? -- Zoe
Oh how juicy - I don't remember ever hearing the story at the time, but there's plenty about it on the net. The sailor in question was Clayton Hartwig, and the Navy's website carefully doesn't mention the scandal... Stan 04:53 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Check it out it is pretty interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.105.35 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"As it degrades, gunpowder gives off ether gas". Huh ? Gunpowder was not the propellant, nitrocellulose was the main propellant ingrediant. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can find a source to that effect than we can put in the article. Until then though, this remains since the information can be verified by source. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Gunpowder has not been used as a propellant since the 1890s. Whoever wrote the referenced NY Times article referring to "gunpowder bags" is a moron. I think what was really at issue was very small quantities of black powder [gunpowder] in igniter pads at the ends of the [nitrocellulose] propellant powder bags. To make any sense it is important to distinguish between the black powder igniters and the smokeless powder [nitrocellulose] in the propellant powder bags, very different ingredients. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Armaments table
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What's the source for the 1968 section in the "Armaments" table? If the ship was mothballed from 1958 to 1983, why would there be an entry for 1968? Does it really mean to reference 1958? And why, in 1958 or 1968, would it have no AA armaments at all? Cromis 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Looks like the table was copied from the New Jersey one. I removed the entry. And the New Jersey had the guns removed to save weight as it was correctly assumed that there would be no air threat from the North Vietnamese, and such guns would not be useful even if there was.Spejic 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Mispelling?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Iowa departed on a midshipman training cruise 1 June 1955 and upon her return, she entered Norfolk for a four-mouth overhaul.
What is a four-mouth overhaul?
That should be "month" (the "u"/"n" confusion is very common in OCRed txt). Stan 17:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
According to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm the ship was stricken from the Navy list on March 17, 2006. A large chunk of the "present" section of the article is going to have to be deleted now. Spejic 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the info bar to reflect this new development, and I will reword the present section to reflect this as well (assuming, of course, that no one beats me to it). TomStar81 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Anchorage nest at Suisun BayPictured right is one of the anchorage nests at Suisun Bay. Am I correct in thinking that Iowa is the rightmost vessel shown? If so, should I add this photo to the article? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That is correct, Iowa is the vessel on the far right. I would refrain from adding this photo though; In my opinion a better one would be a picture of the land Iowa would have if moved to Stockton, or better yet, a concept photo of the planned museum for Iowa. TomStar81 03:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel the need to clarify my earlier comment: Having looked at it a little longer I think maybe it would look good in the bottom part of the section on Iowa’s placement into the mothball fleet; although I would refrain from adding it to the museum ship section. TomStar81 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
But the thing is that Iowa is 'with' the mothball fleet, but not 'in' it. It isn't a member of the Navy Inactive Fleet - it's just temporarily being stored with them. Spejic 11:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this could be the USS New Jersey (BB-62) an Iowa class, but I have no proof of that, its just a thought A 10 fireplane (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Suisun Bay, San Francisco
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
She arrived in Suisun Bay, San Francisco, on 21 April 2001 and is part of the Reserve Fleet there.
Wait, am I mistaken, or is Suisun Bay NOT within the boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco? In fact, I believe it's at least 10 miles away (by flight, farther by water-travel) from San Francisco. It may, however, be accessible to the San Francisco Bay via the San Pablo Bay, but that's hardly cause to call it "Suisun Bay, San Francisco", no? Perhaps preferrable would be "Suisun Bay, in northern California", or "Suisun Bay, in the San Francisco Bay Area"? - Eric 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Suisun Bay is indeed not in SF county - the northern extent of SF county is Red Rock Island, which is just south of the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. Measuring the distance from Red Rock to the Suisun fleet in Google Earth it's around 19 miles. "Suisun Bay, in northern California" seems best; as Suisun Bay isn't part of SF Bay (they're separated by the Carquinez Strait) I think mentioning SF bay might be confusing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Last Battleships?
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, the line:
"The Iowa, as class leader of the last battleships in any navy..."
caught my attention. Wasn't the British battleship Vanguard the last battleship of any navy? Even though the primary 15 inch guns of the Vanguard were recycled from earlier ships, wasn't the Vanguard newer than the Iowa class?
Vanguard was the last battleship ever built. She was completed after USS Missouri, in 1946, and was known in brittian for being the only battleship to never fire in anger. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the line "The Iowa, as class leader of the last battleships in any navy..." seems to jump out at me. Vanguard's 15 inch guns were fired in anger, at Jutland in WW1, but they were fitted to earlier ships.
The Iowa Class was the last US class, but I'm sure it wasn't the last class ever, even though HMS Vanguard was a one off.
Rejection by San Francisco, CA
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Should it be noted that the permission to berth the USS Iowa near AT&T Park (aka PacBell Park) was rejected by the goverment of the City of San Francisco?
It is noted that the city of San Fransisco turned down an offer to berth the battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Should it be stated why the city rejected the vessel?
There are multiple reliable sources that talk about the City's action in depth, and reaction the that action as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm waiting for the battleship to officially open and then the plan is to go back and streamline/update the road to museum ship so that we cover everything adequately. Since this is a FA-class article prudence demands this be done, but trying to do this when the ship is/was in limbo got complicated since the information kept changing. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Non-enyclopedic?
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
"On February 24, 1943, Iowa put to sea for shakedown in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast. She got underway on August 27 for Argentia, Newfoundland to neutralise the threat of German battleship Tirpitz which was reportedly operating in Norwegian waters."
The terms/word "put to sea", "shakedown", "underway", as well as calling it "she" seems non-encyclopedic to me, and is more colloquial than should be. Something should be donw about this. Also, I'm changing "neutralise" to the correct spelling of "neutralize", with a "z".--PoidLover 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There have been repeated discussions about the use of "she" in ship articles; the community consensus is that the use of "she" is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. The terms "put to sea", "shakedown", and "underway" are nautical terms that fit the article perfectly; these can be linked to articles for clarification if need be. Also, if your out to change established procedure for articles like this your comments would be better left either at WikiProject Ships or WikiProject Military history. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI, using "she" to describe a ship is actually grammatically incorrect; it's a form of colloquialism. Journalistic style (which Wikipedia likes to use as one of their guides), specifically the Associated Press Stylebook, directs the use of "it" when discussing ships. As such, that's also the style that U.S. Navy public affairs outlets have adopted. Nolefan32 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Per U.S. Navy style guide "Ships may be referred to as "she" or "her." " and Navy styleguide_all "her, she - Appropriate pronoun when referring to a ship. Do not use this pronoun with reference to a nation except in quoted material. Use "it" instead." The it refers to nation, not ship. --Dual Freq 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I probably should have given my credentials on this topic - I served 20 years in the Navy and Naval Reserve, and today I'm a civilian working for the Department of the Navy. My professional background is journalism and communications (what the government refers to as public affairs); currently I'm a Navy base public affairs officer. It is true that according to naval style, "she" and "her" are acceptable (and even preferred) terms for describing a ship; however, naval style also dictates that ship names are to always be written in all caps, i.e., USS NIMITZ, which is a style you rarely see outside of official naval correspondence (which is the only documents naval style applies to). In the Navy public affairs arena, we instead use the Associated Press Stylebook, which is the main guide used by print media outlets throughout the United States; that guide dictates "it" over "she", and as such, we the official communicators for the Department of the Navy, use "it". Nolefan32 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I just took a look at the "Navy styleguide" you linked to. What you stumbled across isn't what it presents itself as. That's a localized styleguide developed by the journalists at the Navy Newsstand for articles submitted to them; don't misconstrue it as being an "official" Navy style directive, it's intended ONLY for Newsstand submissions. Nolefan32 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Its an issue that has come up before on various medium, notably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). Wikipedia doesn't hold the use of she to be grammatically incorrect becuase its a standard English practice. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, I see Wikipedia espousing all sorts of guides and sources for what it dictates to be good grammar, and of course the extremely vague "standard English practice". Most outlets that wish to be taken professionally, such as newspapers and magazines, prefer to adhere to a single source for their style, whether they make it up locally or borrow one that already exists. The one most used by media outlets is the Associated Press Stylebook, and it happens to be my personal favorite as it was the one that was taught to me in journalism school and which we've used throughout my career, but there are others and all are good. My point being is that Wikipedia can't be trying to fritter around and use this style source for this and that style source for that and then just say "standard English practice" when they don't like any of the style out there. It's simply unprofessional. You've got to pick one and go with it. Nolefan32 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not out to change any procedures, it's just that this article seemed a little unprofessional to me, but now that I see there's a reason for all this, it all makes sense. Is the link for nautical terms anywhere on this article? If not it should be, and clearly be referenced on the article.--PoidLover 05:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"Shakedown" can be linked to Shakedown cruise, and "put to sea" can be linked to military deployment since thats what a warship does when she goes to sea. "Underway" doesn't link to anything I know of; although it may be listed in the nautical terminalogy glossary. I will see what I can do about linking the stuff. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that should suffice.--PoidLover 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to raise the she/it issue again. Of the four entries on the Iowas, this is the only one using "it". Given all the above material justifying "she", I think this one should be changed to conform to the others. I'd be happy to do it.
Busaccsb 05:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I do plan to get around to it eventually; you will note that not only is this the only page to not use she, it is also the only one of the four completed Iowa class battleship pages not to be featured. I am working on bringing this on up to FA status; its just been on hold for some time now. If you wish to change the article from it to she go right on ahead, but make sure that the article doesn't alternate from she to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I did it, and also did a few minor wording changes. You seemed to like what I did a few months back, so didn't think this would be a problem. I have a couple questions: what are the requirements for FA status, and how am I supposed to sign this page?Busaccsb 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
FA requirements can be found on the this page under criteria; there is also some FA advice on the parent Military history project page. Among other things the article needs inline citations and more content for its various sections; the other Iowas had more meat in their WWII and Korean War sections, and in the case of Iowa specifically there is the issue of her 89 turret explosion, a section which will need to be built from scratch. A better source other than DANFS will have to be found for the WWII and Korean War sections. More images should be uploaded as well. Of course thats just for starts, there are other things that would need to be worked out as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Photos
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
They are too much small. Always this stuff of 'thumb' dimensions. I disagree because there is no way to see particulars if not click on photos. But this is not necessarly a good thing, expecially for who has 56k link (as myself), because an article must be fair, because if you post a medium size photo atleast you allow the reader to see something interesting.
To me (not to talk to who has ASDL,Fi-Wi etc.) it's clear that put a 300-400px image NOT slow down too much the page opening and is an huge advantage to me to see something. If thumb images are needed to sell DVD with Wikipedia inside, as is happening, then there is a problem that affects Wikipedia.
Onestly,
is amusingly small, while
Allow a way better to see what is pictured with xxxx more details to check...and it's a way fairer to see..
In this case the photos are small because the article is small. When I get around to bringing this article up to FA status I intend to enlarge the images somewhat so they match the ones on the other pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Tom, a great deal of discussion has already been generated around the issue of using images. An attempt to go around WP:Aviation guidelines for image sizes was recently made. This is the comment that was given by an admin reviewing the issue: "Stephano, if you want the pics bigger, all you have to do is set the thumb size bigger on your preferences. Go to the "my preferences" link at the top of the screen, then click on the "files" tab. In there is a box where you can set the size you want to view thumbs at. If you add thumb sizing, then you are preventing everyone else from deciding what size they want to see things at. Why should you be telling me what size I should view things at? Should I not have the choice to have the images at a size that fits best my monitor? By sizing thumbs, you force your view on everyone else, which just isn't a very nice thing to do. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"
My comment was: "There is a reason for not having large images, they take up space, make it harder to download the article and unless you are a graphic artist, trying to establish a "decent size" is entirely subjective. As a former graphic and technical artist, I worked within parameters established by the graphics editor and I still do. Those who want to see a larger image, merely have to "click" on the image and a separate window will take the viewer to the image size that was established by the editor who submitted the photograph. I typically upload a high resolution image but if it was anything other than a "thumb" size in an article, the images would quickly overload the article. If you check out any of the WP:Aviation Project pages, you will see the same basic layout and use of image sizes. FWIW, the image you are using as an example, is one that I uploaded and I feel that the "thumb" size works extremely well with this image. Bzuk 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)."
Another editor's comment: "Please note that there is an option in the my preferences tab at the top of the page to change the size of thumbs to a size that is suitable for you, and if you really want to see the picture full resolution, then you can click on the picture. "Hard coding" picture size will over-ride other peoples preferences as how large they want to view thumbs.Bear in mind that not everyone is viewing the page on the same sized/resolution screen as you, and some will be viewing pages with very slow download speeds, so large pictures will be an irritant or inconvenience to some.Nigel Ish 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)" FWIW Bzuk 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC).
Photo in dry dock
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
[1] might be worth adding to the article, particularly if it was possible to tie down the date.MarkMLl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Its a world war 2 era photograph, so the date would have to be 1944 or 1945. If I remeber correctly this was during one of the island campagns (possibly the solomons or marianas), so that would be a good place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
http://battleships.freewebsitehosting.com/Iowa.html appears to be the original source. I've placed the following caption on commons: USS Iowa in a floating drydock at Manus Island, Ulithi Atoll, 28 December 1944. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I suppose this is a trivial point, but DANFS lists BB-61 as the third USS Iowa. The ship that would have been the third, BB-53, was laid down shortly after World War I, but construction was stopped and then canceled because of the Washington Treaty on Naval Disarmament. She and her four sisters were never commissioned.
While on the same topic, it is not clear that the first ship to bear the name was properly commissioned. Hers was a name change, from USS Ammonoosuc; but as I read the article in DANFS, she was never commissioned, either as Ammonoosuc or as Iowa. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this awnsers your question @Pkkphysicist: but according to wikipedia USS Iowa (BB-61) was the forth Iowa, Military named vessel, as listed below
USS Ammonoosuc (1864), a monitor that was never commissioned and was renamed Iowa before being sold
USS Iowa (BB-4), a battleship that saw action during the Spanish–American War
USS Iowa (BB-53), a battleship already under construction when she was canceled by the Washington Naval Treaty
USS Iowa (BB-61), the lead ship of the Iowa-class battleships that saw action during World War II and the Korean War
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I can't decipher what the "All Hands" citations are. Some citations are missing full info, example: The Warfighter's Encyclopedia: Aircraft—RQ-2 Pioneer". WP:ALLCAPS, all caps should be reduced. The DANFS citations are incomplete and incorrectly formatted (I checked the documentation, and it looks like the template isn't being employed correctly.) I'll check in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Dubious
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Why in the world would a U.S. Navy ship be measuring ranges in statute miles? And even if it were, WP:MOSNUM requires whatever miles are used be identified as statute miles or as nautical miles in nautical or aviation contexts. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn it people, make up your minds: do you or do you not want nautical miles. I am getting fed up with having to constantly convert between the two so before I go tearing through a ll six battlesip articles -again - I wnat to know which its going to be. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever it is, they need to be identified. What that means is, don't use {{convert}} to do it if you use statute miles, unless that has an option to identify them. The best choice is likely those units used in making the original measurement; otherwise, you often lose the sense of precision of the measurement. The most important thing is the ability to determine which of those ambiguous units is being used by your sources of information—and that is often not an easy task. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The distances are valid. The constant bickering over MOSNUM all over wiki is really getting old. I say put it in NM with a convert to KM and move on.—Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn sure better not use "KM". Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
And, what do you mean by "The distances are valid"? They are valid because Rlevse says they are valid? The source cited in support of the claim that "At the time the ships were operating about 300 miles (500 km) east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea" does indeed say that "about 50 destroyers were operating about 300 miles east of Luzon in the Philippine Sea." But it doesn't say "boo" about 500 km; and it doesn't say that the miles are statute miles. This U.S. Navy source was most likely using the miles conventional in the context—i.e., nautical miles, not statute miles. So you have anything else in support of a claim that these miles are in fact statute miles? Or that the U.S. Navy measures ranges of their guns in statute miles, ever, or in the measurements of those ranges in this article in particular? Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong here too, but I wouldn't expect ranges of the guns to be in miles of either type, but rather in thousands of yards. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if any of you are good with math then head over navweapons.com and look for the guns because the ranges given there are in yards. If you start there and work backwards we can definitively find out whether this is in nm or sm. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
All I get at navweapons.com is spam links. And navweapons.mil is nothing. The 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun gives its range as a dubiously precise "41,622 yards". One possibility--maybe that is just some damn fool editor, whether on Wikipedia or somewhere else, adding a 22 yard barrel length to a more believable 41,600 yards, because that 41,622 yd also is not a more rounded number in any other units I can think of. In any case, that fits with the "more than 20 nautical miles" figure in this article; the problem is the more specific measurement about the maximum range achieved in one specific shot from the guns on this ship on 1 Jan 1989, given as 23.4 nautical miles (which is about 47,400 yd). Judging by the general references for the paragraph, this might be found in the "USS Iowa(BB-61) Detailed History" link or in Thompson, pp. 70–77. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Armaments refitting by year
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you can get the armament to work like that in the Template:Infobox Ship Begin, then by all means. However, using the old infobox that's pure code won't work, that style's been depreciated in favor of Template:Infobox Ship Begin. Hope this helps! AP1787 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Pioneer UAV?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Pioneer aircraft was designated a RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle) and not an UAV (unmanned air vehicle). Just ask Fleet COMPRON 6 RPV Det. They went on to USS Wisconsin (BB-64) for the 1991 Gulf War after serving on USS Iowa (BB-61) for her last cruise in 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.23.143 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that the designation changed in the eyes of the public since the public uses the term UAV and RPV interchangably. If you can provide a source for the information provided above we can add it to this article or to the class article. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is a bathtub really that important?
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Hey, I noticed the opening paragraph of this article contains a line about USS Iowa being the only battleship to have a bathtub. The databox on the right side also contains this tidbit. It seems to me that, while this is an interesting little anecdote of history and whimsy, it's not really something that's definitive of the history and character of the USS Iowa, and therefore doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the article. Including it in the body is fine, but again, it's a bit of trivia, not something to be read about in the introduction.
I've tried to remove the offending lines from the intro and databox, but someone seems intent on keeping them there. Seems a bit childish to me; somebody's pet little factoid they want to elevate beyond its place.
—DD3
It is important to the history of the ship, is factually accurate and verifiable, plus gives even more notability to the ship. It really is the only installation of a bathtub on a US Navy warship, which makes it inherently notable and therefore deserves a position in the lead and the infobox. Plus, since this is a Featured Article, if that information was deemed too trivial for inclusion, why wasn't it brought up at the many levels of reviews by others? -MBK004 19:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with MBK004. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the bathtub is trivia and shouldn't be in the lead. WP:LEAD states that 'In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources' and 'in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them'. As the only coverage of the bathtub in the body of the article is a photo it's not important enough to be the second sentence of a FA. I'm surprised that this didn't come up in the FAC, but FAItalic texts should be improved where appropriate, and this is crying out to be fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
MOS:BEGIN also implies that the opening paragraph should only include the most important facts about the topic in order to define the article's scope for readers. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm also of the agreement that it's trivia and shouldn't be in the lead. Skinny87 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering where this fact is contained I was aboard the USS Olympia(C-6) and there was a bathtub on board. I also agree that it does not belong in the opening paragraph of the page. SigBen59
Olympia is a cruiser, not a battleship. The reference is explicit to the fact, and the installation is an appropriate part of history since it was only installed for FDR. -MBK004 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I know the difference between in class of warhsips. I am not denying the relevence, it is a neat little factoid and it deserves to be written on the page. I am merely suggesting that the caption below the photo of the bath be revised. The caption below the bathtub reads "When Iowa was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo and Tehran Conferences, she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. ... This bathtub remains the only one ever installed on a United States Navy warship." With all deference to the caption on the page the reference leads to it is incorrect. Since I have heard of any other battleships or other warships I am inclined to agree with you on that point. The caption might be better served to read "When Iowa was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo and Tehran Conferences, she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. ... This bathtub remains the only one ever installed on a United States Navy battleship."--SigBen59 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
That is still factually incorrect. TEXAS and NEW YORK both had bath tubs and I am pretty sure that most, if not all, of the pre-WNT battleships had bathtubs. There were bath tubs for the Wardroom Officers, Captain, Chief of Staff, and for the Admiral both ships were built. Though the bath tubs for the Wardroom officers and Captain went away during the 1925-27 reconstruction, a bath tub was retained in the Bath in the Admiral's Stateroom through WWII and was removed sometime after WWII. The knobs are on the bulkhead plumbed up and the "footprint" (from where the tub sat) still remains on the tile deck. See this photo that I uploaded the Commons. I will upload a scan of a 1926 drawing showing the Admiral's bathtub (if I get a chance I will do this at work tomorrow). It is much clearer and in location where it should be today had it not been removed after the war. I can take photo graphs the knobs and foot print if need be.BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The state of Iowa allows same sex unions.
If the landlocked state of Iowa were to preserve the Iowa (BB-61) in the Bay Area, would the Iowa (BB-61) be considered part of the state of Iowa for purposes of the Iowa Code?
Could the Iowa (BB-61) be used for same sex unions, which is allowed by Iowa Code?
I also notice lb to kg was inaccurate, and made the correction.
I hope such mistakes are made throughout the wikipedia cite, because such lack of precision would be a seriuos systematic shortcoming.--NCDane (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted you for several reasons, First you removed several appropriate wikilinks and formatting associated with those. Second, many of the conversions you contest were automatically done via a template, your issue is with the template folks, and is not solved by simply removing items from a Featured Article. -MBK004 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, {{convert}} tends to round numbers. An easy workaround is rendering it in plain text, like this: 16" (406 mm)/50 caliber gun. Place non-breaking spaces in between the numerals (you'll see where I placed them if you edit this section). Another workaround is to force the template to be more specific using the |sigfig= feature (see Template:Convert#Parameters). Regards, —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Fix Metric Conversion Template ASAP!!!
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
If the meric conversion template renders inches to mm to the nearest 10mm then it is not suitable for an encyclopedia where much greater accurancy is owed to the user. The nearest single digit would I think be minimum standard. That is certainly how the conversion is rendered in all other sources I have ever read on naval gunnery, hardcopy and online.
As it is, there must now be tens of thousands of articles with containing this error, which is is ridiculous one, and which can only serve to diminish the credibility of the Wikipedia project.
Can someone please pass notice of this very serious quality defect on to an appropriate authority who can fix the template and begin taking measures to correct the likely tens of thousands of errors produced by the substandard template?
I will attempt to redelete mm references, taking care to preview so as not to remove links or formatting. If I cannot figure out the formatting I will leave it be. --70.152.128.3 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, this is not the place for such a complaint and deleting such references (mm conversions from inches) runs contrary to our writing guidelines. As to where to place such a comment, I would recommend Template talk:Convert, where your concerns could be addressed across Wikipedia. Please realize that this subject has been broached before. Some people believe that we should stick to just the native measurements, as that is what they are intended. For example, in American football, a 10 yard penalty is never referred to as a 9.144m penalty. Likewise, these were never intended as anything other than 16 inch guns. In any case, I think I've made my point.
As to their accuracy, this is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. As such, scientific accuracies like those noted above are excessive within this context, IMHO. Yes, you are absolutely correct that 16 inches accurately 406.4mm and not 410mm, however, 3.6mm of difference represents very little difference in the big scheme of things (just over an eighth of an inch...probably less than the rifling in the barrel). As such, I (and many others on Wikipedia) find this to be an appropriate conversion.
As to who is a "appropriate authority who can fix the template" can fix, that would be you. :-) This encyclopedia is one that anyone can edit.
Lastly, I would caution you to dial back the hostility a bit. We are people just like you and most of us are open to new ideas and would like help in fixing things that are in error. If you can make the encyclopedia better, more power to you and your inputs (if accepted) would be instantly changed in 100,000+ articles. If you need any help on such a request, please contact me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. — BQZip01 —talk 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
BQZip01:
I have a lot to say in response, and I would like to accept your invitation of personal contact. However, I am afraid to say I cannot figure out how to make contact after having visited your home page.
Could you please tell me which of all the pretty graphics I should click to talk to you?
I wish to say here in the clear, at the risk of further censure from you for "hostility",
that your suggestion that rounding to the merest mm might be asking too much is just plain silly.
An encyclopedia should of course strive for fine-grained precision with every word it publishes. An encyclopedia may not be able to attain levels of precision expected in a scientific journal in EVERY word of EVERY article, but it CAN do so with MOST words of MOST articles, and inch to mm conversion is a case in point, as the article on the Iowa Class battleships illustrates:
There inch to mm conversion is rendered to the nearest mm, as it should be throughout the great and noble Wikipedia edifice.
I take it you "and many others on Wikipedia" think this level of precision is inappropriate.
Well, I hope you can keep your hands of the edit function anyway, and leave the 406mm as is, rather than diminish the article's accuracy by changing it to your preferred 410mm. --70.152.128.22 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
PS I left a comment at the template talk page before I read your response above. Perhaps someone in authority will be more forthcoming, not to mention thankful, than you have been. I doubt it though: another reader identified the error there before I did, and the whole issue seems to be a Quaility Control/Assurance blind spot afflicting the entire Wikipedia administration.
To contact me, click the link in the red box at the top of my talk page (I have to have a special place due to a stalker who has seen fit to accuse me of homicide, various felonies, slander, etc.).
I cannot censure you in any manner. I am not an administrator and I lack the power. I am a simple editor, like yourself. Even if I did have the power, I would be WAY out of line to do so. My comment referred to the fact that your words seemed more hostile than necessary. A simple conversational tone would be more appropriate and avoid any defensiveness on the part of other contributors.
I am sorry that you think I'm not being forthcoming. This is not a simple correction as it affects hundreds of thousands of articles (roughly 4% of all articles on Wikipedia). If we make a correction and it affects articles in a negative way, it will cause more problems than it fixes so we need to be careful.
As someone who is in the military, I clearly recognize there is a significant difference in ~4mm at lower calibers, but at this scale, the difference is negligible.
As to the meat of your argument, would 406 be appropriate? Do we need the .4? If so, we are still rounding. Given the size, I would say anything in that range accurately describes the weapons and their size, but I also don't really care all that much. If 406 floats your boat (pun intended), we can certainly try that. Hopefully, my most recent changes correct your concerns (the template has a field to bypass the defaults). If they don't, feel free to adjust them as necessary. Feel free to BE BOLD and make changes you think are necessary. I know the guy who reverted you last time and the reversion is merely a process by which he is stating discussion should happen. — BQZip01 —talk 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I was unaware, prior to deeply delving into this, that there was simply a technical issue and easy fix on the page. My apologies if I wasn't clearer on this. My point was that you should go to the template talk page to discuss a perceived problem with the template rather than this page, not that you were wrong to point it out. — BQZip01 —talk 05:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Lead "was v. is"
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the lead, the words was and is are both used. I'm not entirely sure which one should be used, so I'd appreciate if someone looked at it to make sure the verb police don't come knocking. AP1787 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Bathtub
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Copied from article space
When Iowa was selected to ferry President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Cairo and Tehran Conferences, she was outfitted with a bathtub for Roosevelt's convenience. Roosevelt, who had been paralyzed in 1921, would have been unable to make effective use of a shower facility. This bathtub remains the only one ever installed on a United States Navy warship."Still Asset Details for DN-ST-86-02543". DefenseImagery.mil. United States Department of Defense. 1 December 1984. Retrieved 24 August 2008.
Wrong. This is not the only bathtub ever installed on a United States Navy warship. The head in the sick ward of the USS North Carolina has a bath tub for patients who were unable to use a shower, according to the tour that you can take on this museum ship.
Can you provide a reference? Without one the info can not be added to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we just remove the bathtub stuff? It's really not that important, in my view... Ed[talk][majestic titan] 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Then dump it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The bathtub should stay. It was something people inside and outside of the Navy would always remark about that ship. It gives some unique historical, non gun firing interest. And it's not just some random bathtub, it's connected to usage by POTUS during WW2.TCO (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Draft of USS IOWA
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The draft in this article is listed around 37ft. The Missouri and New Jersey (same class) show about 29ft. That's a pretty big difference. Was there a change, or is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfo 0 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
National Archives scans
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
One of these converted to a slightly smaller size :-) might work well in the article or in Iowa class battleship. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Arrangement of awards
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Iowa awards and battle stars as displayed 1 Jan 2012
I took the photo at right yesterday, and it shows an arrangement of awards and battle stars that does not exactly mesh with the arrangement in the article. Who is right? Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
OK I compare then and took some time. In both cases- 2 medals in top row. The picture/ship has 3 ribbons across the remaining rows. ON main page a graphics- 4 across remaining rows. Total # of ribbons is the same. Each ribbon / award does appear to be the same. ON yours, there is an additional Battle E on 2nd highest ribbon, an minor error. ON the other page, several ribbons have stars for repeat awards, not in the picture. As I remember this - If it is an individual wearing the ribbons, both the E of the Battle E and the stars are separate and are in front of/on - a 3D appearance to ribbon. When and individual wears ribbons they only go 3 across. - That is the MAIN difference, and is wrong on main page- my opinion. The missing addition Battle E is another error on the web page. The stars difference- I will defer to someone who now this better - I care to declare both the ship and the wikipedia page correct, different rules for different environments. Great picture - thanks.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Iowa entered dry dock in Long beach in the fall of 1945, and received repairs. Following the shake-down cruise, she headed to Tokyo Bay to relieve the USS New Jersey.
Iowa entered Tokyo Bay in early 1946 and became flagship of Vice Admiral Forrest Sherman. Iowa sustained considerable damage in a typhoon off the coast of Okinawa, and
returned to Bremerton ,Washington, in June of 1946. We entered dry dock for extensive repairs. This took about six months. Following her shake down cruse, she returned to long Beach harbor and began training midshipmen & reservist on cruises to Pearl Harbor.
I know this is correct, for I reported on board Iowa in the fakll of 1945, and was a crew member until September 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.38.13 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Towing
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I write this on 27-May-2012, Iowa has departed San Francisco Area under tow, headed for her museum site in Los Angeles area. All 4 battleships of her class required were towed from their mothballed location to the shipyard conducting the modernization of these ships in the 1980s.And again from their more recent mothball location to location of becoming a museum. How did the battleships handle as a towed object? What speed was managed/obtained? The Primary tug conducting the tow- was their any particular tugboat that did multiple tows of battleships? In several cases the tugs used were Crowley Maritime.
Were do battleships rank as far as towed object in size? How ofter if ever after damage/emergency have supertanker been towed? Some oilfield semi-submersible rigs are usually moved to towing.(and those are larger).
-- I will admit, My content is a mixed match to this page in Wikipedia- if my thoughts and questions are ever answered -it will be on a different page within Wikepedia.
Wfoj2 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Turret Explosion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article on the USS Mississippi (BB-41) states that the explosion in the #2 main turret in 1924 caused 48 fatalities, one more than the explosion in the #2 main turret on the USS Iowa. This would place the USS Iowa (BB-61) explosion in at least third place in the list of number of Navy peace-time fatal incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.146.91 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Remember the Maine! Isn't that also a "loss of life during peacetime operations" and 266 sailors died. I'll amend the article. Maine (1898) 266, Mississippi (1924) 48, Sailfish2 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The GAO http://archive.gao.gov/d21t9/143037.pdf says 47 died on the Mississippi in 1924, v.s. http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb41.htm saying 48 so lacking a resolution between reliable sources I left it as the worse since the USS Maine.Sailfish2 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Details on Acquiring Iowa as Museum Ship
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Most of the last part of the article is written as a series of updates, with no attempt to condense. Now that all the haggling with unsuccessful attempts is over, how much of this stuff needs to remain? I'm sure there has been some drama associated with every ship that has become a museum, but little of that has been included on the pages of the other ships. I'm not going to tackle this myself- there is way too much ownership of this page by people who are much more passionate about this ship- but hoped to get a little dialogue going on the issue. Busaccsb (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with greatly trimming the details. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It has to be done, as the article is an FA, and this kind of day-by-day account is too much detail. Things will settle down now that the ship has arrived at LA. I will do a little to get the ball rolling. -- Dianna (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
New images available
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Fun description of the launching, with many sketches. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Porter incident
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Atlantic Fleet section has a lengthy acount of the incidents involving the destroyer William D. Porter, which are also in that ship's article. I propose to trim the account here to reduce the overlap, unless there are any objections. Xyl 54 (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel that more detail on the William S. Porter incident is valid, given the implications in the edit on the USS Iowa page compared to the William D. Porter page which has more detail, but ONLY by reading that detail is it understood what happened that day... the USS Iowa page only mentions a topeedo fire and not the depth charge issue, which is very confusing and misleeding without reading and clicking the correct articles.
Treeboystl (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)treeboystl
Film
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Shouldn't the film American Warships be mentioned? USS Iowa could be seen as the protagonist of that film. In any case, most of the film happens on or close the ship. --Mortense (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried but it was removed under WP:MILPOP. --Error (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Kahoolawe....really?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the Bombardment of Japan section the article lists strikes on Japan July 17-18, 1945, then "strikes" on Kahoolawe (one of the Hawaiian Islands, clearly no where near Japan) on July 29-30, 1945 and then returning to support carrier strikes on Japan until the capitulation of Japan on August 15, 1945.
While I have no problem believing that the Iowa did fire upon the naval gunnery range on Kahoolawe at some point during the war (most likely did), I question the timing in the article and believe an unintended error is included here. At the least, Iowa certainly didn't "strike" Hawaii, which implies a combat engagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.223.81 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The Kahoolawe comment caught my attention also, but I see you beat me to it. I've looked through various sources, and I believe the only bombardments that Iowa conducted on Japan proper were those of 14/15 and 17/18 July, 1945. There was a battleship bombardment of Hamamatsu on that night of 29/30 July, but Iowa was not among them. This bombardment is mentioned by Jurgen Rohwer in his Chronology of the War at Sea, and by Robert Cressman in his The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II. Rohwer mentions the four battleships involved (South Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, and King George V).SeymourBears (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Gallery removal
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
An editor just deleted this, commenting re photos at Commons. This is counter-productive -- Commons has over 140 photos of the Iowa. Gallery is four pix, sharply-focussed:
Conversion to museum ship: Images
Docked at Terminal 3 in Richmond, California, for rework, 1 January 2012
Towed under the Golden Gate Bridge on her way to the Port of Los Angeles, 26 May 2012
At anchor off of the Port of Long Beach for hull cleaning, 1 June 2012
At her permanent berth in San Pedro after opening as a museum ship, 19 August 2012
Bad idea to delete the new museum-ship from the lede, too. That's what the lede is for! --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal of the gallery. The images were timely and relevant when the ship was in the process of being moved to its permanent location, but they should now be removed. Regarding the sentence removed from the lede, if you look closely you will see that this information was actually in the lede twice, and that's why the sentence was removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ribbons rows of 3
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Iowa awards and battle stars as displayed 1 Jan 2012
Regarding the ribbon display argument: In the USN, ribbons are only worn in rows of 3. Seeing rows of 4, to me, just looks wrong. You may as well put them in alphabetical order if you're going to put them in rows of 4. "When more than three ribbons are authorized, wear them in horizontal rows of three each. If ribbons are not in multiples of three, the top row contains the lesser number, and the center of this row sits over the center of the one below it."[2] --Dual Freq (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your fix. The medals in the article now match how they are displayed on the ship, in four rows of three across, and the top row with two across, showing a total of fourteen medals. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I arranged them in that fashion in the earliest images so that people could compare the two images and not have to mentally adjust for where each award was, and since then its just been the Standard Operating Procedure. I have nothing against discussing a change, but as this is and has been the unwritten consensus on how to approach an award section it just seemed the easiest way to go was leave it as is. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Iowa (BB-61). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Iowa (BB-61). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on USS Iowa (BB-61). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
_and_other_ships_laid-up_in_Suisun_Bay,_California_(USA),_circa_in_the_early_2000s.jpg)
_fires_at_North_Korean_target_in_mid-1952.jpg)
Docked at Terminal 3 in Richmond, California, for rework, 1 January 2012
Towed under the Golden Gate Bridge on her way to the Port of Los Angeles, 26 May 2012
At anchor off of the Port of Long Beach for hull cleaning, 1 June 2012
At her permanent berth in San Pedro after opening as a museum ship, 19 August 2012
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Iowa_Floating_Drydock.jpg){kind=link}
_superstructure.jpg){kind=link}
_badge.jpg){kind=link}
_Iowa_citadel.jpg){kind=link}
