# Talk:USS West Virginia (BB-48)

Outstanding article - very thorough. ---B- 08:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again to the authors of DANFS, who we neglected to credit until a moment ago. Stan 18:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'In one compartment, a calendar was found, the last scratch-off date being 23 December'
Is that historical fact? It sounds very much like some horror wartime legend, many of those came out as a legend...Source please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.196.119 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 

Reference added, per request.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I lost track of the years between 1943 and 1944. She went to Puget Sound in 1943, but apparently did not depart until a year(?) later to play a part in the battles of October 1944. Ediza8 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Ediza8
"West Virginia's main armored belt was 13.5 inches (343 mm) thick over the magazines and the machinery spaces, and 8 inches (203 mm) elsewhere. " This sounds like WV had full length 8" fore and aft belt extensions, which none of the quite puritanically AoN "standards" had. The 8" dimension probably refers to the taper at the lower edge - it should read "...machinery space, but tapered below the waterline to 8" at it's lower edge."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.18.238 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 

Is the picture diplayed in the table pre-pearl harbor or post pearl harbor? TomStar81
The picture in the table is a pre Pearl Harbor photo. MikeMullins

This article includes far too many details about battles that have their own articles.  Also, it is written in a florid, enthusiastic manner, instead of the detached tone of an encyclopedia. Vgy7ujm 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably because the majority (if not all) of the article is copied from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.  See the DANFS article for discussion of its style.--J Clear 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, "Oldendorf "crossed the T" of the Japanese fleet and thus achieved the tactical mastery of a situation that almost every surface admiral dreams of." ... is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Vazeer Akbar (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Not all readers start at the top of an article and read every word down to the bottom. They may dive into a section when, for example, they are looking for a vessel's involvement in a particular battle, as I did. It took quite a of of backing up into previous sections to determine what year the action took place in. I have encountered this situation in several articles, and do not want other readers of Wikipedia to have to be inconvenienced. There is no downside that I can see in having a year thrown in there once every few paragraphs. Chris the speller yack 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

To me, many of the places you put them don't make sense - the "Leyte and "Battle of Leyte Gulf" cover events in the span of a couple of weeks, and in the "Later operations" section, you added a 1945 in the paragraph immediately after the year was already mentioned. That sort of repetition annoys me as a reader. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I added most of the years back in (and the punctuation you had removed along with them), but not to 5 January 1945; I had missed the mention of 1 January 1945 in th paragraph that preceded it. I don't think it's too much to show the year once for each battle or once when a couple of months go by and the year changes. Chris the speller yack 18:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
That's the point, though - it's subjective and I do think it's too much. I'd rather you hadn't done that. I have put years where the years change - adding more than that is excessive in my view. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've posted a request for additional comments here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
In broad terms I am sympathetic to CtS's position, although the Devil's in the detail; it is, as Parsecboy says, subjective, but I have also frequently been frustrated by "backing up into previous sections to determine what year the action took place in". At the moment the year is, so far as a quick read can tell, mentioned no more than once per sub-section; that seems appropriate to me. Removing some would create a risk of confusing/inconveniencing this reader. But, it is subjective and perhaps my view is based on my being a doddery old fool who can't retain information for more than a couple of paragraphs. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see years mentioned more often, in general -- many articles, especially warship articles, are near-unintelligible from a chronological perspective even to someone who is knowledgeable about the era. MPS1992 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
In general, I think the year is only required if it changes or a new section is started. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think what we have now, where, for example, the Leyte and Leyte Gulf sections remind the reader it's 1944 twice in the span of 3 paragraphs (where the jump from the last date in the Leyte section to where they're reminded of the year in the next para is literally 3 days), is excessive. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
And the Iwo Jima and Okinawa sections, which remind the reader it's 1945 with the same pace - 1st para of Iwo Jima, an intervening paragraph, and then the next paragraph we're reminded it's 1945. This time, the intervening time between years is a month. Is this really good writing? Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 Layout needs to be logical and consistent, which doesn't fit with inferring when a reader will start in the middle. Adding dates on the off-chance that someone will find it inconvenient to look for them is a fool's errand. As long as a reader knows where to look (lead, infobox, section) leave it at that. Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point - we link a term at the first use, not somewhere in the middle assuming that readers will skip over the first use of the term. Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"it had been initially believed that she had been hit by five torpedoes, but a sixth impact had been discovered during the patching, and this inspection revealed the seventh hit." This is not clear if she was found to be hit a 6th or 7th time e.g. if two additional hits were found then wording is sloppy. Can someone clarify it? MartinezMD (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"Decent into Darkness" Commander Raymer, Naval Institute Press 1996 p.21 three torpedos on the port side...ship rolled then struck by four more Mcb133aco (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
This link has each hit listed by location [3]Mcb133aco (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Seabee and ex Marine Lt. Wilfred L. Painter (CEC) was given the task of raising both the USS California and USS West Virginia.  The  California was refloated and in dry dock in forty five days.  To speed salvage operations on the West Virginia,  Lt. Painter requested 120 Seabees from the 16th Naval Construction Battalion and it was done in thirty.   For his leadership in the salvage of the two battleships Lt. Painter received the first of the five Legion of Merit medals he was awarded.  The other four had V's for combat and he made Captain by wars end.Mcb133aco (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This would certainly make a good contribution to an article about Wilfred L. Painter. This is article is about the ship, and this kind of information is superfluous for the purposes of this article's content. Since you joined WP, the passion you have for documenting the actions of Seabee officers from WWII has not gone unnoticed. But instead overloading concomitant articles with this information, why not start biographical articles for these men? Then you can document their exploits with as much depth and detail as you like (and can source). jmho - wolf 12:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts.  The raising of the West Virginia was technically far more challenging than the California, and done in less time.  All of which is unrecognized or dismissed.  The info concerning Lt. Painter was overdone in response to an editor deleting him calling him a "No name".  Getting the Legion of Merit for his leadership in getting the ship raised and into drydock seems a part of the ship's history.  It additionally strikes me odd;  for a Lt. to be given a battleship to salvage does not raise to the importance of being included in the article as Capt. Wallin gave him two.  That was not an ordinary assignment, it was extraordinary an one for a Lt.  I completely agree that the additional information concerning him has no relevance to the article. The other four awards were included because of the "No name" label.Mcb133aco (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what we're here to do. We're writing encyclopedia articles that should be easily readable, not collecting every piece of information about a topic. That's what primary and secondary sources are for. The guy in charge of salvage operations is not a detail that should be included in an encyclopedia article. It is, however, perfectly suited to being mentioned in a specialist secondary source like Wallin. Our job as editors of a tertiary source is to sift through secondary sources and condense them into a a relatively concise summary. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you also, that was quite clear and correct.  One last point though, the article states yard workers did the repairs without the mention of the 120 Seabees or their placing of 650 tons of concrete in a sunken vessel to refloat it.  No naval engineer would have come up with that.  Thank you again.Mcb133aco (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Two good articles. One of them says that the USS West Virginia (BB-48) was launched on November 17 at the other 19. Where is correct. --Inctructor (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Must have been a typo in the infobox - the prose here was correct (17 Nov.). I've fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

while the overall mention of the three men in the article is sufficient for its current place, I believe it deserving of its own subsection of the article especially with the recent rise in interest in the story. I think it being expanded by including reference to the original cover up of the circumstances of their deaths along with more specifics on there story in general would do the article good. Africonnor (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

US Naval History and Heritage Command, the naval history preservation part of the US Navy says she was launched on the 17th of November 1921 but other places says it was two days later, so which date is the right one and where has this conflicting launch date come from? ~2025-34750-95 (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

A newspaper article from The Wheeling Intelligencer, dated 18 November 1921, gives a launch date of 19 November 1921, so my guess is that the 19 November 1921 date is correct, otherwise the paper would have said she was already launched. Unfortunately, the Navy historians don't always get it right. Pennsy22 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
May be worth reaching out to the staff at NHHC directly - I've had good luck in the past trying to clarify such discrepancies (and get them to update their page at the same time). Conway's also agrees with the 19th date. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)