Talk:USS Helena (CL-50)

message: Battle of Cape Esperance lists Furutaka rather than Furutawa. Are these two different ships, or is one an error? — B.Bryant 09:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A little while ago, I added a bit of information about Helena's propeller, bell, and anchor being kept at a park in Helena, MT.  This was removed, with the explanation that they probably came from the next Helena (CA-75). However, stamped onto the propeller is the statement that it was made in the 1930's, which makes the propeller too early to belong to the latter vessel.  Keegsshipguy (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propeller, anchor, and bell 

message: I am unfamiliar with this terminology. What is meant by "on the post side of the harbor."?
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the post side of the harbor? 

message: Not noted in the Wikipedia article that I just read about the USS Helena CL50 is a nickname that the survivors that had to stay in the water until they reached land. I am a member of the Helena Organization which is an organization that was started by the crew that served aboard the CL50 crew. As the years went by after forming the Organization they invited the crew of the USS Helena CA75 to join them which many of us have. It has been a humbling feeling to listen to some of the stories of the survivors of the CL50. The nickname that has been mentioned by the survivors that had to stay in the water all night is, "The Kula Gulf Swim Team."
                      Bob Parry  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.111.148 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Helena CL50 

message: Let me say that while some parts were improved vs earlier, by no means the WHOLE article needed such 'overhaul'.  Some parts were perfectly fit in the article, with citations and primary sources that were much interesting to read. So i rate the work on this article actually worseing the item instead to improving it. The part 'survivors' without any citation of the australian priest, as example, is quite partial to say the minimum. I prefer by far the earlier versions before the ones made by parsecboy. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it did. Remember that this is an encyclopedia (i.e., a tertiary source quarried from secondary sources), so primary sources should generally not be used (and the block quoting of documents is wholly inappropriate). And again, as an encyclopedia article, it should not go into unnecessary detail; the article is already very long as it is. If readers want to learn more about the survivors’ ordeal, Domagalski’s book is available. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About rewriting of this article 

message: See Talk:USS St. Louis (CL-49) for discussion of references and how the Navy classed the ships. Palmeira (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to split discussions off from where they started, see Talk:Brooklyn-class cruiser. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Class" discussion. 

message: The ship was commissioned 18 September 1939, not 14 December 1939. I'm not sure why a secondary source is preferred over a primary source when the secondary source is obviously in error and the primary source can correct this. However, if you insist, I have a secondary source with the correct date too.68.226.52.62 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioning date