Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

message: As far as I know she carried float planes (mostly in WWII), but how many and what type? And what about the helicopters? 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Float planes 

message: Congress had ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Wisconsin could be returned to active duty if needed:
# She must not be altered in any way that would impair her military utility;
# The battleship must be preserved in her present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
# Spare parts and unique equipment such as the  gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Wisconsin, if reactivated;
# The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Wisconsin should she be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.
These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the Nation Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Wisconsin while she was in the Mothball Fleet. It was unlikely that these conditions would impede a plan to turn Wisconsin into a permanent museum ship at her berth in Norfolk.
So it's this section here, I haven't been able to find the actual phrase in the 2006 National Defence Authorization Act. There is mention of:
#(d) Authority for Reversion in Event of National Emergency.--The  Secretary of the Navy shall require that the terms of the transfer of a vessel under this section include a requirement that, in the event the President declares a national emergency pursuant to the National  Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the transferee of the vessel shall, upon request of the Secretary of Defense, return the vessel to the United States and that, in such a case, unless the transferee is otherwise notified by the Secretary, title to the vessel shall revert immediately to the United States.
but the 4 point preservation condition doesn't appear. The second point appears in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, but in reference to the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy.
12.151.56.2 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading preservation section? 

message: I think an added section about the inside of the ship would be a good addition, definently not something i could do, as this is far from my usual topics i edit, although i do remember there being an oddly red lit room when i recently visited. ¿V0id? {have a great day!} (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of the inside of the boat? 

message: Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 closed recently, for another Iowa-class vessel.  Essentially, that FAR determined that the ship's description needed expanded with material on things such as fire control and overall armor protection, and that some of the significant scholarly print literature on the Iowa-class needed incorporated.  This article is largely sourced to DANFS and a ship's organization, which while not bad sources, are not necessarily a broad view of the performance and nature of these vessels.  Hopefully improvements can be made and featured article review avoided. Hog Farm  Talk 20:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns 

message: I'm adding this to raise awareness about the game's efforts to support admission for vets. All of the proceeds generated will be donated. I will likely delete when the event is over. Jason741776 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , and thanks for joining Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this sort of information is often not suitable for Wikipedia as it is/will be at best a minor footnote in the ship's much larger history. If the event has been covered in a reliable and secondary source, we can discuss it—but I'm thinking it's too off topic. I also don't think any of the websites I can see    meet the reliable source criteria. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I was adding it not really for the game related content (as much as I like the game) but more to do with the partnership between World of Warships and the museum itself, where proceeds from the game went to free admission for vets. If it was unclear from my addition that's what I was going for. I would also be happy to rephrase it as well. I thought that would be a noteworthy collaboration. Jason741776 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without a reliable source speaking about it, I'm afraid there's no chance of us including it here. I'm already thinking it's of borderline relevance to this article's topic (the battleship), and I'm guessing other editors around Wikipedia would agree. It may be suitable for the World of Warships article, and given that article's more clearly related scope, it may be fine to cite a primary source like a devblog. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes "reliable"? I've seen several definitions floated around by different people so I'm wondering what you're going off of. If a devbolg or something would make more sense then Will try to find the actual article. I thought the collaboration made sense given its nature as a museum, and the partnership between the two orgs for museum admission Jason741776 (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our definition of a reliable source is located at WP:RS! Speaking generally, museums partner with people, organizations, and companies all the time. That's why the bar for considering it here is it being reported in a reliable secondary source, which can range from global news sources down to regional newspapers. For the game's article, our consideration can be a bit different—it could be a big enough change or notable moment in the game that it deserves mention in the article, even if the only source for it is primary. Others may disagree on that, though. Everything here operates on consensus and agreement, and in an ideal world big changes or moments would be notable for their coverage in secondary sources. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WoWS