Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)/Archive 1

message: I realize my original addition to the article, namely the last sentence about specific weapons systems and general capability, may be viewed as original research or unverifiable content. However, I feel there's no reason that it should go unmentioned that the vessel appeared in its original 1940s configuration, which is both notable and interesting to the historical enthusiast. To this effect I have added a reduced version of my technical clarifications, which contains no "fancruft" or "original research" which should suffice nicely. MalikCarr 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about a minor (<5 minute) appearance on a 10 year old cartoon. That's trivia and fancruft that only a fan of the cartoon would be concerned with. The original 1940s configuration was unfinished and scrapped. If it's so important to the Evangelion world, then include it in the main cartoon article. I don't think any mention of the cartoon is warranted here, but I have compromised at the two sentences that were already there, no more is needed. --Dual Freq 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can agree that those two sentences are sufficient. Hellbus 02:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If A therefore B" doesn't make much sense to me as far as an argument goes to remove a section from an article. I've even capitulated to your arbitrary two-sentence limit, and even that is not satisfactory? I don't even understand how you've reached half the conclusions in your above statement, to be honest. If this piece of relatively unknown military hardware was accurately depicted in a well-known piece of animation, and in an almost anachronistic style no less, it would seem to be that that is more relevant in being in that piece of technology's page than in the animation's page itself! Finally, the role the vessel plays in the animation in question is almost insignificant in an "in-universe" sense. Indeed, this content and notation would be better suited for a compendium of general knowledge such as Wikipedia than in a dedicated publication on Evangelion. MalikCarr 09:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a relatively new thing thats cropped up; we have been asked to reduce "pop culture" sections because the viewing public tends to add every little appeance of X (where X is whatever's being discussed) to such sections. Balancing this notability, if the X in question had a notable role then some leeway may be granted with regards to fictional appearances. In this particular case, Kentucky and Illinois were the only to non-evangelion machines to have destroyed an angel in the series; therefore notability dictates that a small section can be created for this interesting tidbit, but the bulk of the information should be presented elsewhere. In this particular case the article Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) has a larger section devoted to the role the battleships played in defeating their opponent, so long winded explanations do not need to be included here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how ten words in a parentheses is a "long winded explination". I've added an even shorter notation which I hope will satisfy all parties that are at least willing to make a small compromise. It is easy to understand that, say, mentioning "the two Iowa-class boats were the only non-Evangelions to destroy an Angel" would be highly out of place in this article, as that is an exclusively in-universe reference. Conversely, a quick mention that both vessels were portrayed as vintage 1940s vessels has relevance to the real world, if nothing more than for a technical note. Can't we all agree that that is worth the few words? MalikCarr 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Amigo, you are dealing with people who take the word "reduction" to a whole new level. Folks here remove a lot of relivent information for a lot of different reasons. Like I say, if you have no luck here, you may try adding your ten words there. If nothing else, those words will be under the umbrella of a different wikiproject, so they may stand a chance of surviving the purge. Speaking for myself, I find it a point of interest that a Japanese cartoon show didn't scuttle USS Missouri, since it was upon that ship that they empire of Japan surrendered to the allies. Moreover, I find it interesting that the the battlecruiser Kirov was present with the fleet for the transfer. If you really want to keep the info present in the article, consider changing the style somewhat; like "A vintage WWII era Kentucky appears in one episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion. In the timeline of the series, the ship is completed and remains in service until its destruction in 2015." TomStar81 (Talk) 09:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I would like to have more faith in Wikipedians at large, your words are mostly correct. In either case, I will keep your suggestion in mind if the opposing parties are not satisfied with my most recent compromise. MalikCarr 09:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is every appearance of a naval ship in a cartoon, comic book, movie or TV show worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article about the ship? Where do we draw the line for inclusion? What is the point in noting the every little pop-culture, cartoon, comic appearance of a ship? This is a major problem with wikipedia, many pages have huge pop-culture sections and they grow out of control yet the meat of the article stagnates. You've already got your gratuitous link to the cartoon, (which was part of the original compromise) what more do you need? Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion) already has details for people who care about the cartoon, why don't you add this all important trivia there? Or maybe you can find the article that discusses this one episode of this 10 year old cartoon and put it there. And by the way, where is the required reliable source that backs this trivia up? There's a picture linked, but it doesn't indicate the configuration of the ships, beyond that they were actually completed. --Dual Freq 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:NGE Iowas.png I'm found a screenshot of the two battleships. The Iowa class main article states that in the refit the antiaircraft guns were removed, and in the image you can see small turrets that are I guess are those guns. Don't quote me on that, though. As for mentioning appearances in media, though, I doubt that there will be very many for this particular ship. Hellbus 21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is one of those supposed to be a non-upgraded Iowa class ie. USS Kentucky? I see Phalanx CIWS, and AN/SPS-49 at the very top of the mast and two small boxes toward the top that look like AN/SLQ-32. Those are definitely "upgrades" made to the Iowa class in the '80s. --Dual Freq 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Duel Freq has point, those are definately R2D2's on the battlewagons, and I can see the ABL launchers on the side of the one furthest in the back. These two sisters have been upgraded, no doubt about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the 1940's configuration notes then. Hellbus 21:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel like a putz now. I could have sworn those ships still had all their 8-inch DP guns... MalikCarr 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just figured out what was bugging me about the picture: These two battleships are missing their forward facing christmas tree attenes, which should be mounted on the bow. Moreover, the bows of both Illinois and Kentucky seem to have been rebuilt to lay even with the deck, since the turrets can be easily seen from this image despite being drawn (taken?) at a virtually head on level. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In line with that, when the battleships are put to use, the guns are fired directly forward. Hellbus 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance in Evangelion 

message: The place for obscure pop culture references to individual ships is in the article about the relevant episode of the manga, tv show, film, or novel - not crowding dozens of articles with "This was in a Tom Clancy novel once" (or similar). Please do not create an "In Fiction" section just to add information which will be totally irrelevant to most people reading this article. A consensus about this has been established time and time again  - in particular, people doing Featured Article reviews have strong feelings about this, and the presence of Evangelioncruft in this article risks jeopardising this article getting the recognition it deserves. The Land 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was left alone for quite some time before you removed it. It just seemed odd to me that the writers of the show used the two uncompleted Iowas in that episode instead of existing ones. This article does look a bit better without one very short section in it. This bit of "cruft" (I hate that term) is also in the Illinois article, which is significantly shorter. What about changing the section there to mention Kentucky as well? Hellbus 02:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that USS Illinois (BB-65) is on User:TomStar81's list of things to expand.-MBK004 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goody! More cruft to remove! Thanks for making my day, and I'm off to remove the cruft from the Illinois, if someone else hasn't beat me to it! Thanks again! - BillCJ 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, we're arguing about whether or not two sentences should be present in an article. The reason I put that tidbit of information in the article to begin with is because (a) it struck me as somewhat odd that Illinois and Kentucky were included in the first place, and (b) that they were drawn in as detailed a fashion as they were. I can let it go, though. The article on the specific episode does mention the two ships. Hellbus 02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a popular culture section in the main class article. That seems to be the correct location for this information.-MBK004 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the proper place for info about Evangelion would be the article on . . . Evangelion! Unless the appearences are notable (to the ships, not the show), the have no business being in the ship or class articles. THat's policy per WP:ATRIV. - BillCJ 03:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (You beat me to it, edit conflicted) I was just going to add: It can be included in the main cartoon article, Neon Genesis Evangelion (TV series). No mention of it there now, maybe its not that significant to the show. If its not important enough for the show article, why are we trying to include it here? --Dual Freq 03:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not mentioned in the main article for the show, but it does appear in the glossary and episode 8 summary. I'm done with this issue. Leave it out; I don't care anymore. Hellbus 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, thanks for clarifying that. It is mentioned on the specific article for the episode in question, complete with a screenshot of the two battleships.-MBK004 03:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record: Its notable to the ships in that this is the only time that any medium (cartoon or otherwise) has shown Illinios and Kentucky in combat; and from the shows perspective this is the only time a non-eva of any kind succsussfully destoroyed an angel. (To put that in perspective, a nuclear mine [N2 mine] was incapable of incapacitating the angels, yet these two battleships destroyed one angel all by themsleves). TomStar81 (Talk) 03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way: if you have time to debate the merits of a fictionalized appearence of this battleship then I am sure you can find a moment or two to put your two cents in on the article FAC. We have (at last count) one comment, and thats it, and one comment won't a featured article make :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can get behind that. Hellbus 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't re-add the Evangelion reference

message: It's my understanding that a warship does not gain the USS part of its title until its commissioned for service.  Since this ship never was commissioned (or even completed) is it accurate to use the title "USS Kentucky"?  I asked the same question on the USS Illinois talk page a few days ago, but I haven't drawn any attention yet. Xymmax (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt your question has already been addressed with the footnote now added. The US Navy now uses the term 'Pre-Commissioning Unit' - PCU - to designate this status. It's my feeling that the acronym creep had not got to this stage in the 1940s, but can anyone confirm whether any such appellation was used? Buckshot06(prof) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  may be able to answer that question. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "USS" in USS Kentucky correct?