Talk:USS Connecticut (BB-18)

message: *Total cost of Connecticut: $7,911,175. per  
*Cost $374,000 more than Louisiana. per 
*Need to source:
**"The ship sailed on its first mission to Cuba in January 1907, but was immediately recalled to New York after an outbreak of Typhoid fever among the crew.  Immediately after setting out again, Connecticut ran aground at Culebra, Puerto Rico.  According to the Washington Post, Swift acted against the advice of his navigator and ordered the ship to pass on the wrong side of a navigational buoy and caused it to strike a shoal."
*The bit about sabotage attempts before the launching could use some more explanation. I get the implications from rivets being bored through in the keel, but the average reader might not. Also, what problem does the bolt in the launching timbers cause? (I'm assuming that it was in a key support timber, and if it was weakened when the ship started to move, it could collapse and cause the ship to roll over, but that's just a guess). It may be useful to use footnotes with the <ref group> parameter to explain it instead of adding more text to the paragraph.
*presuming this for what needs work, the section Flagship of the Great White Fleet appears as if it been broken out but not closed off as the section continues on into WWI thruogh until it scrapped. Also 4 paras on the first 2-3 months then 1 para to close the last 8-9 months of the voyage makes it seam unbalanced, IMHO at this rate its going to be too much info on the voyage. Gnangarra 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workbench 

message: I don't really recommend rushing to nominate this at FAC, for a few reasons. 
*A lengthy mass of text on a FAC page scares away potential reviewers.
*Once someone !votes 'oppose for x' (and they will, if the page is under major reconstruction), you will have more work, because you'll have to ping that person once you've resolved the issue, plus there's the chain effect of others opposing per that person, etc.
*It's way more difficult to manage lengthy back-and-forth discussions at FAC (no section headers, no edit breaks, no archiving resolved sections).
*You've already been given moderate assurance that it has a chance at TFA on the 22nd if it reaches FA in time.
I would allow for 2 weeks at FAC, and therefore plan to nominate it by a week from today (7 Feb), if it were up to me. I'll be glad to help with copyediting and MOS, but I'll be mostly offline for the next few days. Maralia (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding fast-tracking to FAC 

message: The Navy did not release any information about the incident until press dispatches from San Juan carrying news of the incident reached the mainland on the 23rd. 
What's the term for a ship that has hit a reef? "Landed" or something? It's on the tip of my tongue - but this word-searching is only necessary since "incident" is repeated twice in that sentence. —La Pianista (T•C) 03:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - found a third time in that same paragraph. —La Pianista (T•C) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Grounding"? ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, I find myself liking you to an uncomfortable degree, yet again. Pray stop, upon my honor, before it does irreparable damage. *flees* Thx ;) —La Pianista (T•C) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question. 

message: Here's a question: do we know why the ship went to sea without undergoing sea trials? If so, that would be a useful addition to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: She shuttled refugees from Mexico to Galveston and carried officers of the Army and representative from the Red Cross back in the opposite direction.
Back where? —La Pianista (T•C) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Galveston -> Mexico :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  *after re-reading sentence* Shoot. I'm missing too many details today. :) —La Pianista (T•C) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Rear Admiral H.O. Stickney then broke out his flag on the ship, making her the flagship of Pacific Fleet Training.
What does "broke out" refer to here? This is not just out of curiosity - if I don't understand this lexicon, most others won't, either. —La Pianista (T•C) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: read the lead of flagship, then change it to what you think is best. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  - *dance* —La Pianista (T•C) 06:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification, pretty please. 

message: Does anyone have any idea what this refers to? —La Pianista (T•C) 06:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Educated guess: the date the ship was ordered. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. See the original and where it went wrong. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ship notes" 

message: Guantanamo is American. Furthermore, American English does not have whatever that letter is when you spell it the Spanish way. This is the English language Wikipedia. We transliterate from foreign alphabets, and even if we didn't, the common, long-established spelling uses the 26-letter alphabet. Also, I'm still trying to get the hang of Wikipedia, so I hope someone can tell me who has the right to just go in and revert another editor for no reason with no discussion and what the accepted response to that is by the revertee. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that Bellhalla is a very experienced WP:SHIPS member with many FA's, and a crapload of MILHIST A's, GA's and like 40-come-odd DYK's, so it's not like he randomly did that without a reason. As long as he sees this, he'll get back to you, I'm sure. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. My point is that I've come to expect a little respect, myself, and even if I hadn't done anything to merit repect, it should be given here up front for wiki-smurfiness. Thanks again. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Naval Base is American, yes—but the text you changed referred more loosely to the Bay, which is certainly not American, and our article for that is titled Guantánamo Bay. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), there is no requirement to transliterate a name from a Latin alphabet, nor is there any rule prohibiting certain characters in article titles. Thanks for your other edits, though. Maralia (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-English spelling for the place is POV (and that's actually what I was upset about above when I had time to wonder what I was ranting about). You see this same thing all over Wikipedia—political POV-pushing through orthography (you should hang around with the Eastern Europe gang for a while if you really want to see some)—and it is in direct opposition to the whole spirit of this encyclopedia. That they caved over at the Guantanamo Bay article is no reason we should here. We use a 26-letter alphabet. I sincerely doubt that more than one percent of Americans even know what that letter is called. This is the Engish-language Wikipedia. The MoS also says at namimg conventions "Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich, not Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich", which means that if there is a standard, established English spelling, use that. Thanks for your input, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the core principles of Wikipedia—specifically, item 3—you will see that anyone can edit a page. So the same right you have to make edits is also the right I have as well. If you will notice, I did not post a rant (using your word) about someone changing the accented spelling to the non-accented version. I just made the edit that I felt improved the encyclopedia. Given that the article on the bay is at Guantánamo Bay and not at Guantanamo Bay (although that redirects there), I believe the appropriate spelling is that reached by consensus at the Guantánamo Bay article. (And since when is consensus caving?) In any case, the same assertion of POV can be turned right around and used to justify the accented spelling: if the  spelling is "American", isn't that also POV, considering it's for a Cuban geographical feature? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course; I was a dick. Forgive that, please. No, it's not POV to use the English alphabet when writing the English language. To say it is turns the whole matter on its head. It's too bad that all caps has fallen into disfavor, because they are called for sometimes: <allcaps>Politically motivated orthographical oddities are POV. The English language does not have that letter any more than it has "ṣ". We don't know what it is.</allcaps> --Milkbreath (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guantanamo [sic] 

message: The knot is an SI unit. Why convert to km/hr? Wouldn't we also have to show mi/hr then? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The knot is not really an SI unit, but it's been accepted for use in SI. So it's as much sense to convert to km/hr as it is to mi/hr. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes it an SI unit. What I mean is that ordinarily, we convert for the convenience of the other camp, but when the unit is both nautical and accepted in both systems, there's no need to convert. But if you must convert, to convert to only the standard SI unit and not the Imperial unit is unfair to those of us who use the Imperial system, who remain in the dark as to just how fast 18 knots is in mph. I hope I made myself a little clearer that time. I'm contending that it is wrong to convert knots. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of conception of what a unit means. If I encounter information that tells me that a park is 400 hectares in size, I know that a hectare is a unit of area, but I have no real concept of how large that is, having grown up in the US with the customary system. But if someone says that the park is , that gives me a concept of how large it is. Similarly, the kilometers per hour conversions are done for those who have no real concept of how fast or slow a speed in knots is. But as far as a statute mile-per-hour (mph) conversion is concerned, at typical ship speeds, knots are reasonably close to mph. If you feel strongly that mph should be there, too, by all means add it in. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. I don't actually feel very strongly about this, and I never did want to add anything. I repeat, it seems wrong to convert knots at all. You may know that a nautical mile is not much different than a statute one, but we don't convert for people like you and me, who know practically everything. I think we must assume that a person resorting to looking in Wikipedia for information has no clue what a knot is. They should learn, so we wikilink it, rather than make a big, clumsy-looking double conversion. The single conversion leaves the matter half-addressed, but a double one is anomalous and clunky. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knots 

message: Is there a reason this article is not in the standard U.S. date format? United States Navy for example is in the U.S. format, so if the reason this article is in the day-month-year format is because the U.S. Navy uses that, then that article needs to be changed. If this is not the case then this article should be changed to the month-day-year format. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The official site seems to use both formats in various places but it definitely uses the day-month-year format too, so the article is probably fine the way it is. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:MOS on dates has this mentioned specifically and it came up in the article's FAC: See this section Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic  -MBK004 02:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes I know, I have read that guideline. The anomalous thing is the article United States Navy currently uses the month-day format. I would think that if it's standard to put U.S. Navy articles in the day-month the main U.S. Navy article would do this as well. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: The photo in section "Design" describes new twelve-inch guns being mounted on 31 January 1908.  This date seems pretty unlikely since elsewhere in the article, it is clear that Connecticut was at sea as part of the Great White Fleet and did not receive a refit at that time.  A further read shows that the refit and the accompanying design changes are mentioned nowhere else in the article.  This seems like a pretty large omission for a featured article.  I'll start looking around for information, but perhaps other editors can do so as well.  Mmccalpin (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the tag; that date is definitely questionable, given her being elsewhere at that time. Text (and cites) in the infobox do support the assertion she was fitted with 12-inch guns at some point, but the date and details of a refit do appear to be missing. Maralia (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag on the image at Commons (which is supported with an OTRS ticket) indicates that these guns were installed at the New York Navy Yard.  However the cited text in the article clearly states that Connecticut left the yard on December 5th, 1907 and did not return to U.S. waters until it sailed the Golden Gate on May 6th, 1908.  My presumption is that some of the numbers got transposed when The ed17 inserted the image and caption.  However until we can get it fixed, I have removed the date altogether.  --Kralizec! (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the date on the photo is consistent with the sources of the photo, so any error isn't Ed's, but yeah, something is off here. Maralia (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that DeGuilian had a typo? I'll send off an e-mail. Thanks for noticing! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date for new guns? 

message: As a veteran of the US Navy, a fan of Battleships and the fact that I grew up in Connecticut I took a personal interest in BB-18. I have several photos of Connecticut, all of which are easily found on the internet. When I found this article I looked at the pictures and noticed several serious discrepancies. 
*The one in the legend taken in 1906 looks like Connecticut, as does the rear-facing shot from the commissioning ceremony. Both have side casement guns, and lattice-work masts, but it has no bow crest. 
*The next photo of the speed trials in ca. '06 or '07 is labeled BB-8 (Alabama, which has none of these.), shows a battleship with no casement guns, has a bow crest and solid masts. 
*In addition, the next one of her leading the Great White Fleet also shows a battleship with a bow crest. It's possible the crest could have been added for her role as flagship, but I can't see the masts being changed or the casement guns being removed within such a short time. 
*There are a lot of photos on the internet showing both configurations, but none of them show any identifying markings. 
*What I don't understand is the quick change in major configurations within a year without any mention of any of it in any of the history of the ship that I can find. MR2David (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture in the infobox was taken shortly before WWI, and if you look closely, the speed trial photo has casemate guns. I suspect, though, that some are covered up for the high-speed run. I also suspect that the cage masts were added in 1910 or 1912, but I don't have evidence to support that. Thanks for your comments! It's nice to know that people really do read these articles. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Two photo captions refer to 12-inch guns, but the text mentions only 3-, 6-, 7- and 8-inch guns. Nor does Connecticut-class battleship's text mention 12-inch, although they're listed under General Characteristics there too. Seems a rather serious flaw in both articles. Sca (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 12-inch guns?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Connecticut (BB-18). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808061116/http://www.navy.mil/gwf/battleships/bb-18.htm to http://www.navy.mil/gwf/battleships/bb-18.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not an expert on the subject, but I presume that the Connecticut was a pre-dreadnaught battleship. Should the article say this somewhere? Peter Flass (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it should - I've added it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Dreadnaught 

message: The section on the Great White Fleet mentions the Americans were escorted by "three Japanese men-of-war and six merchantmen", linking to man-of-war. The reader might conclude the Great White Fleet was escorted by wooden sailships, but was this truly the case? It seems to me that "man-of-war" in this context is just a generic term for warships (ex. 1, ex. 2). Serraria (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - it's also a bit too flowerly in my opinion. I've changed it to the generic "warships" ( - if you know what types, or even better, which ships specifically, feel free to add them). Parsecboy (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  and ! I can try to find the book, which I believe is in a box somewhere. What a strange turn of phrase for me to use, but then again that was 14(!) years ago. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese men-of-war?