Talk:South Carolina-class battleship

message: Noted a change from Operating Radius to Range on the info box.....
From what I have read, operating radius is the ships "Half Range" where is can return home where "Range" is total range  KitsuneFX (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range vs Operating Radius 

message: Originally listed fuel as 900/2200 (Coal) but was removed. Many other articles have fuel listed. Is there a reason for the removal? KitsuneFX (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know I wrote the article but I don't think they were ever converted to oil, I'd have to check to be sure. Tirronan (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason why Fuel (as in Coal) should not be added back into the article? KitsuneFX (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. Tirronan (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Removal 

message: The general design of H.M.S. Dreadnought as laid out by the Committee of Design chaired by the First Sea Lord Sir John A. Fisher was approved on 17 March, 1905.  The final design was approved by the Board of Admiralty on 15 May, 1905.  These facts are taken from Admiralty Board Minutes in Adm. 167/39 at The National Archives, and are referenced in Jon Tetsuro Sumida's In Defence of Naval Supremacy, p. 58.
The Naval Appropriation Act of 1905, approved on 3 March, 1905, provided for "two first-class battleships carrying the heaviest armour and most powerful armament for vessels of their class upon a maximum trial displacement of not more than 16,000 tons..."  The design was still not ready by 11 April when the chief constructor explained to the General Board of the United States Navy that he was still investigating different layouts of heavy guns.  On 26 June he again confirmed that no definite design was ready.  For this see Arthur Jacob Marder, The Anatomy of British Sea Power, p. 541.  The final design of the South Carolina class was not confirmed until 23 November, 1905, by the Board of Construction, for which see Norman Friedman, U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History, p. 62.  --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 15:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design dates for ''South Carolina'' Class versus H.M.S. ''Dreadnought'' 

message: Ok, how about from this point on we don't make additions without citation.  After 4 years of this I think we are about out of excuses.Tirronan (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: additions

message: Dumping ground here.
*Navy (Washington), 1908.] South Carolina launch.
*The Navy League Annual, 1908. Michigan painting.
*Proceedings, 1905. Rear Admiral Robley Evans on the class and advocating for a larger displacement. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible other sources 

message: Why are photo credits given in the pic caption? I removed one but didn't go any further because I saw it was your FA. Brad (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to see you back! It's something I've been doing when I've had images uploaded from NARA and other institutions specially for this article, but I've lost the battle on them, and I still need to fix the articles to use footnoted credits (like at South American dreadnought race). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? Ed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on South Carolina-class battleship. 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/20140808124147/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/bb26.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/bb26.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224122324/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb26cl.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb26cl.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) 19:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's with all the strange unit conversions? It's almost like someone added "|0|" to all the convert templates without knowing what that does. It's ridiculous to convert "roughly 3,000 yd" to one-meter precision, and I fixed that. It's equally ridiculous to convert "6.9 ft" to one-meter precision. Is there a reason for all this or can I just go ahead and fix it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the precision specifiers. I left them in for gun sizes, armor thickness, and anything else that looked like an exact number. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I suspect that I'm the one who did that, but I think of a reason why I would have done it... :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange unit conversions