Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)

message: The 1943 armament is incorrect in regard to the number of 20mm guns (49). The 49 figure is correct for the USS New Jersey. However, photo references show at least two additional mounts (51+) on the Missouri and Wisconsin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.156.88 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Let's sort out and decide the actual questions. Before anybody edits,  , could you take the first look and if you say "ok with you to include" on any of these IMO should consider that one undisputed and delete it for brevity.    Also, , if you say that you are not even proposing (adding or keeping) a particular item below we should also delete that, and if something that you are proposing in this area is missing, we should add that. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since feedback has started, we won't be deleting any and we should weigh in. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been open for 16 days.   Let's go until 3 weeks / 21 days. Thoughts otherwise?North8000 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me - wolf 20:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's day 22.  One note, I posed the questions as "should we include xxx in yyy" in a plain-english way.  I the sense that this sort of bundles "mandate it being in", "no objection to it being in" and "exclude it from being in" I'll try to also derive that from the responses. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result: Neutral. Do not prohibit inclusion, but no "let's include" consensus. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result:  Yes, let's include. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result Let's include. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result:  Let's include.North8000 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result: A conditional  "Let's include" See conditions in Heather Wheeler's and Wolf's  posts. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: One of the reasons I favor adding the ribbons is that those very same ribbons, in the very same order, are prominently painted on the sides of the ship. This is just another visual aid to help the reader in understanding the subject, just like any other image in the article. - wolf 21:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Result:  Let's include  North8000 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result:  A weak "yes" on a brief inclusion.  Do not exclude a brief inclusion.  A strong "No" on full inclusion. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Result:  A strong "yes"  to include it somewhere in the article.  And a "yes" that it would be best to do that only in the info box.North8000 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's sort out and decide on the actual questions

message: *No, the nickname does not need to be in the lead. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result: Neutral. Do not prohibit inclusion, but no "let's include" consensus. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #1: Should the nickname be in the lead?

message: *If there is suitable context to include it in the body of the article, then ok. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result:  Yes, let's include. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #2 Should the nickname be in the body of the article?

message: *As it stands right now: yes, it should be in the infobox as there is parameter for it. It should also be sourced, if not included with a source anywhere else. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result Let's include. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #3 Should the nickname be in the infobox?

message: *If there is suitable context to include it in the body of the article, then ok. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result:  Let's include.North8000 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #4 Should the motto be in the body of the article?

message: *As it stands right now: yes, it should be in the infobox as there is parameter. It should also be sourced, if not included with a source anywhere else. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result: A conditional  "Let's include" See conditions in Heather Wheeler's and Wolf's  posts. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #5 Should the motto be in the infobox?

message: *Yes, the awards should be re-added to article, as they were up to 28 December 2020. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons I favor adding the ribbons is that those very same ribbons, in the very same order, are prominently painted on the sides of the ship. This is just another visual aid to help the reader in understanding the subject, just like any other image in the article. - wolf 21:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result:  Let's include  North8000 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #6 Should the Honors and awards be in the body of the article?

message: *As it stands right now, there is an "honors" parameter for the infobox, but just as we do with blp/bio pages, only the highest award(s) should be included, if at all. To keep infobox clutter to a minimum, a detailed awards/honors section should be included in the body, (see above) which would then preclude the need for inclusion in the infobox. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result:  A weak "yes" on a brief inclusion.  Do not exclude a brief inclusion.  A strong "No" on full inclusion. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #7 Should the Honors and awards be in the infobox?

message: * Actually, a reasonably sized image of the badge should be included in the infobox, as it stands, there is a parameter for it there and it's common practice to include it there. If it's already in the infobox, there is no need for it in the body, unless there is a suitable context that requires it. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Result:  A strong "yes"  to include it somewhere in the article.  And a "yes" that it would be best to do that only in the info box.North8000 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question #8 Should the badge be: #8a in the body of the article and/or #8b in the infobox?

message: There is substantial relevant conversation regarding this article at the Featured Article Review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 North8000 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: There is substantial relevant conversation regarding this article at the Featured Article Review

message: I made a change and was reverted and wish to discuss it here.  I think that the "appearance in pop culture" section is a bad idea.   One is that it is an enabler of a mis-classification of an actual part of the actual ships history.  What is probably the most thorough and respected book on the book on the Missouri (Stillwell) spends almost two full pages on the ship, crew and Navy's PARTICIPATION in the Cher video and the related happenings in the Navy (including Washington DC) and the ship before and after the video. And other sources also cover it as a part of the history of the ship. IMO classifying it only based based on the resultant video being pop culture is mis-classification. 
Moving it into the actual history of the ship (where IMO it properly belongs) leaves just two things in the "appearances in pop culture" section.   The were both where the ship played a central role in a prominent movie.   It looks like neither movie is a part of the actual history of the ship.  They apparently used only stock footage of the Missouri for Under Siege, and took advantage of towing that was going to happen anyway for Battleship, albeit with likely  special handling for the purposes of the movie.     I'd like to eliminate the "Appearances in pop culture" section which creates a magnet for everybody who wants their product or favorite video game mentioned in this prominent place. I think these movie two entries have special attributes which make them stand out from the other possibilities.  They were both where the ship had a central role in the movie, were movies, and the movies were prominent, widely viewed including in theaters. The "Under Siege" entry contains some useful battleship info/ clarification.   Also the actual Missouri was very slightly actually involved in the Battleshipmovie.  I really can't see another popular culture item rising to the level of inclusion in this article. So I tried renaming it to "central roles in prominent movies".  I think we should do what I describe/propose above. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: US Naval history regarding the Cher video, classification of it, and pop culture section in general

message: I think that the common meaning of "built" means completed, so we should tidy of that first sentence in the lead.   Also that is not in the body so that should also be tidied up.  IMO the best way is to not have the lead sentence get into quantities of Iowa class ships. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: North8000 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, probably best not to give quibblers ammo for their quivers!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: # of Iowa class battleships built

message: "Crewmen man the rails as Missouri during her recommissioning ceremony in San Francisco"
It does not make sense as English. I am not certain what it is supposed to say, otherwise I would correct it myself. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:54A:31BF:6EC8:C013 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Fyi, you will often find (as is this case) that a quick Google search of a word, term or phrase that you don't understand will provide an answer for you. - wolf 06:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but there is no individual "word, term or phrase" that I don't understand. It is the sentence structure as a whole that does, or did not, make any sense. It appears that there is a word or words missing, or the whole thing has just got garbled. I do not know how Google search can assist with making sense of that.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:BDAF:AB63:C091:A878 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

text: IMO it also made sense before but the change is an improvement. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption does not make sense