Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)

"Appearances in popular culture"

@North8000:, you made an edit. It was then reverted. It is at this point, that if you disagre with being reverted, you then start a discussion on the talk page (per WP:BRD). Instead, however, you have reverted yet again.

As a discussion has now been initiated, I would suggest you self-revert to WP:QUO, until the discussion has concluded and a decision about the edit in question is made either way. Thanks - wolf 06:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to the last stable version (Oct 12th). Any changes from there should be discussed. But the general theme / IMO is that such items that the Missouri ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN are appropriate for the article. Opinions from any one of the 9 projects who include it in their interest can be weighed, but that's it. Especially one with a wording problem which is inadvertently contrary to it's intent. I.E. intended to talk about depictions in pop culture, not actual participation by the actual ship is something that might be deemed pop culture. Other items (e.g depictions in video games) should probably be left out. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You reverted to this version twice, with the prior version being the same in both instances. Can you clarify what issues you have with that version? Thanks - wolf 05:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This is getting confusing because there were so many different changes made rapidly. My strong objection is that it removes material about events that the ship actually participated in. Details about towing for the Under Siege movie and participation in the Cher video. My weak objection is including mere depiction in video games, i.e. something that the ship did not actually participate in. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: The current edit, in regards to the two films is not that different than the previous edit (though I prefer to keep pop culture entiries as brief as possible and to the point, especially in military articles). The videogame is optional, and I have no problem leaving it out. That just leaves the music video. I don't see how the video itself lends to the reader's understanding of the subject, that being the ship, nor how the Navy's displeasure with the video aids the the reader in comprehending any aspect the ship, it's characteristics, capabilities, it's history or any other part of the article. It's completely superfluous and should be removed. So, what do you say... take 2 outta' 3, call it a day? - wolf 17:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

But the video IS a part of the ship's history and something that it actually participated in. Maybe just make that really brief? BTW, of the two films, I'm only arguing for / advocating the retention of the one which the ship actually participated in. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: I don't care either way about the films, but there is nothing particularly worthwhile about the video info. There are two points; 1) the ship doubling as a dancefloor in the video and 2) the Navy complaining about it after.
Cher dancing around on the deck in fishnets with a shiney dicso ball hanging from the main gun, has no encyclopaedic value. That the Navy was unhappy with the content of the video has nothing to do with the ship. There are several noteworthy events in history that Missouri took part in... this video is not one of them. - wolf 21:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion of directly relevant info about a topic (actual history of the ship) isn't "noteworthy" which is a high bar to prove. How about a briefer / very brief mention as a compromise? North8000 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: Regardless of how "brief" the mention of the music video is, how do you think that it in any way enhances the article? (and please note that "enhance" is not a word intentionallty quoted from any policy or guideline, just as "noteworthy" wasn't) Again, the entry can be broken down into two components; can we agree that second component, the Navy's complaint of the video has nothing to do with the ship? If so, that leaves the first component; that the ship was in the video. And just so we're on the same page, you feel that because the ship "participated in the video", that is "part of the ship's history"? If I have that right, then the next question would be; is it a part of the history worth mentioning in the article? What makes it so? How does it in any way aid the reader in understanding the article subject? In short, how does mention of video aid in the reader's knowledge of the ship? (and how does that knowledge increase as we decrease the amount of info provided?)

All that aside, if you're looking for a compromise, I've already agreed to your version about the two films and I further agreed to leave it to you decide on whether or not to include mention of the video game. I would think that could be considered a compromise, no? - wolf 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

How bout leave out the movie that it did not actually participate in, leave out the video games, and cut down the video mention to a very short sentence like "the music video "if I could turn back time" was filmed on the Missouri?"" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: I think we're going backwards now... a little bit. Of the four entries;

1. I could care less about the video game. There is mention of the scene where the articles for surrender were signed, and depending on how accurate & detailed and involved that scene is, it could be worthwhile. But, I am not familiar with that game, so do not know the details.
2. Of the two films, I haven't seen Under Seige in a long time and do not remember a great deal about it. So, meh... I could take it or leave it. I was fine with the brief, single sentence mention. Anymore info would need to be encyclopaedically worthwhile and sourced..
3. I did see Battleship and of all the entries, this actually provided some decent insight about Missouri, as well as some other USN ships, operations, equipment, capabilities, etc. (Yes, in a film about an alien invasion, loosely based on the eponymous board game). But, again, I still prefer brevity.
4. That leaves the music video, the one entry I believe does not merit any mention in this article. I've given my reasons above, but I'm not clear on why you believe my reasons are flawed or incorrect, nor am I clear on your reasoning for so firmly wanting this video mentioned. I've asked you previously, can you please take a look at my questions above on tbis point and provide some answers? That would be appreciated, and likely helpful.

Thanks - wolf 08:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, Stillwell’s tome on Missouri references the video and the reaction from the Navy. I don’t feel all that strongly about it, but I do prefer a simple paragraph, not the bulleted list. Parsecboy (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wolf, you asked me to respond to your arguments for exclusion of the video. One of them was "I don't see how the video itself lends to the reader's understanding of the subject, that being the ship, nor how the Navy's displeasure with the video aids the the reader in comprehending any aspect the ship, it's characteristics, capabilities, it's history or any other part of the article." My response is that this high bar is not a valid requirement for inclusion by either policies or by the norm for Wikipedia articles. Your 2nd main argument was "is it a part of the history worth mentioning in the article? What makes it so? How does it in any way aid the reader in understanding the article subject? In short, how does mention of video aid in the reader's knowledge of the ship? (and how does that knowledge increase as we decrease the amount of info provided?) " My response to most of that is that "knowledge of the ship" includes history of the ship, and this is a part of the history of the ship, something that the ship actually participated in. Regarding being guided by sources, what Parsecboy noted reinforces this. The beginning of your argument that I quoted was "is it a part of the history worth mentioning in the article?"....that is an excellent distillation of the main question, but not an argument for inclusion. Regarding the overall situation here, we should bring the issue being debated to a resolution. I'm open to any of these:

• Include just a brief mention of the video, as a compromise
• I'll cave and let you do whatever you want. Life is too short to worry about this too much.
• We step aside and let others weigh in on this. Maybe just whoever is watching this discussion or maybe an RFC. Maybe each do a quick summary of our arguments and rebuttals and then step aside. But not ping the projects because selecting a project (e.c. project music, project military history) would clearly be selecting the answers to be received.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to Parsecboy's reply, I am sure that he cited solid source, but sourcing was not my issue with this entry. You say I set a "high bar", but to me it's the bare minimum. Readers don't even view the video as part of the article, the only info here is that the video took place on board, and the Navy was unhappy with the video after. Their complaint isn't related to the ship, but Cher's overt sexuality in her performance. So, as a bare minimum, does the reader learn anything... anything at all... about the ship, in an entry mentioning that a music video was shot on board? Do they learn anything about the ship with the mention of the Navy's dissatisfaction with the video? And one other thing to consider; is this more of a "pop culture" issue? Or a contraversy issue? Afaic, if this is to be noted anywhere, it should be in "controversy" section of the main US Navy page (that's a separate issue). But anyway, I don't know what else to add here. I notified wt:milhist and wt;ships, so hopefully some other editors will take part here and help resolve this. Cheers, and thank you North8000, for the nature and civil debate. - wolf 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my point in bringing up Stillwell (which, as an aside, I find odd that this article doesn't cite at all), was that a reputable author considered it worth mentioning in his history of the ship. It's probably debatable whether our encyclopedia article needs to be as detailed as his 450-page monster, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(break)

I was advocating against picking specific projects to ping. I'm going to cut back the video entry to a brief one. Even I am not advocating for the full version. Please revert me if you do not agree on either content or process grounds. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@North8000: Typically, I don't think disputed content should be edited while an active discussion in underway. I understand you had no ill-intent, but by removing that line, you've negated a significant part my comments. That is one of the reasons why it's best to leave disputed content be until an agreement or consensus has been reached. Anyone new to the discussion, will see mention of the Navy's dissatisfaction with the video in several of my comments and have no idea what I'm referring to. Furthermore, I just made the point that based on that reaction of the Navy, that this content is more controversy than pop culture. Your edit completely negates that. Like I said, I believe you meant well, but I would prefer that you self-revert, but still post your suggested edit here on the talk page, so that other contributors can take it into consideration. Thanks - wolf 17:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted per your request. I just noticed that it is in the article twice, once under history and once under pop culture. The portion in the history section reads: "On 1 July 1989, while berthed at Pier D, the music video for Cher's If I Could Turn Back Time was filmed aboard Missouri and featured the ship's crew. " With that in there, I'm cool with complete deletion from the pop culture section. Further, I think that it would be good to cover what they actually did with the ship when for the Under Siege movie in the history section and and then delete the whole pop culture section. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Since I don't really care the other items either way, if you want to scrap the whole pop culture section, go for it. The other entry for the video in the prose is not an ideal solution, but if all of this is ok with everyone else, then I'm ok with it. - wolf 20:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I was mistaken about the movies. The Mo participated in the Battleship movie but maybe not not Under Siege. Anybody know? North8000 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no hurry....better to have most of us on the same page. So my idea is to have like a brief encyclopedic sentence in the "history" section where we have sourced info that the Missouri was actually used / participated in a movie or video. And delete the "popular culture" section. Maybe let this sit a week for discussion before doing anything. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem scrapping the "pop culture" section. If info to be added into the article's prose, it would need to be added to whichever section is cronologically appropriate in the ship's history. Each entry should be kept brief and concise, one or two lines and definitely a ref attached.

Of the film ′entries, I think the movie Battleship would provide the reader the most benefit on viewing, for giving insight and understanding of the operation of the ship. (Yes, she's fighting off an alien invasion, but Peter Berg is a good director).

This followed Under Seige. Haven't seen it in a long time. Depending on the sourcing, perhaps an editor familiar with the film, just what readers could gain seeing the film, in regards to learning about the ship, should determine if it is added and how.

There is a 1976 made-for-tv film about MacArthur that TJATTROTTA seems quite keen to add. I would think the parameters I noted for the first two films would apply to this one as well.

Apparently there was at one point a video game mentioned...? I don't know anything about it.

For the four items mentions above, just to be clear, I could take or leave any of them. I can see where each might have case for entry, but I don't really care if any are added or not.

That just leaves that music video. My opinion hasn't changed. I don't see any worthwhile reason to add mention of this video being shot on board, which tells the reader absolutely nothing about the ship, or the controversy afterwards, which has absolutely nothing to do with the ship.

That's where I stand. There were only two, (now.possibly three) debating this issue, and we seem to be at an impasse. I would suggest finding an uninvolved, experienced editor, to create a neutrally written RfC. Hopefully, with notifications to some wiki-projects, we can get a decent number of editors involved and create a nice, solid consensus. And then finally put this to rest. Thoughts? - wolf 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Pop culture. Again. Argh. I'm astonished at how much time this trivial stuff wastes. What I wrote in that archived conversation holds, so the positions that I stated there may be considered to apply here – for whatever that is worth.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I favour no mention of any of this as to include it just encourages more insignificant appearances to be added Lyndaship (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I reversed my opinion on "Under Siege". I previously thought that the ship actually participated in the movie (albeit only via towing only for the "at sea" film) but now it appears that such referred to a different movie and is not the case for "Under Siege" Since I am advocating for only (brief) inclusion of things that the ship actually participated in, I am no longer advocating mention of "Under Siege". North8000 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. Just had a look a archive thread that Ttm linked. This whole thing was previously debated to death, six years ago. And North8000, you were a major participant then. What is it about this music video that is so important to you? I have to agree with Ttm, it demeans the ship (as I think I also made clear in my posts above). I agree with the others, let's do away the entire "pop culture" section, as well as all the proposed entries thus far. Completely. It's time to put an end to this timesink over needless trivia. - wolf 16:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it was settled 6 years ago. :-) Answering your question, with my Wikipedia hat on, which is the only one I wear when editing or debating, it's simply because it's a part of the history of the ship, and a very prominent one at that. If you would like to know my irrelevant personal viewpoint, I think that the film of the Mighty MO and its guns and the way that it was a made centerpiece was very cool in that video. I'm not a Cher fan, though she has made some good songs, with this one being merely "OK". And I really like battleships; I've been aboard 3 of them including the Mighty MO. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And of course consensus can change. I like pop videos too but I don't want to read about then when I'm on a ship page Lyndaship (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it certinaly doesn't seem settled, (and I say this "with my Wikipedpa hat on" as well), this video is a minuscule and irrelevant part of Missouri's history. It also does not have any significance as far as pop culture is concerned (from the standpoint of the ship, not the video... though the video is no great standout among all the countless music videos that have come and gone, either). And as Lyndaship has pointed out, consensus can change. - wolf 17:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO, Cher's video doesn't merit a mention; it's too insignificant to the ship herself. "Under Siege", maybe; she's more important to the story. Video game refs are pure cruft. My $0.05. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If it were left up to me the entire section would be removed because none of it really warrants a mention in the article. Collectively, all of this may warrant paragraph on the class page, but individually they collapse under the burden of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WIAFA as trivial mentions that independently aren't worth anything but once added invite all these other people that have an "if this than that" mindset which in turn poisons articles. (My $7.50) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO there are two main factors in play that reinforce each other. The first is that the common meaning of "appearances in popular culture" is listing it only because it got written into a movie, book or game. That is not the case with the 2-3 item short list here.....these are items that the Missouri actually participated in...they are a part of the history of the actual ship. Second, there is only one Mighty Mo; it's not like the subject is a model of hardware which there are many copies of (such as the Sherman tank) so it is of high significance when that one-and-only participates in something. This cuts both ways. One is that the 2-3 items which the Mo actually participated in should stay. The flip side is that we should not add instances of movies, stories, games etc. where the ship did not actually participate. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Armament

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• USS Missouri and the Japanese Battleship Nagato in Tokyo Harbor, 1945..jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Content moved from WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of this article is still good insofar as the FAC toolboxes are concerned, there are one or two dead links but the article is still FA class - according to the toolbox. A manual read through for the article body may be good to ensure that everything still sounds right, looks cited, and is consistently in the right style. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not clear what to make of this. Could you tag the deadlinks so that you or someone might attempt to update them? Has there been any significant new publication that should be included? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Some issues:

• This returns a Harvref error, indicating it is not used (but possibly could be): Naval Historical Foundation (2004). The Navy. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 0-7607-6218-X. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFNaval_Historical_Foundation2004.
• There is quite a bit of MOS:SANDWICHing of new images, that were not present in the featured version.
• There are considerable duplicate links which can be evaluated by installing User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
• The last entry in the "to present" section is ten years old; is there anything new?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the sandwiching, dupe links, and harv warning issues. The article needs a fair bit of work to bring it in line with the latest practices. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's likely that nothing significant is missing from the last 10 years. It has remained in the same place as a museum ship. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I should rephrase; are there any significant new sources that should be incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked for new sources, but this really should have incorporated Battleship Missouri: An Illustrated History when it went through FAC. I'd also expect standard sources like Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea to be consulted for the ship's WWII activities, more use of Friedman (which is only used for one insignificant citation), and the DANFS copying needs to go as well. Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll plan on de-DANFSifying the text and then go through some of the sources I have (I've got a copy of Stillwell, which should be able to do much of the heavy lifting). Between work and helping to manage school for a distance-learning kindergartner, I may not have a ton of time today, but we'll see. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This may be the tool Tom referenced; we need to know what the dead links are to be able to try to update them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Awards

Anyone have any thoughts on the ribbon farm at the bottom of the article? It's pretty crufty in my opinion, and I'd just as soon remove it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems decorative, but I didn't say anything because I presumed it meant something to Military people who speak that language :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's my thought as well, and I do speak that language ;) Since no one has raised any objections, I've removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, hey... I saw this, but didn't realize you were contemplating removing the all mention of the awards completely. I can see where you might have issue with the ribbon-rack style visual presentation, but what is wrong with having them added in a simple, plain list? (to Parsecboy et al.) - wolf 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think an exhaustive list is all that encyclopedic, to be honest. Stillwell doesn't mention the awards at all, even in running prose, which I'd think is all that would be warranted (i.e., at the end of the WWII section, we'd have a line stating that the ship was awarded X number of battle stars for blah blah blah). Even that's a bit iffy IMO, as I generally prefer to only mention things like efficiency awards (since that tells the reader a bit more about the ship and crew than the "I was there" type of awards do). This gets at another reason lists aren't a good idea; for example, when did Missouri get the Navy E ribbon? For what reason? The reader is given no information about it, but if we had a good source for the circumstances, we could explain it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not like the list will keep growing, and it c/would be just a simple list, as opposed to the "decorations" (which I, as another that speaks the language ; ), didn't have a problem with since the Navy adds the same ribbons to the sides of the ships). We could link to articles and add dates and details where needed (all sourced of course). Or the info could also be divided up into the prose as opposed to a list. The ships, and more importantly the crew on the ship, earned those awards, they are part of the ships history, what's the harm in including them? (Or more to conversely, why the need to exclude them?) This is an encyclopaedia after all, a non-paper one at that. Cheers - wolf 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Missouri won an HSNA award in 2016 :P I think what it comes down to is what one's vision of what the article should be; I tend to lean in the academic direction, and that sort of thing wouldn't be included. Heck, I don't know that I've seen ribbon racks (or even lists of awards) in popular books on ships. For instance, this, which appears to be a coffee-table style book, doesn't mention them as far as I can tell, nor does the Osprey entry. This one does mention them, but I'm frankly not impressed by what I've seen of the book.

No, we're not a paper encyclopedia, but we do have to make editorial judgements on what to include and what to leave out; we don't include everything on a given topic just because it's true (this brings to mind the nonsensical list of 2,200 mostly non-notable individuals at Passengers of the Titanic). If we're going to include awards, I'd much rather have them in the prose, where they can be put in context. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha, the Titanic list, I remember that. I was with you on that as well, and as for this, don't think I'm "against" you. You do a lot work on these pages and ultimately I'll defer your judgment. My thought (last one) on this is this; we have articles about these awards, and we mention them, including battle stars specifically, (for example), in the lead of Enterprise (CV-6), were we note that she was "the most decorated ship...". These awards are part of the ships history, be it battle, competition or milestone, and we're documenting that history. If an award is notable and sourced, I think it should be included. You mentioned other books, physical ones, where they also had to make "editorial judgements" - based on what was heading for print. WP articles are never really 'done', (not even when GA or FA). I suppose I'm an inclusionist of sorts, no article can be too big because we can always fork whorthwhile stuff off. Lastly, if that doesn't convince you, keep in mind that your deletion here has the potential to affect every other ship article. A lot of people here are slaves to uniformity. Cheers - wolf 22:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Some comments

• the key characteristics should match exactly between the body and infobox, length, beam, draft, displacement, range, crew, speed, gun turret armor, barbette armor etc and their conversions/rounding need checking and fixing
• the power is not in the infobox
• the main deck armour isn't mentioned in the body
• the calibre of the AA guns isn't in the body
• I will try to take a look through the rest later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • On your first point, I haven't gotten far enough to resolve the prose section I added and the box, but I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• I reckon the lead could do with a bit of expansion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, basically the whole article is going to be rewritten. I wouldn't worry too much about copyediting or fiddling with links until I'm done. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nate, I'll leave it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and Parsecboy: Illinois has been scheduled for the mainpage in January, so maybe focus should move over there for a bit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll have a look at that one as well. Parsecboy (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure it is wise to be scheduling FAs on the old FA list until they've been checked if it is at all avoidable. I will also have a look at Illinois. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be wise to have a look at a sort on WP:URFA/2020 by TFA date, to pull up all MILHIST articles in the top tier (2004 to 2009, I'm less worried about 2010 to 15) that haven't yet run TFA, so those could be prioritized? I had the script-writer add TFA to the table so we would be able to use it that way ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason that this heading has a "to", while the others have an endash on the date range? Reactivation (1984 to 1990) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope, I've fixed it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Circling back ... are we ready for a new look here, or are you still working on it, Parcecboy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, feel free to fix anything that you see that needs fixing. North8000 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, Sandy - I've gone through and rewritten the DANFS text in the Construction and WWII sections (but not the Japanese surrender section yet) as a first step but I'll still need to go through Stillwell. It's on my desk next to me, but I've been a bit busy lately. I'll try to get more done this week. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the work ... ping me when it’s ready for a look. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Parsecboy and Peacemaker67: - Any new thoughts here? Just trying to gauge where this one is at for URFA/2020. Hog Farm _Talk 22:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I gave up on this article after the discussions below. I'm not going to waste the effort trying to beat an article into semi-professional shape if people are going to come along behind me and degrade it with trivia and cruft. I've got better things to do with my time. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Aw c'mon now PB, don't be like that... - wolf 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that in the year+ since I last edited the article, there haven't been any substantive edits toward addressing the FAR concerns. Funny how nobody wants to do the work, they just want to stand around and tell those of us who are willing how to do it. I have more than enough of that corporate, middle management attitude at work, I don't need it here.

And as for taking my ball and going home, nobody's entitled to my labor. I'm not invested in this article keeping its star; if you are, you are perfectly capable of hitting the edit button. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO the disputed additions were quite reasonable (rather than cruft) and the when it went into a more methodical discussion you elected to not participate. So while I disagree with your characterization of recent activity here, thanks for all of your work here. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My own take regarding FA status is that I'm happy to make suggested improvements in the article but being an advocate for FA status for an article is not my dance. I don't know the status regarding FA, FA folks and other editors who may be involved on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

North, this one needs significant work. Most of the post-WWII content is just coming from DANFS, which is problematic when there's designated sources out there like Stilwell. Butler 1995 from the further reading should probably be cited as well for the grounding incident material; Parsecboy knows much better than I do about what all should be used here. Hog Farm _Talk 13:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Per my last post I'm not sure about various things but I just ordered the Stilwell and Butler books. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

North, I think Parsecboy would be a good person to discuss some stuff to work on here with. I'm not familiar with post-WWII naval military history. Hog Farm _Talk 17:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I didn't realize that it was under an FAR. I'll go watch there.North8000 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Awards redux

@Parsecboy: - can't help but notice that since you removed the ribbon rack & table, other people seem to keep re-adding them, only to have you remove them again. Did you perhaps want to reconsider? Also, since the removal came up during the URFA discussion, was that the reason for the removal? Thanks - wolf 23:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not in the slightest ;) That some people like it is not a particularly compelling argument, right? It came up in the URFA discussion, but the URFA isn't the reason I removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be positioned as being a replacement for text content as it was. Other then that I'm neutral (because I'm un-knowlegable) on having it in the article as an image. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, where a reliable source can give us context on why an award was given, it should be mentioned in the prose. This would be most commonly the case for things like Battle Es (as I said above) - as an example, for the articles on Imperial German warships I write, I include references to the Kaiser's Schiesspreis, because it tells us something about the gunnery capabilities of a ship's crew. Including stuff like the "I was there" type medals is generally pointless for an encyclopedia article (which is confirmed by the fact that reliable sources don't generally mention them). Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As a clarification on my "It certainly shouldn't be positioned as being a replacement for text content as it was." that was because for ~99% of readers it does not convey any info. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, again I only mentioned it because other editors keep re-adding it. Ftr, I did suggest moving the awards to suitable places in the prose, instead of the ribbon rack/table format. Though that wouldn't be my preference, that very same ribbon rack is currently painted on the side of the ship, visible in at least 3 of this article's 12 ship images, including the infobox, and along with the name and hull number, basically the only visual item of info on the ship that tells anyone about the ship. As for "not conveying info to ~99% readers", that seems rather subjective. Articles contain all kinds of items that on their own don't convey info to n% of readers, but we don't exclude for that reason, and what we do include, we don't add definitions. If people don't know what it is, they can "Google it". Not every reader will know or understand every item in an article. Anyway... jmho. I guess we'll leave it be for now. If this item continues to be an issue, we'll deal with it then. - wolf 19:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, some people will continue to try to add it - just like people keep changing Bismark to "he". That people repeatedly turn up to push the same bad idea isn't evidence that it's a good idea.

Arguably, the side of the ship is the perfect place for a ribbon rack. The ship is a visual exhibit, so a visual display like that makes perfect sense. That's not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes PB, I'm aware that you think it's a "bad idea", but clearly not everyone agrees with that.
I don't see the equation between adding a ribbon rack and a table of links so that readers know wnich award is which, and someone trying to call Bismarck a "he". (bmtjm)
"Arguably"...? Who would you argue that with? The US Navy? (lolz)
Anyway, I msg'd Duke83 on his tp about the edits. fyi - wolf 00:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The comparison to the Bismarck situation was merely to point out that the fact that the existence of people who believe an idea is not prima facie evidence of the goodness of the idea. People believe the earth is flat. Or that COVID is a hoax. Or that the moon landing was faked. That doesn't mean they're good ideas. Just as with this situation; that people show up and try to reinsert the ribbon farm isn't a good argument for why we should include it. As for who I'm arguing with, isn't that clear? The people who think this article is the perfect place to display them. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, opinion noted. Like I said, I'll leave be and see what else, if anything, develops. - wolf 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I was not arguing for keeping it out of the article, I was merely saying that it is not a replacement for text. In fact I would slightly prefer having it in the article, probably as a small image somewhere. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

N8k, wether we reduce the size of the of ribbon images to scale down the size of the rack, or find a quality image of the rack, (like the one I linked above), I think we would still need to identify those awards, whether it's with the table in question, or in prose. What are your thoughts on that? - wolf 00:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. My first thought would be to mention all of the awards, with just a few words for the minor ones. And then a small image of the rack; maybe even a photo of it on the Missouri.North8000 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if there was an image (like this one) to be found, that could be used here, then your suggestion could work, but we would need more of a consensus to re-add those awards with any specific visual of the rack. Right now we just have a couple of random editors reverting without discussing, which was I mentioned the awards section again. Cheers - wolf 20:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of: Motto, Nickname, Honors and Awards, Badge

I would like to add Motto, Nickname, Honors and Awards, and Badge to improve the usefulness of the article and to bring it in line with the Wikipedia articles of most current and former ships of the United States Navy. The information to be added has not been disputed by the editors reverting edits by me and others. @Parsecboy: @Thewolfchild: Please explain why this information should not the included in the article on BB-63, while you apparently are not opposed to it being included in articles on a large number of other USN ships, including the three other Iowa-class battleships. Thank you. Heather Wheeler (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I already did explain to you why it should not be included. It's of minor use to readers, and more importantly, it clutters the box, which makes it harder for readers to digest. That other articles include these fields is not a valid justification - if I had a nickel for every time I had to explain to someone I supervise at my job that some other thing being wrong is not justification for another thing to be wrong, I wouldn't have to work another day in my life. In any event, please explain why it's useful, beyond what amounts to "I like it"; the burden to justify the inclusion of material is on you, not me.

And by the way, I am opposed to it being included in other articles. I just haven't gotten around to beating them into something that approaches a professional article. You may not have noticed, but the other Iowas are in fairly bad condition, given their FA rating (and this one is only somewhat improved, owing to the work I've put into it - it's still far from done). Using their poor quality as justification to degrade this article reflects rather poor logic. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Erm, not sure why I was pinged but, since I'm here, I will say I don't have an issue with a nickname - singular, as in just the primary one - being added to the infobox, (there is a parameter for it afterall), but I agree with Parsecboy otherwise, as I'm not a fan of overcrowding the infobox either. We don't need a long list of nicknames anywhere in a ship article, and if I had a nickel for every time someone added "Cell block(+ ship's hull number)" to any USN ship page, I wouldn't have to work either (actually, I'm independently wealthy, so I don't work, but the point stands...) Speaking of nicknames, I'm not sure why they are so prominently mentioned in the lead of USS New Jersey (BB-62), but I'm probably gonna remove them. They are also noted in the infobox anyway. I also don't mind if the motto is in the infobox, but there is no need to list a ship's honors and awards there, they can be listed down in the "Awards" section. As Parsecboy already well knows, my opinion on that is well documented, just above at URFA/2020#Awards and Awards redux. Cheers - wolf 23:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: I would like to include the information because collecting and providing information is the very purpose of an encyclopedia. It is not for you to decide what information is "too hard to digest for readers", and information must not be excluded because of your personal preferences about how an infobox should look like. Furthermore, referencing similar articles about other USN ships is meaningful in the context of this discussion. If you think this is indicative of a lack of mental capacity on my part, please remember that it is you who perceives the inclusion of the corresponding information in other articles as detrimental to their quality. I and the editors who added the information do not. As for your argument of being a supervisor at work having to repeatedly deal with the "rather poor logic" of your co-workers: I don't think this is relevant to this discussion. As for your efforts regarding the improvement of the article on BB-63: Thank you! Heather Wheeler (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You don’t need to keep pinging me, I have the page watchlisted.

As to your point, absolutely not. We do not include every single piece of information about a topic. For starters, are an encyclopedia, not a specialist source. Do you understand the distinction between the two? Second, we could undoubtedly include every single name of every man and woman who served aboard this ship. Would that material be encyclopedic? I would humbly suggest that you, an editor with a handful of days under their belt, might not understand how this place works, and how to write high quality articles, as I do; I’ve been working here for 15 years, and in that time, I have written scores of Featured Articles and literally hundreds of A-class and Good Articles on warships. I may just have a clue what I’m talking about.

The simple fact of the matter is, we do make decisions about what to include and what to exclude. And so far, you haven’t made a justification to include material that veers toward crufty trivia that isn’t suited to an encyclopedia article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The information I would like to add is in the infobox template, and the guide supports inclusion. I think it is for you to make the case for not including it and not following the guide.

@JMOprof: added the same information after my edit was reverted, equally unsuccessfully. I think it would be interesting to hear his/her take on the issue.

On a personal note: My account is 276 days old. Referring to me as an editor "with a handful of days under their belt" who "might not understand how this place works, and how to write high quality articles, as I do" is exactly the kind of disparaging behavior towards "new" editors the Wikimedia foundation is trying to stop. We should try to rely on arguments, not on perceived seniority, when making a point. Heather Wheeler (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you think I have to justify excluding the information you want to add perfectly demonstrates why my comment about our differing levels of experience is a valid one. It has nothing to do with seniority, it has to do with experience. Indeed, your account is 276 days old, with a whopping 14 edits before you came to this article; clearly, you are a master editor with a wealth of knowledge, to whom we all ought to defer.

In any event, I have repeatedly explained my reasons for reverting your edit; repeatedly insisting that I do so again is WP:SEALIONing, a patently bad-faith stonewalling tactic. Please stop. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not abuse WP:SEALION for silencing other editors when it doesn't apply. I and others have entered data for parameters in Template:Infobox ship begin, a very widely used template, in good faith, and you have yet to provide a reason for your reverts. "can != should" is not an argument, it's rhetorics. Discussion should not be stifled but used to find consensus or compromise. You keep pointing out how inexperienced I am. Would bringing up WP:Please do not bite the newcomers be helpful to find consensus or compromise? Or, given the number of personal attacks on your part, should I remind you of WP:No personal attacks? Or of WP:Etiquette? Would those be good arguments? I am not your enemy. Please take a step back and remember WP:Assume good faith. Heather Wheeler (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Please do not abuse WP:SEALION...you have yet to provide a reason". You are literally SEALIONing directly after you ask me to stop accusing you of it. I will not AGF when you are plainly stonewalling here. Or I suppose I could assume you're functionally illiterate; would that make you happy? I'm done responding to your bad-faith posts. Parsecboy (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To start with, I think some clarification of the questions at hand would be helpful. Heather's arguments on the talk page are in essence for inclusion of those items in the article. But that actual edits were including those in the info box. Similarly some of the counter arguments were arguments against inclusion in the article and others were against inclusion in the info box. IMO all 4 items should be in the article somewhere, and at least 2 of them already are. Regarding the info box, my thought is "when in doubt (= if disputed), leave them out". This is because IMO both the selectivity for the info box and the putting info into those short descriptions are sort of O/R and so I'd just put items in when there is strong agreement. Since "Mighty Mo" is immensely prominent, that might be a good one to put in. But the info box is already gigantic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

We’re talking specifically about the box (and edit in particular. Parsecboy (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, if this is about the info box specifically, my recommendation is to include the nickname (due to it's immense / widespread usage) and leave out all of the other items in question. North8000 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it widespread in secondary sources? I have not seen that to be the case. A quick Google Books search turns up about 20k hits for "battleship Missouri" or 41k hits for "USS Missouri" (obviously there is significant if not complete overlap in those returns) but a search of battleship missouri "mighty mo" returns just 2.6k hits, and none of them look to be particularly high quality (i.e., the kind of sourcing a Featured Article should rely on), apart from Stillwell's Battleship Missouri (which I'm using to rewrite this article), but as far as I can tell, the only time "Mighty Mo" turns up in the book are in the titles of other publications he cites. You can see a few examples here. So yes, the nickname might be in common use in the public, but it doesn't seem to be reflected in reliable sources. And we write articles based on what reliable, secondary sources say about a topic. Parsecboy (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a structural issue with the latter part of your post. The fact in question is whether the nickname has widespread use. If that were implicitly or explicitly put into article space, the sourcing question would be regarding that fact. In short, sources that support that it has widespread usage, not that is has widespread usage by sources. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand; we decide to include a fact (in part) based on whether reliable, secondary sources do. The google search was meant to highlight that reliable, secondary sources generally do not. In other words, if they don't consider something to be significant enough to warrant mentioning, then we probably shouldn't either. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. My main explanation remains as my previous post. But I am in essence saying that in order to report on / cover a phenomenon, you need sources that report on/ cover the phenomenon, and IMO in essence you are saying that one needs sources that participate in the phenomenon.North8000 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't agree with what? That we base our coverage on what reliable secondary sources cover? If so, that's not really a valid take; a basic pillar of how we write articles is, if reliable sources don't mention something, we don't either. That's sort of the basic point of policies/guidelines like WP:V, WP:UNDUE, etc. If it can't be demonstrated that reliable sources cover something, then we shouldn't either.

By way of example, it was (and is) commonly said that Hitler Has Only Got One Ball, but if you search his bio here, you won't find mention of it, for the same reason I've underlined above. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We're talking past each other. You are not addressing my point, but are implying that general statements of Wikipedia stuff refute it. To condense it even further, my point if suitable sources say that it is a widely used nickname, that is sufficient for a statement of such. They do not have to themselves be users of the term. In fact, deriving a statement about usage from sources actually using the term would be primary (rather than secondary) sourcing for that fact. I've stated my main points and opinions, I think that there's 'nuff said on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't addressed your point because it's not a relevant one; no one is disputing that the nickname is in common use by the public, coffee-table books, etc. The question is whether we need to include it in an encyclopedic article on the subject. And that is what I'm getting at in my comments above. If reliable sources don't discuss something, neither should we. Think of it this way: there are tons of modelers' books and websites that address the minute changes in appearance of ships over the course of their careers, because that's of interest to a specific set of readers, but we don't because it's not covered in general sources. It's also not encyclopedic information, and I'd include WP:CRUFTy stuff like nicknames, mottos, movie trivia, and such in that category.

I was curious what Britannica includes, and it rather unsurprisingly doesn't include mottos, nicknames, or other such cruft in their article on the ship (though it's admittedly far smaller than ours). Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The current owner and caretaker of BB-63, the USS Missouri Memorial Association in Pearl Harbor, has been using the nickname for years in a wide variety of contexts. Heather Wheeler (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to the question of what reliable, secondary sources say? Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The Association is not just the owner and caretaker of the ship, it is also running the museum, and its declared mission is to "preserve the ship and to share her story and place in history." You think the policy of an organization so closely connected to BB-63 towards the use of the nickname is not relevant to the question of what reliable, secondary sources say? Heather Wheeler (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And we've arrived back to your complete unfamiliarity in how to write articles. Please read WP:RS. We write articles using "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Not museum associations (apart from the very limited scope where it would be appropriate to cite them), coffee-table-style popular histories, or what Randy in Boise thinks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Parsecboy, you are making up rules that don't exist. To condense it for this case, policies would say that RS's establish that it is an in-use nickname not that they use the nickname. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, all that's clear is that you don't understand the basic premise of policies like WP:UNDUE, or the fundamental way we write articles. If we aren't supposed to reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources, what exactly are we doing? Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't insult me. Answering your question, we build good, sourced articles based on a multitude of things, subject to policies & guidelines. Your vague characterization (and I don't mean "vague" negatively) is just that, it is not a policy and as such it far too open to infinite interpretations to ever be one. And there is certainly nothing that says that the source needs to participate in the use of the term in order to cover the term in Wikipedia (which essentially is your argument), it says that the source needs to cover the term. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If you find my assertion that you don’t seemingly understand core policy offensive, I’d have thought you’d want to provide more than that non-answer. Moreover, on what planet is UNDUE not policy? UNDUE quite literally states "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

In any event, I still haven’t seen an argument as to why this material needs to be in the infobox, instead of the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You again mis-stated what I said in a way that denigrates me. My point was asserting that you are using wp:undue out of context and morphing it into your own overly broad and vague statement and then using the latter as the basis for your argument. You are pretending that I made the silly statement that wp:undue is not a part of a policy, which denigrates me personally. Please STOP.North8000 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(break)

As much as I agree with Parsecboys viewpoint the infobox does have these parameters and the guide supports inclusion Template:Infobox_ship_begin/Usage_guide. Unless and until that is changed they can be entered Lyndaship (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but can != should. There are plenty of fields that can be filled in, but we don’t, for a variety of reasons. I don’t fill in the cost field because it’s just a number out of context that cannot reasonably be put into context in a box (or even the article, for several reasons). Parsecboy (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that 7 of the references and one of the further reading books use "Mighto Mo" in their titles North8000 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the book appears to be a coffee-table type publication, and the sources are all either news outlets or one instance of All Hands. Hardly what I'd call convincing. Nor is it evidence that we need to have this cruft in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, All. Very glad to join in. I was of a mind to start this discussion myself, only to find that it already exists. I understand Parsecboy's disdain for mottos. I just don't share it. And to me, the authors of the infobox don't share it either, as evidenced by their providing of this option. Parsecboy's reasons for reverting the infobox are, successively, "for infoboxes, less is generally more, expecially [sic] with trivia-related things like nicknames and mottos", "That's not how it works - the burden of proof is on the person seeking to make the change. See WP:BRD, WP:CON, etc. If someone reverts your edit, go to the talk page, don't start an edit-war", "It's not a question of whether it can be cited, but whether it NEEDS to be in the box. Cluttering the box with less useful material reduces the utility of the box". The reverted citations for the credibility of Missouri's nickname and motto were not some coffee table book, they were the authoritative Naval History and Heritage Command. The 'Missouri's nickname of "Mighty Mo" is exactly as trivial as "Old Ironsides" is to Constitution and "Grand Old Lady" is to . Missouri's motto "Vis Ad Libertatem ("For Freedom")" compares well to Warspite's "Belli dura despicio ("I Despise the Hard Knocks of War")" and Scharnhorst's "Scharnhorst immer voran (Scharnhorst ever onward)". If there is motive to eliminate nicknames, here is a place to start: List of warships by nickname. But I don't think there should be such a motive. Finally, as a reminder to all, Missouri is nobody's article. What has been going on here are examples of ownership behavior.  R/ the JMOprof ©¿©¬ 16:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The source you provided is not an NHHC publication, I suggest you look at it again. It is merely reproduced by the NHHC; it's actually some sort of crew publication for a public relations event in 1989.

If we're going to critique arguments, it seems all you've presented us with is WP:ILIKEIT and an attempt to muddy the waters by conflating this issue with the general concept of ships having nicknames. You haven't explained why the motto needs to be in the infobox, as opposed to the prose. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know well what I sourced. I picked it for the very reasons you cite. That it is on the NHHC website is an implicit endorsement by the NHHC. That it authored by the crew is all the provenance needed to show that the motto existed, that the nickname existed, and that the crew used both. You will not find a more successful meeting of your 'burden of proof.' Your expertise is Germanic navies. Mine is the American navy, naval operations in the Pacific Theater of World War II, and submarines. We overlap if at all in U-Boats. So a brief, not exhaustive survey of mine of Kreigsmarine capital ships did not show a single one with a nickname. I should infer then from said survey that nicknames are trivial to German sailors. And then conclude then that they must be trivial to all sailors of all navies. Said conclusion is wrong. I know so from my own experience. Every warship I have been on (many) had a nickname, some affectionate, some less so. All had nicknames. It is a tradition that American and British service members share. We extend affection to those apparatuses that served us well. Perhaps the most prevalent of many is the nose art of the allied bombers of WW2. These things are not trivial to those who intimately know these ships. As to why it goes in the infobox, that's the provided for place. Character-wise, it's more efficient to put them there than to wrap all ships' mottos and and all ships' nicknames in well-formed prose. The list of nicknames was just to help you calibrate yourself to those of different opinions. I am curious though as to why you started with Heather's good faith edit of the Missouri and not the situation for Scharnhost. I would not suggest you edit Constitution or Warspite.  R/ the JMOprof ©¿©¬ 22:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a joke? You have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t think further discussion with you will be productive. Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again, Parsecboy. I'm talking about a young female wikipeidan who made a correct edit in the proper place and ran into a heavy-weight who thinks he owns this article. And handled her with all the grace Wikipedia is known for. Your whole approach here is wrong and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMOprof (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's sort out and decide on the actual questions

Let's sort out and decide the actual questions. Before anybody edits, @Parsecboy:, 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, @Heather Wheeler:, 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)

OK, since feedback has started, we won't be deleting any and we should weigh in. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Has been open for 16 days. Let's go until 3 weeks / 21 days. Thoughts otherwise?North8000 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me - wolf 20:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

Question #1: Should the nickname be in the lead?

• No, the nickname does not need to be in the lead. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• A near-neutral yes It's widely used and a sentence in the lead would be fine. But it's also fine without it. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral. It doesn't need to be in the lead, but it would be okay. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Question #2 Should the nickname be in the body of the article?

• If there is suitable context to include it in the body of the article, then ok. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• A strong yes it's widely used, including in sources and would be a major omission if it wasn't covered. North8000 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Question #3 Should the nickname be in the infobox?

• 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)
• Yes It's widely used, including in sources and such an entry would be very brief / not clutter.North8000 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Question #4 Should the motto be in the body of the article?

• If there is suitable context to include it in the body of the article, then ok. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Widely used, including in sources. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Question #5 Should the motto be in the infobox?

• 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)
• A near-neutral no The motto is somewhat obscure and non-essential and we don't want to get the info box too huge.North8000 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. No preference regarding Latin/English, but badge and motto should match. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Question #6 Should the Honors and awards be in the body of the article?

• Yes, the awards should be re-added to article, as they were up to 28 December 2020. - wolf 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• A strong yes on text content Needs full coverage. I think some is already in there. A weak yes on that ribbon symbology image (or, is that the badge?) Fine as a not-too-big image, although most readers would no know how to interpret it. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Yes. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Question #7 Should the Honors and awards be in the infobox?

• 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)
• Strong No on full inclusion There's too much, some very obscure. Neutral on a brief inclusion Awards to ship are somewhat abstract info. Avoid overly huge infobox. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral to Yes, but only the highest awards and honors. Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Question #8 Should the badge be: #8a in the body of the article and/or #8b in the infobox?

• 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)
• What's a badge? North8000 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Many USN ships pages have one, for an example take a look at the infobox for USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), it's right under;
    "status - in active service" - wolf 22:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks North8000 (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • A strong yes on in the body of the article and neutral on in the infobox North8000 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes on the infobox, No on the body (unless it is needed for some reason). Heather Wheeler (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

There is substantial relevant conversation regarding this article at the Featured Article Review

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)

US Naval history regarding the Cher video, classification of it, and pop culture section in general

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)

# of Iowa class battleships built

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)

@Sturmvogel 66: North8000 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, probably best not to give quibblers ammo for their quivers!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I did it. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Caption does not make sense

"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)

 Fixed. 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)

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)

IMO it also made sense before but the change is an improvement. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)