Talk:Brooklyn-class cruiser

Merge in St. Louis-class cruiser (1938)

To any page watchers, I've merged the above article over on the basis that no reliable source I've seen actually supports the idea that St. Louis and Helena were a separate class. Friedman's U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History calls them all one class, as does Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, Whitley's Cruisers of World War Two, and Stille's US Navy Light Cruisers 1941–45. I haven't come across a single reliable source that refers to them as separate classes, so I've merged them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've got that book in front of me right now and I concur.Tirronan (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Palmeira: - you might consider finding your way to one of the places this was discussed more than two years ago. See the sources I cited above and undo your reverts. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: - Your changes and that discussion cannot override how the cited Navy sources on that page class Navy ships. Unless you can claim the USN is not a "reliable" source for its own terminology and usage for its ships your argument fails facially with those USN sources in the articles. For edification of readers the difference in how Navy classed the ships and non-Navy authors did must be explained. Think of a reader coming from the Navy classification and seeing something entirely different. My first impression might be "those authors need to do their research" unless their basis for so doing is explained. I'm not "edit warring" — I am trying to draw attention to the issue. I might suggest you are edit warring rather than trying to make a case. Tell me how popular authors, even respected, might tell the Navy it does not know how it "classes" its ships. That I'm really curious about. Palmeira (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me say it again. We. Don't. Care. What. The. USN. Says. We are not usn.wiki. We only follow what reliable sources state, and we judge them in aggregate. If 90% of sources state X, we state X. We don't say Y because the official organization states Y. This is a fundamental principle of how Wikipedia operates; I cannot imagine you don't understand this, given how long you've been editing here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Readers do care what the USN states about its own ships. If others have a reasoned argument that the USN does not know its own ships then that contrasting view must be clearl explained. "We. Don't. Care." we will do our own thing in spite of the fact the Navy so classed the ships is exactly what undermines the reliability and reputation of this site. For some facts the organization defining the matter must be at least be given credence. Palmeira (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are given credence, but only to a point. If the vast majority of sources disagree with them, well tough for them. And amusingly, I was looking through DANFS, and even they aren't entirely sure about the matter: "The nine original Brooklyn (CL-40) class light cruisers also comprised Boise (CL-47), Helena (CL-50), Honolulu (CL-48), Philadelphia (CL-41), Nashville (CL-43), St. Louis (CL-49), and Savannah (CL-42). Helena and St. Louis underwent modifications while they were being built and are often considered the separate St. Louis class." That seems a little waffle-y if you ask me. The DANFS pages on Helena and St. Louis are silent on the question of what class to which they belong. Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Other sources not cited above:

1. Final Voyages describes Helena as a "Brooklyn-class half sister"
2. The Battle for Vella LaVella: "One of the Brooklyn class of light cruisers, Helena..."
3. The United States Navy in World War II: From Pearl Harbor to Okinawa: "Helena was one of the two ships of a subclass of the Brooklyn class..."
4. Our Fighting Ships, a contemporary publication includes them in the Brooklyn class
5. Cruisers of the US Navy 1922-1962 refers to Helena as a member of the class.
6. Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns and Gunnery (another book by Friedman): "The last two ships of [the Brooklyn class], St. Louis and Helena..."
7. Naval Engineering and American Seapower: "two modified Brooklyn - class ships , the St. Louis and the Helena..."
8. The Illustrated Directory of Warships: From 1860 to the Present: "Helena, the last of the Brooklyn class..."
9. The Modern Cruiser: The Evolution of the Ships that Fought the Second World War: "the St. Louis subclass of the Brooklyn class..."
10. Racing the Sunrise: The Reinforcement of America's Pacific Outposts, 1941-1942: "the Brooklyn-class cruisers Phoenix and St. Louis..."

In trawling through google books, I noted a small number that seemed to oppose the idea:

1. The Navy of World War II, 1922-1947: on page 39, describes them as a separate class.
2. the 1946 edition of Brassey's: "the Brooklyn class, together with St. Louis..."
3. World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia: "The seven 10,000-ton Brooklyn class..." and later "the two ships of the St. Louis class..."

Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this is really just splitting hairs. Look at it from encyclopedic value. Was there really much of anything on the St. Louis class cruiser article that's missing from this page? The subclass is covered here with about as much prose as was in the St. Louis class article. There's a large number of sources identifying these either as a subclass, or simply just Brooklyn class cruisers with a slight change in construction. So, I don't see any harm in this merge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Trains. We have this same issue with the London-class battleships in that some sources call the last pair a different class rather than a subclass. So long as the issue is explicitly addressed in the articles, I don't really care even though I do think that they're really a subclass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't all that uncommon of an issue; class names are frequently in dispute between a variety of historians (and sometimes what the navy in question calls them). The Duilio-class ironclads were at Caio Duilio-class ironclad for a long time, until it became clear that some authoritative historians had changed their minds and agreed with the Italian navy. Or the discrepancy between those who refer to the Colorado class or the Maryland class. Another example (that I'm currently working on) is the Dévastation class; Conway's calls them the Courbet class, but pretty much everyone else uses the current title. Where such a dispute exists, it should be explained in a note or in the main text as appropriate, but deference is not automatically given to the "official" name. We follow the usage in secondary sources. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As long as the fact Navy classed the two differently is covered with discussion of why that was hair splitting is required, not just a note. The Navy's reason for a "class" may differ somewhat from popular views, even among its sailors, and that can lead to "hair splitting" the reader here only needs to have to explain why what they read that brought them to the article said Navy classed a ship one way and Wikipedia sources another. That requires coverage and explanation. The background reason for ship classes is not just for hobbyists to argure. It has to do more with construction and management, particularly logistics, that things most of us see on the surface. If the Navy were so stupid as to build two ships, identical to others, with the exception of service voltage and frequency the Navy would have them in a class. One does not want to "distribution list" X, Y, Z electrical components to "A class" when two of those are design variants that cannot use the equipment. That would be evident is the characteristics. Some of the "hair splitting" is much less evident but significant to the Navy. Palmeira (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Answer me a question: are the USN's concerns the same as Wikipedia's? And if not, why should we frame our articles around their concerns, when just about no one else is doing the same? In other words, if respected historians like Norman Friedman have decided that the relatively minor differences between CL-40 and CL-50 don't actually merit a second class, why should we conclude anything different?

Relatedly, the Soviet and Russian navies never referred to the Kirovs as "battlecruisers", but most sources in the West do, so we have the article at Kirov-class battlecruiser. Do you think we need to rename that article? Why or why not? Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

First DANFS: (CL-49: dp. 10,000; l. 608'4"; b. 61'8"; dr. 19'10" (mean); s. 33 k.; cpl. 888; a. 15 6", 8 5", 16 1.1", 12 20mm., 1 dct.; cl. St. Louis). You may be aware that I've found more than a few blunders in DANFS so it could be noted as an oddity differing with other sources. The telling part is the 1938 Construction Bureau reference where "class" as used there would here be the Omaha class, but they are using "class" in a broader sense. Among the 1938 light cruisers (CL) there are three "Group designs" which are more conventionally termed ship classes, ships built to and managed as a single design. Now, stating the U.S. Navy's definitions are in the "we don't care" category isn't going to fly with most reading these articles. While nobody much recognized Nazi Germany's designation of conquered territories the fact it did so stands. The Navy's "right" to manage its own ships is much more clear. If those other sources have reasoned arguments why they do not accept the Navy's logic then that must be clarified and as it is the stretch must be shown as a contrasting opinion of how the organization that had built and then managed the ships saw them. Let's take something similar. Conglomerate "Monster Foods" says its cereal division it its "Breakfast Grain Division" that is what it is. If there is evidence Monster Foods is shading things and Breakfast Grain Division is nothing more than its "grain foods" entity then that requires explanation.

FYI, and for those coming here from your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (and I think project Ships needs involvement) I consider this a subpart of a Wikipedia problem with ship "classes" in general. Some here are just made up, others entangled in views (as here) and to a significant extent appears to be a misunderstood "thing" as applied to practical reasons for such things. Palmeira (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read WP:OFFICIALNAME; it directly refutes your main argument here. As for the note at WT:MILHIST, go ahead and add one at SHIPS, though most members of SHIPS are also members of MILHIST, and the latter is a more active project, so I don't know that it'll draw additional input. Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Where are we talking about article titles? Nowhere! I suggest you back off, think a bit and read what I'm saying. In a nutshell: Do not ignore how Navy did class the ships. If others have differing opinions on how the Navy should have classed the ships explain. In any case the Navy, for whatever reason the entity with the right to so class its ships, did so. Palmeira (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It's the exact same concept. You are arguing that we should follow the official name, not what sources state. If you don't like COMMONNAME, try WP:V on for size.

"If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." and further, "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." (emphasis mine)

I'd like you to explain why we shouldn't follow what is a core tenet of how Wikipedia operates. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

1. "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Volume 1": Page 202 shows St. Louis as a separate class.
2. "ONI 222-US United States Naval Vessels : Official United States Navy Reference Manual": Page 79 show St. Louis and her sister Helena as a separate class. This is published by the Office of Naval Intelligence.

I think it is easy to find sources for both a separate and sub-class designation. But even the references that point to separate class say they were either slightly different from the Brooklyns or a sub-class of the Brooklyns. If we're looking for a vote, I vote sub-class of Brooklyns, not a separate class.Pennsy22 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Coming from MilHist) My opinion is that, if a significant majority of sources treat it as a sub-class, then we would do the same even if this is contrary to official sources. Official sources carry no substantial extra weight in such a matter - actually, probably less since they are not independent. I would take the action of: 1) merging the sub-class to the main class; 2) acknowledge the sources that would treat them as a separate class (ie a statement like: "sometimes known as the St. Louis-class"); and, 3) make the "St. Louis-class" a redirect to the section in this article dealing with the sub-class. IMHO. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As discussion seems to have petered out, and no one has supported Palmeira's position, I'm going to restore the previous version. Parsecboy (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And here is the explanatory note I added to explain the discrepancy. Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)