Talk:USS Illinois (BB-65)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Service Ribbons

I think a graphical representation of the battleship's service ribbons would enhance the article. Hal06 (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that its this battleship that your service ribbon representation is for? This battleship was never completed, but there was another USS Illinois that was completed and did see service with the USN. Otherwise yes, the graphic would be much apreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ships bell

Using newspaper archive I found the following information, maybe it will add to the article. Appears to indicate the Bell was donated to the NROTC unit in 1982. This is pretty mucc the only article that comes up for terms "USS Illinois" and Bell. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Its in. Nice work. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Silver service

Silver Service for Battleship Illinois Edwardsville Intelligencer, The, Edwardsville, Illinois, Tuesday, April 27, 1943. Page 2 says that $20,000 was appropriated by the state of Illinois to "buy silver service and other equipment for the new battleship Illinois."

Life of Silver for War is Question Edwardsville Intelligencer, The, Edwardsville, Illinois, Tuesday, October 19, 1943, Page 6. is a brief article describing Lieut. Gov. Hugh W. Cross's difficulty in filling out the paperwork to the War Production Board to get "approval on obtaining silver for the manufacture of a silver service to be presented to the new battleship U. S. S. Illinois." One of the lines on the form was "estimated life of this type of equipment with average use" and the article says Cross wrote "Life of the battleship."

Another article, Columnist Recalls Visit With Stevenson Gastonia Gazette. Gastonia, North Carolina Saturday, July 17, 1965 Page 6 Talks about having tea at the Illinois Governor's Mansion saying, "An elaborate tea was served in this dining room after my lecture just before dinner. The handsome crested Battleship Illinois silver was used in serving tea and sandwiches." However it doesn't say it was BB-65, I guess it could have been for the previous Illinois. I can't find much else. Except a 1901 article that confirms silver service existed for the previous Illinois. This Governor's mansion tour says they have "official dining silver from the USS Illinois decommissioned after World War 2", but USS Illinois (BB-7) was decommissioned in 1920 and this Illinois was never commissioned in the first place. Bottom line is, I can't be sure which service is held at the Mansion or even if the 1940s Illinois silver was ever finished. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After typing all of the above, I found This article which says the mansions silver is from the USS Illinois (BB-7). I still have not found if BB-65's silver service was finished. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

King Neptune the Hog

This might be a bit trivial, but $19 million was a lot of money in the 1940s. Highway means relocating grave of high priced hog tells the story of road construction that forced the relocation of the grave of "King Neptune", the pig. The article says, ""King Neptune" is a hog which was auctioned off during World War II as a promotion stunt which helped sell $19 million dollars in war bonds for funds in building the battleship Illinois." (UPI, Anna, Illinois. Highway means relocating grave of high priced hog Daily Telegram, The Columbus, Nebraska. Saturday, June 07, 1958. Page 3) Apparently the pig was taken throughout the state and auctioned over and over for war bonds for the battleship. The pig died in 1950 and was buried with "appropriate honors" in an area that became known as Neptune Park, though the grave had to be relocated as indicated by the article title. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this as well, that describes the pig, the $19 million, and the various monuments erected to honor the pig. "It was the biggest effort by any group to sell bonds during World War II" claimed the son of the pigs auctioneer. Sounds like the pig's almost notable enough for his own article, too bad King Neptune redirects to the obviously more important Sponge Bob list. Here's an image of the current monument. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not an article? Didn't someone make an article last year on a pig that survived a (German?) ship's sinking in WWI? - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean Tirpitz (pig)? I was looking for details on the silver service for Illinois and found the pig story by accident. It probably would be notable enough for its own article, so I figured since this was an FAC someone might want to add it here since it was meant to raise money for USS Illinois. I didn't want to put it in myself for fear I would screw up a potential featured article. I'm reluctant to start a wikipedia article on a pig and then have to defend it in an AfD. It would probably be deleted but Hogzilla and Pigasus would be kept. There is a whole category for famous pigs. If George Clooney's pig can have an article, why not King Neptune, though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max (pig) illustrates the inevitable AfD. What would this article be named? Would King Neptune (pig) sound good? --Dual Freq (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Tirpitz (pig) was the one I was thinking of, and it made DYK! Yeah, an AFD is inevitable, so I'd recommend woking on it on a userspace sandbox to get everything right, if we went for it. WPSHIPS members would probably be willing to lead a hand. - BillCJ (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if its ready to put up, but this is what I have so far User:Dual Freq/King Neptune (pig). I don't know if it is offensive, but I used the military person infobox even though the article is about a pig. I'm not able to find out the fates of the main people in the story, Lingle the navy recruiter and Sitter the auctioneer, but I think I have enough to avoid an AfD. AP and UPI have numerous stories in the 40s and 50s about the pig to establish notability. As well as some current web sources too. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Other items

"Aim to Cut Layoffs at Navy Yard". Chester Times. Chester, Pennsylvania. Monday, January 14, 1946. Page 2. is a short article, about 3 paragraphs, about a proposal by a delegation representing 35 local unions of the Philadelphia Navy Yard Metal Trades Council (AFL). The delegation went to Washington to urge the completion of USS Illinois so that thousands of the workers they represented could be employed for another two years. Obviously they failed, but it might be worth noting that there was at least one attempt to complete Illinois. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scrap Illinois." Chester Times. Chester, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 26, 1947 Page 11. states, "The Navy disclosed In Philadelphia today that the uncompleted battleship Illinois, designed as a sister ship to the 45,000-ton USS Missouri, has been scrapped." That's pretty much all the note says. I assume that means the Navy "scrapped" her at that point, but the actual scrapping was not completed until later. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Monessen Daily Independent. Monessen, Pennsylvania. Wednesday, April 02, 1947 Page 9 has an image of Illinois far along in the process of scrapping. The database I'm using has a very poor copy of the image, but maybe that image is somewhere out there that can be found on microfilm or something and "fair used" into the article. The caption says "SCRAP - This is all that remains of, what was once to be the mighty 45,000-ton battleship Illinois. Which was halted on the warship at the Philadelphia Naval base on V-J Day when the ship was only about 23 percent built. Last July workmen began scrapping her." I think it may be notable since this article says 1958, but the caption claims scrapping began in July 1946. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NVR says scrapped 9/1948, but This says 1958. Either one could be a typo, but I'm leaning toward the 1948 one being correct based on the 1947 photo caption and picture. How sure are we about the 1958 date? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 1958 may be the date of completion of the scrapping. If this be the case then the article you have be reporting on the date that scrapping began. Definetly worth putting in. (BTW, thanks for the help, I apreciate it.) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I know nothing about ships or US naval history, so I apologize if some of my comments are uninformed.

I think the first few sentences in the body could be clearer. For example, The passage of the Second Vison Act in 1939 had cleared the way for construction might be better as In 1939, the Second Vison Act cleared the way for construction -- the date is better to have first in the sentence, since for a reader who is not familiar with the topic that will set context better than the Second Vison Act (especially since that's currently a redlink). I don't think you need "had", in this context. I assume you're trying to set the reader in the time of 1940, in which 1939 is the past, so you need "had", but that's just too confusing. If you can establish a straightforward chronological narrative you don't need the past perfect. Then the phrase the latter four battleships of the class is troublesome -- they turned out not to be "of the class" (by which the reader assumes you mean South Dakota class, at this point) since 65 was going to be Montana class but ended up being Iowa class, and 66 was (presumably) in the same boat, so to speak. Then the "Originally" at the start of the next paragraph is confusing -- does this mean 1939, when the act was passed, or 1940, when construction was cleared? Or another date? I'd guess 1939 is the right answer, or possibly earlier -- after all, the intention must have preceded the passage of the act. So the sequence is confusing. And now I look at the sentence again, it appears that the Second Vison Act did not authorize the construction of 63-66, so why are we mentioning it? I assume it's as a lead in, and to introduce mention of the Iowa class ships. If the clearance for construction is interesting and important, though, I don't think you should mention it for the predecessor ships and not for this ship.

How about this as a rewrite:

"In 1939, passage of the Second Vison Act cleared the way for construction of the four South Dakota-class fast battleships and the first two Iowa class battleships, which had hull numbers BB-61 and BB-62. In 1940, four more battleships were authorized for construction, with hull numbers BB-63, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66. The first two of these were also Iowa class, but BB-65 and BB-66 were intended to be the first ships of the Montana-class. This class had been planned since <date> as the United States Navy's counter to the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships, whose construction at the time was known to the highest ranking members of the United States Navy."

and put the paragraph break there. How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous title?

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that warships do not bear the "USS" title until they are completed and commissioned for service. Since this ship was never completed, is it still correct to refer to it as "USS Illinois"? Something like "United States battleship Illinois (BB-65)" is a possible change, with the original kept as a redirect. What do you military historians think? Xymmax (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are technically correct, the ship would not have born a "USS" prefix until actually comissioned by the United States Navy. The correct name for the article would be simply "Illinois", but that name is already been taken by the state article, leaving us a choice between to equally incorrect names for the ship: PCU Illinois, which is incorrect becuase the ship was never completed enough to warrent a precommisioning unit crew, and USS Illinois, also incorrect becuase, as you have noted, the battleship was never commissioned. Given the choice between these two titles the best is to go with USS Illinois; this helps maintain consistancy for our naming conventions and allows us to place the article under the title that people are most likely to look for. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand the rationale. Perhaps a brief mention to that effect in the article is appropriate? Xymmax (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a brief mention will do just fine. I'll see about adding one after class today. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Query

Re "She would be tasked primarily with the defense of the US fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers." Was this specifically stated in a source? It was my belief that the Navy did not realize the amount of AA defense carriers required until WWII started and that battleships would be fighting in a line of battle? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article concerns

This article was promoted in 2008 but no longer meets the featured article criteria. The issues are noted via maintenance tags for reliable sources, page numbers, dead links etc. These issues need addressing or a featured article review will be needed. Brad (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any interest in working on this article? If not, I will likely be putting it up for FAR within the next couple of weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


An Awkward Start

This article begins: "Adherence to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the Panama Canal; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 with a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana." This has got to be the most awkward phrasing possible to describe a pretty basic comparison of design features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Illinois (BB-65). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Illinois_(BB-65)/Archive_1&oldid=1066781925"