Talk:USS Texas (BB-35)/Archive 1

Comment by TomStar81

Wasn't Texas Eisenhower's flagship during the D-Day landings? TomStar81 7 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any significant information that suggests this is the case. The famous picture of Ike talking to paratroopers the day before the invasion would indicate that he was in England, probably at SHAEF command post. It's hard to imagine that he managed to get onboard Texas the next day. Although if you have some references.... Jinian 7 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

For the invasion, TEXAS was Bombardment Force Flagship, for Omaha Beach, in the Western Taskforce. Doesn't today's (Nov. 15, 2005) main page state that the USS Texas and the Medea are the last two remaining ships to have served in World Wars I & II? The USS Texas article states that it is the only ship to have served in both World Wars....TRDavis 06:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Last remaining American ship it says to have served in both World Wars. I think the other is French.

See Medea (yacht) where it states that the Medea "holds the distinction of being one of only two vessels surviving that fought in both World Wars. (The other is the USS Texas.)" Sarum blue 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that needs to be revised, as the way it is written now suggests that their is another surviving battleship that served in both wars.

Citing Sources

I went through the Wikipedia:Citing sources information and unfortunately could not divine the "best" method for citing these sources. Based on the recommendation found there for what to do when you're not sure of the best method, I'm citing the sources as fully as I can here, so that it can be hashed out later (by myself or others) how best to cite these sources in the article itself:

For the statement

, along with the USS Arkansas, the USS Nevada, and three US heavy cruisers, along with a combined US-British flotilla of British battleships, along with five cruisers and 22 destroyers.

the source is: History of the US Navy, p.162, chapter "Carrying the War to Hitler", section "The Landings in France". Author: James M. Morris First Edition, copyright 1984 Bison Books, 1st American Edition by Exeter Books (a trademark of Simon & Schuster) ISBN 0-671-06980-2 Dewey Decimel: 359.00973 MOR

--- For the statement

Other US battleships that have become floating museums are the USS Massachusetts, USS Alabama, and USS North Carolina.

the source is: Fighting Ships of World War II, p.23, chapter 1 "The Battleship". Author: J.N. Westwood Copyright 1975 (Edition not noted - presumably 1st edition) by John Westwood and Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd. (Follett Publishing Company) No ISBN found in the book (were ISBN's begun after 1975?) Dewey Decimel: 359.83 WES

This source contains additional information on pp.50-51 for an entry on Texas herself, that could be used to cite source for information placed in the article by others, for if/when such sources will need to be cited to get this article up to Featured Article status (like Iowa class battleship, USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin Longshot14 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial

The article currently states: "In 1983, Texas was placed under the stewardship of the Texas Parks and Wildlife and is permanently anchored on the Buffalo Bayou and the busy Houston Ship Channel, near the San Jacinto Monument. The ship officially reopened to the public on 1990 September 8." The word "reopened" is out of context here because to "reopen" would imply that the memorial was closed. However, the section does not say when or why the ship was closed to the public. Anyone know the answer?

Also, this seems to imply that the ship did not open for visitors until 1983. I think it has been open longer than that, but I don't have a reference. Johntex\^talk 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The ship was put into dry dock and underwent major repairs sometime in the late 1980's. That is why she was closed. ~~Daniel wright~~

Good Article Nomination

I've nominated this article for GA because it meets all the requirements and deserves more recognition than what it currently gets as a B-class article. Please note that you will see the article use the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships quite frequently. TomStar81 (talk · contribs), who is the author of this article has explained this in the peer review this article received in January 2007 when he significantly expanded the article. Thanks,-- MBK004 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment more information on the heavy reliance on DANFS can be found here. I am co-nominating this article with MBK004 (talk · contribs). TomStar81 (Talk) 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: On hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold at this time until the following issues are addressed:

1. "She made an overnight stop at Tompkinsville, New York, on the night of March 26 and..." Single dates shouldn't be wikilinked, go through the article and fix all occurrences.
   • Ignore, according to Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates.
2. "In 1916, Texas became the first U.S. battleship to mount anti-aircraft guns and the first to control gunfire with directors and range-keepers, analog forerunners of today's computers.[3]" Single sentence shouldn't stand alone, either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Go through the article and fix any other occurrences.
3. The license needs to be updated for Image:USS Texas (BB-35).jpg.
4. "That routine lasted just over two years until the February-to-March crisis..." Add a wikilink for the February-to-March crisis being referred to here.
5. "By December, she had completed repairs and moved south to conduct war games out of the York River." Add a wikilink for war games.
6. "Forward units caught sight of the retiring Germans on April 25, but at such extreme range that no possibility of bringing the enemy to battle existed." Consider rewording the last half of this sentence.
7. "For the next six months, she continued convoy-escort missions. Her destinations were various." Merge these into one sentence.
8. "asking the French not to oppose allied landings on North Africa." Should "allied" be capitalized here?
9. "Thus, unlike in later operations, she expended only 273 rounds of 14 inch (356 mm) and six rounds of 5 inch (127 mm)." "273 rounds of 14 inch and six rounds of 5 inch" what?
10. "On June 3, at 2:09 AM..." Earlier in the article military time was used; go through the article and fix all of the times mentioned to one method so everything is uniform.
11. "At 3:00 AM on 6 June 1944 Texas and the British cruiser HMS Glasgow" Full dates should be wikilinked along with HMS Glasgow.
12. Add an inline citation for the first paragraph of the "D-Day" section for the number of ships listed.
13. "Texas also closed to the shoreline; At" "At" should be lowercased.
14. "In performing the latter mission, she claimed one kamikaze kill on her own and three assists." Add a wikilink for "kamikaze".
15. "In 1948, Texas became the first battleship memorial museum in the U.S." Add an inline citation for this.
16. "During Hurricane Alicia, however, she showed that she still had some life in her yet." Consider rewording this, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic.
17. "Texas is a National Historic Landmark. Texas’s reciprocating marine steam engines are National Historic Engineering Landmarks.[3]" Merge these into one sentence.

These should be for the most part easy to fix. I will leave the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. When you are done or if you have any further questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Suggestions Marked as Completed

As each suggestion is completed, please notate as such and sign with ~~~~~ (five tildes) for only the date and time.
1. Got it. 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Got em all (I think...) 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
3. License was updated to PD-USGov-Military-Navy when I checked this morning 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Wikilinks found 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Done 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes, and done 05:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Ammunition, clarified in article 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Changed all occurrences to military time (I think...) 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
12. DONE 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Done 07:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Done 05:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
15. The cite at the end of the paragraph is for that line, but I cited it again. 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Clarified 05:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Done 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Good work on addressing the above issues so quickly. Since the issues were addressed, I have passed this article as a good article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I incorrectly told you that dates such as December 7 or May 31 shouldn't be wikilinked so I went through the article and readded them. I also reworded the sentence found in point 6, look it over, and revert if necessary. I'd recommend adding an inline citation for "During Hurricane Alicia, however, it was reported by local news agencies that Texas had risen with the hurricane's storm surge and actually floated during the storm, to the surprise of even her caretakers." Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LAST REMAINING DREADNOUGHT?!?!?

This article states the Texas is the last remaining dreadnought. In most media and in other wiki articles, it states this this ship is the last battleship built in the dreadnought era. I and other media would consider ships like the Iowa or Yamato as dreadnoughts. I think something should be done or im gonna straight out murder someones ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.197 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, dreadnought is a specific type of battleship design which is commonly used by naval historians to span the battleships HMS Dreadnought (1906) to HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913). The two ships you state: USS Iowa (BB-61) and Japanese battleship Yamato, are a different type of battleship, developed after the Washington Naval Treaty, known as fast battleships. As for being the last battleship built in the dreadnought era, it doesn't say that. What it says is that this particular ship is the last one of its type to remain from the particular era. Also, don't make threats (WP:CIVIL). -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the Yamato is no longer afloat, I'd say it is not up for consideration. --Wootonius (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was interpreting "dreadnought" to mean "a ship so powerful that no other type of ship can beat it," which was how the original "dreadnought" moniker was derived, but of course they made superdreadnoughts and then fast battleships which are different design classes. <eleland/talkedits> 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Texas is a super dreadnought as she has 14" guns (dreadnoughts only had 12" guns). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.152.76 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Claim to check/verify, and a museum ship count item to fix

I added claim "she is the only surviving American-built warship to have been powered by reciprocating steam engines" with reference being the NRHP Inventory/Nomination text document for the ship. The source includes claim on both page 2 and page 3, but is a little ambiguous, stating that she was one of the last two such ships built, and that the other one no longer exists (sister ship USS New York (BB-34), having been sunk in an exercise in 1948) and then stating she is the only surviving one. Leaves a little question if she is only surviving one of the two, or of all such ships. I basically believe the claim as I wrote it, so put it into the article, but it would be nice for others to consider its exact truth status. doncram (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording is misleading. The USS Olympia is a surviving, American-built warship, and I am pretty sure Olympia was powered by Triple-Expansion reciprocating steam engines. The statement in the cited reference (application for NHL status) is accurate but little ambigous. Texas is the only surviving warship of the last two built (Texas and New York) but it is not the only survior with reciprocating engines.--72.181.203.92 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IP address guy, you can say TEXAS is the only surviving US battleship with VTEs, but not the only US warship with VTEs (OLYMPIA being the exception) or that she is the only surviving battleship with VTEs (MIKASA is the other). Also a note, the British monitor HMS M33 served in both WWI and WWII in varying capacities as did HMS CAROLINE and they are both still around. M33 is a museum ship in Portsmouth, UK and CAROLINE is still used by the RN as Royal Navy Reserve training ship in Belfast, Ireland. (BB35 Restorer (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Also it's claimed that: "By hull number, Texas was the first of an eventual total of eight US battleships that have become floating museums; the other battleships honored in this way are Massachusetts, Alabama, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin." That makes a total of 7 not 8. doncram (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reference to be correct with regards to surviving. I think the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) was also built with recips, but will have to check this weekend. The hull number thing, check the footnotes, the Iowa is not mentioned yet because the museum has not been officially approved, but will happen. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for checking.

Okay, I see the footnote says "The missing eighth battleship is USS Iowa (BB-61), which has been placed on donation hold for transfer to Stockton, California, where she will become a museum ship."

It seems a little vague to speak of an eventual eight. Note that eventually more may be added, making it nine or more. Or maybe it will only ever be seven, because museum plans for ships tend to fall through (e.g., USCGC Fir (WLM-212), planned to be a museum ship in NYC but now for sale in CA). And then awkward to say "that have become" given that one of those is not yet a museum ship. How about, instead: "Texas was the first of seven US battleships that have become floating museums; the other battleships honored in this way are Massachusetts, Alabama, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin." with footnote "In addition, USS Iowa (BB-61) has been placed on donation hold for transfer to Stockton, California, where it is planned for her to become a museum ship". doncram (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me read through that, but the number of battleship museums will not rise above eight because there are no more in existence. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add as well that TEXAS was not the first battleship museum ship in the US, but the second. USS OREGON was the first in 1925, however TEXAS was the first US warship to have the ownership transferred from the USN to become a museum ship. OREGON was loaned to the State of Oregon thus ownership was never transferred.(BB35 Restorer (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

corrections to Battleship Texas BB35

Hello:

I want to talk about corrections that I want to make to the Battleship Texas BB35 article before making any changes.

My changes are cited with original source documents that I have in my possession. Aside from the National Archives and the ship's administrators (TPWD), I have the most extensive collection of historic BB35 documents and photos. I have some documents that TPWD does not have (though I offered). I also gave TPWD copies of my documents that they did not have. Aside from the National Archives, I probably have the only complete copy the ship's deck log for all of 1918, approx 1,100 pages.

I am an expert on the history of the ship (but no one person knows it all). 1. Had the most extensive and detailed BB35 website and I am referenced in the Wiki source section for BB35. Part of my reason for creating the website was all of the major errors in the various published sources, including the DANFS section on BB35 was full of errors. (An outdated DANFS was used in the creation of the Wiki BB35 article). The current DANFS about BB35 (at the Naval Historical Center website) are my updates that I initiated on my own and sent to them. There are still a lot of obsolete copies in the Internet. 2. Mapped the ship's complete movement history using a computer mapping program (MAPINFO) and data that I bought from the National Archives. With a variety of computer programs, 3. Created the only known Booklet of General Plans of commissioning drawings, which are in AutoCAD. The Booklet includes detailed drawings of the Captain's Quarters as well as detailed data. 4. Wrote an ACCESS database that I used to inventory the thousands of drawings that are aboard (paper and microfilm) having looked at every paper drawing. In the process I rebuilt the file system. 5. With ACCESS I also wrote a database for ship photos that enables photos to be searched for and displayed on the monitor. I also scanned over 1,500 photos of the 2,500 photos linked to the database. 6. My work with documents and photos resulted in a tool that enabled a determination if exterior photos were BB35 and the date. There are A LOT of BB35 photos identified as NEW YORK and or wrong date period or not even dated.

Some of the corrections

OPENING PARAGRAPH - above the "Contents" 1. Texas was decommissioned in 1946 Change to:Texas was decommissioned 21 April 1948. (June 1946 is when BB35 deactivation was finished and the ship moved to the mothballed fleet at Hawkins Point, Maryland. The DAFNS, Houston area newspapers, radio coverage all reference 21 April 1948 as decommissioning)

2. She is also noteworthy for being one of only two remaining ships to have served in both World War I and World War II,[3] Change to: She is also noteworthy for being the only surviving warship to in combat operations in both World War I and World War II

There is also the British light cruiser CAROLINE, in Belfast that was also in existance in WWI and WWII but in WWII she was a training ship that remained in Belfast. Since the French yacht is not a warship, there is no inclusion in the my definition.

3. and she is the only surviving American-built warship to have been powered by reciprocating steam engines Change to: she is the only surviving American-built warship in the 20th Century to have been powered by reciprocating steam engines The Cruiser OLYMPIA (C-6), located today in Philidelphia, commissioned in 1895 has a triple expansion engine. It is smaller than BB35 and had three cylinders while BB35 has 4 cylinders

4. the first to receive a commercial radar in the US Navy, Change to: Was a testship for radar in the first quarter of 1939. (per the 1947 official RCA history on the developement of radar that I have). CXZ was experimental, not commercial. RCA incorporated the best features of CXZ and XAF (tested on BB34) to develope CXAM of which 6 were installed in the summer of 1941. CXAM was modified to CXAM-1, of which 14 were installed on US Navy ships prior to 7 Dec 1941. TEXAS as one of the ships to recieve the radar, during an Aug - Oct 1941 yard period in the Norfolk Navy Yard. I have the ship's yard report for this period.

CONSTRUCTION Texas’s main battery consisted of ten 14"/45 caliber (356 mm) 5. Mark 8 guns Change to: Mark 1 Mod 1 - per the armament page of the ship's deck log, which I have

6. which could hurl 1,500-pound change to:1,400 pound as of 1914. The 1,500lbs did not exist at this time. I have a 1912 USN drawing of the 1,400lbs shell. The 1,500 lbs shell did not come into existance until the later part of the 1930s. I have 14inch shell penetrations tables for the 1930s with shell weights

7. torpedo tubes, two on each side forward at frame 31, with a magazine of 12 torpedoes Change to torpedo tubes, two on each side forward at frame 30 and frame 34, with a magazine of 12 torpedoes stored below the torpedo rooms. (Any number of drawings that I have) Frames should be deleted for it is a meaningless term to most readers. A better description of location would be the actual distance from the bow which is 128 feet and 140 feet (center of tube). The distance between frame is 4 feet. The ship's 2nd platform 1912 joiner (a joiner is a drawing showing internal outfitting) shows the tube center line at frame 32 and frame 35.

8 Texas and her sister New York were the only battleships to store and hoist their 14-inch (356 mm) ammunition in an inverted, nose-down position, in cast iron cups Change to: Texas and her sister New York stored their 14-inch (356 mm) ammunition horizontal but later modified to nose-down position, in cast iron cups. Both ships moved the shells up to the guns vertically with the nose pointed downward. (Horizontal storage is per NNS document "USS TEXAS General Information finished plans 37 and 38, which I have a copy of. When the vertical storage was created is not known.

CAREER (US) 9. Cost: Change to: Price. (In it's present form, the data reads that the amount was the actual cost but was only the contract price. $10,971,524 is the finished cost - per the "Navy Yearbook 1917-1918", that I have a copy of. I have some cost breakout figures. 10. Completed:13 October 1913 Change to 12 March 1914. (Phots during the 21 - 29 Oct 1913 sea trials shows the mainmast was not completed. The NNS document "General Information USS TEXAS finished plans 37 and 38" has the last armored plate not being installed until 10 March 1914.

11. Decommissioned: 18 June 1946 Change to: 21 April 1948. (Ref correction 1 above and I also have the deck log for 21 April 1948)

This is a first time edit for me and I wanted to being up what I propose to do before proceeding. — IronShipIronShip (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Before any of this can go in the sources need to be checked against our policies regarding Reliable Sourcing, if they check out, then you are welcome to add the information to the article as it currently stands. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Like what Tom has said, we need to be able to check these sources against our policies, and they also need to be cited properly (and some diagrams and photos cannot be cited properly to be included). In the interests of transparency, would you mind telling us which website? Also, do you mind if I segment and format your initial post so it is easier to respond to some of your statements? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

continuation

Good evening

I not sure how or if I can add to my previous comment so I started a new comment as a continuation. Can I do so without starting a new comment?

You are welcome to rearrange the 11 corrections I posted in the Comments section.

I am the reference source Charles Moore and it was to my BB35 website. When EV1 closed down, I moved the site to a Yahoo business account. I got tired of paying for the website so I took it off in July 2007. I saw one of the editors lives in Klein. I live just off FM 1960 near Stuber Airline. If you want to arrange a time to come by you are welcome to do so. I will give you a copy of website on cd and other digital sources. You will not find any other source or group that has such vast amount of readily accessible BB35 data. Some of my history section is being installed on a new website for the Battleship Texas Foundation. The work-in-progress website is http://d20798495.m217.mcneelandson.com/ will give you some idea of the extent of my information.

One quick verification for some of the corrections is go to the website of US Naval Historical Center, click on the DANFS section and read through the current BB35 section. Again, I noted the errors and initiated the

I have another 20 corrections that go up through the 13 December 1988 to 26 July 1990 repair perod.

As I stated in my previous post, when I started the website and I relied on original source documents-photos for too many second and third hand sources had too many errors, including the official USN history.

– IronShip (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can add on by clicking the edit tab at the right side of the page at the section you want to edit. I've taken the liberty to eliminate your new section as it is not needed. I will need a bit of time to digest through everything you've written before I can have a detailed response. And thank you for permission to format, that will make it much easier for Tom and myself to respond. Might I suggest in the mean-time that you read all the links that Tom has placed on your talk page. If you'd like more, I can provide even more that are useful for new editors. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, I may take a few days and not respond until Tuesday since I've got some work to do with regards to school this weekend. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the status of my corrections?

– — —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left you a message on your talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To MBK004 and TomStar1 - please read my talk page post reply to MBK004 above post. I still do not have the hang of the Wiki editor so I am not sure if the signature will show

–––– IronShip (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

General Characteristic Section

I have a quick comment about the general characteristics section; would it be possible have the characteristics as built and with an additional section with her characteristics in 1945? That would reflect the changes in the structure and technology in the ship's career. This is just me nitpicking but I think that the sensor information seems a little out of place, considering that all the data given is of Texas as constructed. I would think that the radar information would fit better into a post reconstruction characteristics section. What do you all think? BB35 Restorer (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean in the infobox on the right-side of the article at the top, it is one of the things that I am planning to implement as a result of this article's current A-Class review, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/USS Texas (BB-35). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean! Thanks! Still new to wikipedia and trying to learn the lingo. Can I help with answering some of the questions that "The Land" posed? I have the information fairly handy. I can source to some of the original relevant documents and provide secondary sources for the others, from the "AA and director" bullet down to the ammunition consumption bullet. You guys are on point with this and I don't want to screw it up. BTW how have a done so far?BB35 Restorer (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You've done great. But Remember WP:BOLD - don't worry about screwing up...we can fix it if you do...so just do it. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the best way to cite primary documents, i.e. Navy War Diaries and official reports, in wikipedia?BB35 Restorer (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

A statement, that she was one of only two remaining ships to have served in both World War I and World War II, seems very doubtful - Bulgarian torpedo boat Drazki served during both World Wars, the same with Greek cruiser Georgios Averof, possibly also a couple could be found. Avrora also had some kind of service during WWII. Pibwl ←« 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the statement in this article ought to be more closely attributed. "According to [source], Texas is one of two remaining ships…". Thanks for pointing out the potential problem. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also the British Monitor HMS M33 who served in both world wars.BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

42 errors in the BB35 Wiki article - 15 March 2009

As of 15 March 2009, the Wiki BB35 article contains 42 errors as to dates, time, object descriptions, activities, object names, numbers, ship location.

The policy of not accepting original source documents will keep the errors in place and shows a policy fallacy of assuming that secondary sources are valid. The 2006 DANFS rewrite corrected some errors (invalidating some Wiki article citations) but there are still numerous DANFS errors still cited in the Wiki article. (Please check another source for the date of the 1944 invasion of Southern France, it is August and not July as cited in DANFS). The numerour errors in DANFS and other secondary sources is why I started my own website that was based on original source documents. In July 2007, I no longer wanted to pay the monthly fee so I removed the site from the Internet.

I have all of the source documents cited below and in digital form. In October 2008, I offered them to the two principle article writers but I and the offer was ignored.

Statistical Data - right side of article at top

• 1. Construction was not completed on 23 October 1913 but on 10 March 1914. (What is your source for 23 Oct 1913..?) Texas left Newport Shipyard on 19 October and was off Rockland, Maine, from 22 - 29 Oct 1913, with an incomplete mainmast top, no searchlights on the masts and construction markings all over the exterior. Per 12 December 1944 article by Newport News Shipyard and Rockland photos The last armor plate was not installed until 10 March 1914, two days before commission, per "General Information USS TEXAS Completed Plans 37and 38", 1914

Armor - General arrangement of armor, Sheet 1": Newport News drawing 52635, 10 Jan 1911, "Contract Plan No. 9 - Arrangement of Armor": C&R 9359, 30 Sept 1910, "Sheet 15": C&R 6898, undated, "General Information USS TEXAS Completed Plans 37and 38", 1914

• 2. Turret side armor of 2" should be: 9" (forward) - 8" (aft). Why would armor be 8" on the rear and 2" on the sides?
• 3. Belt armor is incomplete for 12" - 10" extends from frame 18 (72 feet from the bow) to frame 122. It is then 6" from Frame 122 to 137. Both sections extend about 5ft 4inches below the waterline and 1' and 11.5inches above. In addition there are two more rows of armor.
• 4. Deck armor cited thickness is only for those areas below main deck.
• 5. Barbettes thinnest armor is 4" for barbettes 2 and 4". Barbette 3 was the only one with 360 degree 12" thickness at the main deck and second deck

Armor listing is incomplete and confusing Confusing for two types were used, - Class B (horizontal, except for the vertical below the deck of the Conning Tower) - Class A (vertical except for the area below the deck of the Conning Tower) Incomplete Conning Tower - Top: 8" - Sides: 12" - Deck: 3" - Below Deck: 1.25" - Tube (CT to Central Station): 11"

• 5. Sensors is incomplete (if some of the radar is listed, should list all) SC-1, Aug 1942 to Feb 1944, SG (first of 2, first qtr 1943), SK and SG (2nd of 2) on main mast, summer 1943)

BB35 Firsts

• 6. Listing as a first US BB for receiving CXAM radar is not correct for BB35 never received CXAM radar but CXAM-1 (installed during Aug-Oct period, Norfolk Navy Yard). CXAM and CXAM-1 are different radars yet the article uses CXAM in some areas and CXAM-1 in other locations.. 6 sets of CXAM were installed in 1941 prior to CXAM-1 and 14 CXAM-1s were installed prior to 7 Dec 1941.
• 7. TEXAS was not the first battleship to launch, which is how the entry reads because some firsts specify US while others do not. The British were first. BB35 though was the first American battleship to launch an airplane.

Construction: Deck log, 14inch shell drawing

• 8. The 14" guns were Mark 1, Mod 1 (not Mark 8, which were not installed until 1935)
• 9. 1,400 pounds (not 1,500 lbs) was the weight of the shell fired, which is AP only. TEXAS did not carry a 1,500 lbs AP shell until the latter 1930s maybe into the early 1940 or so.

WWI - deck log

• 10. 18 (not 16) is the number of 5 inch guns aboard after the Oct - Dec repairs for the Block Island grounding. The other two guns were removed on 27 January 1918, in NY Navy Yard
• 11. 0335 on 21 Nov 1918, not the evening of 20 Nov is when TEXAS was underway to meet inbound German High Seas Fleet for internment

Interwar Period - deck log, Quarterly cruise reports, RCA history of CXZ - CXAM (1947)

• 12. 14 Dec 1918 (not 13 December) is when TEXAS left Brest, France to return to America
• 13. TEXAS did not stop in Portland, England during the December 1918 return to America
• 14. 10 March (not 9 March 1919) is when the airplane flight off TEXAS happened, shortly after 4:45pm
• 15. Texas served in the Pacific until 15 January 1924 (need more specific than just the year)
• 16. 31 July 1925, is the specific date for the start of the main dry-dock period of the modernization period, until 23 Nov 1926. There were additional yard periods through August 1927, with 20 August being the last period. From Norfolk, BB35 went to Rockland, Me for speed runs tests. Upon completion, arrived 31 August New York City and resumed duty as an active duty USN ship.
• 17. Between resuming active duty USN status in Sep 1927 thru March 1931, TEXAS made 9 crossings of the Panama Canal but only some of the crossings are referenced. The article presents an incomplete (thus misleading) operational history. Please site the total number of crossings.
• 18. 1934 (not 1936) is when TEXAS was not in the Pacific, April thru Nov
• 19. Did not conduct a midshipmen's cruise in either 1934 or 1936. (There were midshipmen cruises with BB35 in 1938, 1939 and 1940, plIronShip (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)us the one in 1924)
• 20. CXZ was experimental, not commercial radar, though it was made by a commercial company.

WWII Early Operations - deck log, action report

• 21 Made only one crossing to England (in July) after Iceland, the article reads as more than one crossing
• 22. Invasion of North Africa - fired only one time (on 10 Nov) after the initial landing but the article states there were many firings

Overlord Rehearsal - action report

• 23. TEXAS fire supported the 29th infantry division on Western Omaha, not the 1st Infantry Division which was on the east.
• 24. British cruiser Glasgow was assigned to Western Omaha with BB35 and not to the Eastern Half

D-Day: Deck log, action report, war diary, photos

• 25. TEXAS boats did not bring back the would Rangers and the POWS. The photos show the boats are Landing Craft Personnel, which can not be mistaken for the two 26ft wooden whale boats TEXAS carried.
• 26. TEXAS left Normandy on 18 June, not the 16th

Cherbourg - action report, deck log, war diary

• 27 The German shell that hit the Pilot House wounded 7 (not 11) in the Pilot House of which one died about 2 hours later
• 28 The shell that went into the port side Warrant Officer stateroom did not hit at about 1400. It was discovered at 1447 and the action report deduction as the hit time was 1234 because of a large shower of water from a close strike

Southern France - the action report and war diary

• 29. After leaving Algeria in July (the 27th), Texas proceeded to Taranto, Italy, not Southern France. on the 14th of July Texas remained in Italy until 11 August.
• 30. Arrived of Southern France 14 August, not 14 July
• 31. Moved into firing position on 15 August, not 15 August
• 32. Fired only one day (15 August), not two
• 33. Left Southern France early on 17 August, not the evening of 16 August

Bombardment of Iwo Jima and Okinawa - action report and war diary

• 34. Departed for the Pacific from Casco Bay, Me and not New York
• 35. Did not conduct maneuvers off Hawaii for almost a month after Christmas, 1944. Texas was in Pearl Harbor from 18 December until 3 January and left for Ulithi on 9 Jan 1945.
• 36. Iwo Jima gunfire for BB35 ceased 21 March (6 days total, 16 thru 21 Feb). The write up tells the reader BB35 fired everyday for the next 14 days.
• 37. Texas left Iwo Jima on 7 March, not the "clear the area in late February".. The write up's previous sentence says Texas continued firing for almost a "fortnight" (14 days) after the landings of 19 Feb, which puts the departure in March

Museum Ship - Deck log,

• 38. 19 April, not 20 April is wham BB35 was moved into the berth at San Jacinto. BB35 arrived at Boilivar's Road on 28 March, moved on the 31st to San Jacinto Ordnance Depot, with final move on 19 April from the Depot to the berth in San Jacinto. The article says the ship move took from 17 March to 20 April

Dry dock in Galveston: "Rebirth of the Texas" video, Houston Chronicle, Houston Post and my person for I was there

• 39. The wood deck was not installed during this phase, but the docking at Green's Bayou. I was aboard BB35 druing the move from Galveston to Greens Bayou and the main deck was steel only....no wood
• 40. 235,000 tons (not 375,000 tons) of metal was not used to replace hull plate. 375,000 tons all metal replacement.
• 41. About 15% of the hull plate was replace, not 40%
• 42. Only a few of the new guns (To be specific all of the new guns were ten 40mm mounts of 4 gun barrels) were installed at Galveston. Some were installed at Greens Bayou and the rest when the ship was towed back to Jan San Jacinto from Green's Bayou. I was aboard when BB35 was moved back to San Janctio. At San Jacinto I was part of the crew that installed the 40mm mount on the main deck, port of the Crew's Galley. We even found US Navy documents inside the gun mount showing the mount had been on the Missouri. -- IronShip (signature added later by Doncram)

You are correct about our policies. What you've posted largely goes against our original research and verifiability policies. Also, since you've admitted that you owned a website, we could not even use it as a reference per self-publishing guidelines. Not to mention, even if you do have the proper documentation that is verifiable, it isn't the end of the world if editors do not wish to reveal their identities to you to be able to gain possession of the documents. Plus, if you are as you say you are, in possession of those documents, why is it that we have to cite them? Are you somehow unable to follow WP:CITE? If DANFS has been rewritten that is something that is certainly actionable and I can and will investigate that aspect. And finally, please learn how to use proper wiki formatting because I cannot read your "list" of errors. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(I've taken the liberty of adding bullets for each of the numbered items from the unsigned comment above, but have not made any other changes to the text, etc.) — Bellhalla (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What MBK said. I'd being willing to help. Provide your sources. Then we get to work. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...if DANFS is wrong, why haven't you e-mailed the Navy? Telling us here on Wikipedia won't change a thing... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, IronShip did contact DANFS. And it is not simple to get a government agency to change its on-line records. It is quite reasonable for the guy to try to get the correct info into the open, here, and it would be better if WP:SHIPS people experienced in getting other corrections into DANFS would help. Surely wp:SHIPS has noted errors in DANFS before and has followed through on getting corrections all the way into DANFS. In my primary area in wikipedia, NRHP, i have learned it takes a long time to get things corrected in NRHP's database, but it eventually can happen. The first step is for wikipedia to note the apparent error publicly, then persistent followup is needed. It could perhaps help to have a wikiproject liaison to the agency to deal consistently with the agency and to build up a certain quality of relationship. For one guy who has info about one ship, it would be unreasonable to tell him he must get DANFS to correct something first, and only then will wikipedia report the correct information. It is well known by wp:SHIPS that DANFS has / has had errors. I don't actually know if wp:SHIPS has followed through on getting any errors in DANFS corrected, or not, but it should try to act as a group to help here, not be too hard on one guy who has corrections information. (edit conflict--i had used the word badgering and then took that word out, while still trying to fix my signature) doncram (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the placement of edits - I did not know that he had already emailed the Navy when I posted that. It was also not an attempt at badgering; it was just me thinking out loud. AGF please... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I added the right line break symbol To MBK -

• - You most certainly did use my website as a reference. As I stated in Oct 2008, I am the Wiki reference Charles Moore with the EV1 website. As previously stated, I transfered the site to Yahoo but in July 2007, I no longer wanted to continue paying the monthly fee so I discontinued the site.
• - I am not looking for documents of other editors so I have no idea where that comment came from. I challenge the source for the Oct 1913 completion date for there is no citation and BB35 original documents prove 10 March 1914 as the completion date
• - It is your policy that sources have to be stated so I do not understand your source sentence of "Plus, if you are as you say etc"
• - As for the WP-CITE comment.............
• - Finally I never found on the Wiki how to create line breaks. I have no intention of learning how to use the editor further for I plan to do nothing more with the article.

To Belhafia

• - Sorry to put it on someone else for the formatting. I could not find how to do so but I see you added an astrik at the beginning of a line which I guess this creates a line break.

To TomStar81

• - Back in Oct 2008 (5 months ago), I offered to meet with MBK, for he-she probably lives about 10 miles from me. I offered to give on cd every source I cited. The offer was ignored as were my other Wiki inquiries. I even found what I thought was a comment from you or MBK that you had "banned my ass" when I opened the sandbox. I later found the comment is part of the Sandbox
• - I will not offer the documents a second time but maybe you can get Wiki "BB35 Restorer", a TPWD staff aboard BB35, to provide digital copies. I gave the ship's staff digital copies of all the source documents that I cite above. I did all the scan work and I even provided TPWD with documents they did not have (which I purchased from the National Archives on my own with no reimbursement). In my error posting, I cite all of the sources with each section caption. I emailed my 42 error post to "BB35 Restorer" at his TPWD email address.

to Ed

• - In 2005, I wrote to the Naval Historical Center with a long list of BB35 DANFS errors, the needed corrections and the sources. All of the sources were available to them at the National Archives. The Navy never replied to my submission yet I know they received my submission for TPWD ship's Historian Bloxom told me they did. In spite of my submission, the Navy's most recent BB35 DANFS still contains a lot of the same errors. I have no desire to contact them again.

--IronShip (signature added later by Doncram)

Then I am sorry to report that the errors in the article will remain since no reliable sources can be found to cite your information. I hold a vested interest in ensuring the article remain accurate but my hands are tied by WP:V and WP:RS, if reliable sources can not be found the the status quo remains, and the status quo is what is here now, so that is what remains. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little bit overstated and/or is subject to misinterpretation. I think TomStar81 means that he has no reliable sources in his hands that he is willing to use; he cannot possibly know or mean that no sources can ever be found. In fact, I believe IronShip has legitimate sources that can be used in wikipedia. There are rules in wikipedia about primary sources, that they must be used with care, not that they cannot ever be used. Specifically, from wp:primary sources: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Please read the full policy, that is a quote without the entire context. I believe that IronShip's points are very factual ones, not interpretative ones where subjective judgment is involved, like about interpretin the meaning of a novel, where wikipedia policy is that secondary sources are to be used. TomStar81 and some others' personal preferences could be that they don't care to get into this primary source material, as a matter of their personal policy and their choices about how they, as volunteers in wikipedia, choose to spend their time. We are all volunteers here, and no one can make any one of us do any specific thing. If one person doesn't want to wade through all this, then okay, but maybe someone else would be willing to. I personally am not all that interested in this subject, but I would be willing to address, say, one or two of IronShip's points, if IronShip has not in fact given up and chosen to cut off all communication. Happily User:the_ed17 is taking up some of the points and addressing them, below. doncram (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources do exist and the needed document description-time period was provided by which "BB35 Restorer" can locate from from a variety of locations aboard ship. I find it troubling that long-standing errors are being accepted without persuing the solution I gave.

My website data was used directly in your article without my being asked. I do not mind such use for I created the website to provide anyone with detailed BB35 data that could not be found anywhere else, but I would have appreciated the courtesy of being asked. It is ok for my data to remain in your article.

Nothing more for me to say and no further postings from me about BB35 —IronShip (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is troubling. I interpret the "no further postings" as an expression of frustration. I don't think IronShip needs to hold to that, and no one here has asked him to go away or stay away. I repeat what some others have said here and at his Talk page, IronShip is welcome to contribute here, now or after any amount of break he wishes to take from this discussion. doncram (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• (@ invasion of Southern France) - something is up here as well, though I think it was just a couple simple mistakes:

On 16 July, she departed Belfast Lough and headed for the Mediterranean Sea. After stops at Gibraltar and Oran, Algeria, the battleship rendezvoused with three French destroyers off Bizerte, Tunisia, and set a course for the French Riviera. She arrived off Saint-Tropez during the night of 14 July. At 04:44 on 15 July, she moved into position for the pre-landing bombardment and, at 06:51, opened up on her first target, a battery of five 15-centimeter (5.9 in) guns. Because the troops ashore moved inland rapidly against light resistance, she provided fire support for the assault for only two days. Texas departed the southern coast of France on the evening of 16 August. After a stop at Palermo, Sicily, she left the Mediterranean and headed for New York where she arrived on 14 September 1944.[2]

• Note "16 July" followed by "14 July". Did she travel back in time? :)
• #1: I have changed the completed date to 12 March 1914, the date given in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921.
• #3: that was my fault; when adding that to the infobox, I did not add Friedman's comment of "6in belt aft"
• #7: you are right on that (HMS Africa was the first, right?); I believe that the article says that as of now: "On 9 March, she became the first American battleship to launch an airplane when Lieutenant Commander Edward O. McDonnell flew a British-built Sopwith Camel off the warship.[2]"
• You could be right about #12, according to The New York Times (see ref #48 in USS Nevada (BB-36)). Other concerns that can be proved using online sources would be appreciated... :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• #13:: the article doesn't say that they stopped there during the return; it says that they stopped there from 4–12 December (they left to escort Wilson into Brest on the 12th).
• #14: online sources conflict as to the date as well; I think that the best we can do is report the discrepancy in the date and go from there. The New York Times does not even appear to have covered it. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern France - the action report and war diary * 29. After leaving Algeria in July (the 27th), Texas proceeded to Taranto, Italy, not Southern France. on the 14th of July Texas remained in Italy until 11 August.

• Have yet to find a secondary source to verify.

* 30. Arrived of Southern France 14 August, not 14 July

• Corrected and cited.

* 31. Moved into firing position on 15 August, not 15 August

• Didn't need a correction as of 17 March.

* 32. Fired only one day (15 August), not two

• Didn't need a correction of 17 March, but cited secondary source anyway.

* 33. Left Southern France early on 17 August, not the evening of 16 August

• Have not found a secondary source to varify; in fact all the secondary sources I have seen say 16th of August. Of course all citing S.E. Morrison who did play a little fast and loose with the facts sometime.

What is the consensus on citing primary documents? We have some of what Mr. Moore has but not all; I am of the opinion that we should use it but make sure that we have a consensus and have peer reviewed it well before citing them.BB35 Restorer (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:PRIMARY:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So my question now is how do I cite the primary documents -i.e. War Diaries, After Action Reports, et al?BB35 Restorer (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know...:/ Maybe try the Help Desk? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the_ed17! I have a better idea as to how to do that now. You know its funny I spend several thousands of dollars for a B.A. in history, yet I never had the opertunity to cite a primary source. Well maybe in the twelve hours that I have left I will! I will go through the list again with with what I have at hand when I get a chance -work and a new baby do not exactly make for a lot of free time.

I also thought that I would mention as well that the $25 million dollars was released by the LBB last week -there have been a couple articles in the local newspapers.BB35 Restorer (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC) (Sorry did sign edit)

That is excellent news! I will keep a look out for those articles and then add them to the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Friedman

I've cited three pages; do you want the full citations in all three refs? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the references formatted as they are in the article before you started. If they need to be changed, we can handle that when FAC comes around. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've used {{cite book}} with the two additional pages I added. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Every primary source cited is aboard BB35 - Check Article Portland 14 Dec1918

Every primary source that I cite is aboard BB35, contrary to BB35 Restorer's statement that they are not. Making the corrections is up to others but for BB35 Restorer to say I am wrong (because they can not find the documents) needed to be set straight.

I was not going to come back but a revisit was triggered. On Wednesday, 25 March, I received an email reply from the ship's manager to the email that I sent to BB35 Restorer containing my error posting. Ship's Manager asked that I send to him all of the BB35 primary documents that I cited. When I saw that email, I suspected there was a Wiki posting claiming I was wrong by saying TPWD does not have all of the sources.

The Wiki article does state that after leaving Brest, France for the return to American that BB35 stopped briefly in Portland, on 14 December. BB35 did not stop in Portland after leaving Brest. The Quarterly Cruise Report (paper and digital copy 1914 - 1940, are aboard and provided by myself) does not show a stop in Portland on the return trip. The December 1918 portion of the deck log (which is aboard, in digital form provided by myself) does not contain an entry for a 14 December stop in Portland. Further, the log's statistical navigation data shows that the ship took a S-SW course upon clearing the French coast and sailed for the Azores. — IronShip (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this hard to believe since DANFS is a compilation of the log entries to account for where a ship was at any given time. I grant that I have no access to BB-35, but surely you can provide other sources for the information. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The current DANFS at the Naval Historic Center no longer includes BB35 being in Portland, on 14 December 1918 though the Wiki article still cites DANFS as the source for the article fact. This correction was one of many that I sent to the NHC, in 2005.

TomStar also makes an invalid assumption that the BB35 DANFS is based on the ship's log even though the ship's log shows there was no stop in Portland on 14 December. Prior to DANFS being on the internet, the source stated BB35 was involved in the 1914 Vera Cruz landings and transported President Hoover to Havana in January 1928. Tt is impossible that such errors, and those cited below, could have been derived from the deck log. The errors concern basic facts (time, date, geographic location, people etc) that do not involve interpretation

The following DANFS cited in the Wiki article are no longer in the current DANFS at the NHC There could be more for I did not verify all DANFS citations so please verify all DANFS citations with the current DANFS at the NHC .

1. interning the 1918 German surface fleet to Scapa Flow - per Deck Log (Texas was not involved in the relocation to Scapa Flow).

2. leaving for the Pacific in November 1944, from New York (location was Maine) per B35 War Diary. The war diary is an official USN ship record and not a diary maintained by an individual. It contains many of the same location - navigation data entered in the deck log)

3. time the Cherbourg shell hit below the wardroom - per Cherbourg Action Report

4. Leaving the Pacific temporarily in summer of 1936 (DANFS did remove the date but the temp relocation was in 1934 from April - Nov, per Quarterly Cruise Report).

There are still errors in DANFS that were not corrected, such as

1. all of the dates for invsion of Southern France - per the Southern France Action Report. Also invasion started 15 August and not 14 July - Army Historical website (http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/sfrance/sfrance.htm)

2. TEXAS only fired at Iwo Jima for 6 days and not from 16 Feb - 7 March - Iwo Jima Action Report,

3 The 1919 airplane flight was on 10 March and not 9 March - per the deck log. The airplane was brought aboard on 9 March.

The above post by TomStar typifies the Wiki article situation since I first posted to the BB35 talk in October 2008. There is an unwiilingness to accept and that I am wrong because DANFS (and the other secondary sources) is right. Part of the problem is BB35 history everywhere involves decades of repeating incorrect information published by others that was not based on original ship documents. Now I come along citing historic BB35 documents. — IronShip (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My changes are in the same original cited source

The four changes I made use the same cited source (DANFS) that was previously created by whom every made the original citation.

1. internment German Fleet Nov 1918,

2. not stopping in Portland 14 Dec 1918,

3. no 1936 temp deployment to the Atlantic

4. 1944 leaving for the Pacific from Maine

My changes reflects the rewrite to the DANFS the Naval Historical Center made, which is on the website of the NHC. The changes did not require a citation because the reference that was already in use did not change

Please explain why my changes were undoneIronShip (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Through an interesting series of events including loss of constant internet access and a FAR, neither I, TomStar81 (talk · contribs) or MBK004 (talk · contribs) can look into this at the moment. I'll get to it as soon as I can though. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If I make the changes again, will they be undone? I can not add the sign post for the library computer I am on will not all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for primary sources

I wish to propose an easy and simple way by which verification can be made concerning my remaining specific fact corrections using primary sources.

I will post scan excerpts of BB35 historic documents (deck log, wary diary, cruise reports etc) to my personal webspace. The excerpts will contain only the applicable fact in question. This will eliminate a large amount of data that is not relevant to a specific fact, which will enable a fast review. No interpretation is involved. You are free to download and do what you wish with the scans

I can post the scans in the next two weeks and will post the link in the article talk.

Is the above acceptable? IronShip (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But I'm afraid that still constitutes original research, IronShip. Skinny87 (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Upload it to a website anyway. Better out in the open rather than in Texas or at the N.H.C., and it may spur others to include it in published work. Even Naval Institute Press books are referencing websites nowadays. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the proposal for TomStar exprexxed a willingness to consider the sources. Doncram did not see a problem using them because no interpretation was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The historical documents are not the problem, those can be used as reliable sources, but the avenue by which you wish to display those documents is a problem since pulling information off of your personal webspace would still constitute original research. Why not upload them directly to wikipedia? You have a registered account, so uploading images is within your rights range, and if I recall correctly adding the images here directly would allow us to cite the documents directly rather than look for them off site. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I considered suggesting that, but this section from Wikipedia:No original research put me off: "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be the case if these were images of pictures, but in this case they are images of pages of a document. Since they exist on a paper medium, they have already been published, so I am of the mind that this would not constitute a breach or our Original Research policies. If it would make you feel better though I would be happy to go to the reliable sources noticeboard, explain the situation and the proposal to load the images here, and ask for a ruling on whether this violates the OR policies we have in place. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that an image of a U.S. Navy document was used in the FA USS Nevada (BB-36) to support a claim that the ship was similar-looking to a South Dakota class battleship after her 1942 reconstruction. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Placing the scans on Wikipedia will work for me. Before doing so, I ask that the proposal be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Assuming the board concurs

1. What file type, dpi, dimension? Is PDF acceptable for multi-page documents?

2. How to tranfer from my computer to Wiki

3. How to enter the file tag data

4. How to create the inline citation in the article

5. How to place the inline citation in the article's reference section

In my below selections for corrections citing secondary sources, how do I accomplish items 4 and 5 above? I entered the corrections below for I do not know how to do items 4 and 5. I also wanted to give editors a chance to look over the secondary sources before I post the corrections to the article IronShip (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@1: PDF is not good because I don't think you can upload those to the 'pedia.

@2: Click "Upload file" on the left-hand side of your screen (under "toolbox")

@#: follow the steps on the upload screen.

@4: add the HTML <ref> and </ref> tags around the citation. See also WP:CITE#HOW.

@5: doing #4 automatically places it in the references section as long as {{reflist}} is present in that section. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First things first; I will post to the reliable sources board and ask for a ruling. If they concur, we can discuss the other points of adding the material in image format here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have asked. Now we wait. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

From Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Sources_for_USS_Texas_(BB-35)

in this case, AFAICT, the claims are unremarkable, they don't seem to support any particular agenda, and there's nothing in IronShip's edit history to cast doubt on his bona fides. I doubt anybody would object if he were to upload a photograph of a battleship, showing relevant detail, and claim it was the Texas, unless they had some specific reason to believe it wasn't so. If he uploads photographs of documents about the Texas, a similar standard should apply. - GenericBob (talk · contribs)

Now that we have established that the material can be used in the article as a reliable source you can upload the images to wikipedia. Before adding any info to the article though place all the images you intend to use here so we can make one final check to confirm that they are reliable sources. If consensus among those following this is that they are you are free to add material cited to the documents in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IronShip: can you scan them pages in as JPG's on the Commons? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

SORRY FOR NOT POSTING SOONER. I AM IN COLORADO (LEFT 31 MAY) FOR FOUR MONTHS AND TODAY IS MY FIRST ACCESS TO A COMPUTER. (WILL BE ARRANGING INTERNET ACCESS WHERE I AM STAYING). I DO HAVE ALL OF MY DIGITAL COPIES WITH ME AND WILL POST IN THE NEAR FUTUER. THE LIBRARY COMPUTER WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO INSERT THE SIGN POST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will post all of the scans as jpeg to Commons before posting changes to the article. Again I can not and the post sign to this entruy —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's alright; it happens. :-) Thanks! Also, you can always sign your posts—just type four tildes ~~~~ after your posts.—Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have posted to the Commons 16 jpegs. I did not see them in the Commons which I clicked on the Commons in the BB35 article. Do I need to add something? IronShip (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks! Your images can be found here. Thank you very much for going through these hoops! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not mind posting scans of the primary sources to the Commons. I understand and agree with the request for such citation use seems to be very unusual and doing so will help with verifiability. IronShip (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Did not have CXAM radar - per secondary source

BB35 never had CXAM as footnoted in the article's intoduction. The article's CXAM link states 6 were made of which 2 were installed on carriers and 4 on heavy cruisers. The source is Macintyre, Donald, CAPT RN (September 1967). Shipborne Radar. United States Naval Institute Proceedings. This source is in the BB35 reference section

I do not understand the editor code by which to create the inline citation and the corresponding link to the reference section. IronShip (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BB35 was the first NEW YORK Class battleship - per DANFS

BB35 was the first, not the second NEW YORK class battleship as stated in the article. BB35 was laid before BB34, BB35 was launched before BB34 and BB35 was commissioned before BB34. http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/n4/new_york-v.htm IronShip (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

SG and SK radar - Hugh Power book

The below radars were aboard and need inclusion with the "Sensors" section in the right hand column at the top of the article

Source is the Hugh Power book - which is already cited in the refernce section

SG - Foremast (page 58) and Mainmast (page 62)

SK - Mainmast (page 62)

I hope someone who knows how will made the inclusion.

The WWII radar still lacks one entry for SC-1. The BB35 war diary states the unit was removed in the Boston Navy Yard, in February 1944. IronShip (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Construction 14 inch guns and shells - secondary source

Per "Ship's Data 6 Battleship Texas BB35". Leeward Publications, 1976, ISBN 0-91528-06-X, page 45, Ballistic Data table.

Mark I - The 14inch guns aboard at time of commission

Addition Mark I sources

- - "Main Battery Guns of Battleship Texas (BB-35"), Compiled by Christopher C. Wright, Editor, Warship International, 2002 (Also matches with the ship's deck log monthly armament page).

- - the Wiki link to the gun states Mark I installed on the NY class and that the Mark 8, cited in the BB35 article, was not installed until the 1930s. The Warship International article states the Mark 8 was installed in 1935.

- Shell - 1,400 pounds (the 1,500 pound shell was WWII)

- Range - 21,000 yards

- Firing Charge - 365 pounds (which is 91 pounds a bag. The WWII charge was 420 pounds) IronShip (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Departure date change for Nov 1918 internment German Fleet - secondary source

Per the revised DANFS, the depature was change to the 20 and 21 November instead of just 20 November as the Wiki article states. I changed the Wiki date but I did not change the citation because there was no reason to but the change was undone.

The deck log specifices the ship got underway at 0335, on the 21st IronShip (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did not intern German fleet to Scapa Flow 1918 - per DANFS

The revised DANFS dropped the previous entry that BB35 interned the 1918 German surface fleet to Scapa Flow. The revised DANFS leaves the entry as Firth of Forth. This is one of changes I sent to NHC in 2005

I corrected the Wiki by removing the reference to Scapa Flow but the change was undone IronShip (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what the DANFS entry cited says: "The two fleets rendezvoused about 40 miles east of May Island—located near the mouth of the Firth of Forth—and proceeded together into the anchorage there. Afterward, the American contingent moved to Portland, England, arriving there on 4 December." So you're right, and there's absolutely no mention of Scapa Flow there. The Memorandum governing Operation ZZ specifically states that the Northern Line of which the Texas was part went into the Firth of Forth. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 17:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Memorandum governing Operation ZZ was provided to the Great War website by me, I am Charles Moore. I wish I have used my real name for the Wiki username. There are a lot of other BB35 documents and drawings on The Great War website that I provided (weapons, armor, machinery etc)as well as the armor drawings for NEVADA. This was my research of thousands of drawings that I transfered from microfilm to digital form and then did extensive clean up to remove damage without altering any lines or text and adjust for fading IronShip (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Memorandum governing Operation ZZ original research? IronShip (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call GWPDA original research. Bill Schliehauf was a published author which must surely count for something. Tony Tully and co. over at Combined Fleet and Tony DiGulian over at Navweaps are oft-used. I have a photocopy of Captain the Honourable Matthew Robert Best's (H.M.S. Royalist) personal annotated copy of H.F. 0050/9 which wouldn't be admissible but in this case it doesn't matter since the source listed in the article didn't support the Scapa Flow claim. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was inquring only to the specific document being linked to. IronShip (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did not stop in Portland 14 Dec 1918 - per DANFS

The revised DANFS dropped the entry that BB35 stopped in Portland, England, on 14 February, after leaving Brest, France to return to America. This is one of the chagnes I sent to NHC in 2005.

I removed the reference in the Wiki entry to march DANFS but my change was undone IronShip (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Turret side armor thickness correction - secondary sources

Turret side armor is 9 inches (forward) and 8 inches (aft)

Hugh Power Book, page page 133

"Ships Data 6 Battleship Texas BB35". Leeward Publications, 1976, ISBN 0-91528-06-X, page 44, Armor Protection

The above sources match with the historic source data IronShip (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

did not redeploy to the Atlantic in 1934 - per DANFS

The revised DANFS dropped the entry about a 1934 relocation to the Atlantic. This is a change I sent to NHC in 2005. I deleted the Wiki text to match with DANFS but my change was undone IronShip (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nov 1944 deployment to Pacific correction - per DANFS

The revised DANFS changed the location for the Nov 1944 deployment to the Pacific from New York to Maine. (A change I sent to NHC in 2005). I changed the Wiki article to match the revised DANFS but the change was undone IronShip (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wood deck not installed in Galvestion, Dec 88 to Feb 1990 - secondary sources

The wood deck was not installed while in Todds Shipyard, Galveston (Dec 1988 - Feb 1990) but in Greens Bayou (Feb 1990 - July 1990)

- "Painted Lady Going Home to Berth", Houston Chronicle, by Steven Long, 28 May 1990, Section D, page 1, includes photo of installation.

- "Battleship Texas back at 'Home'", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Disessa, 27 July 1990, Section A, page 1. The wood deck work still not complete when the ship was towed back to Jan Jacinto.

- "Rebirth of the Texas", video of the dry dock period (Dec 1988 to July 1990), narrated by Ray Miller, created by Houston television station Channel 11, 1992 IronShip (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All additional AA guns installed AFTER Galvestion (Dec 88 - Feb 90) - secondary sources

No additional anti-aircraft guns were installed during the Dec 1988 - Feb 1990 period in Todds Shipyard, Galvestion as stated in the article. All were installed after leaving Galveston, February 1990

All of the additional guns were 10 mounts of quad 40mm anti aircraft

Four were installed during the February to July 1990 period in Green Bayou -

- "Painted Lady Going Home to Berth", Houston Chronicle, by Steven Long, 28 May 1990, Section D, page 1

- "USS Texas returning to berth", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Diessa, 20 July 1990

Six were installed at San Jacinto (July - Aug 1990)

- "USS Texas returning to berth", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Diessa, 20 July 1990

- "Guns asaiting return of restored battleship", Houston Post, 21 July 1990, Section A, page 2, includes photo.

- "Battleship Texas back at 'Home'", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Disessa, 27 July 1990, Section A, page 1. Photo shows 40mm gun locations that have not had the additional gun added yet when BB35 returned to San Jacinto, on 27 July 1990 IronShip (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All restoration work NOT completed when moved back to San Jacinto 27 July 1990 - secondary sources

All of the work was not complete when BB35 returned to San Jacinto, on 27 July 1990, as the article claims.

Six 40mm mounts were installed at San Jacinto (July - Aug 1990)

- "USS Texas returning to berth", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Diessa, 20 July 1990

- "Guns asaiting return of restored battleship", Houston Post, 21 July 1990, Section A, page 2, includes photo.

- "Battleship Texas back at 'Home'", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Disessa, 27 July 1990, Section A, page 1. Photo shows 40mm gun locations that have not had the additional gun added yet.

The wood deck installation was not completed in Greens Bayou (Feb 1990 - July 1990)

- "Battleship Texas back at 'Home'", Houston Chronicle, by Bill Disessa, 27 July 1990, Section A, page 1. Writer states wood deck work still not complete

- "Rebirth of the Texas", video of the dry dock period (Dec 1988 to July 1990), narrated by Ray Miller, created by Houston television station Channel 11, 1992 IronShip (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

MBK004 accused me of BB35 vandalism

MBK004 has accused me vandalism. This evening I read the history section of the BB35 article. In the item where MBK undid 4 changes I made, I saw where he included a link to "TW". I did not know what it was but when I clicked on the link, the topic displayed is vandalism. He also made an ignorant comment that I should know better than to make a change without citing the source.

All four changes I made were to match the Wiki article with the cited DANFS. The BB35 DANFS had been updated since inclusion of the four facts in the Wiki article and my changes reflect the updated DANFS. There was no need to cite a source for the changes because the source was still the some one.

Had he bothered to read the current DANFS he too would have found what I did. IronShip (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TW is a short hand name for an automated tool that editors here have the option of using. It is not used exclusively for vandalism reversions, although reverting vandalism is usually what the tool is used for. If he reverted your changes he must have had a good a reason for doing so. I know its a tall order to ask of you since we seem to consistently be on your case, but it is a requirement that we assume good faith with such edits. It may be that he was unaware of the updating of DANFS and acted on the assumption that the information in the article did not match the information provide in the source. It would be best to wait for him to weigh in on the matter before drawing any conclusions on this incident. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why was "the requirement that we assume good faith with such edits" not given to me? It is obvious I do not know the ins and outs of Wikipedia and I have said so in postings and asking for help. But, I am an expert on the history of BB35 yet I was treated again like a bumpkin.IronShip (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as I can tell this occurred about a month ago, it shouldn't be an issue in the present here and now. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is an issue for me for I just learned about itIronShip (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me that there is any way MBK could have known to consider the possibility that the DANFS text had changed. This looks like a reasonable misunderstanding of your edits, Ironship, whose edit summaries did not suggest anything like a DANFS change. Also MBK's edit summary ("Reverted 4 edits by IronShip; If you don't cite your changes in the proper way, we can't help you, you know better. using TW") is actually perfectly civil and normal for an editor using the Twinkle tool. The "using TW" expression seems a bit odd, like not normal English, and you could interpret that he was trying to make a point by including the link to TW, as if it was a veiled reference for you or anyone else to find mention of it being a tool useful for addressing vandalism there. But the "using TW" part is, I believe, automatically added, not something that MBK was himself saying. I myself have a few times used a different tool, AWB, and at first i did not know it automatically added "using AWB" to my edit summaries. I bet it does seem a little odd, to get an edit summary that looks a bit stilted like that, but it seems like a misunderstanding. No harm done though, no one hurt, no ships sunk on the high seas, etc. :) doncram (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Still why was "the requirement that we assume good faith with such edits" not given to me?IronShip (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We have assumed go faith. We have not kicked you off the site, we have listened to what you have to say, and we have gone to bat for you when you offered to provide the sources you had to correct our incorrect information. If we had not assumed good faith then someone long ago would have forced you to leave the site by blocking your account or banning your presence here. In the case of the editors whom frequent the page Me, MBK, and Ed are all students, and our read on things in between school work is often glance and guess and not in depth review in nature because of our time constraints, but I would hope that our good faith was evident in trying to assist you with the overhaul insofar as we can and for going to bat for your sources as noted in the above posts. I can not speak for the others, but if at any time it appeared to you that I was not assuming good faith then I apologize to you for my behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironship, you took offense due to your misunderstanding of what MBK meant by the TW link in his edit, when nothing was meant. It is sort of understandable that you would not know how to interpret that TW link, since you have little other experience in wikipedia, but given that it was your mistaken interpretation, it seems a bit unfair to continue to suggest good faith was not present. You need to AGF also. Certainly if you don't understand the justification for an edit reverting something, you should ask for clarification here at the Talk page. All editors get their edits reverted from time to time, and it should be no big deal, no info is lost entirely as it is all there in the edit history, and can be restored after discussion. (Aside: Also, if i could suggest, perhaps editing in some other articles where you are not so personally invested would give you helpful learning about how wikipedia processes go, and give you some other perspective that could reduce the strain within your relationship with just a few editors here, on this topic that you are passionate about. I think i've offered before: I'd certainly be glad to help you get started writing about some non-controversial historic sites needing articles, in your area.... :) ). doncram (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All 6 WWII action reports are now on the Internet

All 6 BB35 WWII action reports (complete) are on the internet as pdf, ranging from 10 pages (350,000bytes) to 40 pages (2meg), at http://users.hal-pc.org/~cfmoore/. I posted the link in the article area for internet locations. IronShip (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, now there are some quality primary sources! Thanks for posting that! I will be reading through some soon to look for further information on the article I wrote on USS Nevada (BB-36). :) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for comments as to Reliability of BB35 Primary Sources I posted to the Commons

I am looking for comments as to the reliablity of the BB35 log book, cruise reports, war diary and action report excerpts that I posted to Commons. Per posting from TomStar, the sources can be used in the article if there is a consensus of those following the discussion that the sources are reliable. The specific use of the sources will be to correct the remaining facts (time, date, location, object name etc) that I previously posted IronShip (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask this question here instead, it will more beneficial and faster than asking here. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The question has now been posted to Reliable Noticeboard IronShip (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections have been raised in the Reliability board to the use of historic BB35 documents that I cite above for the specific purpose given. Ed17 stated in the BB35 article discussion section the action reports are a quality primary source. TomStar81 has also stated that the sources are reliable, in his 28 May 2009 post to my discussion topic "Proposal for primary sources". I will proceed with the use of the documents. IronShip (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My extensive BB35 website is back on the internet

My extensive BB35 website is back on the internet at http://www.bb35library.usstexasbb35.com/ The site contains thousands of historic BB35 drawings, photos, data tables, documents etc. The contents ranges from a presentation of every aspect of a 14inch turret down to the ship's mascots, including Maggie who birthed in the Brig in December 1931. IronShip (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DDay Rehersal Morris citation

What BB35 facts are being cited by Morris, James M. (1984). "Carrying the War to Hitler". in the Rehersal section for DDay?

Does a paragraph with two or more citations mean all facts in a paragraph are found in each citation? IronShip (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing this citation from the Rehersal section for D-Day for it provides nothing of substance and what is claimed already exists in other cited references. The cited Morris page is 162 and Texas is only mentioned in one sentence as being present to provide gunfire support. There is no designation as to which beach Texas is to fire on. I have a copy of page 162. IronShip (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 3,000 yard reference - Southern France Invasion

I will be removing the August 1944 Operation Dragoon (Invasion of Souther France) reference that Texas closed to 3,000 yards of the beach on the day of the invasion landings begand to provide preliminary gunfire on the 15th of August.

Texas did not do what was stated in the reference Powers, Hugh (1993). Battleship Texas. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0-89096-519-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=YWEMAAAACAAJ&dq=battleship+texas&ei=Ij-_SdX_A4LKlQS8neDVAg.

Texas did close to 3,000 yards but this was on the 16th and there was no gunfiring on this date or any date after. Gunfire was only done on the 15th. Source is the ship's Action Report, which is the official US Navy record of the ship's combat activities

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S.France_Gun_firing.jpg IronShip (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Last changes in October

My last changes will be in October when I am back in Houston and can retrieve the paper documents that I do not have in digital form IronShip (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statements Made on the Dry Berthing

Right now there is not a preferred method of dry berthing the Battleship TEXAS. Ms. Salyer's article is based off of one of the proposals -there are two more primary proposals among others. As of right now the bonds have been sold and TPWD is in the process of requesting qualifications from engineering firms to develop a specific plan to dry berth TEXAS. Once a engineering firm is selected they will spend the better part of a year surveying the site, the ship, and making their recommendations as to the best way to dry berth her with the funds available.

I think it only prudent to either remove the reference to a specific dry berth proposal or amend it such a way that it is inclusive of all the leading proposals. Here is a link for to the Battleship TEXAS Foundation's website which gives specifics on the proposals. http://www.battleshiptexas.org/aboutUs/futureGoals/dryBerth.cfm

I felt like this needed to be discussed before being edited. BB35 Restorer (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I wrote the section in question, and the article was written in such a way that conveyed to me that this was the method that had been decided upon. I will certain review what you have presented within the coming days and work something up to add into the section. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

MBK, how do we stand on this? I would prefer to not be the one to make the edit since I am part of the process that is being discussed. As it stands right know the request for qualifications (RFQ) for the firms that wish to bid on the engineering aspects (surveying, looking at the geology, archeology, and doing a more thorough engineering survey of the ship is complete. As it stands the time frame is like to be late January/early February when a firm will be contracted to start work. Once their "study" is complete, they will then make the recommendation as to which method is the best for dry berthing the ship. BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It completely slipped my mind. I've been quite busy this semester. I'll have a look and see what needs to be done over the next few days. Also, you should go back through the history since the bot reverted all of your recent edits when you deleted a large portion of the text by accident. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I know how it goes, it has been very busy here too. The latter is already taken care of.BB35 Restorer (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the section regarding the dry berth because it is in accurate for the reasons above. I have cited sources for the the current state of the project and the history of the dry berth project. I ask that if the changes are reverted that the construction information given by Ms. Salyer's article be left out, as no body knows what the final construction of the berth will be yet. And we have already exceeded the time line that she set out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BB35 Restorer (talk • contribs) 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)BB35 Restorer (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to WWII Action Reports

In about two weeks my website will be discontinued that contains the pdf version of all six BB35 WWII Action Reports.

The same reports are on my primary BB35 website in html form.

Prior to the discontinuation, I will change the Action Report link to the location on my primary site. The new link will go to a main menu from which all six can be selected ---- IronShip (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Crew Compliment???

I just visited the Texas... according to what I saw the crew compliment does not jive with what we have here. According to some of the paraphenalia (I know reliable sources eh) the ship had 1464 sailors, 101 officers, and 80 marines on board.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The complement did vary greatly throughout the career, especially during wartime when extra anti-aircraft weapons were crammed onboard along with extra men to man them. I'm assuming that the infobox figure is as built and not as modernized, but I'll have to look. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

that's part of the reason I didn't want to change it... as there may be "conventions" on WP as to what the WP compliment is... plus, "I saw it on a t-shirt in the USS Texas gift storre" isn't really the most reliable source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

one of the big problems here is that crew size in all branches of the service is usally based on the needs of the unit at the time. In the Navy perhaps more that any other branch, this nitpick can lead to really wild crew number fluctuation. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom hit it on the head, the crew sized varied according to the "needs of the Navy." At her commissioning her crew compliment was 1009, during WWI that number surged to ~1400 (i.e. 1,466 March 1918), 1,400 in 1927, 1,294 in 1931, 1,173 in 1934, 1,193 in 1937, and 1,810 in 1945.

Which shirt did you see it on? If it is incorrect then we need to pull it (the shirt) from circulation. BB35 Restorer (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is nice to see that all of my original research (1918 thru 1937), which came from my BB35 website, is being cited by BB35 Restorer IronShip (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1,009 figure is not a 1914 figure but 1912 from the New York Times, 19 May 1912, page 12 (which is on my BB35 website). The 1,009 is enlisted only. The other figure in the article is 63 officers, bringing the total to 1,072. This puts the estimate closer to Friedman and Conway but over by about 30 people. IronShip (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics, trials

Hi, I've found a ridiulously detailed source on Texas here, starting on page one. An account of her sea trials starts on page 48 (Google Books full view). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for crew compliment in "General Characteristics as of 1914"

There needs to be a source for the crew compliment. In the "Discussion" I saw where Friedman and Conway are mention with each having slightly different numbers. Theses number are not the same uncited quantity in Generl Characteristics. Friedman's numbers are Officer/Crew which gives a difference of less than 10 people vs Conway.

I checked the crew compliment pages from the 1914 "Log Book" but these did not appear in the BB35 "Log Book" until August 1914 for officers and Jan 1915 for enlisted.

Why not use and cite both Friedman and Conway? I wanted to bring this up before making the change IronShip (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just get rid of all crew complements because they vary so much, especially with these ships that were built before WWI, modernized between the wars, then modernized again in WWII. That's just me, though. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How about: "Approx 1,040 with increases-decreases to a max of 1,810 in 1945." Cite Friedman and Conway for 1914 and Hugh Power for 1945 Complement is needed for it is a basic question that people have 99.66.238.24 (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How about "Increased from approximately 1,040 in 1914 to approximately 1,810 in 1945." or simply: "1914 -1,040;1945 -1,810."BB35 Restorer (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

+/-5? Really? Based on an average of only two sources that don't agree? And what are the secondary sources' sources? And we are throwing out all the other secondary sources? Do we want to split hairs that "precisely" and still possibly be wrong?

A secondary source from 1914, the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers article that linked above, shows the crew compliment to be "approximately" 1,072. Which, BTW, Ironship has cited on his website as a crew compliment size. Instead of getting tied to a precise number, why not use between 1,000-1,100? I ask Ed or MBK to weigh in.

And before you accuse me of attacking you or having an underlying motive, Ironship, I want to say this: I am not attacking you and I hope that you don't construe my questions and general skepticism as an attack. I have only been in your presence about a dozen times, that I recall, and from our few conversations you left a fairly favorable impression on me and I have no animosity against you. I ask that you do not assign ulterior motives to me solely because I am employed by TPWD or work on the ship.

As you pointed out many times there are so many sources with incorrect information, that I am tremendously skeptical unless I have the primary source, in some format, in front of me and even then that is unreliable at times (i.e. -the 240mm vs 280mm conflict between the ship's log, war diary, and after action report on the size of the shell that struck the Conning Tower. In the end it was the Army that ended the debate when they reported the composition of Battery Hamburg when they occupied it). Another example is that I used a secondary source, recently, and you pointed out that information was incorrect (thank you for correcting me and pointing out the inaccuracy). Which is why, for the most part, I tend to air on the side of caution. I want this right, too, our girl deserves that.BB35 Restorer (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Armor needs changes

The armor in "Characteristics" gives an incomplete(wrong) information as to where armor is how much and the types of armor. Some entries made as to thickness and locations need to be changed

I wanted to bring this up before making any changes

My sources for are the Sept 1910 "Contract No 9 Arrangement of Armor" (I have a paper copy), "General arrangement of armor, Sheet 1": Newport News drawing 52635, 10 Jan 1911 (which is now on my BB35 website) and "General Information USS TEXAS Completed Plans 37and 38" (I have a paper and pdf version). Not dated but is March 1914 based on dates in the construction chronology page.

Belt: 10 to 12 in (250 to 300 mm) (amidships) - Should be specified as Hull and not just Belt for most casual readers are not familiar with the term. Amidships fwd is approx frame 42 but the belt armor extends to frame 18, almost 110 feet. The "aft" reference need to be from Frame 122 to Frame 137. There are two more layers of hull armor above the belt.

Bulkheads: 10 in (250 mm) and 11 in (280 mm); 9 in (230 mm) (lower belt aft)[6] The 10 in and 11in is referencing the athwartship at Frame 18 with 11 at 1st platform to 10 inches at 3rd deck. The 9in is the base of the diagional at amidships fwd and aft (half dk fwd amd 2nd deck aft) and 6.5 at the upper end (overhead of 2nd deck for both). There are other Class As further aft. There are STS bulkheads for 5 inch gun casemates

Barbettes: 5 to 12 in (130 to 300 mm)- Thickness is not the same for all 5 barbettes. A statement that thickness varies between the 5 barbettes would be good for the amount of space to note the difference is to great

Turrets: 14 in (360 mm) (face); 4 in (100 mm) (top); 8 in (200 mm) - 9 in (230 mm) (sides); 8 in (200 mm) (rear)[7]; The top is STS aka Class B

Decks: 1.5 to 3 in (38 to 76 mm)[8] Is on 2nd and 3rd deck. Thickness varies from 1.5" to 4.5" and this is without the additional plate to 2nd deck during the 1925-1927 modernization. The type of armor was STS and Nickel Steel (aka Class C a predesesor to STS)

STS is also found on the fwd and rear deck of the turrets, roof of the Conning Tower and from the base of the Conning Tower down to the Main Deck. IronShip (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bb35library.usstexasbb35.com/structure/armor/ArmorAll.htm link to my armor page IronShip (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Such detailed information may be more suitable for the class article, however. We try to keep infoboxes short so they don't take over an article. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the info needs to be minimum. What I entered above was just for information and not a proposed entry. How about what I have below for the entry

"All Class A except Decks and roofs of Turrets"

"Belt: 10 to 12 in (250 to 300 mm) (72 to 488 feet from bow); 6 in (150 mm) (488 to 548 feet from bow)[5][6] Two additional levels are above"

"Bulkheads: 11 in (280 mm); 10 in (250 mm); 9 in (230 mm) to 6.5in fwd/aft diagionals[6]"

Barbettes: 4 to 12 in (xxx to 300 mm)- the five barbettes are not uniform [6] Thinner change from 5 to 4 for 4in is at the bottom of #1,#2,#4 and #5.

Turrets: 14 in (360 mm) (face); 4 in (100 mm) (top); 8 in (200 mm) - 9 in (230 mm) (sides); 8 in (200 mm) (rear)[7]; leave as is

Decks: 1.5 to 4.5 in (38 to xx mm)[xx] [[change from 3 to 4.5, source is the Newport News 1911 arrangement of armor drawing on my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@belt, it's too specific, but it would be perfect for the class article. Bulkheads, okay. Barbettes, leave out the text, we can put it in the class article. Turrets, okay. Decks, 4.5in on a pre-"all or nothing" and pre-WWI battleship? Are you sure?

The class article is normally the one that holds detailed design information. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely sure as to 4.5" on second deck. For the 1910-1911 drawings and the 1914 manual match which have also been confirmed by measurement on 31 October 2010.

This is yet another in my list of reasons (such as the 42 errors I posted previously)why I do not use secondary sources if I have a primary BB35 document.

How do you want to cite the source for the change to barbette thickness and bulkhead because Friedman (present source) does not include this? IronShip (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Further as to measurement confirming 2nd deck at 4.5" is from aft fwd to frame 88, hatch down to 3rd deck where the fwd most measurement was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronShip (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can verify the measurement tomorrow, if there are any doubters.BB35 Restorer (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Info Box

USS Texas at San Jacinto State Park, October 2006
History
US
Name	USS Texas
Namesake	The State of Texas
Ordered	24 June 1910
Awarded	17 December 1910
Builder	Newport News Shipbuilding Company
Laid down	17 April 1911
Launched	18 May 1912
Completed	12 March 1914
Commissioned	12 March 1914
Decommissioned	21 April 1948
Stricken	30 April 1948
Motto	"Come on Texas"
Honors and awards	Combat Action Ribbon, Mexican Service Medal, World War I Victory Medal, American Defense Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (w/ 2 battle stars), European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (w/3 battle stars), World War II Victory Medal, Navy Occupation Service Medal
Fate	Museum Ship
General characteristics (1914)
Class and type	New York-class battleship
Displacement	27,000 long tons (27,000 t) (design)
Length	573 ft (175 m)
Beam	95 ft 3 in (29.03 m)
Draft	27 ft 10.5 in (8.496 m) (normal) 29 ft 3.25 in (8.9218 m)(full)
Propulsion	2 x dual-acting triple expansion reciprocating engines
Speed	21 kn (24 mph; 39 km/h)
Endurance	7,684 nmi (8,843 mi; 14,231 km) at 12 kn (14 mph; 22 km/h)
Complement	954 officers and men
Armament	10 × 14 in (360 mm)/45 cal guns (5x2) 21 × 5 in (130 mm)/51 cal guns 4 × 3-pounder (1.4 kg) guns 4 × 21 in (530 mm) submerged torpedo tubes
Armor	Belt: 10 to 12 in (250 to 300 mm) (amidships); 6 in (150 mm) (aft) Bulkheads: 10 in (250 mm) and 11 in (280 mm); 9 in (230 mm) (lower belt aft) Barbettes: 5 to 12 in (130 to 300 mm) Turrets: 14 in (360 mm) (face); 4 in (100 mm) (top); 8 in (200 mm) - 9 in (230 mm) (sides); 8 in (200 mm) (rear); Decks: 1.5 to 3 in (38 to 76 mm)
General characteristics (1945)
Displacement	32,000 long tons (33,000 t) (full load)
Length	573 ft (175 m)
Beam	106 ft 0 in (32.31 m)
Draft	31 ft 6 in (9.60 m)(full load)
Propulsion	2 x dual-acting triple expansion reciprocating engines
Speed	19.72 kn (22.69 mph; 36.52 km/h)
Endurance	15,400 nmi (17,722 mi; 28,521 km) at 10 kn (12 mph; 19 km/h)
Complement	1810 officers and men
Sensors and processing systems	2 × SG surface search radars 1 × SK air search radar 2 × Mk 3 fire control radar 2 × Mk 10 fire control radar
Armament	10 × 14 in (360 mm)/45 cal guns (5x2) 6 × 5 in (130 mm)/51 cal guns 10 × 3 in (76 mm)/50 cal guns 10 × quad 40 mm (1.6 in) mounts 44 × 20 mm (0.79 in) guns
Armor	Same as 1914 characteristics except: Turrets: 1.75 in (44 mm) added to tops Decks: 1.75 to 3.5 in (44 to 89 mm) added variously
Aircraft carried	2 x OS2U Kingfisher

Here's a suggestion for the info box: retain the 1914 section and add a new section for 1945 that lists only those characteristics that are different from the 1914 characteristics. It would also address the crew compliment issue, because it would reflect the crew increase with out getting overly verbose about it. Something like this:

1945 Characteristics

Displacement: 29,500 long tons (normal)

             32,000 long tons (full load)

Length: 573 ft (175 m)[6]

Beam: 106 ft 3 in

Draft: 28 ft 6 in (normal)

       31.5 ft 10.5 in (full load)

Propulsion: Two 4 cylinder dual-acting triple expansion engines

Speed: 20.4 kn

Complement: 1810 officers and men

Armament:

   * 10 × 14 in (360 mm)/45 cal guns (5x2)
   * 6 × 5 in (130 mm)/51 cal guns
   * 10 × 3 in/50 guns[2]
   * 10 × 40 mm Bofors antiaircraft mounts
   * 44 × 20 mm Oerlikon antiaircraft guns

Armor:

   * Same as 1914 with the following changes
   * Turrets: Top increased to 5.75 in
   * Decks: Increased to 3.5 in and 4.5 in

Aircraft:

   * 3 x Vought OS2U Kingfisher

Sensors:

   * 2 x SG Surface search radar
   * 1 X SK Air search radar

Also, shouldn't the propulsion be the engines, as it is with every other article instead of the boilers? After all it is the propulsion machinery, not the boilers that the line is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BB35 Restorer (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Having a 1945 Characteristics is good and is used effectivly in the Hugh Power book. The ship has a complex structural history that some means is needed to present a summary to convey to this complexity to the reader. The complexity is one reason why the ship is so darn fascinating. Does the structure of Wiki allow for the two periods to be side by side in Characteristics? But such an inclusion here though overload the article (Refer to Ed's comments in my armor post? Can a separate structure be created?

I have been following that discourse closely, so no need to refer as I had already read the comment before posting. The gist of my comment is that I think can be done without burying the reader in minutiae, by, for the most, reflecting only the major differences in those systems between 1914 and 1945.BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 OS2Us were aboard in the 1945

My bad you are right planes 5-0-7 and 5-0-8.BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Turret top armor was 5.75inches as of 1914 and did not increase after that. Turret top is two layers of STS; 4inch covering the entire horizontal surface with two shorter plates of 70pound each(one on port and one starboard) on top of the 4inch plate. 40pound of STS is 1" of thickness

Hmmm...again conflicting information. I relied on a secondary source; the same source you probably got for the 40 lbs STS=1" thickness.BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not use a secondary source as you assume. My source is based on measurements I made years ago of this plate. Then using the pound entries on the 1910 and 1911 armor drawings I came up with a conversion of pounds of STS and Niclel steel to thickness. If you are refering to Mr Friedman, my conversion matches with his listing IronShip (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for making an assumption. When I am back at work tomorrow, I can pull any original plans that we have for the addition of armor during the reconstruction period and we will have a primary source as to what armor was added. I might be even able to do partial scans of them.BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Deck armor entries needs to specify on 3rd deck, half deck-fwd and 2nd deck. The main deck is not armored.

It doesn't have to. All we need is a range for the deck armor; it doesn't need to be that in depth. BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim of Deck armor increased to 3.5" and 4.5". 31 October 2010 2nd deck mesaurements aft of the diagonal bulkheads shows three layers 1.75",1.75" and 1" (bottom layer).

Friedman p 437 and a little simple arithmetic. You were out on Halloween? I was at work that day working in the Marines' Space; I am sorry that I missed you. What do think of the work that has been done to the ship since you were last there? Speaking of armor, did you like how we pulled up two portable armor plates in the C-1 Machinery Hatch Space? BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aboard and you know so IronShip (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC) No I don't. BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1,810 personnel is not the number of people aboard but a planned estimate on the front page of the 18 July 1944 "Booklet of General Plans" IronShip (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything is an estimate for precisely the reasons enumerated in the response to a crew compliment question a few months ago. Namely because crew size varied so much, not from year to year, but month to month, and sometime day to day. That is why those numbers usually are stated as being approximate. BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The 4.5" thickness of the Oct 2010 measurement matches exactly with the amounts shown on the 1910 and 1911 armor drawings. The bottom layer measurement of 1" is the same thickness as the 1910-1911 drawings but comprised of two layers, 0.70" STS over 0.30" of medium steel. IronShip (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...again conflicting information. I was relying on a secondary source.BB35 Restorer (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Found the problem with code in the infobox -it was the bullets that was making the new section appear beside the original section. Try this on for size:

Sorry, didn't cite for expeditious reasons, I wanted to see if you all liked the format and size.

BB35 Restorer (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Turret roof armor did not increase to 5.75" by 1945 because it was 5.75" as of 12 March 1914 and for the reasons I explained above. The secondary source is wrong.

Max Deck armor is 4.5" and not 3.5" with the max being on 2nd deck at 4.5" present on 12 March 1914. The secondary source is wrong.

Your underlying comments for me are not welcome IronShip (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not doubting you, I just used a secondary source that I have available at home. I am sorry that you see underlying comments, none were meant. I was truly hoping that you had visited the ship.

Again, I can pull any original plans that we have for the addition of armor during the reconstruction period and we will have a primary source as to what armor was added if you would like.BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Deck armor needs to state that main deck is not armored because without such an exception, the statement says all decks have some amount of armor. IronShip (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BB35 Restorer (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies with w/ Friedman, et al

I think I figured out where the armor discrepancy in the secondary sources came from. There was two layers of 70lb armor added to 2nd Deck during the reconstruction in the "citadel" (the area between the two transverse diagonal bulkheads on 2nd Deck), however it was added after the original armor of the same thickness had been removed so there no net gain in armor thickness. Here is a link to the original drawing for the installation of the new armor, drawing #30942 "USS TEXAS (Modernization) 2nd Deck Casemate Additional Deck Protection".

This is purely speculation, but I believe that armor was replaced for two reasons: 1) the existing armor was full of perforations for passing coal and the Navy desired to be rid of the weak spots in the armor 2) part of the armor had to be pulled up to begin with so the old B&W coal fired boilers could be removed and the new Dyson boilers installed. Again pure speculation but I think Freidman's source (whatever that is since he didn't cite) only showed two 70lb layers being added to the 2nd Deck of TEXAS and didn't mention that they were replacing original armor.

On the turret top armor Friedman is right on the money. One layer of 70lb armor was added to the entire top replacing any scabbed on armor; what is shown in the linked drawing is exactly what is there today. See scan 1 and scan 2 of drawing #31128, "USS TEXAS Major Alterations, Additional Protection on Turret Tops".

Another place that armor was added was to the tops of the 5" ammo hoists on 2nd Deck in the form of a single 70lb layer. See scan 1 and scan 2 of drawing #31105, "USS TEXAS Major Alterations, 5" gun Ammunition Hoists - Relocation of Dogs & Additional Protective Plating".

Interestingly most of the armor added to the ship came from the NORTH CAROLINA BB-52 along with the six oil fired Dyson boilers that were installed.BB35 Restorer (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ship's mail

I just included an image of a postmark from the USS Texas as sort of a curiosity item, as each naval ship had its own post office and postmaster (an officer) aboard. Hope it will be welcomed. If you feel it doesn't belong then go ahead and remove it, I won't contest it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dry Berth Project Updates

All there is a new website up dryberthtexas.com that details what is going on with the dry berth project, the four options currently under consideration, the conceptual design report, the marine surveyor's assessment of the material condition of the ship, and documents relating to the public review process. The documents can be found here and a link to a Youtube video describing the process can be found by following the first link.

We are also in the process of developing a fifth option as well.

Should we include this in the article and if so how?BB35 Restorer (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any news stories out there detailing this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. The first public meeting (where we show this all of to the public field questions, etc), I beleive, has been scheduled for February 26th in the Monument. I would think that there would be an article or two that came from this public meeting.BB35 Restorer (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)