Talk:South Dakota-class battleship

Untitled

HI guys!

This is relatively minor need, but I'm placing a CLEAN on the article since it's true:

1. The header all but says that none of the First class was completed dur to the 'WNT OF '25'
2. Which SEEMS TO contradicts the (First) Heading Title - LISTING names and hull numbers. These at least need a suffixed completed or uncompleted, or the heading should be Ships Laid Down then Canceled, or other such better organized and clear relationships.
3. I'd dig in, but have enough on me plate right now!
4. I also had an urge to move the sections down below the covering text, which makes more relavant educational information available to the reader — So when I started to do so, then I saw the second ship list, and figured I'd just comment needs here.

• Drop me a note when it's done, and I'll see if its a good solution! Hah!

Thanks — Great Job overall!

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 13:07 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with whoever put in the NOTE on the spelling of "preceded" and "succeeded" (in which "preceded" was spelled "preceeded", incorrect not only in its own right but also compared to the spelling in the tabs to which it referred), I have searched several times and found no indication in any dictionary that "succeded" is a correct spelling of "succeeded" in any variation of the English language. I have therefore changed the spelling to be consistent with the English-correct spelling. If evidence is provided that "succeded" is a correct alternate spelling, I will be happy to slog through all the ship pages in which I've changed the spelling (most ship pages have "succeeded" while some had "succeded") back to "succeded". Sorry to disagree. Longshot14 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Split?

What would people think of splitting this article into two separate articles, as has been done with the King George V-class (King George V class battleship (1911) and King George V class battleship (1939)? I figure we'd place the articles at South Dakota class battleship (1920) and South Dakota class battleship (1939). Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I've thought the same thing but I was a little too lazy to actually implement it ;-) I have a copy of Norman Friedman's "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History" at home, so I can use it to flesh out the separated articles a bit. TomTheHand 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was bold. If the split articles are acceptable starting points, let's turn this article into a disambiguator.

Looks good to me; I'll convert the page and start fixing links. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)