This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
It's not the wrong shipbuilder, see [3], which says "laid down on 13 December 1918 by Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co., Seattle, Wash., launched by Todd Dry Dock & Construction Co.". We just need to say that SCDD was bought by TDDC between keel laying and launch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes but [4] says, "Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co. [1911-1916], Todd Dry Dock & Construction Co. [1916-1918]". I think DANFS is quoting who the contract was originally given to. If you don't agree then I will change it to what you suggested. Thanks. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
<puzzled>But why would DANFS say SCDD when it had already been bought by Todd when the contract was signed in 1917? And when the Seattle shipyard was closed in May 1918 and the three cruisers transferred to the new Tacoma shipyard? That is if the Vigor Industries page is RS. I don't immediately see anything that gives sources or an author so it may not be eligible for RS status without that info. I think that you have the right idea and let's not sweat the details and say that it was laid down by TDDC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Maybe this will set your mind more at ease [5]. I don't have time to change it now but if you don't mind I'll change it tonight. Thanks for your input. Pennsy22 (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply