Talk:USS St. Louis (CL-49)

Untitled

As a suggestion, it would be helpful to know what type of ship this was supposed to be. If that were found somewhere in the first paragraph, the article would be more...easily understood, ...in context?

This St. Louis was a Light Cruiser.

She earned the nickname "Lucky Lou" during her WWII service.

The on-board "newsletter" was called the "Hubble Bubble".

More info: http://www.ussstlouis.com/ http://mywebpage.netscape.com/swede51/CL-49.html

Fate: Transfered to the Brazilian Navy and commissioned on 29 JAN 1951 as TAMANDARE.

TAMANDARE (C-12) was stricken from the Brazilian Navy in 1976. Sold to breakers four years later, she foundered 24 August 1980 off South Africa while under tow to Taiwan.

E-mail from former TAMANDARE surgeon, Dr. Amadeu Zullino of Amparo, Brazil.

Word for Word Lift?

If the URL below contains an accurate rendering of “Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships,” (1976) Vol. 6, pp.246-248, and the dictionary hasn't granted permission for this use, then this entire article is in violation of copyright.

• Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, 1976

Additional summaries of the ship's history can be found at:

• Global Security
• Navy History

An inauspicious discussion of the ship's use by the Brazilians can be found in Time magazine:

• Time magazine

Maybe someone with a copy of that book ought to have a look see and then mark this article as in violation? --Pat (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not, it's written by the US government and any work by the US government is in the public domain. It mentions this in the wiki DANFS article. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​^{talk•contribs} 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and noting the source at the bottom of the article. The concept of using another source verbatim without quotation marks and attribution, and then modifying it here and there, will take some getting used to. --Pat (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Caliber measurement disparity

All of the calibers for the guns on this ship have a metric conversion for the calibers that's outright incorrect, it lists 6" as 150mm instead of 152mm, 5" as 130mm instead of 127mm, and .50 as 13mm instead of 12.7mm, could a more experienced editor please help to correct this? There's scripting in there that I really don't want to touch due to not knowing how they work

Robo9292 (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate class

According to DANFS the USN considers this and HELENA a separate class, not the 8th and 9th BROOKLYN class.Brooksindy (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Recent edits take opposite sides but the cited references support a "St. Louis class" for CL-49 and CL-50. The Navy references are quite clear that CL-49 & CL-50 were different in design from other CLs. The whole "class" thing can be a rat's nest — it was much more a practical administrative tool that some outside Navy ship management seem to realize — so one can find slightly varied use of the term in Navy documents. One Navy document, Ships' Data 1938 illustrates that with "Group designs under the several classes are indicated by braces." The "classes" there are broad; "Battleships," "Heavy Cruisers," "Light Cruisers" and so on. What are termed "classes" in Wikipedia — and DANFS — are those "Group designs" with CL-49 and CL-50 being such a grouping and the "cl. St. Louis" in DANFS. The references support those two CLs being a class of their own rather than just more "Brooklyn" cruisers. In 1938 Navy bins for the light cruiser "class" there were four design groups that can be managed for logistics in particular as a "class" of ships with very similar to identical requirements for support and capabilities. Palmeira (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This is patently false. I have not seen a single RS outside of USN documents that treat them as a separate class. If there are any, the onus on those who want to treat these ships as distinct to provide them. In any event, this was discussed at Talk:Brooklyn-class cruiser, and further discussion should continue there. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Since it is the U.S. Navy that determines what its classification of ships will be it is up to the outside writers to explain just how the Navy is mistaken in how it defines its classes. They may have a case to make. If so that must be in the article along with how the Navy classed them — and how their "expertise" trumps a Navy fact. Something along the lines of "The Navy classed the two cruisers separately; however civilian authors take a different view stating that the Navy's reasons for doing so were not sound and the ships were really Brooklyn class." Now their doing so would be presumptuous, like telling the U.S. Senate Senator X is not from state Y, but perhaps they have an argument. For administrative reasons the Navy may class ships separately when in reality they are quite similar and the Navy's classing of them is not significant — except for those the Navy found useful. Palmeira (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Another image

See https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-407141503728fc4de87968ba277b87a6 for an image that would greatly enhance the article. It seems to be a work of the US Government that could be uploaded to Commons if properly attributed. Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)