Talk:USS Wichita (CA-45)

Operation Crossroad

On the operation crossroad page, under Baker test, there is mention of the Wichita CA-45. There is no mention of it participating in that operation here... I just noticed that, I have no clue which page is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.180.166 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the footnote in the Crossroads article - it notes that Wichita isn't on the record of ships present during the tests, but that one man recalled being sent to the ship. It seems highly dubious that he remembered correctly, since Wichita was in the Atlantic in 1946 during the tests. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Apology

David, sorry about that revert. I saw the vandalism and thought that was the change. I was actually just in the middle of fixing my mistake when you fixed it yourself. Again, it wasn't intentional.  Bkell 08:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake. I thought that I had better make clear in the edit summaries that I was dealing with the vandalism myself. The really irritating thing was that I was engaged in fixing the entry when the vandalism happened in the first place. I wonder what that image was? David Newton 08:24, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is being flagged as overlong, but has no sub-headings. There's a broken template. The style of the language is somewhat triumphalist. --David Woolley 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done some copyeditting to this article. It is still far too big, and I'm sure it still has a POV tone to it (as to be expected of a DANFS entry). But it is a start. I have also removed the link to Template:Wichita class crusier because it is nonexistant. I would have created a template for the footer myself, but this is the only ship of the class. Hence I see no need for a footer. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is watching this page, I have begun the process of paring the article down to conform to standard summary style and incorporating other, secondary sources. Anyone is welcome to assist with the work. Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This was a good article. Now it reads like something in a tourist flier. The More info the better. No one I asked said it was too long. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, after you've written 2 dozen Featured Articles on warships, maybe you'll have a better idea about how encyclopedia articles should be written. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Complement

There is a discrepancy in the number of officers and men aboard the Wichita. The article states a complement of 929, while the article Wichita-class cruiser shows 863. Anybody have any idea which is correct? --WeeWillieWiki (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The source I quoted in the secondary armament section below lists 929 as peacetime complement, no info on wartime complement.RZid (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondary armament

Wichita carried eight 5"/38, four were in the enclosed Mk 30 mounts and four were in open mounts like the New Orleans class CA and early Brooklyn class CL. The article reads they were all the enclosed mounts.RZid (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. Do you happen to know the exact mount type? Campbell doesn't specify if they were Mk 21 or Mk 24. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at S. Terzibaschitsch's CRUISERS OF THE US NAVY 1922-1962, Naval Institute Press 1984 ISBN 0-87021-974-X. No mention of the type of open mount. The wiki 5"/38 article says Mk 24 was on 1930s built CVs so maybe Mk 21. Another interesting fact from this book-Witchita was the first cruiser to get 5"/38 guns, beat St Louis and Helena by a few months.RZid (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My library doesn't have that book - you wouldn't be able to scan the pages on Wichita and send them to me, would you? I'm in the process of overhauling the article and cutting down the direct copying of DANFS text, and another good source would be very useful. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I scanned it into a pdf file. The book is a slightly over-sized so it's a little awkward but I think it's usable. I also corrected book title in my post (1922, not 1992) and added ISBN in case you want to put it as a reference. How do I get the file to you?RZid (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you add an email address to your account I can email you (you can't add an attachment in the "through Wikipedia" email, but it'll give you my address so you can reply and send it that way). Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DoneRZid 19:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZid (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I worked in several pieces of information from the book. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article states "Wichita was the first ship in the US Navy to be equipped with the new 5-inch /38 gun.[4]" I think the intent here was to state that Wichita was the first cruiser to be fitted with the 5-inch /38 gun. If you refer to the Farragut class, they appear to be the first warship class designed and fitted with this weapon in 1934, the Wichita was not laid down until 1935. Joedumlao (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Amended the line - but it would be helpful if you didn't insert comments in the middle of a thread that is over 2 years old. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Succession box

there some disagreement on whether we should use the military navigation template directly [1] or a succession box [2]. contrary to what may be assumed from the edit history of this article, I really don't care which method is used, I would just like to make sure we are consistent, and I have never seen a ship article with the military navigation template used directly. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The succession template is never used for that purpose in any ship article. There's no need for a template for a single article, as you seem to have found here. Therefore, it's perfectly fine to substitute the navbox rather than transclude it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm with Parsecboy. The movement is towards replacing single ship class templates (as they don't transclude onto a large number of pages as is the case with ship classes containing a number of ships). We are going to see military navigation templates used more often now, for instances like Wichita where only one ship was built in a design, but it forms a link in the chain of warship type designs. The template is visually identical to the navigation templates used on vast numbers of ship articles, and is certainly the more consistent option. I have never seen a succession box used on ship articles like this, and, if anything, its the succession box that is introducing an inconsistent element for the reader. Benea (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I vote for a succession box. Given the massive number of succession boxes on WP, I don't see it as being inconsistent for the reader. I found the navigation box confusing, since the edit link doesn't lead you to a template page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but succession boxes aren't used in any ship articles; the reader would be more surprised by moving from New Orleans class cruiser or Baltimore class cruiser, both of which use the standard navbox. Using the succession box in this one article would be introducing a much larger inconsistency than substituting the navbox here. As for finding it confusing, remember that we're writing articles for readers who are primarily non-editors. They're not even going to notice the V/D/E buttons. Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is too much effort with the navigation templates. They may not be as important as we think they are. The before and after classes can be placed within the infobox. I don't see much of a reason why any template needs to be at the article bottom in this case. Brad (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)