Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article USS Missouri (BB-63) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star USS Missouri (BB-63) is part of the Iowa class battleships series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 2, 2005.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Back and forth over role in plot of movie "Battleship"[edit]

I noticed that this was put in, removed, and put back in. IMO it should probably not be in there. But I could be convinced otherwise. At one time I argued for inclusion a mention in the role in the film "Under Siege" but I gave in on that. I really don't follow the guidelines of the 9 projects that consider this article to be "theirs", but, unlike the Cher video, the actual ship was not involved. And we gotta draw the line somewhere. That might be a good place. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for not including the information. Popular culture or not (and like it or not), these movies are a part of the ship's history now. Not including them isn't going to make them go away! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm near-neutral on this. Let's see what others say. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I reiterate that I am strongly against the inclusion of any pop culture in the individual ship articles because of the foot in the door phenomenon that they create. With the addition of the Under Siege material in this article we can no longer adhere to a position of having the material appear only in the class article, so I removed the material only until a reliable source could be provided. As upset as I am to see this type of BS in the article the current consensus is that pop cultural appearances can be placed in the individual articles, so all I really have to protest with is the lack of a reliable source, and now that a source has been provided we do not have a good reason to exclude the inclusion of the battleship mention despite the fact that the battleship appeared in less than a fourth of the total film. We need better guidelines for notability here, but for the time being it should be in the article. (Again, let me reiterate that I am STRONGLY against this, its just that no one else is with me, so consensus wins the day here). TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You are not alone. I have no use for pop culture in ship articles. I think that pop culture is simply trying to gain credibility by associating with a famous ship. Do away with all pop culture references in ship articles (and in class articles too).
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Just clarifying, "Under Siege" is not in the article (except as a "see also"). The Cher video is. This was the result of extensive discussion, and I was a proponent of inclusion. Presumably the fact that the Mighty Mo and her crew actually participated was a key point. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said, like it or not, we can't cover our ears and pretend Missouri had no role in popular culture. Featured articles are supposed to be able to stand on their own, and excluding this information—which may not be our preferred military history, but is certainly of encyclopedic interest in the ship—is a disservice to readers, who I guarantee will be looking for this information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just read the article on the movie. It appears that the ship itself participated in the making of the movie. If that is the case, then I'd switch my recommendation to "put it in", as such would be a part of the actual ship's history. The current attempted insertion makes no mention of this. But it should cover the ship's actual participation. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't simply do away with all pop culture references in ship articles simply because you don't like them. This article is about the history of the ship. When that history includes something that is considered pop culture, excluding it from the article simply because it is pop culture is not a good reason. Everytime a ship appears in a movie shouldn't be noted, I heartily agree. That is a reference to the ship, and not part of the ship's actual history. But when the ship is heavily involved in the actual production, then its participation is part of the history. You can't tell me it isn't noteworthy that while a museum ship in Pearl Harbor active duty Navy sailors were brought on board to tow the ship out to sea. But then it becomes suddenly un-noteworthy because the reason it was towed out to sea was so it could be filmed as a major Hollywood movie. We can't decide what goes into articles based on what category of information it is. If it is noteworthy and relevant enough as a non-pop culture fact, then we can't exclude it because it is.Dworjan (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, and already agreed with you. Not sure if you read my final post. Actual participation of the ship in something should be covered. Also some thoughts to the contrary fail to make the distinction when the article is about a particular item, not just a type of item where there are multiple copies of it and participation of one of this "copies" does not make such participation notable. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, mine was a general reply to several of the above posts, not to yours specifically. I see that you and I agree on this point. If something is part of the history of the ship, then it is part of the history of the ship, even if it is "pop culture" in nature. For example, there is no reason to include things like "Under Siege" or any songs that may mention the ship in them, because the ship had nothing to do with them. Those movies or songs may have everything to do with Missouri, but if Missouri had nothing to do with the production then it isn't part of the history. However, when the ship and crew do something, even if that something is host a music video or get underway for a film production, then that is part of the ship's history.Dworjan (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Alas, there is no general "policy" for trivia mentions because of WP:TRIVIA.
I concede if President Obama visits Tinytown, North Dakota. It might wind up in their "History" subsection. Nothing like that has happened to that town EVER. But if the President visits New York City, it is a big yawner. So what? Doesn't every president?
In other words, who is doing who any good here? Is the President doing Tinytown any good? It would appear so. They are basing their history on the President's resume. Not so for NYC.
Is the Missouri doing any good for the film? Or is it vice-versa? What is the topic of the film? The Missouri? Or just "some ship?" Student7 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As awful as the film Battleship is, Missouri is a fairly large part of the film's plot, which seems to have been written specifically to make connections to Missouri's history and presence in Hawaii (i.e. writing in a part for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and setting the film in the Pacific). The film strikes me as being about the battleship Missouri, rather than being about a battleship which happens to be Missouri. As an article about the ship, it seems reasonable to me that the article mention the film. --IxK85 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
If you mean by "awful", "financially unsuccessful" and not "artistically unsatisfactory", then it appears that the film is here as promotion. i.e. WP:SPAM. That is, the film stands to benefit by its association with the battleship, and not the other way around. It should not be included for that reason. Student7 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
That argument strikes me as spurious - the film is no longer recent, and a line in a Wikipedia article hardly promotes the film. Given that the film is about the ship, the film is part of the ship's history, and as such a reference to it in this article (of an appropriate level of detail, for instance a single sentence) seems appropriate to me. --IxK85 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The reason for inclusion here isn't simply because "Battleship" is about USS Missouri. It should be included because USS Missouri was heavily involved in the production of the film. "Under Siege" was about USS Missouri, but since (other than some stock footage) Missouri wasn't involved in the production, including it here would be more in the realm of spam or pop culture. Looking at other facts that are included in this article such as port visits, dry dockings, etc, a single sentence mentioning the ship was towed out to sea with the assistance of active duty Navy sailors to film scenes for the movie Battleship seems entirely reasonable. The ship went out and did something noteworthy (how many museum ships get underway...?), and it happens that what it did was film scenes for a movie. If it was towed out to sea with active duty sailors onboard in order to be used for a sonar test or drone testbed, that fact would already be in this article without any debate. Dworjan (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Addressing other concerns while recapping, it is an over-generalization to lump questions about non-military-service-items into military equipment articles together as some have been doing. Four of the main defining attributes are that the article is about a single entity, and that entity actually participated in the event. Also the participation and the resulting prominence is significant. Lastly, the movie has surpassed the low bar of rw:notability for inclusion in an article, having even met the higher standard of having established wp:notability as evidenced by having its own article. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Missouri kind of a prop here. A ship that old, which hasn't moved lately, can't really move itself without a lot of work. So towing presumed.
Goes to show, pay the Navy enough and they will haul the Arizona up and out to sea for a day! Or maybe the Constitution! Student7 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
And that is why it should be included here. It was a lot of work to tow her out to sea for the filming. And it is something very atypical for a museum ship, and therefore worth mentioning.Dworjan (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Date, Month and Year[edit]

The ship is made in the US, so are the other warships made in this country. I think we should change the Date/Month/Year to the American Month/Day/Year to those articles, including the article of the USS Missouri. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Virgule-separated date elements are discouraged by WP:DATEFORMAT regardless of which element is first. See also WP:STRONGNAT because modern US military.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding the sequence, WP:STRONGNAT supports the sequence proposed by BattleshipMan. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Aye, but WP:STRONGNAT then goes on to say "articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." Because WP:STRONGNAT specifically addresses US military articles, that is the date format that applies.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Giving the circumstances, I agree to what North8000 said about my proposal on the date sequence. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What circumstances? Dmy dates were introduced to the article with the addition of the infobox at this version (the eleventh edit after the article's creation). At the time both mdy and dmy date formats were in use. The article's transition to a uniform date format was more-or-less complete complete by this version of the article. The transition was not controversial. There has been no discussion of date formats in the whole history of this article.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
US Military articles are free to use dmy date format per STRONGNAT. No need for change, nothing's broken. Binksternet (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 29th addition[edit]

Something needs tweaking (even if the source said it) It says that she was not open to tourists in her last stay in Brememton. I went aboard as a tourist there in 1995; I remember it well and just looked at the dated photos. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


When Missouri deployed, we had 31 Tomahawks on board. One cell was intentionally empty and the crew used it for training purposes (launching and misfire scenarios). At the end of our operations in the Gulf, we had 1 inop missile, one had restrained, the remaining 29 had been launched.

Paul Sweeney, FCC(SW) GM div, USS Missouri.