Talk:USS Alabama (BB-60)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citing[edit]

This is an excellant article in many ways. I would like to ask that someone knowledgable provide citations throughout the article. If that were done, I should it would be ready for GA review. JBEvans 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to cite the tour information regarding the USS Alabama's interior. However, it is a fact that the engine room and 9 out of 10 5 inch turrets are not open to the public. Removing my statements regarding this does not change the fact. It is a disservice to the article to provide minutia but ignore or obfuscate the fact that major portions of the ship are no longer open to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Forester (talkcontribs) 22:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

New text added RE June 1944[edit]

Fnlayson, I think you misunderstand my edits. Let me explain:

  • The text added today by User:Spinneraj comes almost verbatim from the ship's updated DANFS page - which is fine, as that's PD, but means the standard DANFS comment & link (in References) covers the sourcing. The info at the angelfire link is not the source for the added text; hence my moving the angelfire link to External links.
  • I did not remove the navy.mil link - I moved it into the {{DANFS}} template in References. This is standard procedure on USN ship articles, as it explicitly identifies the source of any USN PD text used.
  • I removed an improper sort key - "Alabama, USS (BB-60}" will not parse properly. The DEFAULTSORT keyword takes care of sorting for all categories, and was already in place as "Alabama (BB-60)".

When you reverted my edit, you removed the angelfire link altogether; duplicated the navy.mil link, and reinserted an improper sort key. I hope this clarifies why I've reverted again; sorry if my edit summaries weren't clear. Maralia (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the angelfire.com page was still used as a reference. The well done quote is on that page, but using the navy.mil page is better. The article really needs inline references/footnotes. Given that the Navy page is an official one, I think it should be listed in references and external links. But guidelines suggests not to do that. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Under Siege[edit]

...well, that actually answered my long-standing question as to why, way back when when we visited Alabama, it was marked with #63! - The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)