Talk:USS Milwaukee (CL-5)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Milwaukee (CL-5) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

USS Milwaukee (CL-5) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 13, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Ships

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

Military history: Maritime / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Russia: Technology & engineering / History / Military Low‑importance

	Russia portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Depth of Milwaukee Deep[edit]

The depth of the Milwaukee Deep listed in this article does not agree with the number given in the main page for Milwaukee Deep.--Tomyhoi (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Builder[edit]

I've found that it looks like the wrong shipyard is used in the article. From what I've found, Seattle Construction and Drydock Company was sold and changed its name in 1916 to Todd Pacific Shipyards, Inc., Tacoma WA. This page shows Milwaukee. [1] This page is from the Navy. [2]. I won't make any changes until I here back.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I went ahead and did it myself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]