Talk:USS Oregon (BB-3)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parts sold?[edit]

A friend told me that parts of the USS Oregon were sold to the mining operation at Jawbone Flats, Oregon in the Opal Creek Wilderness. There are indeed numerous rusty boilers and cool stuff like that up there, right off the main trail. Seems like an interesting addendum to the history of the ship. This is mostly a note to myself (or whoever beats me to it) to follow up on that and see if there is a source for the info. Katr67 21:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Oregon in dry dock, 1898.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:USS Oregon in dry dock, 1898.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 19, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-05-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 19:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Oregon (BB-3)
USS Oregon (BB-3) was a pre-dreadnought Indiana-class battleship of the United States Navy. Her voyage from California around South America to the East Coast in March 1898 in preparation for war with Spain popularized the ship with the American public and demonstrated the need for a shorter route, which led to construction of the Panama Canal.Photo: Edward H. Hart
Archive – More featured pictures...
If you had posted this one or two weeks ago I would have done just that, but now it is already too late. Yoenit (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Station?[edit]

The Pacific Station was Royal Navy. Is it correct where the second paragraph says "Oregon served for a short time with the Pacific Station before being ordered on a voyage around South America . . ." Surely not. --KenWalker | Talk 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used in the DANFS entry of the ship [1] and in several contempary sources. Clearly the term is not commonly used anymore, but it seems as though the Pacific Station article is incomplete and term is not Royal Navy only. I suppose we could relink to Pacific Squadron, but none of the sources actually mentions that term. Yoenit (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo Tubes[edit]

The footnotes indicate a discrepancy in the number of torpedo tubes. The number of torpedo tubes changed over time. Notice in the picture shown The aft torpedo tube is removed, plated over and unpainted. That picture is dated 1898. I have other pictures from the same year showing the tube in place.

Thus, it is likely that it is during this drydocking and refit in Brooklyn that the torpedo tube (which ran through the Captain's cabin and was probably a nuisance) was removed.

I suggest then that there were originally 6 torpedo tubes (bow, stern 2x port, and 2x starboard) and this was reduced to 5. The side tubes were above the armor belt, 2 forward and 2 aft. The doors on the starboard side are both open in the picture.

Big Jim Slade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.229.151 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jim, what you say sounds likely, but unfortunately we can't include it into the article unless we have a published source that explicitly says so. This is because Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research. Yoenit (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast[edit]

Is she the only US Navy Battleship built on the west Coast ? Only a limited number of US Navy Cruisers were built on the West Coast. Wfoj3 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wfoj3: - no, USS Wisconsin (BB-9) and USS Ohio (BB-12) were built by the Union Iron Works in San Francisco and USS Nebraska (BB-14) was built by Moran Brothers in Seattle. For dreadnoughts, USS California (BB-44) and the cancelled Montana (BB-51) were built at Mare Island. Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: re-commission vs. 2nd commission (participation welcomed and encouraged)[edit]

Oregon
USS Oregon in dry dock, 1898
History
United States
NameOregon
NamesakeState of Oregon
Ordered30 June 1890
BuilderUnion Iron Works
Laid down19 November 1891
Launched26 October 1893
Sponsored byDaisy Ainsworth
Commissioned15 July 1896
Decommissioned27 April 1906
Recommissioned29 August 1911
Decommissioned4 October 1919
Stricken2 November 1942
IdentificationHull symbol: BB-3
Nickname(s)Bulldog of the navy
FateSold for scrap, 1956

I did some homework on this both before I made the adjustment to the {infobox} and now more after the alteration by @A 10 fireplane:

I do not believe that re-commission (with or without the hyphen) is an appropriate word in this instance and I oppose its usage as a custom field label. It should be listed as "2nd Commission" or similar. Same with the additional decommissioning. If one of our soldiers, or other enlisted personnel, accepts or is assigned an additional tour of duty we do not refer to it as a "re-tour". They are said to have taken a 2nd tour of duty.(or 3rd ect.) If one chooses to extend their military service career without interruption, they preform the verb of reenlistment. I would surmise that our ships having been given a name and identity, would also garner the same form of acknowledgement to multiple instances of service to our country. I'm not saying "recommission" is not a usable word as a verb, I am challenging it as usable as a noun in this instance. I could not locate a distinct term for a soldier that retires or otherwise leaves military service and then returns for an additional assignment or duty, then showing a gap or "off-duty period" in the service record.

I am not well-read into our military, nor am I in any sense an authority on the English language, but this is what I have found and how I perceive the information I have on the issue. I open this for discussion and ask for input from editors wiser on the subject than I, rather than just edit over the top of someone who has only asked for help in improving the article to begin with. I want to assure not only accuracy within the article making it better, but that my concept of this is not askew or uncommon when compared with other people.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, I had seen "Re-commission" in a different article, but after what you've said I agree with you. I really appreciate your correction and help with improving the article and totaly agree. Sorry I edited over top of you in the first place @Darryl.P.Pike: A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A 10 fireplane: Please, do not be sorry, at all. Please, Wikipedia:Be bold! Your edit was cause for discussion and resulted in a better article, there was nothing incorrect about it. This is exactly how the wiki is supposed to work, and we both learned the same thing for different reasons. Learning is a life long process. Feel free to hit me up for help or questions by posting on my talk page or {ping} me from yours is just as acceptable. Several people have helped me grow my knowledge and understanding of this site, I am happy to pass that on and point you in the right direction should you need it. Keep it up! ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl.P.Pike: Awesome thanks I'll keep helping and learning from people like you, y'all are the real reasion Wikipedia is so great ;) A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl.P.Pike: I just read the Wikipedia:Be bold! and its really motivating, will do thanks :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide#Infobox ship career has this guidance for multiple commissioning events which I have illustrated in the infobox section in this topic:

  • Used best with multiple copies of the "Career" subtemplate (|Ship commissioned= and |Ship decommissioned= fields in the first template, |Ship recommissioned= and |Ship decommissioned= in the second).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl.P.Pike: what Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) said is true. Wikipedia does list it as re-commission, however I do still agree it should be 2nd Commission. Thank you Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) for the imput. A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Darryl.P.Pike:, just wondering if the templates talk page would be a better place to bring this up, you probably aren't getting the audience that you need here.Pennsy22 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Oregon (BB-3)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claim my seat here. I'll do a review as fast as possible. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • as tensions with Spain over Cuba grew in early 1898 Pipe Cuba with the Captaincy General of Cuba.
    • Done
  • a convoy for the Siberian expedition Proper noun?
    • I don't think so, or at least that article doesn't treat it as one
  • @Parsecboy: I found some sources which use with an upper case like this and this one. I also found some sources who use both with or without an upper case and some do not or "intervention" has an upper case. By MOS:MILTERMS we should capitalise every proper noun of conflict unless the majority of sources do not use an upper case. But in theory, both are acceptable; I believe there is no issue here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hunch that capitalizing is more common in UK/Commonwealth and less so with American references - I think that was a trend noticed when we had that huge discussion about it at MILHIST earlier this year. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha British English is so supprising and you always learn something I think most Britons do not know how to write proper British English. ;) Anyway I don't think there is a reason to not promote it to GA. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to begin modernizing the navy and authorized -- "to begin modernizing the Navy and authorized"
    • Fixed
  • She displaced 10,288 long tons (10,453 t) as designed Link both tons.
    • Done
  • rated at 9,000 indicated horsepower (6,700 kW) and four Link kW.
    • Done
  • they got underway for Rio de Janeiro, Argentina What the city is in Argentina I thought it was in Brazil?
    • Haha, whoops!
  • Oregon departed for a visit to Japan that lasted into May Link Japan to the Empire of Japan.
    • Done
  • carrying the force for the Siberian expedition that intervened Expedition is part of the proper noun.
    • I don't know that it is, per above

Images

  • Looks good to me.

Sources

  • koin is not available in Europe. :L
    • Huh, I wonder why not?
  • It states "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." that's one of the things I really hate about some American news agencies who don't want to follow the European Union's laws and trust me this isn't the first time. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that makes sense - I had forgotten about that. Internet privacy laws aren't the only thing it'd be nice to import from the EU :/ Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anything correct formatted now I do not have access to the website which really piss me off? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, everything is formatted as the article has it - the last word in the title should be capitalized, but that's how they have it in the article itself, so I left it as they put it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good.
  • Hale's source says its year is 1911 in the article but WorldCat says 1912?
    • Fixed the OCLC number - that was for the 2nd edition, apparently
  • "American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the U.S. Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet" --> "American Steel Navy: A Photographic History of the U.S. Navy from the Introduction of the Steel Hull in 1883 to the Cruise of the Great White Fleet, 1907–1909"
    • Done
  • "McKinley's Bulldog: the Battleship Oregon" -->McKinley's Bulldog: The Battleship Oregon"
    • Done

Infobox

  • Link both tons.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Oregon_(BB-3)&oldid=1213184686"