Talk:United States Navy ships

message: Although I don't doubt the larger part (albeit the much), what exactly does "Powerful" mean? Aircraft carriers aren't even armed. Is it more engine power-wise (being nuclear and all), that they can have higher speeds and cover more grounds? Or that they can hold more planes, thus more power? This is pretty ambiguous, and also deserves a citation. What is it that makes the USS Enterprise "more powerful" than the French Charles de Gaulle (R 91), for example? (Not saying it isn't, I'm asking for clarification)happypal (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems rather dubious to me as well. --Brad (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes U.S. carriers "more powerful"? Well, if you had bothered to read the entry on the de Gaulle, for example, and, say, the entry on even one of the oldest U.S. carriers, Enterprise for example, you'd have found that the Enterprise carries twice as many aircraft (a carrier's chief "armament"--and, by the way, U.S. carriers are in fact "armed" in the conventional sense with surface-to-air missiles and sometimes Phalanx guns systems) and is faster than the de Gaulle, making it "more powerful" by just about any definition. And the same holds true for the newer generations of U.S. Carriers, but even more so. 69.141.34.79 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. The Nimitz-class are unparalleled in their combat capabilities compared to other carriers in service. So, they truly deserve the descriptor "more powerful" as they are by any objective measure. Jmdeur (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "And its carriers are much larger and more powerful" 

message: That is if it ever had a plan. It seems to be confused whether it should be a list or an article. The majority of the article is a list anyway. The disambig page for USS points here and United States Ship also redirects here. There are many many lists that already exist that can take over the list part of this article. I think what we really need is a solid explanation for what a United States Ship is and then point readers towards lists. I would also recommend that this article should be moved to United States Ship where it would do the most good. --Brad (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be redirecting this article to List of United States Navy ships in a few days. The other related articles have been updated accordingly. --Brad (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While not exactly sure what "outlived its original plan" means, this article is actually quite helpful in that it takes a stab at listing USN ships by mission instead of just being an alphabetical listing as the other article mentioned does. If anything, I'd suggest expanding this article (or rearranging the other one) to list all USN ships by mission or, at least, class. If you want to keep an alphabetical listing too, that's okay, but not really very helpful. Jmdeur (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that.  This article is useful, it shouldn't be replaced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has outlived its original plan 

message: There seems to be a lot of overlap between this article and List of current ships of the United States Navy. Should they be merged?99.108.205.213 (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, List of current ships of the United States Navy, is a definitive, more-detailed and up-to-date article. If anything, this article, and List of currently active United States military watercraft are basically duplicates and redundant. -  theWOLFchild 03:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 

message: A few things come to mind, first; do we really need to list every individual ship? There are already numerous articles that do that, and to do so here is not only redundant but creates a need for constant updating and referencing. Note that there are no ships listed under "cruiser", 
"destroyer", or "submarine" (which is more than half the comm. fleet) so this article isn't even consistent. But as it is, it seems that the purpose of this article is to give brief descriptions on each type of ship. It can do that satisfactorily with only the ship classes noted under each type. I'll leave this here for awhile, if no one objects, I'll start making changes. I'm not just looking to remove individual ships, but to also update and improve the article overall. -  theWOLFchild 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major update needed 

message: I've made some changes, most significantly adding more descriptive content to each type and removing the lists of individual ships, but leaving the lists of specific ship classes. We simply have no need of these lists. Over time, too many have been created but they're not being maintained, leaving them constantly out of date. We already have lists of ships at;
* List of United States Navy ships
* List of current ships of the United States Navy
* List of currently active United States military watercraft
* Equipment of the United States Navy
Additionally, each individual ship-class article has lists of each ship within the class, there are ship-type pages that have lists and numerous other pages do as well. It simply wasn't needed on this article. -  theWOLFchild 12:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up March 2016

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Navy ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705041832/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/09/sub.accident.02/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/02/09/sub.accident.02/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most listings adopt the format of "# active of # planned". In other words, the total is the # planned and the # active is a subset.
But some listings adopt the format of "# active, # planned". In other words, the total is the sum of the # planned and the # active.
For the sake of clarity, it should be standardized one way or the other throughout the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambroginogiusti (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you post links to a couple of articles, each showing an example of what you're referring to? - wolf 20:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency about "planned" ships