Talk:USS Cyclops

message: What I would like to use for a discussion page for the Cyclops is the allegation it may have been discovered by a diver off the Virginia Capes in 1968 while engaged in the search for the lost submarine USS Scorpion.  It is possible that other divers may have seen the same wreck without realizing it.  Carajou 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: I removed the following entry until such time that a citation is provided:
:The Cyclops appears in a series of books in which she appears without crew in a parallel universe in which the stories are set. She apparently steams into a big port, stopping only after running into a quayside; investigation finds that she is another ship that built itself, revealing that this is the place many ships and aircraft missing in the Triangle end up. According to this tale, Cyclops is put to work as a freighter and is still working at present.
Mdhennessey 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Scooby-Doo! Pirates Ahoy!, as the pirate ship travels into the Bermuda Triangle, ghosts of doomed ships and planes appear. At one point, the Cyclops steams alongside the pirate ship. Velma Dinkley mentions that this vessel had been missing for "a very long time."
Plus shortened the Quantum Leap entry.  The writer could have just mentioned both briefly, but got involved with needless wordage that was more akin to Dick and Jane than anything remotely serious.  Carajou 13:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: "Worley called on the United States Ambassador to Barbados" - no he didn't, Barbados wasn't independent until 1966. So who did he call on? Totnesmartin 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have to be changed to the "American counsul-general", instead of "ambassador"...but it should reflect the writing of the time.  Carajou 00:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be changed to "consul-general" if that was his title. It would be better not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Perhaps add "Described as an ambassador in some sources." Totnesmartin 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbados 

message: :Image:NYTcyclops.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NYTcyclops.jpg

message: The end of the second paragraph in the "Accusations" section states "the crews of these ships reported that Worley suffered from a personality allegedly akin to that of HMS Bounty's captain William Bligh; the crew was often brutalized by Worley for trivial things".  However, the wiki article on William Bligh states that "The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged."   So which is it?  Was he a gentle leader with his crew's best interest at heart or an irrational tyrant?  It seems very unencyclopedic for two articles to so blatantly contradict each other.  Personally I'm leaning towards the William Bligh article as being closer to the truth, but I'm not an expert, which is why I'm posting here so that hopefully someone more knowledgeable than myself can fix it.    Bookbaby2004 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to William Bligh 

message: This sentence... "She then sailed to Brazilian waters to fuel British ships in the south Atlantic, receiving the thanks of the State Department and CINCPAC.[2][3]" ...struck me as possibly in error. If they were operating in southern Atlantic waters then why did the Pacific command issue the thanks? I checked both those refs to try and verify but neither mentioned anything of the sort. Hmmmm...Sector001 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CINCPAC  vs. CINCLANT ? 

message: We should in some way be able to note that, although the loss is traditionally associated with the Bermuda Triangle, that there is no record, contemporary or through wreckage, as to how early or late in the journey this boat met its fate, and that any such association is speculative.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bermuda Triangle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on USS Cyclops (AC-4). 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/20060629024238/http://www.bermuda-triangle.org:80/html/letter_on_gottschalk.html to http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/letter_on_gottschalk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060629023909/http://www.bermuda-triangle.org:80/html/telegram.html to http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/telegram.html
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 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on USS Cyclops (AC-4). 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/20050208221200/http://www.navsource.org:80/archives/09/0291.htm to http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/0291.htm
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 01:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There has been an difference of view on whether this ship was the second or third of the Proteus-class ( quite reasonably reverted an unexplained IP change). I have tagged that sentence because this also raises a more basic point: whether there even was such a class. DANFS and other refs used do not mention it (Navsource includes it but that is not sufficiently reliable for this kind of question). Can anyone provide citations?  Whether Cyclops was second or third rather caught my eye because she was built and in service almost a year before any of the others were even laid down.  But perhaps I have missed some nuance here. - Davidships (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 32 of this All Hands article has an interesting breakdown of collier classes. It's a magazine so, I don't know how authoritative it is though. I think it's fair to remove the second or third in class item. this from 1921 lists 7 Jupiter class colliers. I think that makes more sense given the AC numbering. I'm guessing the class names changed over the years as Jupiter became Langley, they wouldn't perhaps have called it Jupiter class after that. here is an interesting 1912 article about Jupiter, which says it is a duplicate of Cyclops. Class names must have come later and I think changed over time. this source groups Jupiter, Cyclops and Neptune together, but does not give a class name. Proteus and Nereus are together, but separate from Jupiter also no class name. I don't know what to do on this, maybe go like DANFS did and not list classes. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Janes, 1919 groups Jupiter and Cyclops (Cyclops is mentioned in ship's lost section p. 612). Neptune is listed alone in that book, but Proteus and Nereus are grouped together. No AC numbers, no class names. Sci. American, 1914 discusses that Jupiter, Cyclops and Neptune have the same boilers, but three different was to turn the propeller. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The Proteus class thing was added in 2007 in this diff. They just said one of the Proteus class. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Proteus''-class 

message: At citation 15, theres a citation issue that reads,
" : Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)"
If someone could fix this, that'd be great. I have no idea how to fix it. Unbreakify (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theres a citation bug at for a book at ciation 15.