Talk:USS Fitzgerald

message: Is "crest" the usual terminology for the badge/coat of arms in the USN?  Heraldicly it's of course not correct, as is especially clear here when the article ends up talking about the (heraldic) crest as part of the coat of arms as part of... the ship's crest.  If it's the predominant usage in practice though, we're probably stuck with it.  If not, wouldn't it be much clearer to say "badge", or something?  Alai 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship's crest

message: ... should be at the bottom of the history section.  If anywhere yet, because it's too early to report on this incident in an "enclopedia" - which this obviously is not. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the collision should be in the Lede.  Makes the article read more like a newspaper and less like an encyclopeida.2001:AC8:23:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The collision 

message: Particulars on this vessel can be found at http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:722169/mmsi:548789000/imo:9360611/vessel:ACX_CRYSTAL
Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Brad Lendon of CNN and other sources are confusing gross tonnage with displacement. We should stick to the marinetraffic.com site linked above.  Kablammo (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And the BBC gets it wrong too. Somehow I expected better from the BBC.  Kablammo (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And The Guardian  Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACX ''Crystal'' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on USS Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081018200535/http://www.yokosukabase.com/ to http://www.yokosukabase.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408153547/http://www.yokosukabase.com/News/tabid/79/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/28/USS-Fitzgerald.aspx to http://www.yokosukabase.com/News/tabid/79/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/28/USS-Fitzgerald.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, all. The June 17 collision has its own Wikipedia article; if you're inclined to add info to the ship's page, consider making the edits to the collision page instead. PRRfan (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you're adding to the Collision section, consider adding to the Collision article instead 

message: I left Youtube comment sections and came here looking for solid information on the collision and how/why it might have happened, only to find that it's "under investigation".  There are allegations of a cover-up being thrown around.  Given that this collision is the primary reason why anyone would consider the ship to be noteworthy, the most important aspect of the collision is either why/how it happened, and/or why the US Government might be interested in withholding this information from the public.  Terrorist attack?  Incompetent or mentally unbalanced Commanding Officer?  Failed technology (RADAR, or whatever).  Any information that grounds this article would serve to IMPROVE THE ARTICLE.2001:AC8:23:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Details on the Collision 

message: The material of source 20 end with the following statement:
"It was also evident from this review that the entire Fitzgerald crew demonstrated real toughness that night. Following the collision these Sailors responded with urgency, determination and creativity to save their ship. Their rigorous damage control efforts and dauntless fighting in the immediate wake of the accident prevented further loss of life."
I believe that it would balance the report about the "mishap" if those were included and not just the demotion/relief of duty. That source also mentions relief of duty of various other people on board of that ship, not just the top brass. So maybe it would be correct to include that as well ? JB. --92.195.1.14 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 20 

message: Articles here and here on loading and damage while loading.  (I won't be editing this article anytime soon.)  Kablammo (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status: end of November 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress