Talk:USS Oriskany

message: Down at the bottom, someone's laid it on REALLY thick about how selfish and nasty sailors oppose opening the Oriskany as a park for 'millions to enjoy' and instead want it scuttled.
:Gah.  I've tried to cut the bigotry a bit.  If you concur, you might consider removing the NPOV tag now. ➥the Epopt 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Even if it might be technically correct to refer to a decommissioned ship in this way (ex-...), I would think in common usage (and common sense) that object would still be considered the ship that it used to be. Therefore, I would suggest not using that expression.
:Thank you for your suggestion, but I will continue to use the correct and standard expression.  This is an encyclopedia.  We value precision of expression over popular usage. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ex-Oriskany 

message: A 210' dive is pretty ambitious for the soon to be 70 year old Senator.  This is well beyond sport diving limits and into mixed gas/techical dive territory.  Anyone have a citation for McCain's statement?  I assume the reef will get most of its play from the sport bottom fishing community rather than recreational divers.  --138.162.5.7 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recreational diving sites I've seen say that the bottom of the ship lies at 130', and the top of the island is at only 70. Maybe he can do it, I don't know. More power to him. :) - Tronno ( t | c ) 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tronno's correct, I believe. While the hull of the ship rests at 210', the deck is around 130' and the island rises to a depth of 70'. Most of the recreational dives only go to the island and, presumably, that's as far as McCain would go if he went. croll 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McCain's 210' Dive?

message: I noticed the paragraph beginning "The Navy announced 5 April 2004..." is apparently inconsistent in terms of the dates.  Specifically, it made the announcement in 2004 but awarded the contract in 2003?  That's certainly possible, but seems more like a typo given the context... Also, the satellite imagery map links don't appear to work. (Very interesting and well done article, though.) croll 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency and Map Links

message: The main Oriskany page refers to the ship as an Essex-class carrier;  history.navy.mil refers to her as a Ticonderoga-class.
I know the two classes were substantially similar, so it may be picking nits, but I'd like to know the correct class.
Estoude1 22:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class curiosity 

message: I have removed the label of "vague" from the word blister. It is a technical term and is correctly applied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.147.59 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipeedia is not read by technical specialists. Using the phrase "the hull was blistered" is odd usage to me, as I don't recall the term being used as a verb. I assume this means that side "blisters", or small sponsons, were added to the hull, but the wording leaves it open to possibly meaning the paint "blistered". While I'm not a naval expert by any means, I do have a decent working knowledge of terminology used. However, many Wikipedia users do not, and this phrasing would mean nothing to them. I assumed I know what it meant, but was uncertain enough not to change the wording myself without acces to a reliable source. If you were absolutely certain of the meaning, you should have changed the wording - that is what the  tag is used for, and why I put it there. Fix it, then remove the tag, instead of assuming every reader has your technical background. - BillCJ (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile... "Thank you for your suggestion, but I will continue to use the correct and standard expression. This is an encyclopedia. We value precision of expression over popular usage. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blistered (in regards to hull) labeled vague 

message: Somebody needs to update the article. The ship has sunk more and is rolling to one side thanks to the hurricanes and will soon no longer be easily divable by the public. 12.202.50.110 (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oriskany is sinking 

message: I'd rather that ship's nicknames be left out all together, but understand that former crew members might like them. Given that there are nicknames, it is also predictable that some of them might be in questionable taste.  "Toasty O" I'm sure refers to the fire, which was one of the worst non-combat fires ever.  This strikes me as beyond questionable taste, and disrespectful to the people who died, so I think it should be dropped.  I realize this is a slippery slope.  I just read the nicknames for the Intrepid, and imagine some people might think "Decrepid" is in poor taste, but I got a big kick out of it.  So I'm not sure where to draw the lineBusaccsb (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toasty O? 

message: a navy ship  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.89.159 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  oriskany 

message: In Ross Ewing's book Topped Gun: Requiem for the Skyhawk, he writes that the Oriskany delivered 14 A-4 Skyhawks to New Zealand in 1970. I do not know what page number—I haven't seen the book for a long time, and I am no longer certain of what I read. However, two sources show the USS Okinawa making the delivery: Thomas-Durell Young writing in Australian, New Zealand, and United States security relations, 1951-1986, and Phillip Treweek at kiwiaircraftimages.com. These sources indicate we should remove the mention. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery of A-4s to New Zealand 

message: We don't seem to list any defensive armament for the ship. Although the text mentions AA-turrets being removed, I assume this doesn't mean the ship had zero AA-guns or missiles, or does it?
Dave w74 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-aircraft armament? 

message: That sentence is only saying "24 Essex-class carriers were completed" while muddling the interesting bit, i.e. whether any given individual carrier was completed during or shortly after.
So which is it for Oriskany? Was it completed in time to participate in the war? The answer is no, it wasn't. So the part about being "completed during" the war is irrelevant if not misleading. 
I've rephrased this. I had a quick look at the Essex-class page, but it wasn't immediately apparent how many of the carriers that was completed after the war. 
Feel free to replace the current text with the specific number, let's say three:
"...was one of the 3 Essex-class aircraft carriers completed only after World War II."
This phrasing (again, the number is only an example) is much more relevant to the subject at hand, which is the Oriskany, and not Essex-class carriers in general. Thx, CapnZapp (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "24 Essex-class aircraft carriers completed during or shortly after World War II" 

message: Brief aerial video footage of CV-34 appears mid-way through the 1957 movie The Deadly Mantis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.51.42 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video in 1957 "The Deadly Mantis" film 

message: Just a question as to why there was a small vessel on the flight deck as the USS Oriskany was sunk.  Was there some research as to the suction forces of the sinking ship?  Were there cameras on board the smaller vessel to show what was happening as the Oriskany was sinking?  Just questions that came to mind as I was watching the sinking of the USS Oriskany and thought some of you might have an answer.
Fishingteach12 (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small vessel on the flight deck of the sinking ship 

message: Why didn't this ship become a museum ship?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum ship?