Talk:USS Oriskany

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NPOV

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)[reply]

ex-Oriskany

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)[reply]

Lack of common sense knows no bounds when people's egos are involved.

McCain's 210' Dive?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Consistency and Map Links

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)[reply]

Class curiosity

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)[reply]

  • Interesting question. The U.S. Navy lists her as a Ticonderoga class aircraft carrier, so I think that's the proper way to go. [1] That means changing quite a bit of information though and I think several different wiki articles; more than I have the time or knowledge to do. croll 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blistered (in regards to hull) labeled vague

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)[reply]

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 {{vague}} 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)[reply]
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)" So, which is it? does Wikipedia "value the precision of expression over popular usage", or do we "change the wording" ot avoid a "vague" tag? What about using the correct terminology, along with a brief parenthetical explanation (or another Wiki page if time and ambition permit)? That would clear the fog of ambiguity as well as educating those of us who are not technical specialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk)

diving photos needed

Divers' photos would improve this article. doncram (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) {{reqphoto|in=Escambia County, Florida|in2=Santa Rosa County, Florida}}[reply]

Concur. Second anniversary of scuttling is coming up. It would be interesting to see what two year's growth looks like. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be diving the Mighty O next week (July 4 and 5 2008). I will be taking high quality photos and will make them available here if someone can show me how. Email me at jetlife2@mac.com. Thanks Gareth Richards Jetlife2 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that would be great! I will send this also by email, but here is my recipe:
1. First of all, take great pictures. Take lots!
2. To upload them, they need to be in JPG or other electronic files. They can be very large files, you don't need to compress them or reduce their detail in order for them to be used here. Automatic systems here will generate small versions for use in any situations here when just a small thumbnail view is needed.
3. It is preferred that photos be added directly to the Commons, that is at http://commons.wikimedia.org. Photos in the Commons can be accessed directly in the English language wikipedia and also in other wikipedia projects. You will have to create a free Commons account to upload there. Use the same username as your wikipedia username, just click "Login / create account" probably at the top right.
4. Uploading one of your own pics is very easy. Just click "Upload file" at the left, and select "It is entirely my own work". Browse to find your file to be uploaded. Fill out description and date fields. For "Licensing", you must select from a pull-down menu one of the licensing options, and the "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended)" is fine. For "Categories", an optional field, you can enter USS Oriskany and it will fill out "USS Oriskany (CV-34)" the rest of the way, because that is already an existing category (with pics of planes and the aircraft carrier, but no dive pics yet). Then click "Upload" and you are done.
5. Repeat for other pics.
6. Don't worry if you missed adding a category or whatever. You or others could edit the entry later and add more info or fill out optional fields.
7. Add your photo(s) to relevant wikipedia articles (you have to log in to wikipedia then), and/or please post a note to the Talk page of a given article, like you did here, about the photos being available. Note, there is an icon on the USS Oriskany article already, with "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: USS Oriskany (CV-34)", which links to a gallery of all the existing pics in the Commons category, but we would not necessarily learn that you have added pics.
If you can dive at another shipwreck and take pics, please do! If there is not already a Commons category for pics from that shipwreck, you can create one, and it is easy also to add a Commons gallery link in an article. Have fun, be safe, look forward to seeing your pics! doncram (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have added 63 dive photos of the O to the Commons. They were all taken by me July 4 and 5 2008. Hope you enjoy them. Jetlife2 (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oriskany is sinking

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)[reply]

I think this is exaggerated. You can read a description of the recent conditions here: Recent Dive Report

What is described is that the ship has sunk about 10 feet and is listing slightly. New stuff is visible. But the top of the island is still at only 76 ft. So there is still a lot in normal recreational range (to 130). I stood on the flight deck at 138 in July, but now at 146 that's a big stretch. Before, all the dive ops knew that people couldn't resist going to the flight deck (which was really boring anyway) but now I think they will be more "directive" about keeping people off it. Still sounds like a great dive, in fact, since I was there July 4/5 2008, now I want to go back and dive it again as see the new stuff! Jetlife2 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toasty O?

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)[reply]

oriskany

a navy ship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.89.159 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery of A-4s to New Zealand

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)[reply]

Anti-aircraft armament?

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)[reply]

== Hole in flight deck == Posted Feb 27, 2013

No where in cruise history from june 62 to dec 62, items of interest, while at sea, the "O" either cracked a Bull gear of bent a drive shaft. We headed to dry dock in Japan. At that time I heard a couple of pilots saying launching jets while in dry dock is a naval first. Also contractors cut a 25ftx25ft hole from the flight deck, through each deck, stacking them on top of each other on the flight deck. They finally reached the engine room. Remove damaged equip, replaced with new. Then replaced each deck as it was removed. As a RM2 in communications, I would pass this operation daily, have a handcuffed briefcase to my wrist, armed, and heading to base communications to deliver and pick up classified material.

I have attempted to contact ship mates, but no luck on the event.

I'm sure there were photos taken or something in the ships log. Over 51 yrs ago, but as clear as yesterday.

RM2 Ray Lewandowski 

   935 Toronto Ave
   Toledo, ohio 43609
   Navalbuddies.com     ski1@contractor.net
                   or   skistrim@mail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.195.226 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"24 Essex-class aircraft carriers completed during or shortly after World War II"

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)[reply]

Video in 1957 "The Deadly Mantis" film

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)[reply]

Small vessel on the flight deck of the sinking ship

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) 10/26/2016[reply]

Museum ship?

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

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:USS_Oriskany"