Talk:USS Enterprise (CVN-65)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Enterprise in popular culture[edit]

I am aware you reverted my entry regarding the Enterprise in The Hunt For Red October. I suggest you undo the reversion.

The Enterprise had a unique island. That island is clearly visible when the Greyhound carrying Jack Ryan landed on the ship, and again in the distance shot after the ramp strike with the fire on the flight deck. I don't have the minutes and seconds for those shots, but they ARE in the movie. If necessary, I can play the DVD and get the times. I am presuming that the film itself as shown in theaters is an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Jaruk (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roy Jaruk:, it appears your comment is directed at BilCat, but I must say that I agree with his revert of your addition. While he indicated it was "unsourced", I believe it was more problematic than that. The glimpses we see of Enterprise in that film do not really tell us anything encyclopaedic about the ship. The purpose of "pop culture" sections (which are controversial), is not to create an exhaustive list of every single appearance, glimpse, peek, hint or mention, of a subject in every single film, tv series, book, video game, etc. Please have a look at WP:MILPOP for more information. Thank you - wolf 19:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture redux[edit]

@BilCat: et al. - recent edits to this section of the article reminded of this relatively recent discussion here. As I write this, the section basically has four entries;

  1. Yours, Mine and Ours (1968 film) - I haven't seen this film in a looong time and basically don't remember it. Does anyone know if it is indeed a worthwhile entry?
  2. Top Gun (1986 film) - I believe this to a worthwhile entry and would contest removal. Thoughts?
  3. USS Enterprise#Star Trek fictional spacecraft from the Star Trek franchise - certainly a worthy inclusion, but perhaps a currently wordy one as well and could use a trim? Thoughts?
  4. JAG (TV series) - Enterprise stood in for a fictional USN carrier in the pilot episode. I don't recall anything about this show. Again, does anyone know if this is also a worthwhile entry?

--Cheers - wolf 10:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd restore the Top Gun entry, and the Star Trek IV "appearance" (it famously being named in the film though they actually used Ranger because Enterprise was out to sea at the time). The former because it's one of the primary settings of the film, the latter because, well, it's Star Trek and the Enterprise. The others are trivial. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for any entry, we have to ask; is the coverage of the article subject (eg: Enterprise) significant and does it provide an accurate and encyclopaedic insight into the article subject for the reader? (which would would otherwise not be available.) Which, if any, of these entries do just that? And which ones fall short? - wolf 04:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Overhauls" section - needs sourcing[edit]

This section was removed today as it is in need sourcing. (It was tagged as such for 4 years.) If any one can provide the sourcing needed, that would be helpful. Meanwhile, I've re-posted the section here for ease of access:

Overhauls list

Overhauls[edit]

  • April 1962 to June 1962 – Post Shakedown Availability
  • November 1964 to July 1965 – Refueling and Complex Overhaul – mast raised, second yardarm added.
  • 1965-1966 Vietnam tour of duty
  • June 1966 to September 1966 – Overhaul – waist catapult bridle catcher removed; 2 Mk-25 BPDM added.
  • July 1967 to September 1967 – Limited Availability
  • July 1968 to September 1968 – Overhaul
  • January 1969 to March 1969 – Repairs – repairs to explosion and fire damage.
  • August 1969 to January 1971 – Refueling and Complex Overhaul
  • March 1972 to May 1972 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • July 1973 to February 1974 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • July 1975 to November 1975 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • May 1977 to July 1977 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • January 1979 to February 1982 – Complex Overhaul – mast replaced; ECM dome removed; SPS-32/33 arrays replaced with SPS-48/49; 3 CIWS added; forward port sponson added; forward starboard sponson with Mk-29 added; aft port BPDM replaced with Mk-29; aft starboard BPDM removed.
  • May 1983 to September 1983 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • November 1985 to January 1986 – Repairs – hull/keel/propeller repairs from collision with Cortes Bank, Channel Islands, California.
  • September 1986 to March 1987 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • October 1988 to April 1989 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • October 1990 to September 1994 – Refueling and Complex Overhaul – aft boarding dock added.
  • February 1997 to August 1997 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • June 1999 to December 1999 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • January 2002 to May 2003 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • September 2004 to October 2005 – Selected Restricted Availability – RAM replaces CIWS at forward port sponson; RAM added to aft starboard sponson.
  • May 2006 to November 2006 – Selected Restricted Availability
  • April 2008 to April 2010 – Selected Restricted Availability

- Cheers - wolf 05:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Record of Sound Effects on U.S.S. Enterprise (Audio Fidelity Records)[edit]

Hi,

I would like to add a link to the page about this vinyl disk. My dad was president of Audio Fidelity Records.

https://gripsweat.com/item/294377781338/lp-vintage-sound-effects-on-the-uss-enterprise-in-1963-audio-fidelity-vg

Please let me know the best way to do this. anderonia Anderonia (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anderonia: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, So it's not going to happen. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime, my question was not about "promotion" at all. I thought actual sound effects from the ship would be of interest to readers of this article. Sincerely, @Anderonia Anderonia (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@flightime Also, you are not the boss of Wikipedia. I would make NO money from any sales of the vinyl. The link is a reference point. with a photo of the ship that may also be of interest to those reading this article. Anderonia (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, NOONE is the boss not even Jimbo Wales - FlightTime (open channel) 19:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: There is a free version on youtube if we would want to add these effects. I think it would be interesting just to add them on so people can listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62VFeXzKX0c Maxw1007 (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of Nuclear Reactors aboard the ship[edit]

Hey all,

I could use some help finding some evidence. My grandfather who worked on the ship has stated that he was undoubtedly sure that there were only 4 nuclear reactors on this ship. i have done tons of digging but cannot find any proof of this being true. Has anyone else had counts of this? I hate to not believe my grandfather, but I also don't want to tell him he is wrong. Has anyone seen any source of evidence of maybe a reactor upgrade/refit to the carrier he may have not known about? He was aboard from Nov-1967-April-1972, so he may have not been there when said refit may have happened. Would be nice to show him some sort of evidence. Thanks! Maxw1007 (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I've ever heard is 8 reactors also. There were 4 steam turbines and 4 propeller shafts, so perhaps he mixed them up in his memory. BilCat (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got information about that as well, but I didn't know if he may have been referring to it. He says he worked day by day on reactor 2, and never remembered 8. Once again he is in his 70's so he may have lost some info. I'm not sure though. Maybe he was referring to the steam turbines? Worded it wrong? But I remember him saying that it was the reactors not the steam turbines. Maxw1007 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/us/uss-enterprise-1960.php discusses the reactors so does A2W reactor. The numbering apparently was 1A and 1B, 2A and 2B, 3A and 3B, 4A and 4B for a total of 8, but numbered 1 to 4. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not "correct" misinformation[edit]

When someone corrects misinformation, do not change it back to the false information. Not all "sources" are accurate.There is incorrect information on CVN-65, I corrected it and someone who is misinformed changed it back to the wrong information which dishonors all of us who actually served on her who know the correct information. 2600:1006:B171:7710:0:25:AEFF:5201 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the information is incorrect, then you will have to cite a source that proves that. Loafiewa (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)&oldid=1220116376"