Talk:USS Nimitz

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Nimitz. 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/20151007110628/http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/local-news/uss-nimitz-arriving-today-for-long-maintenance-period_26473164 to http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/local-news/uss-nimitz-arriving-today-for-long-maintenance-period_26473164
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005060527/http://www.hs6.navy.mil/index.html to http://www.hs6.navy.mil/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Nimitz. 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/20090906214819/http://www.navy.mil/local/story_archive.asp?id=49 to http://www.navy.mil/local/story_archive.asp?id=49

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

USS Nimitz Title

The Title should include the designation "(CVN-68)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgar8 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A small group of powerful users has determined that the "(CVN-68)" is unnecessary because it is cryptic and American. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

As one member of this supposed cabal, it's simply the application of long-standing policy (namely, WP:PRECISE). Article titles should be no longer than they need to be to identify the subject, and as hull numbers are not part of the subject's name, they don't need to be included in the article title. Their purpose is disambiguation (both for our purposes and the Navy's) and where there is no need for disambiguation here, we don't need to slavishly repeat them. It's the same reason we don't need year of launch disambiguators for ships that are the only vessels to bear that name. If and when there is a second USS Nimitz, we can add the hull number to make clear we're talking about the CVN-68 Nimitz, not the CVN-XX one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Even within WP:PRECISE, there are examples of where further disambiguation is permitted for consistency reasons, such as for state highways. There certainly is some support for doing it for ships too. BilCat (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but WP:CONSISTENCY specifically points to topic-specific naming guides, and WP:NCSHIPS specifically rules out using disambiguators when they aren't necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2022 ;;(UTC)

Don't bother BilCat, the cabal and their spokesperson here won't give in on this, no matter how ridiculously inconsistent it makes USN ship articles look... (imo) - wolf 02:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

He's not the spokesperson, but the leader. But I want it on record that there are dissenters who object to their rule of iron and misuse of their admin privileges to enforce their prejudices. BilCat (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat: I would think that posting at wt:ships and wt:milhist would create a more effective record and possibly attract some useful attention to the situation. Just cuz they had a supposed consensus to support this way back whenever, doesn't mean that would be the case now. Consensus can always change. - wolf 03:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I'm just testing the waters at the moment. If you want to take lead on it now, that's fine with me. But I'm waiting too. BilCat (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Link needed?

Shouldn't this article link to USS Nimitz UFO incident? Te Nimitz article seems to me where people would look for information on this event. Kdammers (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Its already noted and linked in the "2000s" section, in 2004. - wolf 06:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)