Talk:USS Enterprise (CV-6)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Yorktown Class[edit]

The way it currently is written says Enterprise was the only one of three aircraft carriers commissioned before World War II to survive the war. That's not entirely accurate because the USS Saratoga also survived the war, although it was sunk as a target in 1946. The more accurate way of describing it would be to say it was the only one of three Yorktown-class aircraft carriers to survive the war. -- (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To whom was the USS Enterprise (CV-6) sold to?

Some scrapping company, dunno who exactly. Usually takes a couple years to take apart a carrier completely. Stan 01:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to Steven Ewing in his 1982 book "USS Enterprise (CV-6), the Most Decorated Ship of World War II", she was sold to Lipsett for scrap and dismantled in 1958. The location was Kearny, New Jersy on the Hackensack River.

Such a sad end to a true fighting ship. Its shame that she was scrapped rather then preserved. Alyeska
I agree. Ships like that ought to be preserved for future generations. TomStar81 21:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of the WWII USN ships that are preserved as Museums, and this ship was not is a travesty. It was partly a timing, no organization started any efforts for her preservation -the battleships had state government efforts to preserve the battleship named after them. The 3 preserved Essex class carriers served until near 1970 or 1990 (Lexington, CV-16) (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Smashing? hurling? OMG, this article needs a less boosterish, more NPOV rewrite. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

see response below in #Rah Rah.--J Clear 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag?[edit]

Just wondering, is there any particular cleanup that is needed? Or is it just a general overhaul of "resectioning" and stuff? --Havocrazy 04:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rah Rah[edit]

I agree with MikeReichold, the language describing some of Enterprise's battles is less than neutral in tone, more suited for 1940's newsreels than wiki. The ship's battle honours speak for themselves, they don't need hyperbole. I have removed the rather informal "Big E" label in most sections, replacing it with Enterprise (leaving it where it belongs as the ships nickname and in one heading where it seemed appropriate). IMO what is needed now is a moderate rewrite to remove some of the overly emotive language and perhaps a revision of some of the sectioning. This later task is probably not a huge one, with a few minor divisons: e.g. seperate "After Pearl Habor" into "After Pearl", "Wake Island" and "Doolittle Raid" and maybe one or two other similar subsectionings. There is also a crying need for much of the information to have citations. Jaxsonjo 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is the reason for both your observations. The public domain DANFS ship article is often copied to start a wikipedia ship article and the tone comes from there. DANFS is then cited as a reference for the whole article.--J Clear 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This legendary ship was sold for scrap? Boosterism aside, what a bad idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was insane that what was possibly the ship most worthy of preservation in all of human history (and certainly in American history) was cut up for scrap metal. (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Enterprise is only one example of the ships of historic significance lost during that time frame. Harbors of the victorious nations simply didn't have room for all the ships built during the period of hostilities. The United States Navy decided to dedicate available harbor space to ships likely to be most useful in the immediate future. Priority was given to cargo ships and turbine-powered warships less than 5 years old. A few older cruisers and battleships escaped the torch for a decade or so; but sacrifices included nearly all cruisers and destroyers that had escorted carriers and survived Pacific surface battles during 1942. More understandable, but no less lamentable, was the decision to sacrifice significant warships of defeated nations, including the first 16-inch gun battleship Nagato and the technologically advanced cruiser Prinz Eugen. Even had Enterprise avoided the torch, the present condition of Admiral Dewey's Spanish-American War flagship Olympia illustrates the costs of preservation and uncertainty of long term survival.Thewellman (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A very good piece of film of the August 24, 1942 attacks[edit]

I have just added a YouTube link to a film of the attacks on the Enterprise on August 24, 1942. It matches so well Image:USS enterprise-bomb hit-Bat eastern Solomons.jpg that I wonder whether the picture could just be a frame from the film. Anyway, it is an extraordinary piece of history. Bradipus 11:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I had been astonished by the resemblance between hhe pic used in the "South Pacific operations" (Image:USS enterprise-bomb hit-Bat eastern Solomons.jpg) section and the images in the film, especially around 03:05. Reading cautiously what this site exactly says, I discover that "Marion Riley (PhoM 2/c) manned a motion picture camera from the aft end of the ship's island, above the flight deck. (...) The bomb exploding in the photo was the third to hit the ship, and was photographed from above the flight deck. (...) the photo is Marion Riley's. Riley's camera was damaged by the explosion, but the film survived. A dramatic sequence of stills from the film was published in Life Magazine months after the battle."
I will slightly edit the article to indicate this, as well as the relevant Commons pages. Bradipus 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


The Enterprise was named after a long series of ships, primarily CVN-65) the new (at the time) fleet carrier, and the world's first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Here is a alternate beginning to the article:

"The USS Enterprise was a legendary aircraft carrier that served in the Second World War and was the most decorated American ship in that conflict."

Damn, this ship is almost like a fairy tale on how legendary it is. Among members of the U.S. Navy, this is one of the ships they reference the most as the pride of the American fleet. Recruiters and instructors frequently speak about the gallantry of the vessel, and how pivotal it was in several of the major battles it participated in. I think that should be reflected on here. What a ship. I'm sure a few non-American ships or planes have been called legendary, so the Enterprise is not exclusive to the title. If fictional characters and battles are called legendary on this very wikipedia, then a ship that actually earned that title should rightly be called so. -- (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

Calling fictional characters and battles "legendary" can be quite appropriate – considering the literal sense of "legendary" – more so than calling a real object "legendary"; in fact, it's better to reserve this epithet for non-historical objects.
It's better to avoid such terms (which may be considered WP:PEACOCK terms) and list the real achievements connected with the ship, leaving the judgment to the reader.
That said, considering the prominence of the ship, I too wonder if it was the main inspiration for naming the starship thus. USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)#Television series says: Star Trek art director Matt Jefferies was the primary designer of the original Enterprise, which was originally named Yorktown in series creator Gene Roddenberry's first outline drafts of the series. [...] Jefferies' experience with aviation led to his Enterprise designs being imbued with what he called "aircraft logic". (Emphasis through bolding mine.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've only just seen USS Enterprise (CVN-65)#In popular culture. So the IP in the preceding section is apparently right. This should be incorporated into the relevant Star Trek articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


When "E" returned for duty in late '44, she was re-designated CV(N)-6.[1] She gained the "(N)" designation for her new abilities as a night fighter. However, I see no mention of this in the article. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Major change in operations, so yes definitely needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So she served as a night carrier, but what about the bomber and torpedo squadrons on board, where they also made for night operations, or only the fighter squadrons ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been unable to access so I cannot verify this assertion, but I strongly suspect that this was an informal designation, not an official one as it's not mentioned in the DANFS entry on the ship. Saratoga was also used as a night-capable carrier and there's also no official mention of any suffix added when that happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

British Admiralty Pennant[edit]

This (and many other articles on CV-6) claim that the Enterprise was the only foreign ship to be awarded "a British Admiralty Pennant, the most prestigious decoration of the Royal Navy." I've done some searching, but the only places I can find any reference to "British Admiralty Pennant" are sites about the American carrier. There are no British sites or ships that reference such an award. The only mention of pennants for British ships are as the British equivalent of what the US Navy refers to as the Hull Classification symbol. (See Pennant number.) Can anyone find a solid reference and explanation for this claim? Is it that the Big E accomplished so much that she was made an honorary "member" of the British Navy by giving her a British pennant number, or is there an actual award with that name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Stern plate photo[edit]

I'm an author under contract to Simon & Schuster for a history of CV-6 to be released in early 2012. Even though the excellent photo of the stern plate has been released for public domain, I would like to acknowledge the photographer. A posting here with the name or desired credit will be duly noted, or feel free to contact me via my web site.

Additionally: ref. the previous inquiry about the admiralty pennant. In researching the book I contacted a couple of RN historians who clarified the matter. Enterprise hosted three lords of the admiralty, and in accordance with British tradition, that was considered "a quorum" of sorts, meriting hoisting the pennant. So no, it was not an award although the pennant was "awarded" (presented) to the ship as a gift.

Barrett Tillman July 14 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talkcontribs) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

January 1942[edit]

It seems likely that the following sentence is a re-hash of an earlier description of Enterprise's activity in Jan. 1942:

"During the next month the Enterprise group swept the central Pacific, attacking enemy installations on Wake and Marcus Islands."

I was tempted to delete this sentence, but did not, as I can't be sure it is a duplicate. Drz1627 (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Commanding officers[edit]

The general concensus in ship articles has been that COs should be worked into the main body with notable ones linked. As, such, I've removed the list pending a specific consensus to keep it. - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat: - Where might I find this consensus you speak of? I see that this list was removed over 2 years ago by another editor stating that "these officers should be worked in to the main body", but in all this time, he has not done this. In the meantime, I take it you will also be deleting the following tables;

Or, perhaps just re-add this one? - theWOLFchild 07:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed on WTSHIPS and/or MILHIST on several occasions, and you're free to raise the issue at one of these projects to get affirm broader consensus. As to the others, I'll refrain from removing them immediately until the issue is settled. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
You said there was "consensus". So is there? Because I see 30+ articles worth of consensus to keep this list. You can't randomly remove one, but leave the others. Obviously, it would be best to leave this list in, unless there is a consensus established to remove the lists from all the articles. - theWOLFchild 08:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Existing lists of COs means nothing about the consensus; it only means that nobody has taken the time to work those into the main text. I've done that for Lexington and Saratoga, among others, and I'll do the same whenever I get around to Enterprise, Hornet and the rest of the US prewar carriers if nobody does it first. So go ahead and spend the time to work the CO's into the text, the article will be better for it. It will certainly read better; you can check out the Lex and Sara articles for one way to do it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I already "spent the time" creating the table, and I don't see why it can't remain in the article until someone gets around to adding the COs "to the text". Having a table is certainly not hurting any of these other articles. It's still useful information in the meantime. Why delete it for essentially no reason? In the absence of this consensus, I'll add it back until someone is ready to make the change. - theWOLFchild 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it looks like shit?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Instead of addressing these lists piecemeal, perhaps we should have an RfC at project:ships on all of them? - theWOLFchild 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)