Jump to content

Talk:USS Saratoga (CV-3)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleUSS Saratoga (CV-3) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starUSS Saratoga (CV-3) is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Lexington-class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 11, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
October 27, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
October 31, 2013Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Note-- discussion on class

[edit]

Additional discussion on issues common to Saratoga and her sister Lexington can be found at the talk page for the class, Talk:Lexington class aircraft carrier. Kablammo 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The opening paragraph of the article mentions USS Enterprise and USS Ranger. Shouldn't those also be links to the Wikipedia entries on those ships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.94.112 (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Qualifier "fleet" added to "aircraft carriers", as USS Long Island (CVE-1) was in commission prior to Pearl Harbor. Kablammo (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saratoga the second US aircraft carrier?

[edit]

Excuse me for not knowing how to do this. I believe I found an error in this article.

The article's first line states Saratoga was the second US aircraft carrier. Unless I'm mistaken, Saratoga was the third (hence the CV-3 designation) after Langley and Lexington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.176.181 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Saratoga was in each case laid down, launched and commissioned before Lexington, check out the relevant articles' ship info boxes. - Nick Thorne talk 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick about Washington Naval Treaty

[edit]

Sentence in the first paragraph reads "Originally designed as a battlecruiser, she was converted into one of the Navy's first aircraft carriers during construction to comply with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922."

It's a nit, but the sentence can be read to imply that Saratoga _became_ an aircraft carrier in order to comply with the treaty. She didn't have to become a carrier. The treaty just meant she couldn't be completed as a battlecruiser. She could have been scrapped.

How about "Originally designed as a battlecruiser, she couldn't be completed as one because of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Instead, she was completed as an aircraft carrier."? Mark1000 (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the Navy didn't want to scrap her or Lex. A specific provision in the Treaty was added to allow countries to convert capital ships under construction into carriers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I fixed broken wiki links that I could and removed those that were not repairable. These were all undone, why do we want all these broken links?

Also my change "On the morning of 1 November, Saratoga's aircraft neutralized Japanese airfields at the northern end of the island and on Buka Island." is much clearer than the original "On the morning of 1 November, Saratoga's aircraft neutralized Japanese airfields on Buka Island and at the northern end of the island." The original leaves readers think the other airstrip is on northern Buka not Bougainville Island where the airstrip actually was.

Why undo all this?--Plmerry (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REDLINK; they weren't broken, merely with unwritten articles. I agree with your change to the phrasing, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Saratoga's red links were not bad, 2 I think. I was reading a ships article which had been copied straight from Defense Historical site and every name was in red. That is actually where my frustration came from. Is it reasonable to think that every person mention even LT(jg)s on a tug is going to have a page? Where does one draw the line. --Plmerry (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Persons need to meet the general notability guidelines to be worth an article/redlink. And there's a MilHist guideline that details the criteria for military personnel. So the line's been specified. I think that every one of Saratoga's commanders made flag rank; nobody's written the articles yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders

[edit]

What do we think of a Commanders table as I did on USS Lamson (DD-367)? --Plmerry (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, lists of commanders are disallowed by the Ships MOS. If they're notable, they need to be integrated into the text. If not notable, then don't bother unless important for some incident or another. I don't know Lamson's history, but I doubt that any of her commanders were notable unless they later made flag rank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Badge Image

[edit]

The image currently showing in the infobox as Sara's badge appears to be the insignia for Navy Utility Unit 2, which was aboard the ship, as opposed to the ship itself. See https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/insignia-utility-squadron-2-uss-saratoga-united-states-navy for evidence. Wouldn't the badge feature the ship's motto, like the images shown e.g. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/026010.gif ? Certainly the other badges of carriers, Intrepid for example, feature the entire emblem and motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finktron (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Finktron (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Saratoga (CV-3). 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:

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) 16:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Saratoga (CV-3). 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:

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) 14:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Saratoga (CV-3). 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

main image

[edit]

requesting consensus on the lead image: Currently we have (file 1) which is in color, but dark, grainy, and is hard to see the overall view of the subject. I propose the following image as a replacement - it is B & W but gives the reader clearer and a greater overall view of the ship. thoughts - FOX 52 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's always preferable to lead with a color image if a semi-decent one is available since most readers reportedly don't ever get past the lede. And the current one may be low-res, but it's neither dark nor grainy to my eyes. Plus it actually shows her with aircraft on deck. Always important for a carrier, IMO. There's plenty of space for the one that you chose elsewhere in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Sturmvogel. Period images aren't expected to ne perfect, and this one doesn't need to be. But I'd definitely add the B/W photo somewhere in the article if it isn't already there, and ditto for the color image. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)&oldid=1210817174"