Talk:USS Gerald R. Ford/Archive 1

Untitled

Considering that this move is consistant with the way the US Navy actually designates ships now days, should we ask this to be added to the Manual of Style? Izuko 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New Launching System

Would someone please add that the Launching system for the Gerald R. Ford be the new electro-magnetic system. (First of its kind) Here is the page to the information. http://www.ga.com/emals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.172.244 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming

I've removed the phrase "...Republican-dominated Congress's trend of naming aircraft carriers after living former Republican presidents." because it seems very bad POV. The Executive Branch, not Congress, chooses names for ships (Warners proposed bill recommends that the Navy name CVN 78 after Ford). In the past 15 years, the Navy has named a destroyer after Franklin and Elanor Roosevelt, a submarine after Jimmy Carter, and aircraft carriers after Harry Truman and John Stennis. I don't really see a partisan bias in ship names. Blackeagle 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Personally, I would love to see the new carrier christened Enterprise. Somehow being involved in a shooting war and not having a USS Enterprise just seems... wrong. I guess its because of the rich history her forerunners (real life and fictional) have had. Enterprise has always been America’s adopted flagship, and perhaps the only ship internationally known by name alone. TomStar81 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they should name it the USS Enterprise. Otherwise, we'd be calling this the Gerald R. Ford-class. A Ford class would be better than that but then we'll have a GM class and Chevy class etc and we'll never know if we're riding or sailing.

Anyway, the article United States Navy CVN-21 program states that the name is still "advacated" and even this article says that the Senate Amendment 4211 only recommended naming the CVN-78 Gerald Ford, so why does it says:

CVN-78 was officially named the USS Gerald Ford, after the 38th President of the United States.

Well, I'm moving the line here because it's the only line that contradicts its own article and another article. If I'm mistaken (that it's too late, they officially named it the Gerald Ford), then go ahead and put it back in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feureau (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Bring back the battleships!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feureau (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled out the other references to the ship actually being named Gerald Ford. Googling the navy.mil site with Gerald Ford and CVN-78 doesn't find any matches(tried CVN78 and "CVN 78" as well). If the Navy officially named the ship they'd at least put out a press release. Until there's some sort of citable source saying the Navy has officially named the ship, I think the article should continue referring to the vessel as CVN-78. Blackeagle 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have reverted the page back to the last edit after mine in september, and have added a line explicitly warning anyone editing the page from now on to provide a source for the information they add, or risk having their edit(s) reverted. To my knowlage, the ship remains unamed, and even if the Navy decides on Ford others may petion them to reconsider. I say lets get this right the first time, rather than be gossip mongers. P.S.:Support the descion to reactivate the battleships! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As for me I think the name of the ship should be the yorktown and then the Enterprise just like the pre ww2 yorktown class.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.57.95 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 November 2006

The ship (and the class) are always called USS Gerald R. Ford. Always and in complete. Likewise, the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and the USS Theodore Roosevelt are always called by those names. Only dimwit & lazy journalists try to shorten the names. Likewise, the Navy has had the USS George Washington-class of Polaris submarines, and the USS Arleigh Burke-class of guided-missile destroyers. Likewise, there was the USS South Dakota-class of battleships, and NOT the Dakota-class, and the USS North Carolina-class of battleships, and not the Carolina Class. Also, the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy and the destroyer USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., named for his brother, always carry thise complete names. To try to abbreviate them is sheer intellectual laziness. Likewise, the USS Newport News is always called that, and the USS San Francisco, the USS City of Corpus Christi, and the USS Minneapolis-St. Paul. Likewise, the USS Los Angeles-class of nuclear submarines. Also, there have been destroyers like the USS Ward and the USS Aaron Ward in the Navy at the same time (WW II). The USS Ward was the destroyer that sunk a Japanese midget submarine in Pearl Harbor on the morning of 7 December 1941, and the USS Aaron Ward fought valiantly in the South Pacific. We have also had the USS Oliver Hazard Perry-class of guided-missile frigates, and other ships in the Navy with names like Perry, such as ones named for is brother Matthew Perry.74.163.36.44 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You may see that statement as POV, and you've got a valid case. But it's also factually true: the Republican-dominated government has generated a partisan bias toward naming aircraft carriers after still-living Republican presidents. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The move to a new name

No Sources have been provided for this new information, nor have any official announcements been made that officially state that CVN-78 will be Gerald R. Ford beyond a single piece of paper signed by pencil pushing politicians. Its not widely known, but the space shuttle Enterprise was originally named USS Constitution until a massive writing campaign purswaded NASA to rename the vehical Enterprise. Things change, and this article will document those changes, but until we know beyond all resonable doubt that those changes will happen we owe it to ourselves to wait and see. Lastly, this article is now incorrectly named; per the naming conventions it should be USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), not Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) → CVN-78 — This page was moved from CVN-78 to Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), but there are a number of problems with the move. Beacause Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I am asking that the page be moved back to CVN-78 and protected from furture moves until such a time as an official announcement regarding the carrier’s name is made. The problems with the article are as follows:

1. No effort to gain consensus was made
2. The article is incorrectly named (if it is going to be moved then it should be located at USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)),
3. No sources (inline citations or otherwise) have been provided for the alleged information which precitpited the move in the first place,
4. No official announcement has been made by the Secratary of the Navy (or anyone else for that matter) that the name is now Gerald R. Ford, meaning the move was based on unofficial information and
5. Things change. The space shuttle Enterprise was originally named USS Constitution until the Star Trek fans purswaded NASA to rename the vehical Enterprise. The same thing could happen here. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong Support TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support FiggyBee 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). House Resolution 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007", in it sixth version was passed and signed into law as Public Law 109-364. Section 1012 of the act declares that "[it] is the sense of Congress that the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the Navy designated as CVN-78 should be named the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford." (PDF of the entire resolution here, it's on page 292.) –  Anþony  talk  13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Change to Support per precedent cited by anon (CVN-77 / USS Lexington) [1] –  Anþony  talk  08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be the sense of congess, but that doesn’t mean its set in stone yet. I think it would be better if we wait until someone makes an official announcement about the name before we move the article so as not to spread romurs/false information. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Congress frequently words things strangely. It's a signed law, so I think that comes as close as possible to being "set in stone" without actually carving the words into stone. Is there precedent for this sort of thing not being acted upon? I ask specifically in regards to your claim about the Space Shuttle Enterprise: did that change contradict a signed law like this? –  Anþony  talk  04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that I am aware of, but the reason I bring it up is that CVN-78 here is set to replace our current USS Enterprise. When word gets out publicly (ie, press release) I would be willing to bet that a campaign gets up to rename her Enterprise, and if it garners enough effort there could be name change. The Navy is in tune with the public over such issues, its good for public relations. Some current examples include shifting the name New York (US State names are currently reserve for US Subs) to a surface ship at the request of ex NY major Guliani. The clevland war table has mounted a grass roots campaign to get one of the Virginia-class subs named Moniter in honor of the US ironclad that fought Virginia to a draw at the battle of Hampton Roads. USS Constitution, USS Nautillus, and various other ships and subs have been spared from scrapping on the power of public opinion. To report that Congress concurs with the Navy on the name is correct, and they have signed the legislation which essentially clears the way for the CVN-78 to be named for Gerald R. Ford, but I feel that a wait and see would be best here since public opinion can, will, and has in the past changed official US vehical names. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • USS New York (LPD-21) says Pataki (not Guliani) requested a ship to be named New York, implying that he did not have a specific ship in mind. It seems likely that they simply picked a ship that wasn't already named. I'm really looking for any kind of precedence where a request of Congress to name a specific vessel was ignored.
        • We have the official position of Congress on one hand and unverifiable speculation about a future event on the other. Absent any evidence that the Navy is likely to ignore the request, we should assume they will follow it as the default option. Feel free to contribute a sourced section on movements to adopt a different name, though. –  Anþony  talk  06:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Of course, and the fact that the ship will almost certainly be named Gerald R. Ford should be noted in the article. However, as per TomStar81, until the Navy puts out a press release announcing it actually will be named Gerald R. Ford, I think we should hold off on putting that name in the title of the article. FiggyBee 07:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Move to CVN-78 until the USN officially announces the ship's name. Re-direct this page and USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) to CVN-78 until then.Mike f 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Congressional riders on defense appropriations bills are anything but the last word in a debate. The wording of the rider is "Congress supports this," not "Congress orders this." On a personal level, the naming of aircraft carriers after politicians is an unfortunate trend that needs to cease. What's next, USS Richard M. Nixon for CVN-79?? Iceberg3k 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Future carriers should not be named at their articles until an official binding annoucement is made. Buckshot06 08:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

If i recall correctly, it was the sense of congress that CVN-77 be named Lexington. I'm pretty sure there was an amendment in the Nat'l Def. Auth. Act of 2001 that went on about the the sense of congress. CVN-77 of course, is not named Lexington, but the George H. Bush. So Gerald R. Ford is not set in stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.78.154 (talk • contribs) 20:51, December 7, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exact sort of precedent I was looking for. –  Anþony  talk  08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content must be verifiable

Please do not add "references" such as "Post #N at the Star Trek board at trekunited.com". It's ridiculous. There's no way that anything posted on a Star Trek web forum remotely qualifies as a reliable source, even if it is from an "active duty sailor" named Todd. –  Anþony  talk  12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaking News: Enterprise may be a viable name after all!

Below is a section from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006

Split funding authorization for CVN-78 aircraft carrier (sec. 122)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract to fund the detail design and construction of the aircraft carrier designated CVN-78 with the Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, with funding split over fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

The budget request includes $564.9 million in SCN for the carrier replacement program, specifically for advance procurement of the CVN-78. The CVN-78 will be a new class of aircraft carrier, incorporating numerous new technologies. This budget request reflects the second one-year slip in the program in recent years. This slip would cause a delay in the delivery of the CVN-78 until fiscal year 2015, with the ship it is scheduled to replace, the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), scheduled to be decommissioned in fiscal year 2013. Additionally, this slip translates into a cost growth for CVN-78 of approximately $400.0 million, according to the Navy.

The committee is concerned about this delay. The committee has been told there is no technical reason for the delay, but that the delay was driven by budget considerations. Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval operations testified that large capital assets such as aircraft carriers are difficult to fund under the traditional full-funding policy, and that more flexible methods of funding must be found and used. The program of record for CVN-78 has the detail design and construction funding split between two years. This provision would authorize that same funding to be split over four years, thereby allowing needed funding flexibility. The committee directs the Navy to provide an updated funding profile, fully funding the remaining costs of the ship from fiscal years 2007 through 2010, with delivery of the fiscal year 2007 budget request.

The committee is aware that the program requires additional funding in fiscal year 2006 to avoid this one-year delay. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $86.7 million in SCN for CVN-78.

Based on this it would seem that there have been some constructions delays with CVN-78, and Enterprise is listed as a 2013 retirement. Thats a two year gap that would allow the new ship to bear the name Enterprise. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted most of your edits, save for those to the invisible Star Trek section. The Daily Press article did not say there was "much debate", so it is improper to cite it as such. It should be noted that members of the CVA have published editorials in the Daily Press in their own words, so the paper may not be entirely "independent". The Dujardin article seems pretty sympathetic to their cause: "What has a better ring to it? The USS America and the 'America-class' of aircraft carriers? Or the USS Gerald R. Ford and the 'Ford-class'?" I would shy away from using the Daily Press as evidence of the scope of the debate, but their representation of the CVA's position is accurate. The Navy section you added only repeats what's stated explicitly in the Congress section, so I don't see a need for it. Beyond that, the only thing left was to say that ship classes are (usually) named after the first ship in the class, and it didn't flow without the rest of it. –  Anþony  talk  12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Official

The Navy has officially announced the carrier will be named after Ford after Rummy spilled the beans. Page has been moved to USS Gerald R. Ford. Wikipedianinthehouse 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To bad. I would have liked to have seen the carrier named Enterprise. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Crap. We have to live with that name for two and a half more generations? At least some (though not necessarily all) of the guys who got Nimitzes named after them earned it. Not to disrespect Ford, but he wasn't exactly important as presidents go, and I would have rather seen us go back to more sensible carrier names. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously people, did anyone really think that they werent going to name it the USS Gerald Ford? Im not tryin to sound like a know it all but it is apparantly obvious and it has been obvious for months, all this nonsense about naming the Enterprise or America have just been lost causes.--Joebengo 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The name probably wasn't final until Pres. Ford died. After that, there wasn't a chance that the Navy would not name it for him. They're not cold hearted enough not to honor him that way. I presume that had he lived a few more years, America or Enterprise might have been viable candidates. Oh well, here's to the Ford class carrier, may you always kick the crap outa the GM and Daimler-Chrysler class ships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.78.154 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Are we, in fact, certain that the ship will be the Gerald R. Ford, and not the Gerald Ford (in the style of USS Abraham Lincoln) or Ford (in the style of USS Nimitz)? Whalepelt 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a USS Ford (FFG-54) already, and all the other modern ships named for presidents have more than the last name, so that's almost certainly out. Abraham Lincoln didn't have a middle name. However Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter did/do, so "Gerald Ford" or "Jerry Ford" aren't out of the question. I doubt it though.

Whether Ford gets this ship or CVN-79, it occurs to me that the Navy will be switching back, and naming the rest of the class after old carriers. They've kind of run out of ex-presidents to name things after!

—wwoods 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Should've saved fords name for the next carrier. This will be an iconic example of wasting money for years to come -- "Fix or Repair Daily". Gawd, they could have at least saved the rest of this class from that embarressing designation. What a waste. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More advanced

In what way is the USS Ford aircraft carrier class more advanced than the Nimitz aircraft carrier class? Sijo Ripa 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Put simply, improved technology. If you want specifics you can eyeball the USS George H. W. Bush article, all improvements to that ships will find their way into the Ford class. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vulnerability

Is there any information about the Ford Class (or modern military ships in general) being hardy to EMP ? Considering this scenario: A long range nuclear missile detonates high enough above a carrier strike group to be failed intercepting, the next nuclear missile destroys the now electronically blind carrier along with most other ships. What's in the Ford protecting against this scenario ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.234.136 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• What defenses the ship has, beyond obvious emplacements on the decks, are very likely classified. If they weren't, then would-be enemies would have more information about how to defeat them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Link no longer active

This link (regarding the name of the ship) is no longer active: ^ Dujardin, Peter, Skirmish erupts over naming of new carrier, Newport News Daily Press, 25 October 2006. Retrieved 5 December 2006. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed ref and replaced with fact tag. – Joe Nutter 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No Reference Cited for Surge Generation Rates

The claim is: "Requirements for a higher sortie rate of around 160 exits a day with surges to a maximum of 220 sorties a day in times of crisis and intense air warfare activity, has led to design changes in the flight deck, which enable greater aircraft launch capabilities." What is the source for the rates? Citation needed! Road Kill Hollywood (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The exact date

Gentlemen, according to our sources, this ship was laid on November 14 [2]. In the article - on November 13. Which one is correct? Sincerely, Russian naval intelligence Miracle Drakon (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Section "Construction"

The GPS coordinates seem to be wrong. There is an aircraft carrier docked, but it looks like a Nimitz class carrier and should be cvn 71 USS Theodore Roosevelt undergoing RCOH. I suggest someone enters the correct coordinates or delete them at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.158.238 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't hold Wikipedia responsible for the timeliness of whatever satellite data your preferred map program is using. The coordinates are for the iron works, not the specific location of the carrier itself. Mensch (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost universally incorrect information

This is the first of the Ford class carriers. The article reads like everything except the opening summary was simply cut & paste from the Nimitz class carriers. I would "fix" this but I don't have the correct data to use. Mensch (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Communications

Under communications, the article only talks about radar. Shouldn't the section be named Radar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.185.102 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

F-35C will be the aircraft on the board?

F-35 already in the development.....125.82.249.164 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture VS Article

There's a problem with the 'Ford and Nimitz' picture at the bottom of the article. It's not a picture of the Ford! Checking googleearth, this picture was taken in 2010, and is of the wrong drydock! The real ford is 1km north of its location, and is very much a work in progress as of june 2012. Removing picture from article for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTIcarrot (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cost is off

“We expect to spend $12.3 billion and, if I am capped at $11.8 billion, that would obviously cause us some challenges,” Rear Admiral Thomas Moore, the Navy’s program executive office for aircraft carriers, told Bloomberg News in November.

So the given cost is incorrect. Hcobb (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Date standardization

The dates on this article need to be standardized. The vast majority of the dates are currently in the D MMMM YYYY format, which per MOS:DATES is incorrect for an article with strong national ties to the United States, and should instead be in the MMMM D YYYY format. Unless there is a reason to keep them the way they are (for instance, if the US Navy uses the D MMMM YYYY format), then they all ought to be changed. - Bardbom (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week and nobody has commented one way or the other, so I'm going to go ahead and change them all to the MMMM D YYYY format. - Bardbom (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was dumb of me. MOS:DATES States that the US Military uses the D MMMM YYYY Format, and somehow I missed that on the first read through. Time to revert and fix the others... - Bardbom (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ford image

Added an image of the Ford, its sourced, any further questions? Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Referring to ship as "she" or "her"

Referring to a ship as she or her is unnecessary personification. Wikipedia's goal is to present the truth, and the truth of the matter is that ships have no reproductive organs. English, unlike some other languages, does not tend to assign gender to most words. For example objects such as television, table, apple, car, shovel, lamp, and so on have no gender assigned.

Neutralizing a word's gender also denotes equality between the sexes. For example: Police Officer instead of policeman, Fire Fighter instead of fireman. Referring to an object as a "she" is objectifying to women, would it make sense to refer to the ship as "he"? I recommend that the ship be referred to as "it".

I recommend that the ship be referred to as "it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianColony (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making identical posts to multiple ships' talk pages. The answer is the same on each case: in English, ships are usually referred to as she or her. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Of note; USN style guide indicates the use of feminine pronouns when referring to ships. In the Russian navy, ships are addressed using male pronouns. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The remark about the Russian usage is not true. When referring by name, the gender of that name is used ("she" for "Aurora", "he" for "Komsomolets"); when referring by ship type, the gender of that type is used ("he" for cruiser "Aurora", "she" for submarine "Komsomolets"). Basically, the general rules of the language are followed in every case. So the English analog would be to use "he" for "Gerald R. Ford" (but never "she"!), and "it" for aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" (and for whatever else inanimate). I'm not saying that the current English tradition must be changed, but it really sounds ridiculous to use "she" with a male name. :–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hull number

Is there some reason why the hull number is not included in the name of this article, as specified in WP:SHIPNAME? Does the hull number not become official until commissioning? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's because there is only one ship with this name. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Gerald R. Ford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131004215458/http://www.wvec.com/my-city/nnews/3rd-elevator-installed-on-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-at-Newport-News-Shipyard-219902441.html to http://www.wvec.com/my-city/nnews/3rd-elevator-installed-on-USS-Gerald-R-Ford-at-Newport-News-Shipyard-219902441.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Improper use of "PCU"

"PCU" is not part of the name of a U.S. Navy vessel. According to Naval History and Heritage Command, which is the most reliable source I can think of:

The prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission. Before commissioning, or after decommissioning, she is referred to by name, with no prefix.

It may be appropriate to use "PCU" within the article, but it is not appropriate to include in the name of the ship. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The title here on the carrier's USN page appears to disagree with your interpretation. As such, I think we're fine following that usage, and that's what has been done in the past also in other USN pre-commissioned ship articles. Please don't revert without a clear consensus to do so. If you want, feel free to raise the issue at WT:MILHIST for a broader consensus. - BilCat (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

BilCat, the title on the ship's page is just the title of the page in all-caps. It does not actually state anywhere on that page that "PCU" is part of the name of the vessel. See this Navy press release which uses "pre-commissioning unit" in lower-case. I am not disputing that "PCU" is an accurate descriptor of the current ship Gerald R. Ford, but I still have not seen anything indicating that "PCU Gerald R. Ford" is a proper name of the vessel. However, I'll take it up at WT:MILHIST per your suggestion. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs here, but if you get a consensus to do it that way, I'm fine with that. If you want to unbold the PCU part, that would be OK with me too. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and unbolded PCU and spelled it out, but feel free to revert that if you want. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

While you were doing that, I was already airing my grievances on the WT:MILHIST talk page, sorry. I think that consensus would be a good thing, since I'm sure this will come up on other future vessel pages and I'd like to avoid repeating this argument. With that in mind, I'm not going to make further edits to this article; I'll wait to see what comes of that discussion first. Anyone else who wants to participate should go to the WikiProject Military History talk page discussion. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: Per the edits made by BilCat and GraemeLeggett and the overall consensus on the WikiProject Military History talk page discussion, I believe this issue is resolved. I made minor additional edits to clean up the lead paragraph. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the ship is now commissioned, "USS Gerald R. Ford" is now the proper name of the ship.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about build standards and measures

Can anyone confirm or deny that this project is being built using the metric system? I believe most major US defence projects - the F-22 being the first I know of - are now using metric. Flanker235 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Making "Operational Testing" a separate subsection

I have made "Operational Testing" a separate subsection. Any problems with that? (At the same time I added a ref to problems with the Main Turbine Generators) KHarbaugh (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In service

The vessel has been commissioned, but is not yet in service.203.80.61.102 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)