Talk:USS Bainbridge (CGN-25)

Merge Bainbridge class cruiser → USS Bainbridge (CGN-25)

It has been proposed that Bainbridge class cruiser be merged into USS Bainbridge (CGN-25).

• Weak oppose - While the ship is the only one of her class, I enjoy the consistency of having separate articles on individual ships (with information on each ship's history and service career) and their classes (with info on the design and construction of the class itself). From a navigation standpoint, it may be confusing to have a combined ship/class article when people are specifically looking for classes (such as via the guided missile cruiser navigation box, or the Cruiser classes category. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I am the nominator for both this merge and the Long Beach class cruiser → USS Long Beach (CGN-9) merge, and I think it would be a good idea to have one discussion for both ships (though if anyone disagrees I'd be glad to dicuss them separately). I believe that the two articles should be merged. The class articles contain very little information. The predecessor/successor table could be merged into the ship article, so that someone who is surfing through the timeline of cruiser classes wouldn't miss one. These ships can be found under Category:Unique cruisers under the Cruiser classes category, much like Dreadnought can be found under Category:Unique battleships and Enterprise (CVN-65) can be found under Category:Unique aircraft carriers. I'm not familiar with the guided missile cruiser nav box, and I'd appreciate it if you'd show me, Kralizec!, but I imagine that the box could be made to redirect to the ship article instead of the class article without much trouble. TomTheHand 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - ship class articles with only one ship are not very efficient but there seems to be enough of them (USS Truxtun (DLGN-35), USS Long Beach (CGN-9), USS Enterprise (CVN-65), etc.) that we should be careful to not make things inconsistent. I think people will just put the 'ship class' articles back since inconsistency bugs people more then inefficiency. --MarsRover 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the consistent thing to do is to merge them; Enterprise and Truxton do not have class articles. Neither does, for example, Dreadnought. Bainbridge and Long Beach are the only unique ships I've found that have both a class article and a ship article. That's two out of several dozen. TomTheHand 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose this; there's no need to amalgamate related but different subjects on the same page. For general usability, different topics deserve different articles. Even if there's only one ship in a class, that doesn't mean they need to be discussed on the same page. Existing instances of such compression should be split up rather than serve as standards for other articles. --Thunderhead 11:44, 13 August 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.

AAW Engagement Performance Information is suspect, I believe.

It reads in the article that the Bainbridge can engage 16 targets simultaneously. This ship was never fitted with Aegis so how is that possible? NiceDoggie 13:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What is a CGN-25

Apparently the term CGN-25 is important enough to include in the article name, and yet it is never explained. Huh? This is clearly some kind of technical detail, and yet it is not listed in the infobox in a clear way, and it just muddies the clarity of the article. Please fix this. 70.250.239.90 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cruiser, Guided Missile, Nuclear. Pennant Number 25. It's what the Bainbridge is. 70.78.12.203 (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a hull number, composed of the hull classification symbol CGN and the pennant number 25. Every US Navy ship has one. RobDuch (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomahawks

One of the sources listed on the page does state that Tomahawk ABLs were added, but I believe in this case the source is incorrect. I'm not really familiar with how things are supposed to be sourced on Wikipedia, but that source is explicitly stated to be an unofficial 'fan' website, so I'm unsure on exactly how much is required to refute it. I can find a few other websites that say this, but none appears to offer a source for it or includes any kind of image- in fact none of the images I can find of the Bainbridge show ABLs. On the other hand, here are a few similar sites that don't support the claim - USS Bainbridge veterans association, which has no mention of Tomahawks with the other listed weapons (it lists the Harpoon missiles which were added in refit, but not the guns or ASROC which were removed) Archive of the Naval Historical Center makes no mention of it, and includes a post-refit photograph which doesn't show ABLs A modelling forum thread which specifically mentions this issue, including discussion of Wikipedia (and the listed source) being incorrect. 77.101.220.228 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)