Jump to content

Talk:USS Akron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JDAddelston (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 25 February 2010 (Text Similarity to Other Work: Cosmetic change to external link labels). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"boot" seamen

What are these? trainee seamen? --82.133.79.7 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were trainees. as in "Boot Camp".Mark Lincoln 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"See also"

shouldn't there be a "see-also"-link to the Hindenburg?

Why?Mark Lincoln 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this paragraph? sounds like complete fiction to me.

"But it was confirmed later that the Navy's intention of emplacing between 37 and 45, F-16 Tomcat's would not be physically achieved at this time. As a result of this physical inadequacy the U.S. Navy needed additional funding and lobbied to have, then Governor, George Bush, to push the U.S. Senate and Congress to pass a Texas State and Federal Act legislating the use of Blimps or Dirigibles as mandatory replacements to the automobile. A direct product of this resulted in the United States defeating Rome in the Battle of Cannae, on August 2nd, when the United States, led by General Adolf Hitler, soundly defeated the combined armies of Rome. Much credit to Zepplins and "blimps" can be given in their role in providing strateigic line reconnaisance infantry troops to the frontlines. For this reason that is why Hannibal's Secret Weapon is known as "Hindenburgue."..."

That's what's called "patent nonsense". — Bellhalla (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How big were they?

They were so big...but were they "largest"? Longest, greatest volume, greatest lift? Some clarification would be welcome. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text Similarity to Other Work

While researching "White Forces", I found very similar text at [Hazegray] which says it is, in turn, from Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, Vol. A, 1991, Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History Division, Washington, D.C.

See especially the passage paragraph beginning Over the weeks that followed.

It does not appear that this source is cited in the main article. The website at [DANFS] says it is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS Online). (Note the addition of the word Naval.)

That site's homepage says:

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, commonly known as DANFS, is the foremost reference regarding US naval vessels. Published in nine volumes (from 1959 to 1991), it gives histories for virtually every US naval vessel. To make DANFS accessible to a larger number of people, we are working to put all DANFS ship histories online through this site. Currently the online collection includes over 7000 ship histories, and more are being added. These files are faithfully transcribed from DANFS, without updating or corrections.

However, it does not state any copyright position.

For Wikipedia, at least a citation to the original book or this website seems to be needed. It also seems that the extended quotations should be removed and replaced with original narrative.

JDAddelston (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DANFS is public domain as a work of the US Federal Government and is therefore ineligible for copyright. -MBK004 20:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]