Talk:USS Bainbridge (CGN-25)



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

keep On 17 August 2006 | removed the merge tags noting:
 * removed merge template per discussion

At that time, 64 days into the poll, it was one in support of the merge and three against. I am now formerly archiving the poll. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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. There are certainly a few other similar websites that say this, but none appears to offer a further source for it, nor do they include any kind of image of Tomahawks on the ship; 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.

Is this something that can reasonably be changed, or is there a requirement for some kind of official source despite the unofficial nature of the evidence supporting the way the article is written now? 77.101.220.228 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate both your position and your willingness to discuss this (as opposed to just edit-warring). Wikipedia runs on sources. There are times where the information in those sources is incorrect, and if that can be refuted by other reliable sources then the problem is fixed. Sometimes, info in sources comes into conflict with a person's personal knowledge, something they know to be true, and while I (we) don't doubt that person's claims, neither can we use them to support content changes. That is known as original research. Now, as for the source you dispute (I believe you called it a "fan site"), ASAIK, that source is used on numerous naval articles. If you wish to challenge the source as a whole, you would need to go to WP:RSN. As for this particular item, supported by that source, additional Original Research and a lack of confirmation is not sufficient to make content changes. If you can find a suitable source that states something along the lines of; "USS Bainbridge was not equipped with Tomahawks", or a "List of US Navy warships equipped with Tomahawks" (and Bainbridge isn't on the list), or anything else considered a reliable source that confirms this ship did not get Tomahawks at any point during her service life, or Tomahawks were installed on all the but this ship, then you could likely make the change you're seeking to make. Keep looking! If you're 100% certain of this, there's bound to be something. - the WOLF  child  18:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I feel like this needs to be revisited. I find it hard to credit that the complete absence of a weapon system from the various official sources isn't enough to outweigh its inclusion in a single unofficial site (which the reference even admits is unofficial). I don't want to just make the same edit again if it's going to be undone again, but I'm also not sure what other option I have - surely expecting there to be an official US Navy source explicitly saying "X ship did not receive Y weapon" is a bit extreme? As a general rule people don't go around publishing information about everything that ISN'T the case, so is it not reasonable to take the single (again, unofficial) source which claims this as a probably incorrect outlier? 77.101.220.228 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I served on the USS Bainbridge CGN-25 during the mid 90s, not long before she was decommissioned. She did not have Tomahawk ABLs, that is referring to the Virginia class cruisers. In fact, in the early 90s both the ASROC launcher and the torpedo tubes were removed. The sonar had been deemed obsolete, so no need for ASW weapons. Bubbabink70 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted above, both content, and changes to content, need to be supported by reliable sources. Your personal knowledge is considered original research, and your experience with this article's subject might be considered a conflict of interest issue. I've added information templates to your talk page, please have a read through them, as well as the linked policies and guidelines I have noted here, before you proceed. If you wish to have something in the article changed, and you have a source (or more) to support the change, you can request it here on the talk page and an editor (myself or someone else) will review your request and make the changes for you if everything checks out. Just remember to post your request in a "change X to Y" format, and include your sources. - w o lf  04:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Rumour: was stricken by runaway Soviet antiship cruise missile in 1977?
Reportedly during OKEAN-77 navy drills (typically those drills were taken in April-May) the ship entered closed zone to watch Soviet missile launches closer. While it was there one Kh-12 missile run astray, stopped receiving commands from Soviet planes/ship and in the end locked in on the CGN-25 and hit it. The very story sounds more like "fisherman epic tales", but maybe there is something real behind it. 85.90.120.180 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely sounds like a "fisherman's tale", and certainly an "epic" one at that. - Coyote-head.svg wolf 23:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Participation in Operation "Sea Orbit" - Citations and Clarity
In the section about CGN-25's participation in Operation Sea Orbit, there was a citation needed tag, even though any relevant citations would have been on the link to Operation Sea Orbit a couple sentences prior. I added the appropriate citations directly from the other page, as they are the sources for the information being repeated on the page. Unsure if they're necessary, but I figured it can't hurt.

I also reworded it a bit for clarity and updated it to include the distance traveled, the duration in days rather than months (more precise, 2 months vs 65 days), and made it clear that all 3 ships were nuclear powered. However, I was unable to make the term "unrefueled trip" feel like it was remotely natural. It seems if that can be rephrased somehow it would allow for a better flow of the sentence, and for it to sound more natural. Perhaps "without refueling" or something like that? The way it's stated in the Operation Sea Orbit page flows fairly well: "This all-nuclear-powered unit steamed 30,565 miles unrefuelled around the world for sixty-five days."

Chemputer (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)