Talk:USS Enterprise (CVN-80)/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because new developments: as on 1 December 2012 the U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus officially announced that CVN-80 will indeed be named USS Enterprise, the article was recreated and sourced. -- fdewaele, 1 December 2012.

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (This is now a notable and referenced topic for a future warship along the lines of CVN-79 and CVN-78 after the events of 1 December) --Gateman1997 (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because as of 1 December 2012, at the inactivation ceremony of Enterprise CVN-65, the Secretary of the Navy announced that CVN-80 would be the next ship named Enterprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.88.218 (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --67.190.203.12 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC) It is based on an actual occuring event based on official documentation!

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because CVN-80 is indeed going to be named USS Enterprise, as confirmed by Ray Mabus today at CVN-65's deactivation ceremony. --Mstuomel (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... previous information was speculative. Factual information now present from the United States Military verify construction of CVN-80 along with naming of the ship. Sources now include http://navylive.dodlive.mil/?p=14424, http://www.facebook.com/USS.Enterprise.CVN.65 and http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf (July 2012 edition) --Aafm (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it represents the newest entry into the future of carrier aviation. All combat vessels deserve pages, even future ones. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)`

Improper use of "PCU" in ship name
"PCU" is not a prefix and is not part of the official or common name of a vessel, and should not be used on Wikipedia articles in ways that imply that it is. Please see the detailed discussion of this issue on the USS Gerald R. Ford talk page. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous Sentence
"CVN-80 will also be the first U.S. aircraft carrier since America was commissioned in 1966 not to be named in honor of a person."

The new class of LHA (assault carrier) built for the US Navy had its first ship USS America (LHA 6) commissioned in 2014. I'm not used to edit in this section but the sentence should be clarified in order to either:
 * Mention USS America (LHA-6) as an aircraft carrier in the broad sense of the term.
 * or clarify the meaning of the term "aircraft carrier"

The America-class LHAs of the US Navy have significant capablities making them more similar to light aircraft carriers than LPDs. USS America and USS Wasp can even operate F35-B fighter planes. Pm3003 (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Enterprise (CVN-80). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203030529/http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/navy-to-name-next-ford-class-carrier-enterprise to http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/navy-to-name-next-ford-class-carrier-enterprise

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)