Talk:USS Yorktown (CV-10)

Hallmark movie
Not sure how relevant this is, but the Yorktown is used to portray the "U.S.S. Polaris" during a "Tiger Cruise" in the 2020 USS Christmas movie that appeared on the "Hallmark Movies and Mysteries" channel.

Also, planes with the VMFA-142 markings are shown as part of the squadron that flies off the "U.S.S. Polaris."

Don't know if this should be part of the article, but thought I'd mention it for the possibility. 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, have a look at WP:MILPOP, and if you believe, based on that guideline, that the film warrants inclusion in a pop culture section, and there is sufficient sourcing to support it, then go ahead and add it. Good luck - wolf  05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Namesake
, I took a quick look around for sources that comfirm this ship was named in honor of the previous Yorktown (CV-5), and found these;, , , , , ,. Cheers -  wolf  01:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no doubt that that the reason why the name was chosen at that time was to honor the recently lost CV-5. But, as I wrote earlier at Talk:USS Lexington (CV-16), I believe that the purpose of the "namesake" field is to explain the significance of the name, and here also navsource sets it our well. Strangely, the online DANFS for this ship as well as CV-5 is missing the top-line name explanation (and the former doesn't even mention CV-5) - I suppose that that happened at the time of the text transfer from the original printed volumes where the namesake was given only at the beginning of each name section. Davidships (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But you do agree that ships can be, and are, named in honor of previous ships, and that the first ship is the namesake, not the original person, place or thing that the first ship was named for? For example, aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08), named for WWI super-dreadnought HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913). While the dreadnought was named for Queen Elizabeth I, the carrier was named for the dreadnought. I believe we have the same situation here, despite some odd and very fine hair-sllitting between "as namesake of" and "in honour of". While CV-5 was named for a flying insect with a painful sting, I believe the sources show that CV-10 was named for CV-5. Cheers -  wolf  03:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is at all hair-splitting to differentiate between what a name means and why it is chosen. See template guidance: If the ship's name originates from a particular person, location, event, or object, it may be added here. (my emphasis). I don't agree at all that only the first use of a name that is carried forward to subsequent ships can claim the original meaning - that would make this, this and this all wrong. The purpose of the infobox field to is give readers the meaning of the ship's name, not to send them along a daisy-chain of clicks until they reach the first one. Davidships (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think one situation automatically applies to another. That is to say, I can believe that CV-10 was named in honour of CV-5 and I believe that because sourcing tells me that. But that doesn't mean that every other ship named Yorktown was named in honour of a preceding ship. Unless sources say otherwise, I believe thoss other ships were named for the battle. For those other ships, the infobox should state the battle as the namesake, (again, unless sources say otherwise), but for CV-10, the namesake should be CV-5. But, as this issue has come up before, and will likely come up again, and as you have repeatedly pointed to the template guidance as an instigator of this issue, perhaps there should be a wider discussion, on either the template talk page, or perhaps at wt:ships, to seek a clear resolution. Cheers -  wolf  12:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although my drift is clear enough, there is a missing 'not' above - I intended to write "It is not at all hair-splitting to differentiate between what a name means and why it is chosen." Sorry.
 * This is not a zero sum game. Clearly CV-10 carried the name of the Virginan town where the 1781 battle was fought, and that can also be well referenced:, and, most importantly, DANFS as the Navy's published official history, which draws no distinction between any of the USS Yorktowns.  Equally clearly, the decision to bring forward the next use of that name was occasioned by the loss of CV-5 and a desire to pay tribute to the men and their ship (and I suppose to boost morale).  I would expect both of these aspects to be covered in the article.  Our difference of view is only over what should be entered in the infobox namesake field.  This should indeed be discussed at a more central and accessible place - I would favour Template talk:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide as it is that guide that that would be the home for any change to the existing guidance - and I think it would keep discussion more focussed. Davidships (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks again for the replies. 06:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Namesake redux
following our laat discussion, my take going forward was to use the "Namesake" parameter in the infobox for the original namesake, (in this case here, the Battle of Yorktown), and if the article subject was named for previous ship (again, with this case here, Yorktown CV-5) then to make note of that in the article prose where the ship naming is discussed and supported. My understanding is this is a take you agree with. But as you see, the article was edited again today, changing the namesake paramater. (Interestingly, this was only the 9th edit made by this new account, with the summary: "fixing namesakes again (as usual)"...?!)

Anyway, I'm not sure if this is a continuing issue on other ship articles, but if perhaps a note were posted at WT:SHIPS (and a notice pointing to it at wt:milhist), it will bring about a wider discussion, and hopefully some resolution. (If you recall, I gave this a try back in September 2021, so if you give it a shot this time, maybe there'll be more responses and even a consensus. I'll be watching, and if you choose to give it a go, you'll have my support. Cheers -  wolf  14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)