Talk:USS Forrestal

FID

Since the article already mentions USS Zippo, Forest Fire, and Fire Stall, might as well mention the other one as well. "FID" was also said to stand for "Forrestal in Distress." Old CDR (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames

In both the infobox and the lead, are a trio of unsupported nicknames. "Forest fire", was added on 2005-02-02, "USS Zippo" was added on 2006-03-24 and "Firestal" was added on 2008-11-02. Though there is a "cite needed" tag attached to them in the lead, they've been in "need of cites" for 15 to 18 years now. I think it's time to accept that refs are not on the way. I'd just go and boldly remove these supposed monikers, except that there were some edits made to them today (which brought my attention to them) and this is a long-term article, so I figure some input here first wouldn't hurt. Cheers - wolf 05:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a citation source for the nicknames just yesterday, and it got reverted for not being a reliable source (https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.php?ship_id=uss-forrestal-cv59-aircraft-carrier). The nicknames are used here and there, but most other sources are other wikis, old websites collecting military trivia, or sailors replying to quora articles or similar forums.

Other sources:

1. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_warships_by_nickname (confirms Forrest Fire, Zippo)
2. https://www.maritimequest.com/misc_pages/slang_terms/slang_f.htm (confirms Forrest Fire)
3. https://www.maritimequest.com/misc_pages/slang_terms/slang_z.htm (confirms Zippo)
4. https://www.riosalado.edu/news/2021/honoring-brave-rio-salado-college-student-and-us-navy-veteran-wen-clayton (confirms Forrest Fire)
5. http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2013/10/the-one-penny-aircraft-carrier-and-the-seven-billion-dollar-destroyer/ (confirms all three)
6. https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/ (confirms Forrest Fire)
7. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/us/forrestal-class-1954.php (confirms all three)

The question is: which sources (if any) would you consider adequate? 81.164.125.190 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that #'s 1, 2, 3 & 5 would be considered reliable sources. As for #4 & 7, they might be ok, but some other editor feedback would be helpful. As for #6, I know there was a recent cull of sources, similar to this site, at RSN by Horse Eye's Back. When I did a search, I didn't find this specific site noted there, but did find it in another RSN dicussion where it was listed as an "SPS". What are your thoughts on these sites, BilCat? - wolf 06:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, on first look through I think only #4 is adequate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)