Talk:USS Recruit (TDE-1)

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

Any others?[edit]

In researching this article we found information about two other landlocked ships of the U.S. Navy, namely USS Commodore (401B) and USS Recruit (1917). Both were supposed to be moved after being dismantled, but we found no evidence that they had actually been reconstructed anywhere. That's the basis for the statement in this article, that USS Recruit appears to be the last surviving example of such a ship. If anyone has any information about the fate of those other two vessels, or knows of any other historical landlocked ships besides those three, please say so, either here or in the article. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there's something of a different type... stone frigate. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

I've checked googebooks on the subject and still don't get it... Why? 1949, San Diego, there must have been hundreds of disused ships around (left after Baker Shot :)), take whatever you like, here's your real training ship. Logistical costs? If it's moored at base, cost must be the same. East of Borschov (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason might have been that there is no mooring at the base for a ship of any significant draft. The Recruit was right there in marching distance; the recruits would have had to be transported to a ship. Another reason might have been simple "turf" considerations; there was no way the Recruit could be transferred to other duty. Interesting question! --MelanieN

New Image[edit]

I have uploaded this image onto WikiCommons, however I am unable to use it in this article as the name shares an image on wikipedia found here. How do we resolve this issue? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOF - add {{Rename media}} to the image on wp to clear the clash? NtheP (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two options:
a) upload the 1917 image to Commons under a new name (eg "(1917)"), correct all the links, delete the existing file
b) re-upload the Commons image under a different name, use that in the article, and mark the existing one for deletion.
The first is probably the more useful (it'll have to go to Commons eventually), the second is quicker. Shimgray | talk | 12:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I have done as suggested by NtheP, and requested a name change for the wooden battleship 1917 image. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to KuduIO, who moved the other image tot he 1917 name as suggested by Shimgray. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new image. The caption's "original configuration" is intriguing but a little vague; do you have any information about when the picture was taken? --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly the source of the image states that the date which the picture was taken is unknown. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more details about this computerized registry problem causing the decommissioning?[edit]

Recruit was decommissioned in March 1967, due to the inability to classify the unique ship in a computerized registry of Navy vessels

There must be more behind this? "Computer says no" on the face of it seems an unlikely reason to decommission a ship. I've tried searching around myself, but all the pages I find are sourcing their text from this one, except https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/kubasakihsalumni/uss-recruit-tffg-1-tde-1-gathering-july-27-t5051.html , which mentions it is the "victim" of a computer inventory glitch and then further down in a comment mentions

In 1954, the training facility of 50,000 recruits annually was 'hauled into dry dock' for three months of repair work. But 13 years later, in a military effort to classify the ship from a card-index inventory into a new computer database, a most unusual situation occurred. 'The computer determined that the ship was neither afloat nor tied up ashore. It was not in drydock, nor undergoing repairs or rehauling, not in "mothball," and was crewless. It had no boilers, or engines, or screws,' writes retired Senior Chief Journalist Mary E. Camacho in her book NTC: Cradle of the Navy. Therefore, nothing by which to classify the ship. And so, it was decommissioned in March 1967, on paper with no fanfare. Her commission pennant was struck and removed, but sailors continued to train aboard Recruit until 1996, prior to the disestablishment of NTC.''

I'm no expert, and I haven't that book to hand myself, so quite reluctant to add that website (which is "A message board for alumni of Kubasaki High School on Okinawa") as a reference. Anyone got a better reference and more information - presumably some human made the decision, not the computer itself? Lessthanideal (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lessthanideal: First let me say welcome back to editing Wikipedia, and thanks for all your past work to improve and create content here.
The tapatalk.com appears to fall within WP:USERGEN, and thus is WP:OR and not an RS.
That said, the book mentioned in the post might be a RS, and maybe used per WP:OFFLINE, but needs to be verified if one can find the book and verify what the group post stated. Then use the book mentioned as the RS to verify content in this article. The book can be found at the USS Midway Museum per this catalog file. This reliable source book 'San Diego's Naval Training Center', appears to utilize the Camacho book as a reliable source, so it is likely reliable in and of itself if someone can independently verify its content. In this book, on page 46 it mentions the decommissioning, but not the computer portion of it.
OK, found a reliable source which repeats what is quoted above, 'All Hands' December 1974, p. 53.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RightCowLeftCoast: Thanks for the welcome back! And for the references which at least reliably confirms the facts given, good to know. On reflection, even today it's not unknown in some companies for the tail of "we're putting in a new computer system" to wag the dog of "so you'll have to make what seem like costly unnecessary changes to how you do actual things that are our mission", after all ... Lessthanideal (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references to use later to improve article[edit]

--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Recruit_(TDE-1)&oldid=1212851327"