Talk:USS Nautilus (SS-168)

Kuma

Please verify. Indeed, there exists Kuma Island, but Gilbert Islands, mentioned in the immediate context of "Kuma" in this article, lists Kuria. mikka (t) 19:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cruisers?

I really doubt any cruisers were dropping DCs. They were DDs. I believe it was Yahagi & her resemblance to Akikaze that led to the freq confusion early in the war; many sub war patrols mis-ID DDs as cruisers.

On another point, can somebody confirm the cruisers maneurvering to avoid were Mogami & Mikuma? Memory sez so, but... If you can, add it to the Mogami page? Thanks! Trekphiler 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Plagairism?

Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:

"At 0755, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet, she continued observation. At 0800, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: 1 battleship and 3 cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

And this from the article:

"At 07:55, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway Island, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet (30 m), she continued observation. At 08:00, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The proper term is "public domain". See DANFS as well as the reference note at the bottom of the article. Lifting directly and exactly from DANFS is okay. Why wouldn't it be? The source is properly referenced and the source is in the public domain. This one could probably use a bit of NPOV (the term "enemy" is obviously biased), but otherwise is okay. Jinian 11:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is plagairism. You're claimin another writer's work as your own. Don't tell me "public domain" makes that okay. Or do you mean to suggest I can copy works of Dickens & pass them off as my own? Trekphiler 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming this work as their own. The DANFS notice gives full credit. Jinian 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tricky.Legaly you would not have to give credit. You would not be able to claim them as your own as far as copyright is concernded but I'm not sure what the legal status of A Tale of Two Cities by trekphiler would be. However I feel the statement "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" clears up any issues. If not all our EB 1911 articles are in trouble.Geni 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Trekphiler, your accusation is absurd. Who exactly is the "you" in "You're claimin [sic] another writer's work as your own"? ➥the Epopt 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Absurd? Tell it to your lawyer. You pass off somebody else's work as yours, it's plagairism. Don't tell me "fair use" applies when it's a verbatim lift. You suppose the Napster guys thought they were OK when they didn't actually copy any songs? Trekphiler 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming fair use. We're claiming that works of the United States Federal Government are in the public domain. No copyright exists. The notice clearly states that the text is from the DANFS. It's not plagiarism because no one is claiming it as anything but what it is. But, of course, you know all of this. Jinian 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)