Talk:ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2)

Comments

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, this should have its own article. If nothing else, the sidebar box will have 1970s-era Argentine numbers (such as types of aircraft), not 1945 RN numbers. Stan 16:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed per my comments at Talk:HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) - BillCJ 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Each ship "incarnation" should have its own article, cross-referenced to cover the whole history of the vessel. I've posted the same comment in "Karel Doorman" and "Venerable" discussion pages. DPdH 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE POST COMMENTS ON THE MERGE DISCUSSION PAGE AT : Talk:HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81)

Moved to Talk:HNLMS Karel Doorman (R81) § Merge (2007)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Catapult overhaul?

I had pretty good information suggesting that the 25 de Mayo's catapult was under overhaul in (of all places!) Scotland during the Falklands; as a result she was unable to take an active part in the war. Can someone confirm or deny this? I actually have a photo of the ship tied up and looking very sad, and the caption says that this is the ship during the "Malvinas conflict," and that "she is today a considerably more capable ship" (written in the late 1980s).

Johno (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know where you got that from but its nonesense. In 1982, she led a group North of the Falklands as part of a pincer movement on the British task force, so she was nowhere near Scotland. And after the war the arms embargo on Argentina would have precluded any work in Scotland. Justin talk 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Per WP:FURTHERREADING:

Contents: A list of recommended books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources and may provide useful background or further information.

This section does not include publications that were used as reliable sources in writing this article; these should be cited as references. Websites and online publications are normally listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section, although editors occasionally prefer to merge very short lists of publications and external links into this section. To avoid unnecessary duplication of information, publications listed in any other section of the article should not be included in "Further reading".

Now, what part of that guideline excludes The Illustrated Guide to Aircraft Carriers of the World., which does include a page on the carrier, and on sister ships and similar classes? If there is a policy that contravenes and overrides this guideline, then steps to change the guideline should be taken. - BillCJ (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah right so I can trawl Amazon and include a shed load of books that include aircraft carriers in the title. Is there any evidence that this carrier was even included in that publication? If it is, it should be used as a cite, otherwise wikipedia just becomes a list of crap. Justin talk 23:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you read English? Because You seem to have totally ignored the guideline in favor of this "mystery policy" of yours, and you asked a question which I already answered. Anyway, I've moved the book in question to References, and cited 2 points within the text from it. Also, I've added two books to the "Further reading" section which "provide useful background or further information", per the guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Because the article does need more in-line citations, I'll try to use these 3 books to add some refernces later this week, as I have time. - BillCJ (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed yes, I can read English, and if you'd added a citation or reference to improve the article that wouldn't have been a problem. i.e I wouldn't have reverted the addition. But that isn't what you did, you simply added an apparently unreleated book back into the article that another editor had placed in the article, a good faith addition but not one that improved the article. You then edit warred to keep it.

I've got a dozen books on the shelf that include comments on aircraft carriers, should I list them as well? The fact that none of them actually include this ship means they don't provide useful background or further information, but you seem to think the fact they're unrelated doesn't matter? I could also throw in some related material about battleships, none of which is useful background or further information for this particular article but what should that matter? You seem to think that guideline is somehow an excuse to shoe horn in a list of unrelated material, well it isn't.

Indeed you also seem to feel that ignoring an edit summary and writing smart ass remarks in a talk page is an ideal way to build consensus, well it isn't. And simply reverting with additional smart ass remarks in a similar vein isn't a useful or ideal way to build consensus.

Its a thankless task having articles like this on your watchlist, often changes are well intentioned but don't improve the article. Shoe horning in lists of books that maybe obliquely be useful doesn't improve the article. Add a suitable citation and that will be fine. But I will remove them if they're not used for that purpose, you've provided nothing to demonstrate relevance or that it provides useful background or further information. Justin talk 09:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, as an outside observer of this little contretemps it seems to me that you have over-reacted in a major way here. Assume good faith is a major principle here and if an author adds a book to the Further Reading section it is reasonable to assume that it contains information germaine to the article but not directly cited in it, as per the Wikipedia guideline. Given that Bill stated in his first post in this discussion that the book in question does indeed contain an entry about this ship as far as I am concerned you were absolutely out of order to react in the way you did. The only possible justification would be if you had the book in question, or had access to it and you were able to state with authority that the book contained no relevant information about the article subject. This you patently failed to do and so in my opinion you then proceeded to act in a way that demonstrated extreme bad faith. You should take the time to read what others actually say and not jump to conclusions based upon what you think they were going to say. Also, you are not the arbiter of what should be included in an article. If you think an entry is wrong, then raise it in the appropriate place - the talk page in most cases - and wait until a consensus or at least a majority opinion is reached with other editors before you take it upon yourself to be the Wikipolice. You overstepped the mark by a considerable amount and I think it is now time that you climb down from your high horse and act like a responsible Wikpedian. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't demonstrate bad faith, ever heard of WP:BRD as the process for building consensus. BOLD, REVERT, DICUSS not BOLD, REVERT, REVERT BACK, REVERT, REVERT BACK, REVERT, REVERT BACK which is what happened. And checking the edit history Bill made no attempt to provide an appropriat edit summary see [1] notice however I always did [2] and note several edit summaries from Bill that include snide remarks. Note also that Bill reverted twice before taking it to talk. Assume good faith cuts both ways, Bill's behaviour over this was far from exemplary.

I just happened to miss the fact that Bill included a comment that the book included the ship - in which case by the way why couldn't he use his energies in adding a suitable citation rather than edit warring. As an aside, he'd already reverted twice before he bothered to do that so perhaps it didn't get my full attention. People often just add books they think might be "useful", its a good faith addition but they generally get reverted, because they don't improve the article by adding a long list of book titles.

Checking the edit history of Bill's talk page, surprisingly you name comes up several times. Strange that, should I infer anything from that? Particularly as I found your attempt to "smooth things over" somewhat condescending and one sided; ignoring the bad behaviour on Bill's part. And no I'm not the arbiter of what gets included in an article, where did I claim I was? Or was that a bad faith assumption on your part? And as regards climbing off high horses, I suggest you climb of yours rather than delivering one-sided condescending lectures on editor behaviour. Justin talk 11:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) What "long list of book titles"? And for the life of me I don't know how you can know a book is only "obliquely be useful doesn't improve the article" when you apparently haven't even read the book! Not did you ask at any point, but just assumed it was not relevant. I have, and knew the carrier was in the book before I reverted the revert. And your own assumption that my first comments were "Nonsense" might have a lot to do with why you missed that in my first comments. As to the rest, most of that is personal, and doesn't need a response. I will remind you that it takes two to edit war, and that you had several oppurtunities to discuss this before I did, but did not take them, and reverted instead. So I'm not sure why you want to make such a big deal of "BRRRRRD". We are discussing it, "nonsense" or not, but you have yet to present any policy that supports your point here. If the article had 10-12 books listed, I would understand the problem, but the article only had three sources, and a "Refimprove" tag. Adding further reading is a good start to improving the articles. I have cited two points from the book as I had time, and will try to add some more from the other 2 books later this week, as I can. Until then, I hope the "Further reading" list can remain, per the guidelines. Btw, Nick tells me the truth whether I want it or not. I did not ask him direclty for help, but as I am thankful for another opinion on this. - BillCJ (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've explained myself already, I don't see the point in re-iterating it. Your efforts would be better expended improving the article rather than justifying yourself. As regards your friend's one sided comments I stand by my response. Justin talk 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your previous post -> I was not making an attempt to "smooth things over" at all, I was telling you to pull your head in. You were out of line, whether you recognise it or not and you still are. If that comes across as condescending then tough, and given the way you reacted to Bill's posts and the nature of your comment on this talk page frankly it is a bit rich to hear you complaining of condescension.

Your long list of book titles in the further reading section contained precisely one title! There was absolutly no need whatsoever to remove that book from further reading without first establishing that the book was in fact not relevant, which you did not even pretend to do.

BTW, the reason why my name appears on Bill's talk page is because our areas of interest overlap. I have every aircraft carrier page in Wikipedia (to the best of my knowledge) on my watch list, so it should not be surprising that on occasion I post on Bill's talk page since he also quite often edits carrier articles and their talk pages and sometimes it seems appropriate to talk to him about it. There is no conspiracy as you seem to imply. Your paranoia is showing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Was that yet another bad faith assumption and personal attack? Paranoia, not in the slightest, you were one sided, condescending and ignored bad behaviour on your buddy's part. If you're going to intervene do it in a way that calms the situation down rather than inflaming it, otherwise its a waste of time and effort. Though I do enjoy the irony of lecturing someone to pull their head in when thats precisely what you should be doing yourself. I still don't see any citations or improvements to the article and again perhaps your energies could be better directed.

I've explained my point, it was in no way condescending and rather than addressing it both have you have chosen to expend your energies in directing personal abuse. Any misunderstanding could have been avoided by Bill explaining his revert and his intention to improve the article - I wouldn't have touched it then. But he didn't did he? I nonetheless did, edit summaries on each revert and in talk. I don't pretend to be the most diplomatic person in the world, far from it, but I do make the effort to explain myself to avoid misunderstanding. Both of you need to learn to communicate better.

Feel free to respond but thats my last word on the matter, I've better things to do with my time. Justin talk 13:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians, I was unaware on this dipute triggered by my humble act of adding just one book to the list of those that I could be useful to a casual reader (which is the intention of the Further reading section, IMHO). My apologies if someone does not concur with me or felt what I did was inappropriate. However, as I believe that the inclusion of The Illustrated Guide to Aircraft Carriers of the World has not contravened any policy or guideline that I'm aware of, and that the title is useful and related to the article's subject, I will re-include it in the list.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand. My mistake was calling "Bibliography" to the section, instead of "Further reading". Apologies for that. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because Justin removed the book again after I renamed the section to further reading. You did nothing wrong here. - BillCJ (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it plain, I assumed your edit was made in good faith. I have no problem with your edit at all. Justin talk 23:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My recent additions to "Further reading"

So there are no doubts why I've added the following books to the list in "Further reading":

• Ireland, Bernard (2005). The Illustrated Guide to Aircraft Carriers of the World. London: Hermes House. ISBN 1-84477-747-2.
• Secondi, Martín; Jorge A. Leguizamón (1999). "25 de Mayo Portaaviones". Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ayer y Hoy Ediciones. pp. 72. ISBN 987-9249-06-2. (in spanish)

The first was included because it's IMHO a useful compendium of (most?) aircraft carriers built, projected, and in service. And it includes the "25 de Mayo". As other books in the list may not be available to all readers of the wikiarticle, I believe it is useful to mention this book and adds value to the reader.
The second, because is one of the very few (AFAIK) monographies/books devoted to this ship, and it contains interesting (IMHO) details, both historical and technical; as well as pics and diagrams (most in the CD-ROM attached to the book). It is relevant, although in spanish. It could be used as a basis for further expansion of this article (something I intend to do, if and when I have time for that).
Hopefully my action will not trigger another dispute. Thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to add the Ireland book back to "Further Reading", as I've cited it from it in several places in the text, so it is now a reference. I purposely did not contact you as I have the Ireland book (and have read it), and felt it was entirely a justifiable addition. Btw, 3 admins from MILHIST/WPSHIPS support your addition of the book in the first place as acceptable per the guidelines on Further reading sections. If it becomes a problem again, I'll make sure they all know about it. Thanks for the additions, and I look forward to any expansions in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake again! Didn't notice that Ireland's book have been already used as a reference, very happy for that. As for Secondi's book (the one in spanish), if I had time I'd use it as a key reference for expanding this article (actually I own a copy of it). The only issue now is time... Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mis-match between content : ex-Venerable and ex-Vengeance

QUESTION - Why do the two respective Wikipedia entries for + ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) was an aircraft carrier in the Argentine Navy and

1. NAeL Minas Gerais (pennant number A 11) was a carrier operated by the Marinha do Brasil (MB, Brazilian Navy)

adopt the same content format ?? SINCE, previously they apparently were respectively each a British Colossus-class aircraft carrier : + Royal Navy as HMS Venerable and the Royal Netherlands Navy as HNLMS Karel Doorman and

1. as HMS Vengeance

180.200.141.73 (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no mismatch, both ships were Colossus class, HMS Venerable was sold to the Netherlands and renamed Karel Doorman then later re-sold to Argentina and renamed ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. HMS Vengeance was sold to Brazil and renamed NAeL Minas Gerais. Different ships, different histories. No mismatch. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2). 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/20080921061853/http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/an1.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/an1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Battle between aircraft carriers

This article describes in the Falklands War section an attempt to launch a strike on 1 May 1982 against the Royal Navy Task Force, which would have been the first battle between aircraft carriers since World War II. It is an interesting statement, one deserving of further study, especially since there does not appear to be a reference to this occurrence in any major work on the Falklands War.

Unfortunately, the article lacks a citation for this statement. Would it be possible for this statement to be substantiated by reference to some work? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.33.207 (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)