Talk:Aircraft carrier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

ASW carriers

In reading this page, there seems to be a difference in what other navies call Aircraft Carriers, An exmaple, the current British carrier are ASW ( light )carriers, listed in numerous references as such, but reading this the reader is lead to believe that they are considered in the factual sense an Aircraft carrier. Does any one else have any ideas on this subject. In looking at the AWS page the british carriers are listed. Which make me think why is there even mention of them here. None of the carriers listed other then the few that still retain the traditional sense of an Aircraft Carrier, (assisted take off and arrested landing of fixed wing aircraft). This should not include small light or ASW carriers, operating STOL aircraft or HelicoptersJacob805 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is different opinions on what an aircraft carrier is, however the British Invincible class warships are considered to be aircraft carriers and are described as such on wikipedia articles as well as by plenty of reliable and respected sources. According to the ASW page "An ASW carrier (Anti-Submarine Warfare carrier) is a type of small aircraft carrier. Therefor they fit the definition of Aircraft carrier even though they are small ones. The United States can not define what is internationally considered to be an aircraft carrier, and nor can you. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't lump Jacob's opinion in with the US's opinion as a whole! The US Navy has always classified its light and ASW carriers as full aircraft carriers, and even though its escort carriers were numbered is a different series, they were consudered carriers too. The differences is that the USN does not classify its LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs as carriers, even though these have sometimes operated in the more traditional carrier role. The amphibious assualt ships of other nations are often roled as carriers, but there is usually an emphasis on one or the other. The Spanish Juan Carlos I is generally classified as an LHD, but can operate as a carrier like the Principe de Asturias. The Italian Cavour is considered a light VSTOL carrier, but is equipped to also operate in the assualt role when needed. - BillCJ (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry wasnt trying to make it sound like the US had a certain position on these things but its clear jacob looks at things from a certain point of view. I agree with you on the Helicopter carrier and other amphibious assualt ships, but there is no justification for his attempt to have the light aircraft carriers removed from this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Jacob definitely has his own POV/agenda, especially in his definition of what constitutes as angled deck, as seen above, which no reliable sources agree with. I concur that ASW and light carriers should be covered on this page, and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my previos comments. - BillCJ (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I renamed the heading to Jacob's first wording, as the second wording was a duplicate of another section's name. This meant that the shortcut as the top of the diff page went to the wrong section. - BillCJ (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BillJC and BW, both of you have still not defined the usage of these carriers on both pages, so what is it? aircraft carrier or ASW. This is not POV, please explain are they to be considered both an Aircraft Carrier and an ASW carrier, as there is a difference in its operational role. As for the British Invincible class, it is also listed as a light carrier on its page and also under the light carrier page, is this over kill or is it just me. So please explain, why we are to list all types of carriers under this page? as they each have there own page and sub pages under clasifications. There was a topic on this discussion, titled this page is too long. Please explain why all these other types are listed here? If they are to stay, as Billy suggests, than make sure they are correctly identified as such (light carrier) or (ASW). As for your comments on the Angle deck, I have a POV, as it is not an invention. It was is a innvation that developed into a working concept. I am sorry about this, but I still cannot understand how you can invent something (angled deck), which basically entailed modifying a preexisting invention. Please watch this video, and maybe you can understand my POV.[1]Jacob805 (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The British carriers are light aircraft carriers, as you say this is fact. That means they are infact "aircraft carriers" and worthy of mention on this page. This article talks about "Light aircraft carriers" and describes the Italian ship an "aircraft carrier" despite being a Light aircraft carrier as well. It is not like Britain is being treated as a special case here, this article is about Aircraft Carriers which happens to include "light" aircraft carriers and Supercarriers. Your concerns would be valid if someone was trying to add the Invincible class to the supercarrier article, which they are clearly not. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ASW carrier says it is a type of "small" aircraft carrier which sounds alot to me like being a Light aircraft carrier which is a type of Aircraft carrier. Now i do not know how accurate those articles on ASW carriers / Light aircraft carriers are but that is something which should be taken up on those articles. The Invincible class is an aircraft carrier no matter what those other wikipedia articles say. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's about time you gave this up. No one here agrees with you. The history does not agree with you. All the reliable references do not agree with you. That you hold a particular POV does not make it historical fact, indeed hostory is not bound by your inability to understand it. History quite clearly states that your position on this issue is incorrect. Nick Thorne ^talk 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher and Bill, any thoughts on the invention of the angled deck, as this is clearly a modification of a preexisting invention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the above was actually posted by Jacob805 talk, regardless, it is not clear that what you posit is a reasonable position at all. Using the same logic I could just as easily state that the flight deck of an aircraft carrier was not an invention, only a modification of a previous invention, a ship's upper deck. Indeed, I could go on in a continous regression right back to the first log used to help a cave man float across a river. Why cannot you simply accept the common view held by military historians about the invention of the angled deck? Is it just that you cannot bear to think that the Brits invented anything ahead of the US? Well if it is, you better give it up now, because they invented nearly everything that makes modern aircraft carriers possible, the flush flight deck, the steam catapult, hydraulic arresting gear, the mirror landing aid, the island superstructure, the hurricane bow, the whole box and dice. They even invented the ski jump for STOVL aircraft, which they also invented. The Poms may not have been good at implementing all their ideas, and they certainly have not produced the ultimate incarnation of many of them, but they sure as hell know how to come up with good inventions. Nick Thorne ^talk 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick,long time since I have heard you beat your preferable British chest. No I will be ok with just flight decks ( decks used to launch and recover aircraft). This discussion is about the wording on this page about the usage of the word invention. As it is used numerous times, as British invention, "another British invnetion" and finally "yet another british invention". Do you know that at one time it was considered very un-british to boast and make statements like this. I agree after finding other national sources that the British Adm Campbell, conceived the idea and is recongised by other navies as doing so. I think it would be best to tone down the usage of "Brtish invention". In reviewing many of the other inventions on various pages, you don't see this usage e.g. America invention, or Italian invention. Only on British pages do you see this. It sends the wrong message if you get my meaning. You really don't have to go that far and this web site is not about how proud you are to be British. If we go your way, shouldn't we revise of the pages and break it down to Scotish invention, Irish inventions or are you content with just British inventions. Do you understand my point. I have tried numerous times to suggest other wording that is less boastful such as innovation or concept, but no you rather use these terms "Britsih Invention" that makes sound like we are poundng our chests about our British acomplishments, rather then actually discussing the historcial content and actually how it developedJacob805 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire post is non-sequitur, next time try adressing the points raised. Also, for your information, I am not British, thus I have no British chest to beat (and consequently it is not just a long time, you have never heard me beat it) and I neither am I thus proud to be British, as you put it. As I have stated before that the Brits invented all these things is not in question, the history is quite clear. You are the only person with a problem with the words "British invention" in this context. I don't care how many time you put up a different wording, no one agree with you, so give it a rest. Nick Thorne ^talk 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Oz( your biasism is still questionable?), you seem to be upset. If I mistakenly took you for a British subject, I am sorry, not everyone can be British. But as for addressing the point, you seem not to want to discuss this and your anger doesn't help this discussion. The flight deck for all intent and purposes was invented on the USS Birmingham, as there is no early record of a plane leaving a warship under its own power. If you know an earlier one please post. My contention is everything after that, is a modification of some sort or another. From length to width, from wood to steel, its all modifiaction of the origianl idea. My point is, you don't see the intro to the flight deck page as Invented by the US navy, do you? or the flight deck invented by Ely , Curtiss and Captain Washington Chambers in 1910. No you don't. It is assumed in reading the atricle that it first took place in the USA, there is non need to go into nationalities or other USA inventions. It sounds stupid and boastful. Please read your post dated some months ago: "The first trials of an angled flight deck were made on HMS Triumph in 1952. This is a documented fact. USS Antietum was the first US carrier to be modified with a port side extension for an angled deck (in December of that year), HMS Centaur being the first British ship so modified. This does not make either of these ships the first to have had an angled deck, as the extension was only the logical progression of the principle that had been already established on Triumph. BTW, the first ship to be actually completed with an angled deck was HMS Ark Royal.. Nick Thorne . Please note your usage of the word modified. Also the facts on the HMS Triumph are less then true and leave a lot on information out. Like no actual landing took place... touch and goes only! no arrrsted cables or barriers. A painted line, just like I stated.

Now I ask that you review the revisions I have made in regards to the USS Antietum, as these are factual and I have reference all material. As I stated last year, your facts on the developement of the Angle deck, were either poorly researched or bias, which is it. As the importance the USS Antietum was conveniently left out, like the fact, the USS Antietum ( first carrier with angle deck ) trained the RN, this is a fact. The RN didn't have a completed carrier with an angled deck but the USN did and it was used by both navies to develop the concept. Oh and by the way, I am Britsh83.64.176.178 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the current version of angle deck under the flight deck page, I would suggest that those interested in the aircraft carrier page review this, as this is historically correct.

The angled flight deck was first tested on HMS Triumph, by painting angled deck markings onto the centeline flight deck for touch and go landings.[2]. This was also tested on the USS Midway the same year.[1][2] It should be noted that in both tests, the arresting gear and barriers remained oriented to the original axis deck. During September through December 1952 the USS Antietam had a rudimentary sponson was installed for true angle deck tests, allowing for full arrested landings, which proved during trials to be superior.[3] In 1953 the USS Antietam trained with both US and British naval units, proving the worth of the angle deck concept.[4] The HMS Centaur was modified with overhanging angled flight deck in 1954.[2] The U.S. Navy installed the decks as part of the SCB-125 upgrade for the Essex class and SCB-110/110A for the Midway class. In February 1955, HMS Ark Royal became the first carrier to be constructed and launched with the deck, followed in the same year by the lead ships of the British Majestic class (HMAS Melbourne) and the American Forrestal class (USS Forrestal).[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rant above adds nothing to the discussion. There is no inconsistancy between the flight deck article and this one. Once again I point out that you are the only person who has a problem with this page on this subject. Build a bridge and get over it.

I have done discussing this with you for now since you seem to think that your opinion outweighs actual history. Have a nice life. Nick Thorne ^talk 11:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Jacob805, if you're going to edit while not logged in (for whatever reason, even accidental), please have the courtesy to state who you are in the edit so we can know who is saying what more easily. As to your timeline on which ships had the angeld deck when, most points seem to be correct, but they have nothing to do with who "invented" the concept of the angled deck. The fact that Antetam was chosen for the first full conversion probably has more to do with other factors such as availability, and the fact that the USN probably has more carriers to chose from than the RN. Even so, the USN credits the RN with the development of the concept of the angled deck; whether that should be defined as an "invention" or some other term is really an exercise in semantics, as many many sources can be cited that use the word "invention". Along with Nick, I consider the "invention" issue closed, as the consensus here is against you. If you'd like to take it up at WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST for broader input, your welcome to do that, but I don't foresee the current consensus changing. - BillCJ (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, the British also "invented" the flexible deck! - BillCJ (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to you opinion, you know the old saying? In have had problem with the neutrality of this page and the way it was presented in context. I admit that the RN is accredited with its invention, but argue the fact that the wording British invention is too strong and put more emphasis on the fact of the person nationality then the invention. As for the bias contained on this page, in looking at the talk/discussion history, I made mention the importance of the USS Antietam and the role it played, but Nick wouldn't have any of it.

I have proved through referenced material that the USN and RN jointly developed this key part of carrier operations which is still used today. But this is left out, leaving the reader with your opinion of historical fact. regardless of your preconceived notion of me, facts are facts, modified or not the USS Antietam was the first carrier in the world to have full anlge deck and the first carrier to carry out take off and landings on "said deck", by both the USN and Royal Navy. As for Billcj, flexible decks that is funny...but when you have been to the Grumman plant on Long Island and seen them drop a F-14 from 25 feet up (45,000 lbs) on to a concret pad, in order to test the landing gear struts...you can see why the flexible deck was pointless. As for my Naval Aviation experience, 4 years active 2 reserve and 22 for a major airlineJacob805 (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that the flexible deck as a success, but rather pointing out that not all British carrier-related inventions were successes. It was the flex-deck's failure that resulted in the invention of the angled deck. Please give me some credit for being aware of those facts so I don't have to state the obvious in every reply. - BillCJ (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill it was joke, or at least I thought so, sorry I don't mean to offend...83.64.176.178 (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. I guess one would have to know what happend to the Tomcat to get the joke. They could have made the flex deck work, but the range/payload penalties weren't worth it once the angled deck idea was innovated and proven pratical. - BillCJ (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent rants do not warrant a response. When (if) you have something substantive to add to the conversation I may respond, until that time like I said before, I am finished discussing the (non)issue with you. Nick Thorne ^talk 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To understand the above comment, please see this: [2] - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick, it is a fair question, please share you naval knowledge on carrier operations. I pointed out the important role the USN had in this development and you would not have it, siting you book and site by the RAN, as 100% British invention and development. Well it took a while, but I think I have come up with the correct hitorical fact to dispute your bias claim. In the end it was a joint effort, of course the conception of the idea has to go to your British Captain (later Rear Admiral) Dennis Campbell, but the development and practical use goes to the USN. I am reaching this further, as there was a USN Admiral Marc Mitscher, that stated something very similar to the angle deck, in his reports in 1943 and when he served as deputy CNO of the Navy after the war. I keep you posted as I am trying to get copies of his idea's. 6a carrier project. t wouldn't be the first time that widely accepted history was proven wrong. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From the US Navy's Naval Aviation History Office Evolution of Aircraft Carriers Pages 64-65 (My emphasis):

Even as these changes were being built in the Hancock, Intrepid and Ticonderoga, the Bureau of Aeronautics proposed, in mid-June 1952, that a new design flight deck be installed in the Antietam. The previous May, both jet and propeller type aircraft were tested on a simulated angled deck aboard the USS Midway. The idea was originated by the British and proved very effective for them. Antietam’s deck was to extend outboard on the port side from the normal flight deck, thus allowing aircraft landings to be angled 10° off the ship’s centerline. Pushed through the guidance design stage by the Hull Design Branch of BUSHIPS in early July, Antietam’s new deck was completed in mid-December at the New York Naval Shipyard. At first called a canted deck, this term officially gave way to the more familiar angled deck by OPNAV Notice 9020 on February 24, 1955.

Even the US Navy agree that the Poms invented the angled flight deck. Time to give up now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick , where have you been? I have not heard from you in a while. If you read my comments above, I gave credit to RN for the concept, but you fail to address the problem with you view. In the begining I suggest the importance the USN and the USS Antietam but you would not have it. Only your version was good enough, whether it was true or not. I had a problem with the word invention, as you can not invented angled deck, Developed the concept, designed this very important innovation, but I fail to see how the RN sat down and designed the first angled flight deck. Even you copy and past above states IDEA...I consider this matter closed, I like the current as it is historically correct. Listen I am needing help with the Royal Navy page and Fleet Air Arm, as they our quite out dated, are you up for itJacob805 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article lately? This discussion is no longer appropriate here since the history section was split off into a separate article. I don't really propose to engage in further discussion about this subject at this time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

About time to Archive some of these older talk sections.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

CV, redux

As above (Talk:Aircraft_carrier#CV.3F), this civilian is confused by the designation "CV". I gather that "CV" is the U.S. Navy's designation for a fixed-wing aircraft carrier. Does Wikipedia have an article on this naming convention? If so, the first use of "CV", "CVBG", etc., should be wikilinked to that convention.

If the Navy's naming convention is not internationally recognized, then I question whether Wikipedia ought to be using it as a synonym for "carrier" in this article. According to the current article, the "United States Navy, Royal Navy, French Navy, Russian Navy, Italian Navy, Indian Navy, Spanish Navy, Brazilian Navy, and Royal Thai Navy" have aircraft carriers; do they also refer to them as "CV", or do they have their own naming conventions? If they have their own conventions, then perhaps the use of U.S. Navy's convention should be contained to a footnote or a new section on Navy terminology. --Quuxplusone (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier or Carrier is stated before every use of "CV" I can find. So it is not like the acronym is being used without context. Someone else will have to address how general the usage is.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what does the letters CV stand for? 78.73.30.213 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring this to GA status

There's plenty of good material here, but the article needs a good brush up, restructuring and some references. There's rather a lot on the history of Aircraft Carriers, and it might be appropriate to split the bulk of that out in WP:Summary style to a standalone article: History of the aircraft carrier. I'm setting to to clean this up to restore it to GA status. Any help would be very welcome. SilkTork *^YES! 20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the problem with all the history being in a single, main "History" section? Won't the entire history be what is carried over to the split off history article or not? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with SilkTork completely. I have felt for some time that the description of the carrier is so intertwined with the history that it makes the article less understandable than it could be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fnlayson. The aim of the WP:Summary style is to leave behind a summary of the history that covers the main points, while the History of the aircraft carrier would carry the details. The usual thing for a summary would be a couple of paragraphs - though a lot depends on circumstances. As an example, the first two sections of the history could be summarised as follows: "Experience from 1802 onwards in using ships to launch kites and balloons led to the development of balloon carriers and seaplane tenders which were used during World War I; while experiments in launching and landing airplanes on flat decks were conducted from 1910..." SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I know about Summary style. That was not my question. I asked why split off the early history like that. But whatever, it does not matter much. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking more closely at this article, there is little about what an aircraft carrier is, the various parts of it, how it runs, how it is powered, how it is constructed, how airplanes are stored and transported to the flight deck, etc. The main part is contained within the relatively small and inadequate Flight deck section. The Future aircraft carriers section is larger, and that - like the History section, should be briefly summarised here, and a new article created as that is not the main business of this article. Much of the development history appears to be mixed up with operational history, and these need to be separated. The operational history could again be summarised and a new article created, as it currently is swamping the article. Some of the main features of aircraft carriers are contained within the Post-war developments section. These features should be part of the main body of the article. At the moment Angled decks are mentioned in detail as part of the history/development, but not mentioned at all in the description of Aircraft carriers (Aircraft carriers today), nor in the lead. My understanding is that an aircraft carrier that launches planes will either have a ski-slope or an angled deck - but I don't get the sense of that from this article.

I'm starting to think this article might need a little more work than a few refs added and a bit of restructuring. It looks like it's going to need some serious research on the main aspects of aircraft carriers, and a lot of writing. SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would realize how much work was needed! :) The History of the aircraft carrier article should be fairly straightforward to produce. We simply copy this article over to the new page, remove the details on design features and the like, and strat expanding it as a straight historical narrative.

As to how to organize the main article, I think the first step is to produce an outline here. We need a list of the major sections and what they should cover, but the order will be somewhat arbitrary, Next, I'd recommend creating a sub-page to work on the revised article outside of the main space, because it will probably be quite a mess for awhile. Once that is finished enough, we can move it to the main space over what we currently have, and the History section should be able to stand on its own by then.

Finally, there are other articles on the flight deck, catapults, deck operations, and so on. We might be able to absorb some of the smaller ones, but the rest should have the details, and just summary-style here. It's definitely going to be alot of work, but it does not have to be completed right away. - BillCJ (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Be bold!" as they say; I've copied the content to a new article on the "History of the aircraft carrier". Once upon a time I would have been opposed to forking the content, but due to the diligence of some contributors (like BillCJ) to this article I agree that there is now a lot of material on the present and splitting off the past is necessary. I will concentrate on tidying up the history article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. Sorry, I'm not comfortable working with someone who reverts valid edits so I'll not be doing any more work on this article. It's a personal thing as I'd rather work cooperatively than confrontationally - though Help:Reverting gives more details as others feel the same way as me, and is worth reading. Good luck with this article, and I look forward to seeing it come up for WP:GAN. SilkTork *^YES! 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably for the best, for "if the footmen tire you, what will the horsemen do?". You might want to take a look at a guideline called Bold-revert-discuss. It's well worth reading too. - BillCJ (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing work

I've tried to start the process of cutting back the history information in this article. I used the Lead of this article to make a short history section, since it was already a brief summary f the history (too much for the Lead of the original, but it works here). The entire history section of this article is at History of the aircraft carrier, so anything that someone wants to re-add can be recovered from there.

The "Post-war developments" section of the new article contains a mix of technical details and history. It is currently duplicated in this article by the "Flight deck developments" and "Nuclear age" sections. Thes sections need to be edited to be more appropriate to their respective article's content, and to reduce redundant content. I am not the best at summarizing and condensing data, so if someone else wants to tackle this, go right ahead.

I think this article could use a summary of the carrier classes in service now by nation, along the lines of the "Future carriers" section, and possibly a simple list of classes in service. Also, we could you a good summary of the various types of carriers that have existed (fleet, escort, attack, ASW, hellicopter, etc.) I can probably start on this part myself, but any help is also appreciated. Thanks all. - BillCJ (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How to classify the Admiral Kuznetsov?

As the russian designation for the Admiral Kuznetsov is TAvKr (that this aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser) and it has a cruiser-style antiship missile complement, maybe the Ad.K. should be put into a role class of his own, like "cruiser-carrier" or something like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.198 (talk)

It's not so much a cruiser with a large flight deck, but more a carrier with offensive weapons. I think the term "Guided Missile Aircraft Carrier (CVG)" would be a good description, but I've never seen that used in reliable sources to refer to the Kuznetsov, or the Kiev class either. Most reliable references refer to the Admiral Kuznetsov as a carrier, and mention that the Russian term is "aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser", so this is what we follow here. - BillCJ (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The planned mid-life refit would refurbish its armament, installing a new universal UKSK VLS instead of long-unused "Granit" launchers, and adding a "Sigma" control system, which is basically an AEGIS counterpart, so if this refit would be completed, the ship would fit a CVG designation even better, as UKSK is able to hold Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos missiles as well. --Khathi (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did find 2 sources that use "Guided Missile Aircraft Carrier (CVG)" for the Kuznetsov: [4] and [5]. Still not common, but at least I know now the term is not unique to me. - BillCJ (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Future carriers - Spanish Navy

I have removed unsourceable speculation about the future of Spain's current carrier - this information was not specified in either of two references previously offered for this section. I have replaced a reference to the Spanish Navy's official web site home page to the page on that web site that directly refers to JCI. The other existing reference has been removed because it states on the home page that it is not an official web site and it contains no additional information to the official site. I am currently searching for a reliable source for the planned date of commissioning of JCI, if I do not find one, I will also remove the date from the section.

To the IP editors who have been continually replacing this information, please discuss any further insertions of this information here, before you add it, in particular pay attention to wp:v, especially the section about non-English references in the English Wikipedia.

Nick Thorne ^talk 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

new russian carrier groups planned to be at full strength around 2050–2060??

Is this really accurate? I checked the referenced article but come on... they say they will start construction 2012-13 and finish fourty years later? Could it be a mistranslation? Perhaps it should be 2015-2016 or something?

"Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky announced on Navy Day 2008 that Russia plans to build 5 or 6 carriers of the new design for deployment in the Northern and Pacific fleets, starting around 2012-2013.[18] The new carrier groups are planned to be at full strength around 2050–2060.[19]" LarsHolmberg (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Depends on their capacity to train personell, build ships and supporting systems and the economy I guess... If you assume 5 years to build one carrier, it will quickly take aroundt 30 years just to build them if they only have capacity for one at the time. Bjelleklang - talk 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Size

The short section on size seems problematic to me. The first reference is a forum, the second one is a magazine - no details are provided in the bibliography - I have no idea what "EOS Magazine" is, but a quick Google search indicates that it may be a phtographic magazine, hardly a reliable source for info about carriers. The section appears to violate NPOV and frankly I have doubts about the accuracy of the claim that any latin American countries possess "Supercariers". If no one objects, I think I will re-write this section completely. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. There is only one carrier in South America, the Sao Paulo (former French Navy Foch), and it's just a standard-size fleet carrier. While I can see the need for a section on carrier sizes, it does need a complete rewrite. I've no probelm with removing it for now. - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos

These images on the DoD site are so good. Makes me wonder, are they really public domain? http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/homepagephoto/2009-04/hires_090426-N-9988F-135a.jpg 80.222.34.97 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. On photos page it says "The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower displays signal flags as it operates in the Arabian Sea, April 26, 2009. ... U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Rafael Figueroa Medina". Note bolded part. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. While is it true that Royal Navy is the official name of the navy of the UK in English, other nations use the term without a country name in their own languages. We need to be absolutely clear what nation is being referred to when using the term "Royal Navy". We don't need to beat it to death by using UK with every mention of RN, but it should be clear, preferably in the heading, which nation is being referred to, as all the other sections have the nation stated. Please note that we already make a concession to clarity in the section, listing the People's Liberation Army Navy as the "Chinese Navy". - BillCJ (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully it is not too much to ask for people to consider the international part... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument is spurious. This is an English language encyclopaedia. English language conventions are to be respected, including proper nouns. We don't write American (United States) each time we write American, as that would be pedantic and offensive. Please respect established conventions instead of inventing new ones that only reflect parochialism. 59.101.142.139 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Historically, the Netherlands were also known as the United Provinces or the United States, even in English. But you wouldn’t like it if individual editors used that as a pretext to disambiguate United States Navy or US Navy as United States (America) Navy or US(A) Navy, or American US Navy, or US Navy (America), in every heading, just for 'clarity', by which we may read, 'spite'. 59.101.142.139 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shifting the insult from the heading to the main text is no better. 59.101.142.139 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You still don't have a consensus to remove the clarifications. Please stop reverting, or you may be blocked for revert warring. - BillCJ (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical thing may not the best way to do it, but the nation needs to be made clear in some manner in the section label or text. This Wikipedia is for all English readers. Assuming they will all know a convention does not follow Wikipedia's policies such as WP:Neutral point of view. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Which nation is already made crystal clear by using the term Royal Navy. It would only be ambiguous if we were to call it the Navy, which right of precedence and achievement would confer upon it. The role of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to appease wilful, bloody-minded ignorance. The proper term for the Navy is the Royal Navy. If you want a compromise, British Royal Navy might be acceptable, if you can accept American United States Navy. Otherwise, you can forget it. 59.101.142.139 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to list the short form names of the nations in the headings rather than the navies. We would still use "Royal Navy (UK)" at the first mention in this section, and first mention in the article. I don't support the clarification at every mention of RN, and never have - that's definietely overkill. - BillCJ (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Inserting your silly little made-up term "Royal Navy (UK)" in the heading, or "British Royal Navy", in the main text, is like us using "United States (of America) Navy", to disambiguate it from the the Navy of the Statholder, to stop any Dutch historians from getting confused. It's wrong and ridiculous, an implied slight, and we'll correct it, however long it takes for the insult to be repelled, and the error to be undone. 59.101.142.139 (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few Royal Navys out there, not all of whom have a nationality in their name. Also, remember that not even all native English speakers (or even UK citizens) who may be reading the article will know that the Navy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Royal Navy, never mind people for whom English is not their first language. This is the sort of general article which will attact schoolchilden etc, so we should be careful of what we assume when writing the article. Thirdly, please stay civil and keep insults out of it. There is no insult (implied or otherwise) in being precise, and talking about "silly made-up terms isn't helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a slight, intentional or otherwise. Internationally, everybody with any knowledge of naval affairs in Europe and the Commonwealth (half the planet, and dwarfing America BTW) knows what the Royal Navy is. The fact the faux pas has been highlighted and its correction has been obstructed with parochial arguments that are spurious at best suggests that it's intentional. (Confirmed by all the bullying.) It fails to respect conventional usage. It's utter nonsense. And if we don't apply the same absurd level of intensive pedantry to the US (America) Navy, this obstructionism can't be anything but sheer, Americocentric hypocrisy. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "the British Royal Navy" is a strange name. In NATO there are some navies from monarchies but except from UK's they are never called "Royal Navy" in English. They're named "Royal Norwegian Navy", "Royal Danish Navy", "Royal Netherlands Navy" etc. See also Royal Navy (disambiguation). England's/UK's navy was the first to use the name "Royal Navy" and it is known world-wide. For comparison "United States Navy" doesn't include "of America", but since USN is known world-wide it's seldom called "U.S.A. Navy". Mussolini's navy was called Regia Marina (Italian: Royal Navy), but to literally translate it to "Royal Navy" would be a machine translation.

Frankly I can't see the problem because the readers are smarter than that. I'll suggest that "The British Royal Navy has signed a deal to build two…" should be altered to "The [[Royal Navy]] has signed a deal to build two…" --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"British" in "British Royal Navy" is an adjective, not part of the name. I really don't see the problem here beyond the usual British arrogance that everyone in the world already knows who they are. There's nothing wrong with a simple disambiguation, nor any offence except that which is contrived. If someone want to add "America" to every instance of "United states", be my guest! But be prepares to face opposition from the other "Americans" of the Americas! (See the talk page of American (word) for some examples of such opposition.) - BillCJ (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"British arrogance"? Gee, I thought that I was a Dane :-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Usual British arrogance". I suspected prejudice was at the bottom of it. Thanks for confirming it. You couldn't come up with a counterargument. But I won't sink to your level of absurdity by renaming all Americans in all the articles "US Americans", even though "it's just an adjective" too, and even though our respect for your usage never seems to be reciprocated. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps poor wording on his part, but what a surprise, he's right. Not everyone is intimately familiar with the naming conventions of the Royal Navy. Most people do not in fact know that the UK's navy is known as the Royal Navy. So imagine, you're like a significant percentage of readers, and aren't from the UK, and someone mentions Royal Navy without any context regarding who's navy it is. It tends to confuse people most of the time. Besides, how is it detrimental to make it clear that the Royal Navy is the navy of the UK? I can't see any benefit to leaving it as "Royal Navy" without adequate context, but I can see a definite benefit to making it clear that we are speaking of the UK when we speak of the Royal Navy.--LWF (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording exposing the underlying motive. I'd say most readers aren't that provincial and do know better, anyway. Yours is just the same kind of pedantic argument against established usage that Latin Americans put forward when arguing for USian instead of American. And nobody buys that either, because it's bunk. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No surprise he jumped at that wording! Considering the myraid slams at the US he's already given, mine is quite mild. Note that the phrase is followed by a qualifying statement that clarifies what type of British arrogance I'm talking about here. Please note that the article about the USA on WP is at United States (which title I oppose), while the article on the United Kingdom (not a full or unique title either) is not at Royal! - BillCJ (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Drawing attention to the double standard you've shown in your use of terms isn't a slam against the US. It's a rebuttal of your argument, which falls on its inconsistency. I expect you re-edited the section title here too. Somebody did, again out of spite. You're building a track record discrediting yourself. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I started the thread, named the heading, and renamed it for claeity to point out what the discussion is about. Pointing out that some British are arrogant (some are) isn't being prejudiced agaist anyone. And I haven't used terms like "parochialism", "spite", "American hypocriscy", Anglophobes, or - my personal favoUrite - "wilful, bloody-minded ignorance" - a term typical of British arrogance! - BillCJ (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You say the arrogance is "usual" and "typical" after repeatedly trolling to provoke a response. That's transparent prejudice, and there's no disputing it. But what's arrogant, if not your own double standard in the use of terms? And the bullying and personal attacks you launch into in lieu of a rebuttal, when your failure of reasoning is exposed. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms are not equivilant. If it were the "United Kingdom Navy", or the "Republic Navy"/"Federal Navy", then those would be equivilant. Almost everthing you say is laced with personal attacks of some kind, the latest being "transparent prejudice", yet you jump on one term I use? Again, typical. My apologies to the non-arrogant British people reading this, as only the arrogant British are arrogant. ANd this is my last response on the personal attacks, and the subject in general. I've given a proposal that would eliminate the heading issue, but no one has responded to it. Of all the editors commenting , only two have opposed the usage under discussion here. Not bad for a parochial, spiteful, prejudicial American hypocrite with willful, bloody-minded ignorance. (The adults in the room should get my drift here!) - BillCJ (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, they obviously are equivalent, because they're both the official names, internationally established, and neither is plausibly ambiguous. The claims to the contrary don't stand up, since the Royal Navy is known around the world, and no other navy in the world is called the Royal Navy in English. Moreover, when the term Royal is qualified by a nationality, the latter follows the term Royal, as in Royal Australian Navy, Royal Danish Navy, etc., indicating British Royal Navy to be a clumsy aberration. On almost all articles on Wikipedia mentioning the Royal Navy, the established convention is respected and observed, as I'm sure it will be in due course here, the puerile sniping, fallacious arguments and non sequiturs only serving to expose the illogic of doing otherwise. You seem unable to follow your own rules and your hiding behind a supposed consensus among random volunteer editors with no apparent expertise is just an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy resorted to when legitimate reasons don't exist. The stonewalling and evasiveness reflect poorly on Wikipedia as an institution. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use "British Royal Navy" for clarity. Offliner (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we use "USA Navy" for clarity? Because nobody says that. It's not the established international usage and it's redundant. It's actually the ambiguity of Royal Navy which is contrived by two or three Anglophobes to try to take the Navy down a peg in order to make some kind of pathetic political point. It won't wash and it won't last. People are more intelligent than that. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't change "United States Navy" to "USA Navy" because there's nothing ambiguous about "United States Navy". "Royal Navy" is, however, a bit ambiguous and clarifying it as the "British Royal Navy" doesn't seem to be asking too much. In fact, pick your favorite news search and you'll find that "British Royal Navy" actually is used quite often, and not just by Anglophobes. --auburnpilot talk 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Historically, United States was synonymous with the United Provinces, which also had a substantial fleet, so it is potentially ambiguous. British Royal Navy is only used by the odd American who doesn't know any better, or who does (like some here), but is being provocative for nationalistic reasons. The established international usage is Royal Navy, and that usage should be respected, especially since those associated with the subject are liable to take umbrage otherwise, and the deliberate and slighting pedantry is a source of needless offence. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Only "the odd American who doesn't know any better" uses the term "British Royal Navy"? Really? I wasn't ware that the Jakarta Globe, Middle East Times, Lebanon Daily News, United Press International, Times of Malta and Ligali were all written by Americans (in fact, you may note several of those articles were written from London). --auburnpilot talk 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's just sample selection bias. With millions of articles out there you're going to find a few reflecting a minority American usage. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sample selection bias? Give me a break. Even the BBC uses "British Royal Navy" from time-to-time. It's not an uncommon term and it has absolutely nothing to do with American usage. A basic Google News search will provide you articles from countries around the world. --auburnpilot talk 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It mainly reflects a creeping American influence on international English, but even a basic Google search will show that compared with Royal Navy it's very much the minority usage, a much more pertinent fact you oddly fail to mention in your skewed presentation. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of competency and management. How do we make the appropriate correction without being reverted and threatened by some buffoon with a chip on his shoulder who seems to think he has a private veto over international usage? Sorry, but it's risible. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW and IMHO, prefixing "Royal Navy" with "British" for the first mention shouldn't offend anyone who doesn't want to take offence. It's just an adjective, after all. Having established which royal navy is meant, then using "Royal Navy" for the rest of the article would be OK. How about "the British Royal Navy" for the first mention? Would that satisfy everyone, or has this suggestion already been made (and rejected)? --TraceyR (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's as tautologous as prefixing US Navy with 'American', whose rejection we shouldn't deem contrived: only patrioteers feigning ignorance of international usage would try to insist upon it. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise I am late to this debate. My thoughts on this are that I find the term British Royal Navy to be a clumsy construction that looks like an attempt at some sort of political correctness. Note, I am not accusing anyone here of PC, I am describing what it looks like to me. In the English speaking Wikipedia I think that we should use the term that reflects the majority use, and Royal Navy is overwhelmingly used without qualifiers. I have seen in some US publications the term British navy, but that is not the name of the organisation and I suspect is a term used in acknowledgmenet of the abject lack of general knowlege of the target audience for such writings. Throughout the English speaking world (at least outside the US) the term Royal Navy is recognosed for what it is - navy of the UK. Adding unnecessary qualifiers to the name seems to me to be a form of dumbing down of the Wikipedia. We do not need to spell out every occurrance of every term that could be misinterpreted by an uninformed reader, so long as we provide a simple way for that uninformed reader to get the knowledge. I think that so long as the first mention of the name is wiki-linked (ie Royal Navy) then anyone who does not know what the Royal Navy is has only to click on the link to find out. Reasonably well informed readers will know what the Royal Navy is anyway and many of these, no doubt, like me may find the unnecessary addition distracting and clumsy. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution for this article

In the contentious section if this article I suggest that the section headers be country names and the paragraphs can use the names of the relevant navies. Thus under a section header for United Kingdom we would use the term Royal Navy without any ambiguousness at all. I think this should satisfy everyone, so I will implement it. (of course the change can be reverted if it offends someone <grin> - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is so sensible - it's sure to be rejected! ;-) --TraceyR (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good solution. It's precise and also fits in with the odd historical occasions where aircraft carriers have been operated by agencies other than Navies (such as the Japanese Army carriers).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A neat outcome. You've brought us safe into port under jury rigging. I thank you. 59.101.152.1 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good and complete fix. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Link in Reference 3 is dead

Link in Reference 3 is dead. That makes the cited claims about "submarine aircraft carriers" unsupportable. I'm removing, with hope someone will find an alternative source. Njerseyguy (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing should be done last. Add a dead link tag or add an archive.org copy. See WP:Citing sources#Repairing dead links for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What a minute. The current reference 3 in this article is about China building two conventionally aircraft carriers to be launched in 2015 and it already has a dead link tag. Yesterday's reference 3 is Submarine aircraft carriers archived version. The text needed another more reliable reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Length span

What is the range of lengths of the flight deck (runway) in carriers for "ordinary" (not VTOL) aircraft? Around 300 m is seems, but what upper and lower bounds are considered reasonable? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question is rather broad but for post WWII carriere and assuming you mean the length of the flight deck as distinct from the "angle", the British light fleets (the Colossus and Majestics) were about 700', the Audacious class were about 800', for US carrieres they range(d) from the Midawayss at 968' up to the Enterprise at 1123'. The French Foch was 869' and "Charles de Gaulle is 858'. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In most designs, not all the length is required for take off and not all for landing, and if you have a wide deck (for use as an aircraft park) then the design would use a longer hull to improve hull performance, so the limits as to what "works" are probably quite broad. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Table redux

As has been discussed before, the section on current aircraft carries was intended to eventually be a prose section much like that of the future aircraft section. In addition, List of aircraft carriers in service is listed in that section under the heading, and presents the same info in a better table format, so having it here in a table is redundant. Thus removing the table is not "pointless"! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The table looks better. It is shorter and easier to read. Please leave it alone. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• TBH, the page looks more cluttered with the additional table. It should really be in the List of aircraft carriers in service instead of here where it becomes extraneous and redundant. Can we don't do this double posting of data, please? And leave the table out while we are discussing, its plain rude to be doing while arguing about the merit of having it here in the first place. Knock it off~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask users not to edit war in the article itself on the inclusion or otherwise of the table to this overview article. At the moment two editors have opposed the inclusion of the table so it really needs to gain a consensus before re-adding. If you think that this can not be resolved on this page then can I suggest you can ask for help and other opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. But please do not edit war or change the article until is has been resolved. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, I much prefer the list format rather than the table format. The table imposes too many rendering issues for people with various screen resolutions. Basically, although a table may look very good for those who just happen to use the same screen resolution as the editor who sets up the table, it often looks very clunky for others. There are IMHO very few occasions when the limited advantages of tables outweigh their disadvantages on Wikipedia, and this is not one of them. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes - there can be rendering issues (e.g. for users running a 640x480 resolution) and unfortunately there are one or two users who lack the expertise required to set up tables and due to this perceived lack of ability feel compelled to vandalise the work of other, more able, users.
If you are a beginner and are interested in seeing how tables are constructed visit a wonderful example of mine on the Nimitz class aircraft carrier page. B. Fairbairn (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And I can make tables that render the same for most people too. Aren't I just the the clever one? What you forget is that most editors do not have the skills to do this and so using a table simply adds another unnescessary maintenance task to the list for those few who can manage this and frankly have better things to do than watch out for less skilled editors mucking about with tables. To the uninitiated when editing a table it looks like an absolute mess and is very confusing - in what way does this enhance wikipedia (making it harder for others to edit)? Secondly, if you want to use a table here, I suggest you need to provide some actual justification for what benefits it offers to this page. Just because you think it looks better is not really a very persuasive argument. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nick T. As to this comment by BFb:"unfortunately there are one or two users who lack the expertise required to set up tables and due to this perceived lack of ability feel compelled to vandalise the work of other, more able, users." I'm sorry to hear vandalism of tables by inexperienced users has been a problem. There are several admins who watch this page who would be able to take care of such problems. Fortunately, such vandalisms of tables haven't been a problem in this article so far, per WP:VAND, which excludes botched edits, content-related disputes, reverts, and even edit wars, from being called vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I put the table on Nimitz class aircraft carrier? Jhbuk (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:B. Fairbairn has again decided to implement the table format for the "Current carriers" section, and I have again reverted his changes as being against consensus. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on BilCat, you do not own this page. Also, a concensus involves more than just you and a couple of your friends.

Maybe what is required here is an opinion from a higher authority.

Tell you what I will do. In a spirit of compromise I am willing, difficult though it may be, to teach you how to use tables! That's right, how to create them, how to modify them, and not just how to destroy them.

And that's not all. I am also offering to teach you how to accept change and move forward, free of charge.

B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? Sorry, insulting people (again) isn't going to help your caes any. Try actually working to build a consensus to support your changes, then make them. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

B. Fairbairn, you're running perilously close to violating Wikikpedia's civility policy. Your tone is derrogatory, condescending and frankly very rude. You are the one here who is out of step. There is an established consensus here about the way this information should be presented and you are clearly out of line with that consensus. If you really want to use a table in this way in the article then first you should build a consensus for it here. Talking down to people not only does you no good, it is actually harmful to your cause. I am going revert your change back to the consensus position. I very strongly recommend that you leave it that way until and unless you can change the consensus view. Further outbursts against other editors here is likely to earn you a report to the Wikiquette alerts board. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What rubbish! Can you not take a joke? Have you no sense of humour? And my comments are not insulting - you merely read them that way. Come on boys, please try to act in a mature manner. B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys - I have done some research by looking through the wiki policies and guidelines and at other pages, and have come to the conclusion that you are right. BilCat's all-time favourite list should be left as is. There are not enough columns to warrant using a table, the list looks fine as it is with the country as a heading and the quantity in brackets.

It has taught me to look a bit more closely before I try to improve what I think needs improvement. Thanks for your help guys. I will stand down for now. Not because of Nick's thinly veiled threat, but because I realise I was in the wrong. B. Fairbairn (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the mea culpa. It's appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies. You know it's really weird - for a long time I just could not see the forest for the trees...! B. Fairbairn (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Only ships ?

In the first line its says that "an aircraft carrier is a warship ... However is this so ? , in the FICON project, aircraft were used, and I would think that an "aircraft carrier", in the strict sense, can also mean this (although, admittedly, it's less common).

If so, perhaps the definition can be changed (ie to "an aicraft carrier is a carrier vehicle for aircraft, ...) Also, the text/headlines, ... would need to be changed to also include the FICON project.

91.182.11.95 (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dear IP editor, I'm sorry to break it to you this way but the FICON project has been dead for umpteen years, but the term aircraft carrier and the instrument itself is still alive and kicking if I might add. (P.S.: get over it!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™} 07:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fleet carrier

Fleet carrier currently redirects to this article, but the term itself describes a type of aircraft carrier, and its role. Seems like an article is missing. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, this is the fleet carrier article. I'm not sure a significant article on fleet carriers can exist without being redundant to what is already here. However, if someone wants to work one up on userspace to see what they can produce, we could see if the redundancy can be limited and still have something more than a stub. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be possible to work the term into the article somewhere. Types of aircraft carriers seems a very thin section. If it were above history and expanded a bit? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref for quickest workup of a carrier fleet?

If we had some sort of ref for a short time from first carrier delivery to effective carrier operations then we could use that to help balance the China section. Hcobb (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The citation being used reads "The ability to develop an effective carrier, it involves a lot of technology and a lot of training, and operational capabilities, that it might take China many years to develop," Nolt says, "if they chose to do so. Even if they had an aircraft carrier, one aircraft carrier would not be significant.". This citation cannot be used to state that it will take years, only that it might take years. In addition, the paragraph in question in the citation is in reference to developing a single effective carrier, not to developing a carrier fleet. - I Am Right And You Are Wrong (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory articles

This article, List of aircraft carriers in service, and List of aircraft carriers by country all seem to contradict one another on the number of active carriers in service, as well as who has what. Can someone with expertise in this field remedy this? -R. fiend (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)