Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 27, 2012. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Was the Hosho commisioned in 1921 or 1922?
editAccording to this, Hosho was commisiones in 1921 but according to Weapons Races the Hosho was commisiones in '22, which is correct? m w (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor
Getting close
editI need to rewrite the intro, and I have a couple more images to upload which might be used in the article, but other than that I think the article is close to completion. It probably needs a thorough copyedit, which an A-class review would hopefully provide if an experienced copy-editor (as opposed to my amateurish attempts to copyedit articles) isn't available to do one. Anyone have any other inputs to the article? Cla68 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Howarth and Jentschura were partially right as Hosho was ordered as one of 6 "Special Service" ships in the 8-6 program. The other five became tankers, but Hosho was not renamed from Hiryu, nor was it laid down as a tanker and converted on the stocks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you put that in the footnote with the citation if the text doesn't already say that somewhere that I missed? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll let you decide when you're ready to nominate it for ACR, but I think that it's pretty much ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you put that in the footnote with the citation if the text doesn't already say that somewhere that I missed? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Quick note
edit- I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert as always, especially if the assumptions I'm mentioning in the edit summaries are wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- "The forward part of the flight deck was made horizontal": it wasn't horizontal before? Or it wasn't part of the flight deck? - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, see the beginning of the flight deck arrangements section.
- Okay, now I see. - Dank (push to talk)
- No, see the beginning of the flight deck arrangements section.
- There's a lot of work to do here; I'll give you guys the bits that may wind up in our A-class checklist (under development). "The ship was used for testing aircraft and equipment planned for use on carriers under development. Two systems in particular tested on the ship were arresting gear and optical landing aids." You can easily get rid of a whole sentence here without any loss of information; give it a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- This one too: "On 15 January 1943, the 50th Air Flotilla was created for carrier aircrew training. Carriers Hōshō and Ryūhō were both assigned to the new unit." - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- See how they read now.
- This one too: "On 15 January 1943, the 50th Air Flotilla was created for carrier aircrew training. Carriers Hōshō and Ryūhō were both assigned to the new unit." - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer to this one ... you write "1st Fleet" but "First Carrier Division". Should "1st" be consistent? - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- You know what Emerson about consistency...
- Break this sentence up please: "While Hōshō was being evaluated she participated in the Combined Fleet Maneuvers of 1935 where she was attached to the IJN 4th Fleet and was damaged by a typhoon on 23 September, along with many other Japanese ships, in what was termed the "Fourth Fleet Incident". - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- This one too: "On that day Hōshō contributed six fighters to escort bombers attacking airfields at Tienho and Paiyun; they claimed six enemy aircraft shot down, but the range proved to be too long and five of her fighters ran out of fuel and had to ditch in the sea, but the aircrews were rescued." - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done, see how they read.
- This one too: "On that day Hōshō contributed six fighters to escort bombers attacking airfields at Tienho and Paiyun; they claimed six enemy aircraft shot down, but the range proved to be too long and five of her fighters ran out of fuel and had to ditch in the sea, but the aircrews were rescued." - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- We were going to start formatting page titles with italics ... is that still on? - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea.
- "she could not operate the latest aircraft types ... operationally.": the repetition sounds wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Last word changed to "in combat".
- "aircraft commander/observer": don't use slashes per WP:MOS ... and what's an aircraft commander/observer? - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- In some airforces the pilot is almost always in command of the aircraft, but that wasn't necessarily true for both the Germans and Japanese. Deleted aircraft commander as it's not really pertinent.
- "among the most dramatic of the war in the Pacific.": some at FAC don't like periods inside quotes for any non-sentence, although I can't find support for their position at MOS if the period appeared there in the original. Just be aware you may need to move it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that a Brit vs. American English thing?
- Yes, Chicago differs from most British style guides, which differ from WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk)
- Isn't that a Brit vs. American English thing?
- Check with the wikiproject; people occasionally have a problem with "(see photo at right)" per WP:SELFREF. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. If I can get to the end of A-class review, I'll swing back around and check on the FACs. Unwatching for now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Cryptic C62
editResolved comments
|
---|
|
That concludes this prose review. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Btw that timestamp is wanky; that comment was actually today at 17:57. I hope we've addressed everything to your satisfaction. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, that was from when I started the review. I just forgot to update the timestamp. Fixed! And yes, I'm a happy clam. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Post-promotion notes
editI'm answering Sandy's questions here since the article has already been promoted to FA (thanks). - Dank (push to talk)
- ... was the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier,
but in looking for supporting text in the article, I find:
- Shortly thereafter, however, based on observations of landing trials on Furious and HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier,
What is the difference between the two, and was the Hosho the first in Japan or the first in the world? I'm not getting the distinction with the Argus. Can the lead be clarified to first in Japan or first in the world? Or if it was the first in the world, can the distinction with other aircraft carriers be made more clear for a boat dummy?
- I added "world's" and a note. - Dank (push to talk)
I had to click out to another article to discover what "Jill" and "Judy" were.
- Would a footnote work for you? I've got a couple of arguments for keeping the text the way it is. First, the wording was the outcome of a kerfuffle between Sturm and Cla68 at an A-class review many moons ago (for another article) over whether to use the nicknames for the airplanes typically used by American military at the time, or to use more "official" names. Second, although some will have to click the footnote to figure out what's going on, I think the majority who are really interested in the subject will interpret the quote marks as "this is the nickname" ... if I'm right (and maybe I'm not), then I don't want to stick extra words in the text. - Dank (push to talk)
If the Sino-Japanese war was between China and Japan, why isn't it an endash instead of a hyphen? Or is it exclusively used as a hyphenated prefix? Unclear on this.
- Chicago 6.78 and 6.80, and I don't recall ever seeing an exception: since "Sino" isn't a word, it must be a prefix, so it requires a hyphen. "Sino-" is an example in WP:MOS IIRC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for educating me on Sino, and clarifying the lead. On the nicknames, you all know better than I, which is why I promoted anyway, but it is strange to have to look that up, and it would be helpful to non-MilHist readers if we had some kind of clue what those words are. Anyway, I'm not worried about these-- thanks for getting back to me, and I trust you all to work it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- A seaplane carrier and an aircraft carrier are two different beasts - a seaplane carrier (or tender) lacks the ability for aircraft to be recovered on board directly (they must be hoisted aboard). Seaplane carriers usually hoisted seaplanes over the side to launch and recover them and were really nothing more than a specialized type of freighter or fleet support vessel, and indeed many early examples fulfilled those other roles at various times. The claim that it was the first designed as an aircraft carrier is patently false - it was, as the article also says, designed as a seaplane tender.NiD.29 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, the seaplane tender version of her design was abandoned and she was redesigned as a aircraft carrier before any construction began.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- When the claim is made for the first purpose built aircraft carrier, or ship laid down as a carrier, it is about being the first vessel built without compromises to other purposes - the Langley suffered in many respects from being based on a collier, as did the Argus for being based on a liner, and the claim for being laid as an aircraft carrier is about moving past those compromises toward a more ideal aviation vessel. The Hosho was not. Sure the actual design may have been amended before the first keel plate was laid (or not), but it is not relevant as it was still a modification of a vessel not intended for aviation use, and thus any claim is pointless and it cannot be compared in this manner against those vessels that were designed as aircraft carriers.NiD.29 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The article's statement is sourced, your opinion is not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- When the claim is made for the first purpose built aircraft carrier, or ship laid down as a carrier, it is about being the first vessel built without compromises to other purposes - the Langley suffered in many respects from being based on a collier, as did the Argus for being based on a liner, and the claim for being laid as an aircraft carrier is about moving past those compromises toward a more ideal aviation vessel. The Hosho was not. Sure the actual design may have been amended before the first keel plate was laid (or not), but it is not relevant as it was still a modification of a vessel not intended for aviation use, and thus any claim is pointless and it cannot be compared in this manner against those vessels that were designed as aircraft carriers.NiD.29 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, the seaplane tender version of her design was abandoned and she was redesigned as a aircraft carrier before any construction began.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- A seaplane carrier and an aircraft carrier are two different beasts - a seaplane carrier (or tender) lacks the ability for aircraft to be recovered on board directly (they must be hoisted aboard). Seaplane carriers usually hoisted seaplanes over the side to launch and recover them and were really nothing more than a specialized type of freighter or fleet support vessel, and indeed many early examples fulfilled those other roles at various times. The claim that it was the first designed as an aircraft carrier is patently false - it was, as the article also says, designed as a seaplane tender.NiD.29 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
On the early name "Hiryu"
editAccording to jawp article (which has good citation), the ship's first planned name was Tappi竜飛, which is name of a cape in Aomori Prefecture. I strongly suspect some Western researcher had misread it as Hiryu飛竜.--116.80.239.114 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō. 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/20050407203557/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-h/hosho2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-h/hosho2.htm
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) 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yasuho is the author's personal name
editI corrected inversed order of author names in a reference; Izawa[family name], Yasuho[personal name] is correct. This seems to be one of often quoted books. It should be referenced as "Hata and Izawa". Please correct if you find the book in other articles.220.209.5.189 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Units per MOS:UNIT
editHello [Parsecboy While we are having a discussion, not yet resolved on the French battleship Bouvet you revert this edit as well for the same reason, I'd rather reach a consensus before reverting everything you or I don't agree with. If you read MOS:UNIT Units of measure: Unit choice and order: you will see that with the exception of the USA and the UK: "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI." This article on a Japanese battleship did not have SI units primary and it included a preference for US spelling. I don't think either one of these articles follows the intent of the Manual of Style, concerning ships from Japan and France. Many of these edits I made changed the primary unit to SI. The initial editor neglected to follow the MOS. As I said,the MOS is there for a worldwide audience, the unit of measure used round the world is the SI, I've been around the world a few times so I should know. The language option is in this article and it has no connection to the USA. It should default to no country by the removal of sp=us. Avi8tor (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to achieve. If you want to disregard MOS:RETAIN, you need to change the MOS. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I will continue to revert your edits as they are patently disruptive. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
MM vs cm and metric vs imperial measurements in military articles
editWhile many nations use millimeters in their designations, others use centimeters. Articles generally use whichever measurement was used in the designation, but there is no consistency in this across Wikipedia so respect MOS:RETAIN.
You may not be aware that some nations did not adopt the metric system until the 1920s, including Russia and Japan, so be advised that military articles covering equipment from those countries before that time usually use imperial measurements. Do not reflexively change any conversion templates to move metric measurements into the first position. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Sturmvogel, It's mm for millimetres, M is Mega which is a prefix for any unit, watt, litres or metres, etc. Check out the International System of Units and the paragraph on Units and Prefixes.
- Japan actually switched to metric on 1 July 1924, see Japanese units of measurement but of course there was opposition. Just because a country was not metric does not mean they used feet and inches, every country had their own system, just like US customary has different units to those previously used in Britain with the same name, even the inch was different in the the US and Britain, see inch. It's more likely the article was written by a US based author who was clueless and converted to what he/she thought they should be in their book/article.
- When this ship was designed, Japan used metric units. If the information is incorrect it is always a good reason to correct the misinformation. This is why Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge, as long as editors are smart enough to acknowledge they can always learn something new. If you look at some of the articles you quote you'll see some are centimetres and some millimetres, but just as a pistol has a bore of 9 mm does not make it correct to call it a 0.9 cm pistol. This discussion should actually be on the talk page of the article in question. Maybe you could also look at Caliber which states: It is measured in inches or in millimeters. Avi8tor (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- What are you on about? You seem to have missed the distinction in Caliber between firearms and artillery. I'm talking about the latter. Hōshō was completed well before Japan went metric. And the IJN didn't use traditional Japanese units before 1924 because it had imported its steam warships from various Western countries, primarily Britain. The Brits also trained most of its shipbuilders which continued to use imperial units once they started to build their own ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel I've moved this discussion to the talk page for the article concerned. I could say you have missed the point of this conversation as well, but was more diplomatic. Caliber applies to all munitions launched from a barrel, including cannon and firearms, in history the dimension was in local units depending on country and now is in millimetres. I pointed out that Wikipedia has an article on Caliber and what it states, dimensions should be in millimetres, which was where we started, It is an error that needs to be corrected which is what I tried to do initially. Also the Manual of Style states that outside the USA and Britain the primary unit should be metric which you appear to disagree with. Avi8tor (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- To quote the article on caliber:
Nothing in the MOS says anything about preferring mm to cm; that's just something you've invented off an erroneous reading in the caliber article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)In guns, particularly firearms, but not artillery, where a different definition may apply, caliber (or calibre; sometimes abbreviated as "cal") is the specified nominal internal diameter of the gun barrel bore – regardless of how or where the bore is measured and whether the finished bore matches that specification. It is measured in inches or in millimeters
- Hi all! In fact the Imperial Japanese Navy used designation of caliber of the artillery in centimeters (in this, the article about caliber is wrong). For example the 140mm guns (I've use mm here by intention as Europe and some other countries usually use mm) were called 5.5 inch gun (五十口径三年式五吋五砲) before 1917 and since 1917 they were redesigned to 14 cm (五十口径三年式十四糎砲). The same can be said about other Japanese naval guns, they were usually rounded up or down to nearest centimeters (hence 8 cm gun and not 7.62 cm or 76.2 mm). MHO: Use official designation in cm or true caliber value in mm. Ozzy (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with the comments by Ozzy. The way the metric system works is to have whole numbers, example 7.6 cm would normally be displayed as 76 mm, this is not the case in the USA where inches are converted to cm with an undue level of precision. Nowadays all (military) munitions have a real caliber in millimetres. Avi8tor (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Stop trying to universalize the use of millimeters, that's mostly an artifact of NATO standardization. The Germans, Japanese and Swedes used both mm and cm (such as the 10.5 cm leFH 18 and the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18 despite both being 105 mm weapons) in their artillery designations in WW2 and the latter continued to do so through out the entirety of the Cold War. Undue precision in conversions?! It is to laugh.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I second the use of cm and other customary metric units where appropriate. One of the easiest ways to check is to open the native language article, ja:鳳翔 (空母) in this case, and it is easy to see that centimeter and horsepower are the correct units for describing this and other Japanese ships of the era. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Stop trying to universalize the use of millimeters, that's mostly an artifact of NATO standardization. The Germans, Japanese and Swedes used both mm and cm (such as the 10.5 cm leFH 18 and the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18 despite both being 105 mm weapons) in their artillery designations in WW2 and the latter continued to do so through out the entirety of the Cold War. Undue precision in conversions?! It is to laugh.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with the comments by Ozzy. The way the metric system works is to have whole numbers, example 7.6 cm would normally be displayed as 76 mm, this is not the case in the USA where inches are converted to cm with an undue level of precision. Nowadays all (military) munitions have a real caliber in millimetres. Avi8tor (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi all! In fact the Imperial Japanese Navy used designation of caliber of the artillery in centimeters (in this, the article about caliber is wrong). For example the 140mm guns (I've use mm here by intention as Europe and some other countries usually use mm) were called 5.5 inch gun (五十口径三年式五吋五砲) before 1917 and since 1917 they were redesigned to 14 cm (五十口径三年式十四糎砲). The same can be said about other Japanese naval guns, they were usually rounded up or down to nearest centimeters (hence 8 cm gun and not 7.62 cm or 76.2 mm). MHO: Use official designation in cm or true caliber value in mm. Ozzy (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- To quote the article on caliber:
- Sturmvogel I've moved this discussion to the talk page for the article concerned. I could say you have missed the point of this conversation as well, but was more diplomatic. Caliber applies to all munitions launched from a barrel, including cannon and firearms, in history the dimension was in local units depending on country and now is in millimetres. I pointed out that Wikipedia has an article on Caliber and what it states, dimensions should be in millimetres, which was where we started, It is an error that needs to be corrected which is what I tried to do initially. Also the Manual of Style states that outside the USA and Britain the primary unit should be metric which you appear to disagree with. Avi8tor (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- What are you on about? You seem to have missed the distinction in Caliber between firearms and artillery. I'm talking about the latter. Hōshō was completed well before Japan went metric. And the IJN didn't use traditional Japanese units before 1924 because it had imported its steam warships from various Western countries, primarily Britain. The Brits also trained most of its shipbuilders which continued to use imperial units once they started to build their own ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)