Talk:List of active United States naval aircraft

Images

@FOX 52:, not sure why you need to keep disrupting the article instead of using the talk page. In your edit summary you mention: "WP:IMGLOC doesn’t say anything about 4 squaring - WP:BRD"

The images disrupt the table, hence the reason I moved them. As for "4 squaring"... just below imgloc, mos:sandwich specifically mentions "As an al­ter­na­tive, con­sid­er us­ing the {{multiple image}} tem­plate", which is what I did. It's not clear however, why you are trying to edit-war the that image arrangement out (along with specific images and the short description template).

As for "BRD", you

• "B"oldly moved the images next to the table, causing the problem. I attempted to
• "R"epair the problem, (instead of just "r"everting) using the multiple image template (or "4 squaring" as you call it), that is suggested in the guideline. Since you seem to have some kind of yet-to-be-revealed problem with that, the onus was on you to
• "D"iscuss the matter on the talk page. For some reason you refused to do that, and instead just moved them back again, ([1]) with the summary: "update sourcing 2022 - clean up", but no mention of images or their location.

Meanwhile, I have now moved the images down to a gallery instead, as they were still distupting the table after your last edit, and I have started this discussion, giving you the opportunity to explain your edits. - wolf 23:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: How exactly do they disrupt the table? You are the one moving image(s) around and then putting "imgloc" in the edit summary which is suppose to mean what? - FOX 52 ^talk! 05:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on what device you use to access Wikipedia with. On a smartphone, which a majority of editors and readers now use, the images, when placed directly above the table (as with your edits), defaults them down the right side of the page, squishing the table to left and making the text smaller, and where the table extends further down the page then the images, there is a block of whitespace left over on the right side below the images. In short, it's disruptive.

When I move images that disrupt a page (and I've moved many over the years), I often cite "imgloc", and I've never had an issue. But even still, if you were confused by the changes and/or summary the first time I made a change, all you had to do was leave a quick post here on the talk page to ask me about it and I would be happy to discuss it with you. The further disruption, including unexplained removal of images and the unrelated short description template was unnecessary. I'm not sure why you are so vehemently against the multiple image placement in the lead section (it works well on many other articles), but just the same, I have instead moved the images to a gallery, an arrangrment found on numerous articles. If you would care to provide some more clarification, that would be good, but if not, then I will trust the matter as now resolved. - wolf 06:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: So my only issue is on the desktop version the table and images are side by side on one screen. (Which I believe is a better layout giving the reader a full view of the subject matter, in one shot) - On a smartphone, the only difference I see is in my layout is the images come through first (then the table), on your's the images come after the table. So the real question is can you live with the images coming through first? - FOX 52 ^talk! 14:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(No need to ping as I'm watching this page.)

You wrote: "On a smartphone, the only difference I see is in my layout is the images come through first (then the table), on your's the images come after the table.", but that is not what I wrote. On my screen, the images are placed next to the table, with the table squished to the left, and lettering made even smaller, and the images to right, with a large block of whitespace below them. So, in actuality, the real question is why do you need a layout that suits you, but is compromised and disrupted for so many others, when there are two layout options that I have suggested, that are already used on numerous other articles, and do not cause any issues for anyone? I explained the problem with your edit, but you still have not explained the problem you had with the layout in my first edit that you repeatedly reverted (the version using the multi image template in the lead section), nor have you explained your issue with the second layout of my last edit, with the images placed in a gallery. So again, if you care to provide some clarification to help explain your edits, that would be helpful. If not, then as I said, I will take it that the issue is resolved. - wolf 15:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

↓ @Thewolfchild: in case you missed my post from 10 days ago ↓

So there seems to be a discrepancy between your device and mine (an android phone) - Which is why I asked the other (editor) how it displayed on his device, to determine if it's isolated to certain devices or not. I'm not trying to make light of your concerns but the table has been running like this, for about 4 years with no issues. IMHO I think this is better presentation for the desktop version, then having to scroll dwn to the bottom. Basically it comes down to how many are disrupted vs how many are not - And I don't think either one of us is in a position to conclude with absolute certainly, that its one way or the other with-out more data. - FOX 52 ^talk! 20:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't reply becuase it didn't seem like you were seeking one. I thought you were researching the matter. Anyway, I had first tried moving some of the iamages to the lead, (as is found on other articles), but you didn't like that, so I moved the images to an gallery below, (another very common layout). I did this as a compromise, and I thought it was a reasonable one. Scrolling is not issue as it is not a long table. If you're telling you also some sort of issue with this layout, it's not clear to me what it is. - wolf 05:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The CT-12 Huron is no longer in active service with the Navy

I edited it to reflect the accurate current multi-engine trainer and an approximation to the number of aircraft. 2600:1700:4AA1:D010:BDC6:1E7A:3637:36DA (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

please provide a reliable source stating so - FOX 52 ^talk! 21:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-exploring-options-for-multi-engine-training-aircraft-to-replace-t-44/

T-44C Pegasus with 54 in service. This entire article is outdated 2600:1700:4AA1:D010:3491:BD1B:D077:8D51 (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

CMV-22B is not a helicopter.

The United States Navy does not classify the Osprey as a helicopter and should be moved to either the transport section or under a unique tiltrotor section. V instead of H in both the tri-service designator and Squadron designator indentify the V-22 as a type of short/vertical takeoff fixed-wing aircraft. Benroethig (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See vehicle type section of this article 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system Benroethig (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)