Talk:Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

Gender

The article currently uses a mix of feminine and neutral gender, even in the lead. I believe the article has used feminine gender (she, her) for most of its history. However, this has been a little controversial, as Russian ships are generally referred to by masculine gender (he, his), especially when named after a man. Therefore, I am requesting that the article use neutral gender (it, its) from this point on, as this will be less confusing to some readers. This is inline with the WP:SHIPPRONOUN guideline, which states the gender used in the article can be changed by consensus if there is substantial reason to do so, which I have stated. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - better to have one than both and neutral is better here to respect both sides. Llammakey (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done BilCat (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested grammatical correction and clarification of a previous edit

I can't currently edit the article due to its semi-protected status, and I pretty much guarantee I'll forget about this by the time the protection expires or my account is confirmed (I'm hoping I remember, but I wouldn't count on it), so would anyone with access be willing to correct this edit that happened during all the vandalism? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov&diff=prev&oldid=1128961806) I don't know what's considered a reliable source for confirming that it was preparing to leave dry dock (the source that's cited itself cites TASS, which is of questionable reliability, per WP:RSPSOURCES; this might fall under the exception for statements by the Russian state, however), so I suppose that's a question that's up for discussion, but at the very least, this edit is grammatically incorrect, unless I've missed some significant differences in British English.

Instead of "In December 2022, the carrier was being preparing to leave dry dock" I believe it should be reverted to "In December 2022, the carrier was reported to be preparing to leave dry dock"

While "being prepared" is a possibility, and I think that's what RightPushFTW intended (and I'd like to say that I appreciate their intent to make things more concise, but the difference between confirmed facts and media reports that all seem to come back to a single source of questionable reliability is important, and the "reported to be" leaves some allowance for that question), that's perhaps something that would require more discussion. I would attach the edit semi-protected template here, but I'm afraid I might be toeing the line a bit here on what's considered a "controversial" edit. At the very least, a grammatical correction to "being prepared" would seem appropriate. Keeping the "reported to be" language would seem to be the appropriate course of action overall, however, unless we're going to get into a broader discussion of whether any reference to the preparations for leaving dry dock should be included at all.

It's a silly little detail, but there's also the question of whether there should be a comma after "leave dry dock." I'm not terribly familiar with comma usage in British English.

Thank you! Eagle2526 (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The ship's name is transliterated as "Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov" but the G in "Sovuetskogo" is pronounced as a v

As above, I'd suggest changing it to "Sovetskovo" as the letter Г here is, functionally, a V. It's transcriptions like this that lead to a lot of words getting mispronounced when read in Latin characters.

Henners91 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)