|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline for aircraft carrier service 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I had made several historical entries on sea control ships and amphibs being used for short periods in their secondary(tertiary) role as strike carriers or SCS's not sure why they were rolled back... you will have to ask MBK004 these ships were not added to the totals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.110.109 ( talk) 06:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I will leave this article alone for now although there are several well ref'ed corrections you might want to save in MBK004's uber-rollback. Just so others are aware that the rollback was not for drive by vandalism, you can see that my IP block is responsible for turning most of the less known postwar carriers from stubs into articles and I even recomended the creation of this article, thanks Nick Thorne for the hard work so far, it looks great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.110.109 ( talk) 10:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive my inability to log in and have a user name but my security system does not allow cookies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.110.109 ( talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that someone look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_for_aircraft_carrier_service&diff=241729276&oldid=241707784 for the many spelling and html fixes which were rolled back, since there has been a lull in referencing it might be a good time to consider the sea control vessels in an appended form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.141.27 ( talk) 06:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Pre-empting any discussion about article size that may arise in a FL review: The article is currently around 103 kb and would therefore normally be considered a candidate for slitting. However, much of this size is not visible, that is, it is the "hidden" code behind the in-line references. The main body of the article as seen by the user is about 50 kb, 60 kb if you include the footnotes/references section. In this case and considering that this list really only makes sense as a whole, I propose leaving it as one article. If anyone has other ideas, please feel free to add them below. Nick Thorne talk 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have commented out the entry for 31 Jan 2009 for USS Kitty Hawk because I have been unable to find any reliable source to back up this entry. The ceremony on 31 Jan 09 appears to have been a "heritage" ceremony and the articles that talk about that specificaly state that the ship will be decommissioned "in the spring" or some other unspecified future date. The USN official web site contains nothing that I can find about this ship having been decommissioned, including on its news service - I would have thought the decommissioning of this historic ship would rate at least some mention there! - Nick Thorne talk 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The list makes no mention of merchant aircraft carriers such as Empire MacAlpine and CAM ships such as Empire Darwin. Mjroots ( talk) 11:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This list is missing a whole class of aircraft carriers, the seaplane tenders. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the comments received in the PR for this article, I have acquired a copy of the 1998 edition of Cheseau. Over the next little while I will make a pass through the article and replace as many as possible of the Haze Grey & Underway references with ones from this book. This will no doubt mean a large number of edits, but I will try to do as large blocks at a time to minimise this. After that, I will review how many HGU refs remain and decide how to go about obtaining more reliable replacements. - Nick Thorne talk 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I will leave the original (named) copy of each HGU reference in place until I have replaced all other instances of it, so as not to produce a bunch of broken ref tags. So if you notice a HGU reference next to a Chesneau (they will be of the form name="ches-nn" or similar), please don't delete the HGU reference, I will get to it in due course. - Nick Thorne talk 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have found that compiling the force level figures is a great deal of work and is very difficult to maintain plus I am not sure at all about the accuracy. Additionally, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that these figures fall foul of the sanction of WP:OR as synthesis. Consequently I am going to remove the force level figures when I have a suitable block of time. Of course, if someone else wants to do it please feel free to save me the effort! <grin> - Nick Thorne talk 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If the force levels were sourced from Janes Fighting Ships and referenced would that be acceptable? I would imagine a student at Annapolis, Royal Naval College, or even a descent university should have access to a complete collection from the 20th century, now if there were some easy way to contact one who was also a wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.41.225 ( talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This article follows the Wikipedia naming convention (ships) and and so does not use prefixes for ships that were/are not actually used by the navy in question. Thus "IJN" for Japanese navy ships is not used. Someone had inserted this incorrect prefix into the timeline, which I only just noticed and have now removed. - Nick Thorne talk 07:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have completed the run through of all the references, and have replaced all the Haze Gray & Underway refs with more reliable ones, in the process I have acquired several books, such as the 2000 Jane's and Chesneau, which I have used wherever possible. There were only a few entries that I have not yet found reliable references for, mostly for Soviet/Russian ships and in each case I have replaced the reference with a citation needed tag. Mostly these are for things that are only vaguely referred to in the currently availabe refs. If anyone would like to help out find suitable references for these entries, it would be appreciated, otherwise I will see what I can find as time allows. - Nick Thorne talk 08:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I will move entries here that, although I am reasonably certain are correct, I am unable to find sources for. Naturally if anyone is able to locate a suitable source for any of these, it would be appreciated, otherwise I will continue to search for them.
I thought English-language writing conventions dictated that Japanese Naval vessels are designated by the prefix "IJN". Is that incorrect? Boneyard90 ( talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No. That usage is specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) as one to avoid. IJN is not and never has been an official prefix for Japanese naval vessels and so should not be used here. - Nick Thorne talk 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for submitting this article to Requests for assessment. Following some discussion it has been decided the article should remain at Start-Class for now. The issues that are preventing its B-Class promotion are:
I hope this helps with the article's further development. You've chosen a difficult (though very interesting) subject to cover, and regardless of the outcome of this assessment I think you're doing a fine job so far and would like to thank you for the hard work you've put in. Best, EyeSerene talk 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The following entry has been repeatedly entered by an anonymous editor.
1806
- 1806 was the first ever airborne launch from a ship when, the Royal Navy's Lord Thomas Cochrane 10th Earl of Dundonald launched Kites from the 32-gun Frigate HMS Pallas to distribute propaganda leaflets over French territory.Cite error: The
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the help page).
I have removed the entry because it has nothing to do with aircraft carriers and consequently does not belong in this timeline. - Nick Thorne talk 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
1917 February — Incomplete large light cruiser HMS Furious has its forward gun replaced with a flying-off deck.[10] 19 July — Tondern raid, the first attack by aircraft launched from a carrier flight deck. 2 August — First aircraft landing aboard a moving ship, HMS Furious; this ship was subsequently modified with a stern-mounted landing deck in late 1917.[10] 21 August — First air to air kill from a ship launched aircraft, Zeppelin L23 shot down by a Sopwith Pup from cruiser HMS Yarmouth.[8] 2 December — HMS Argus launched.[9]
1918 15 January — HMS Hermes laid down;[11] Hermes was the first ship specifically designed to be built as an aircraft carrier and the first carrier to feature an island superstructure.[4][12] 28 February — Incomplete Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane purchased by the Royal Navy to be completed as the carrier HMS Eagle.[13] 8 June — HMS Eagle launched.[13] 9 July — First strike by aircraft launched from a carrier, the Tondern raid.[8] 14 September — HMS Argus commissioned.[4] 11 November — Armistice signed, signalling the end of WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.149.13 ( talk) 18:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Timeline for aircraft carrier service. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline for aircraft carrier service. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Do we want to make a dyk about this? L3X1 (distant write) 01:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
My fellow Wikiopedians, I reviewed this article after an update appeared on my watchlist and I note several things that need attention. There have been quite a few additions made without references, a number of ships have been added that do not meet the definition of aircraft carrier (as defined in the footnotes), and many times the ships have been Wikilinked after the first mention in the list. I will attempt to resolve these issues as I get time, but especially with the referencing, collaboration would be appreciated. - Nick Thorne talk 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Timeline for aircraft carrier service 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I had made several historical entries on sea control ships and amphibs being used for short periods in their secondary(tertiary) role as strike carriers or SCS's not sure why they were rolled back... you will have to ask MBK004 these ships were not added to the totals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.110.109 ( talk) 06:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I will leave this article alone for now although there are several well ref'ed corrections you might want to save in MBK004's uber-rollback. Just so others are aware that the rollback was not for drive by vandalism, you can see that my IP block is responsible for turning most of the less known postwar carriers from stubs into articles and I even recomended the creation of this article, thanks Nick Thorne for the hard work so far, it looks great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.110.109 ( talk) 10:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive my inability to log in and have a user name but my security system does not allow cookies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.110.109 ( talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that someone look at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_for_aircraft_carrier_service&diff=241729276&oldid=241707784 for the many spelling and html fixes which were rolled back, since there has been a lull in referencing it might be a good time to consider the sea control vessels in an appended form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.141.27 ( talk) 06:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Pre-empting any discussion about article size that may arise in a FL review: The article is currently around 103 kb and would therefore normally be considered a candidate for slitting. However, much of this size is not visible, that is, it is the "hidden" code behind the in-line references. The main body of the article as seen by the user is about 50 kb, 60 kb if you include the footnotes/references section. In this case and considering that this list really only makes sense as a whole, I propose leaving it as one article. If anyone has other ideas, please feel free to add them below. Nick Thorne talk 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have commented out the entry for 31 Jan 2009 for USS Kitty Hawk because I have been unable to find any reliable source to back up this entry. The ceremony on 31 Jan 09 appears to have been a "heritage" ceremony and the articles that talk about that specificaly state that the ship will be decommissioned "in the spring" or some other unspecified future date. The USN official web site contains nothing that I can find about this ship having been decommissioned, including on its news service - I would have thought the decommissioning of this historic ship would rate at least some mention there! - Nick Thorne talk 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The list makes no mention of merchant aircraft carriers such as Empire MacAlpine and CAM ships such as Empire Darwin. Mjroots ( talk) 11:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This list is missing a whole class of aircraft carriers, the seaplane tenders. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 13:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the comments received in the PR for this article, I have acquired a copy of the 1998 edition of Cheseau. Over the next little while I will make a pass through the article and replace as many as possible of the Haze Grey & Underway references with ones from this book. This will no doubt mean a large number of edits, but I will try to do as large blocks at a time to minimise this. After that, I will review how many HGU refs remain and decide how to go about obtaining more reliable replacements. - Nick Thorne talk 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I will leave the original (named) copy of each HGU reference in place until I have replaced all other instances of it, so as not to produce a bunch of broken ref tags. So if you notice a HGU reference next to a Chesneau (they will be of the form name="ches-nn" or similar), please don't delete the HGU reference, I will get to it in due course. - Nick Thorne talk 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have found that compiling the force level figures is a great deal of work and is very difficult to maintain plus I am not sure at all about the accuracy. Additionally, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that these figures fall foul of the sanction of WP:OR as synthesis. Consequently I am going to remove the force level figures when I have a suitable block of time. Of course, if someone else wants to do it please feel free to save me the effort! <grin> - Nick Thorne talk 02:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If the force levels were sourced from Janes Fighting Ships and referenced would that be acceptable? I would imagine a student at Annapolis, Royal Naval College, or even a descent university should have access to a complete collection from the 20th century, now if there were some easy way to contact one who was also a wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.41.225 ( talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This article follows the Wikipedia naming convention (ships) and and so does not use prefixes for ships that were/are not actually used by the navy in question. Thus "IJN" for Japanese navy ships is not used. Someone had inserted this incorrect prefix into the timeline, which I only just noticed and have now removed. - Nick Thorne talk 07:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I have completed the run through of all the references, and have replaced all the Haze Gray & Underway refs with more reliable ones, in the process I have acquired several books, such as the 2000 Jane's and Chesneau, which I have used wherever possible. There were only a few entries that I have not yet found reliable references for, mostly for Soviet/Russian ships and in each case I have replaced the reference with a citation needed tag. Mostly these are for things that are only vaguely referred to in the currently availabe refs. If anyone would like to help out find suitable references for these entries, it would be appreciated, otherwise I will see what I can find as time allows. - Nick Thorne talk 08:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I will move entries here that, although I am reasonably certain are correct, I am unable to find sources for. Naturally if anyone is able to locate a suitable source for any of these, it would be appreciated, otherwise I will continue to search for them.
I thought English-language writing conventions dictated that Japanese Naval vessels are designated by the prefix "IJN". Is that incorrect? Boneyard90 ( talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No. That usage is specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) as one to avoid. IJN is not and never has been an official prefix for Japanese naval vessels and so should not be used here. - Nick Thorne talk 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for submitting this article to Requests for assessment. Following some discussion it has been decided the article should remain at Start-Class for now. The issues that are preventing its B-Class promotion are:
I hope this helps with the article's further development. You've chosen a difficult (though very interesting) subject to cover, and regardless of the outcome of this assessment I think you're doing a fine job so far and would like to thank you for the hard work you've put in. Best, EyeSerene talk 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The following entry has been repeatedly entered by an anonymous editor.
1806
- 1806 was the first ever airborne launch from a ship when, the Royal Navy's Lord Thomas Cochrane 10th Earl of Dundonald launched Kites from the 32-gun Frigate HMS Pallas to distribute propaganda leaflets over French territory.Cite error: The
<ref>
tag has too many names (see the help page).
I have removed the entry because it has nothing to do with aircraft carriers and consequently does not belong in this timeline. - Nick Thorne talk 23:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
1917 February — Incomplete large light cruiser HMS Furious has its forward gun replaced with a flying-off deck.[10] 19 July — Tondern raid, the first attack by aircraft launched from a carrier flight deck. 2 August — First aircraft landing aboard a moving ship, HMS Furious; this ship was subsequently modified with a stern-mounted landing deck in late 1917.[10] 21 August — First air to air kill from a ship launched aircraft, Zeppelin L23 shot down by a Sopwith Pup from cruiser HMS Yarmouth.[8] 2 December — HMS Argus launched.[9]
1918 15 January — HMS Hermes laid down;[11] Hermes was the first ship specifically designed to be built as an aircraft carrier and the first carrier to feature an island superstructure.[4][12] 28 February — Incomplete Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane purchased by the Royal Navy to be completed as the carrier HMS Eagle.[13] 8 June — HMS Eagle launched.[13] 9 July — First strike by aircraft launched from a carrier, the Tondern raid.[8] 14 September — HMS Argus commissioned.[4] 11 November — Armistice signed, signalling the end of WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.149.13 ( talk) 18:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Timeline for aircraft carrier service. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline for aircraft carrier service. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Do we want to make a dyk about this? L3X1 (distant write) 01:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
My fellow Wikiopedians, I reviewed this article after an update appeared on my watchlist and I note several things that need attention. There have been quite a few additions made without references, a number of ships have been added that do not meet the definition of aircraft carrier (as defined in the footnotes), and many times the ships have been Wikilinked after the first mention in the list. I will attempt to resolve these issues as I get time, but especially with the referencing, collaboration would be appreciated. - Nick Thorne talk 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)