This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vikrant-class aircraft carrier redirect. 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 |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Vikrant-class aircraft carrier page were merged into INS Vikrant (2013) on 17 March 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The recent text dump is a copyvio of [1], which clearly states Copyright © BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited. Please stop adding this text. - TomKat222 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
India is not building 3 new carriers, India is building 2. Rademire2 ( talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.livefist.blogspot.com/2011/12/hindu-reports-today-that-hull-of-indias.html
Courtsey:- The Hindu and Livefist.blogspot.com ( Mr. Shiv Aroor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.47.151 ( talk) 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This article now shares a lot of material with INS Vikrant (2013), especially the construction section. This article should be trimmed to avoid this duplication. -- LukeSurl t c 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
So if the first one is 40,000 and the second one is 60,000 tonnes and a different configuation, the it isn't really a "class" of two ships, is it ? It's really two different classes with one ship in each class. Eregli bob ( talk) 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It is enough to put them in different classes, especially as the second carrier will be 20,000 tonnes larger. It's noteworthy that the American carrier John F. Kennedy, whilst starting out as a Kitty Hawk-class carrier, received so many modifications in building that she became a class on her own. 202.248.41.90 ( talk) 01:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The very fact that it is a new design makes it a different class. Ships of the same class share a common design. Scr★pIron IV 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Vishal will be an entirely different class of ship, it's heavier and will possibly be CATOBAR with different propulsion and aircraft it will not be called vikrant class and will probably have no resemblance to Vikrant. standardengineer ( talk) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The "See also" section is this place includes the British Queen Elizabeth class carriers. When you add the Vikrant Class Carriers in the Queen Elizaeth Class carrier "see also" section, it is removed almost immidiately. Where as , when the QE class "see also" section is removed from this page, it is always added back. Is there no control on what goes on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.69 ( talk) 15:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, the figure of 5 the admiral was quoted as saying refers to the following:
Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
M.srihari ( talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
M.srihari ( talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 01:41, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (IST)
not insisted on those numbers. but you keep insisting that since plans for 2 carriers are known,there are only 2 carriers planned. Please understand the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned". I insist you to add a citation to prove the former claim because your edit means it. If not it is better to represent "2 Confirmed".Wikipedia can't have info that is not confirmed in public arena. Please reply as soon to end this issue or please clarify your position. M.srihari ( talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (IST)
without further engagin in edit war.Regards -- M.srihari ( talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (IST)
@
Jaaron95: You had answered at
19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC) while M.srihari needed the help at 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC). By explicit yes/no, I mean: yes X statement is correct. No X statement is wrong. Third opinion was adviced by Primefac at the users talk page. (I am saying because there might be a slight possibility that the user won't feel that the conclusion is fair. (See:
User talk:M.srihari)
117.217.114.126 (
talk)
09:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Supercarrier that the final decision is yet to arrive. So please stop calling me as a crystallballer or acting as an ambassador for my country. M.srihari ( talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
This is the question that I have issue with. "What does "Planned" in the Infobox of this page indicate?"
Just explain me that and I will leave this issue.
M.srihari ( talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
I wish to explain my views for last time, to you two guys since other editors have responded. Lets take the example of some other project, say ARIHANT CLASS nuclear sub. We know that First sub. INS Arihant is under construction much like INS Vikrant. INS Aridhaman's design phase is over and is about to enter construction like INS Vishal. But both the MoD and Indian Navy have stated that 2 more subs shall be constructed under ARIHANT project. This makes the tally as 4. But my issue is no statement of such sort exists for Vikrant class about its future. Then how can we say 2 in no. of planned carriers? If you still think that its due to my own interpretation, then I think its better to leave the issue to you guys. M.srihari ( talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
If only official confirmation from either MoD or Navy is to be considered to make edits in WIKIPEDIA, then please reply YES. If else NO.
@ Jaaron95: My question is, various websites depict images used in the pages of wiki for some other submarines example
Image used in wiki page of followon is used to depict INS Aridhaman Image used in wiki page of INS Aridhaman is depicted as another CGI Of INS Arihant
I ask you to review it from internet and if you feel necessary,make the image edits in the corresponding wiki pages M.srihari ( talk) 20:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
Just a daft question but how can one ship of 40,000 tons and another of 65,000 be considered to be the same "class" ? MilborneOne ( talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In the ship class table, Is it a mistake to specify INS Vishal as
Nuclear-powered EMALS CATOBAR Supercarrier?
M.srihari ( talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
I have edited this article today and removed/edited the contents as follows: removed unsourced statement from lead - source provided does not support the claim, also this claim does not belong in the lead anyway since it is not made elsewhere in the article, the lead is supposed to be a summary; since the sources only say that Vishal may be nuclear powered and may be fitted with EMALS, I have edited the text to reflect that. - Nick Thorne talk 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.trishul-trident.blogspot.com/blog/UpdatesWhen 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090085124When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Gazoth: Your decision to merge this article was perfectly reasonable at the time, since the planned INS Vishal had hardly any commonality with the Vikrant. But recent statements by the Navy Chief suggest that INS Vishal might be built as simply another Vikrant-type carrier - in which case this article would have to be revived (with quite some editing) and the INS Vishal article would require a rather big revamp. HalfdanRagnarsson ( talk) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I had read in naval tech news sources over the years that this aircraft carrier was heavily influenced by Russian engineering as well as having Russian engineers assist in the overall design of this particular carrier. Is there any information available on this that can be included in the article? Would it be something that some state patrons wouldn't want publicized as to create the impression that this carrier was designed completely from scratch indigenously? And no, I am not confusing this carrier with the one India purchased upgrades for that actually came from Russia (INS Vikramaditya). Chronograph 1985 ( talk) 03:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vikrant-class aircraft carrier redirect. 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 |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Vikrant-class aircraft carrier page were merged into INS Vikrant (2013) on 17 March 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The recent text dump is a copyvio of [1], which clearly states Copyright © BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited. Please stop adding this text. - TomKat222 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
India is not building 3 new carriers, India is building 2. Rademire2 ( talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.livefist.blogspot.com/2011/12/hindu-reports-today-that-hull-of-indias.html
Courtsey:- The Hindu and Livefist.blogspot.com ( Mr. Shiv Aroor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.47.151 ( talk) 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This article now shares a lot of material with INS Vikrant (2013), especially the construction section. This article should be trimmed to avoid this duplication. -- LukeSurl t c 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
So if the first one is 40,000 and the second one is 60,000 tonnes and a different configuation, the it isn't really a "class" of two ships, is it ? It's really two different classes with one ship in each class. Eregli bob ( talk) 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It is enough to put them in different classes, especially as the second carrier will be 20,000 tonnes larger. It's noteworthy that the American carrier John F. Kennedy, whilst starting out as a Kitty Hawk-class carrier, received so many modifications in building that she became a class on her own. 202.248.41.90 ( talk) 01:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The very fact that it is a new design makes it a different class. Ships of the same class share a common design. Scr★pIron IV 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Vishal will be an entirely different class of ship, it's heavier and will possibly be CATOBAR with different propulsion and aircraft it will not be called vikrant class and will probably have no resemblance to Vikrant. standardengineer ( talk) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The "See also" section is this place includes the British Queen Elizabeth class carriers. When you add the Vikrant Class Carriers in the Queen Elizaeth Class carrier "see also" section, it is removed almost immidiately. Where as , when the QE class "see also" section is removed from this page, it is always added back. Is there no control on what goes on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.69 ( talk) 15:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, the figure of 5 the admiral was quoted as saying refers to the following:
Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
M.srihari ( talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
M.srihari ( talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 01:41, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (IST)
not insisted on those numbers. but you keep insisting that since plans for 2 carriers are known,there are only 2 carriers planned. Please understand the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned". I insist you to add a citation to prove the former claim because your edit means it. If not it is better to represent "2 Confirmed".Wikipedia can't have info that is not confirmed in public arena. Please reply as soon to end this issue or please clarify your position. M.srihari ( talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (IST)
M.srihari ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (IST)
without further engagin in edit war.Regards -- M.srihari ( talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (IST)
@
Jaaron95: You had answered at
19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC) while M.srihari needed the help at 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC). By explicit yes/no, I mean: yes X statement is correct. No X statement is wrong. Third opinion was adviced by Primefac at the users talk page. (I am saying because there might be a slight possibility that the user won't feel that the conclusion is fair. (See:
User talk:M.srihari)
117.217.114.126 (
talk)
09:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Supercarrier that the final decision is yet to arrive. So please stop calling me as a crystallballer or acting as an ambassador for my country. M.srihari ( talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
This is the question that I have issue with. "What does "Planned" in the Infobox of this page indicate?"
Just explain me that and I will leave this issue.
M.srihari ( talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
I wish to explain my views for last time, to you two guys since other editors have responded. Lets take the example of some other project, say ARIHANT CLASS nuclear sub. We know that First sub. INS Arihant is under construction much like INS Vikrant. INS Aridhaman's design phase is over and is about to enter construction like INS Vishal. But both the MoD and Indian Navy have stated that 2 more subs shall be constructed under ARIHANT project. This makes the tally as 4. But my issue is no statement of such sort exists for Vikrant class about its future. Then how can we say 2 in no. of planned carriers? If you still think that its due to my own interpretation, then I think its better to leave the issue to you guys. M.srihari ( talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
If only official confirmation from either MoD or Navy is to be considered to make edits in WIKIPEDIA, then please reply YES. If else NO.
@ Jaaron95: My question is, various websites depict images used in the pages of wiki for some other submarines example
Image used in wiki page of followon is used to depict INS Aridhaman Image used in wiki page of INS Aridhaman is depicted as another CGI Of INS Arihant
I ask you to review it from internet and if you feel necessary,make the image edits in the corresponding wiki pages M.srihari ( talk) 20:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
Just a daft question but how can one ship of 40,000 tons and another of 65,000 be considered to be the same "class" ? MilborneOne ( talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In the ship class table, Is it a mistake to specify INS Vishal as
Nuclear-powered EMALS CATOBAR Supercarrier?
M.srihari ( talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
I have edited this article today and removed/edited the contents as follows: removed unsourced statement from lead - source provided does not support the claim, also this claim does not belong in the lead anyway since it is not made elsewhere in the article, the lead is supposed to be a summary; since the sources only say that Vishal may be nuclear powered and may be fitted with EMALS, I have edited the text to reflect that. - Nick Thorne talk 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.trishul-trident.blogspot.com/blog/UpdatesWhen 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vikrant-class aircraft carrier. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090085124When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Gazoth: Your decision to merge this article was perfectly reasonable at the time, since the planned INS Vishal had hardly any commonality with the Vikrant. But recent statements by the Navy Chief suggest that INS Vishal might be built as simply another Vikrant-type carrier - in which case this article would have to be revived (with quite some editing) and the INS Vishal article would require a rather big revamp. HalfdanRagnarsson ( talk) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I had read in naval tech news sources over the years that this aircraft carrier was heavily influenced by Russian engineering as well as having Russian engineers assist in the overall design of this particular carrier. Is there any information available on this that can be included in the article? Would it be something that some state patrons wouldn't want publicized as to create the impression that this carrier was designed completely from scratch indigenously? And no, I am not confusing this carrier with the one India purchased upgrades for that actually came from Russia (INS Vikramaditya). Chronograph 1985 ( talk) 03:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)