Talk:1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier

Old talk page posts

An exeptionally unclear article. I have tidied it a bit, however, I am no expert on the Royal Navy, and can only do so much. Have we any knowledgeable fans of Her Majesties fleet on hand?Crocodilicus 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a go yourself! Be bold! The info is thin, but if it's unclear to you, then you don't need to be an expert to clarify it. Folks at 137 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Avast!Crocodilicus 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the Royal Navy had escort carriers at the start of the War World II, which is to say September 1939. However, the first examples didn't appear until 1941, when HMS Audacity (D10) enter service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew381968 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Over the past few years, I've been chipping away at a rewrite of the articles on the Colossus class aircraft carrier and the Majestic class aircraft carrier. Fairly early on, I realised that these two classes are so closely related, it would be eaiser to deal with both vessels in a unified article (which I've drafted at User:Saberwyn/Colossus-Majestic class carrier). To this end, I propose that the articles be merged together into a new article, provisionally titled British Light Fleet Carrier.

Reasons are:

1. Both classes are almost identical in design, with all sixteen laid down as Colossuses. The The Majestic class ships were re-classed during construction because of improvements to aircraft handing equipment and internal fittings being incorporated into the Colossus design. And, while several Majestics were fitted with angled decks during construction, several Colossuses were similarly upgraded later on, and one of them was used for the first British trials of angled decks.
2. Several books describe the two classes as either the same (Ireland's Aircraft Carriers of the World classifies them as subclasses of the "Light Fleet" design, a term used specificly on p. 173, and commonly between pp. 72-6, while Miller's Illustrated Directory of Warships of the World groups the Colossuses, maintenance carriers, and Majestics under the heading "Light Fleet Carriers" on pp. 50-2) or very similar (Air Warfare: an International Encyclopedia calls the Majestics "semisisters" of the Colossuses on p. 24). Other works classify the classes separatey, but almost all of these I've seen state the common origin of the ships.
3. The Australian and Canadian navies used both classes across most (Canada) or all (Australia) of their aircraft carrier operating history: Australia's commissioned a Majestic, a Colossus, then a Majestic, while Canada used a Colossus to prepare themselves for the two Majestics they acquired. Having both classes in the one article would provide the benefit of summary for Canadian and Australian naval aviation history, instead of readers having to go to more articles to get the whole story.

In a separate but related proposal, I would like to suggest that HMS Leviathan (R97) be merged into the new article (or the Majestic class article if the above merge doesn't go ahead. Because Leviathan was never completed and was taken apart for spares and scrap, its unlikely that the article will expand very much, and all of the relevant content could be encompassed here. -- saberwyn 02:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Support I agree with the proposed merge. Both these classes evolved from the 1942 Light Fleet Carrier project, which I have seen referred to in a number of sources. We might want to include some reference to that project. As for Leviathan - I agree that it too should be merged into the combined article for the reasons stated. Naturally I assume we would maintain redirects from all the old names pointing to the new article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support both merges. Also Saberwyn, I've been meaning to review your draft like you asked a while back, but haven't gotten around to it yet, my apologies and I haven't forgotten ... yet. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No worries. No rush. -- saberwyn 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• conditional support - while the merger makes sense, I would keep it all under Colussus rather than invent a new name for an article. I believe also, that Unicorn is described as a light fleet carrier, precluding your choice of article name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A note - there is mixed approach to ships not completed, while there is an article for the unfinished USS Washington (BB-47), none of the South Dakota class battleship (1920) ships have articles any more.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A merge into Colossus with redirects would be an appropriate alternate. As for Unicorn, the sources I've seen place more emphasis on her "maintenance carrier"-ness than her "light fleet carrier"-ness.

For uncompleted ships, the question tends to be "Is there enough material out there to support a small but decent sized article?" (about the size of Washington or USS Kentucky (BB-66)...my personal rule of thumb is that the prose is a similar length to the infobox). In the case of Leviathan, I doubt this. -- saberwyn 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support - along Graeme's suggestion. Maintain Colossus class as the overall article, but include the variant types as operated by other navies as a subsection of it. Similar to how the British Attacker and Ameer classes are part of the American Bogue class escort carrier article, and redirect to it. Benea (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose - I am leaning towards "Oppose" on all proposals at this time, though I need several questions answered before I settle my answer.
  • What does the RN call the ship classes, especially during the relevant time periods? Do we have reason, and reliable sources, to go against their choice, if they consider the classes to be separate?
  • Are the two classes similar enough that having a single class article would not complicate the main infobox too much? This also goes for Leviathan: Are its specs different enough from the other carriers that we would loose that info in merging? (Since we don't list the full specs on each ship in the class aritcles). As far as I can tell, the differences between the 2 classes are greater than that between the short-hull Essex class and the long-hull versions (often called the Ticonderoga class, as built. In their case, it was merely a difference of length caused by a single change to the bow, and the two were interspersed in their building order. The USN considered them to be one class, and they were modified to similar standards in the various upgrades they received.
  • Might it not be a better option to create as separate British Light Fleet Carrier article to cover the rationale for thier creation, and their shared history, assuming enough sources can be found to justify such an article without it being synthesis? I realize this runs counter to the stated objective here of teying to keep all the info in one place, but I do feel the two class articles and the ship are more than notable enough to stand on their own as-is, Leviathan's minimal content aside. The main question under consideration here is more one of coverage and content, not notability or even existence. - BilCat (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • In order:
    1. The RN called all sixteen vessels the Colossus class until about September 1945, when they decided that the modifications to the under-construction final six ships was 'sufficient' to give these ships a separate class-name. The modifications consisted primarily of upgrades to the aircraft launch and recovery gear, plus changes to some internal fittings, resulting in a 1,500-ton increase in maximum displacement and 1.5-foot increase in max draft. All physical dimensions and propulsion characteristics were identical to previous members of the class.
    2. It depends on when you take the specs from. At design and launch, the ships were identical (with the variance describe above). However, once the ships entered foreign service (late 40s to early 50s for the Colossuses, straight from the shipyards for the Majestics) they were modified and upgraded to meet the operating conditions of the operating navy or navies. At the end of their service life, any foreign-operated Light Fleet was effectively a unique ship, and I doubt that even in their split state, the class articles would be able to handle the variance in anything but the most general terms. When Wikipedia is finished, I imagine that the class article(s) will handle the data 'at launch', and the individual ship articles will handle the data 'at disposal' (with enough cross-pollinisation for context). As for Leviathan, as far as I can tell from the available info, it was built to the 'basic' Majestic design...any changes to the design would only have ocurred after a foreign buyer was secured.
    3. When I first thought about rewriting the Majestic class article, I quickly came to the conclusion that there was no way to deal with the subject without duplicating large tracts of content from the Colossus article (to the point where a hypothetical reader would read one, follow a link through to the other and could well be confronted with ... almost exactly the same info) Hence the 'combined' draft and the merge proposal. Creating an 'over-article' is an option, but the questions would be where do you break the information up, and how much overlap would there be in each article...it may end up the case that instead of duplicating content, we could end up triplicating it. -- saberwyn 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to favour the idea of having a combined article called something like British 1942 Light Fleet Carrier Program with all the content in there and redirects from the indiviual class names. I think we need to keep "1942"and "Fleet" in the name so as not to confuse the article with later light carriers, such as the Invincibles. The ships like Leviathan that would not warrant their own article should be included here as well IMHO. Realistically the Collosus and Majestics were very similar , sharing identical hull design. Sure, the machinery spaces were re-arranged and they ran differing propulsions sets, but that was the main difference. Externally, the differences were virtually invisable at the class level (ie, ignoring indiviual ship idiosyncrasies) - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that this article doesn't reference Friedman's magisterial book on British Carrier Aviation as it extensively covers the requirement and design process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about that book (British carrier aviation : the evolution of the ships and their aircraft?). If that's the one, there's only seven copies in Australia, and all are hard to get to. If you or someone else can expand the article with it (or as a backup, scan the relevant pages and send them to me), go for gold! -- saberwyn 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ensigns in info boxes

Copied from User talk:Fry1989

You have been placing Royal Navy ensigns against the Majestic class carrier article info boxes. Please stop this. None of the Majestics were ever commissioned into the Royal Navy. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Majestic Class Carier, yes that class actually HAS been commissioned by the Royal Navy. Second, you do realize the Royal Navy's white ensign was used by the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and Indian Navies until the 60s right? So even if the ship wasn't in the UK navy, if it was in one of the navies above, it used the white ensign. Third, I go by the "Ship Career" section of the infobox when I add an ensign, so I don't make mistakes. If it says the ship was used by a certain navy at a certain period of time, I add the correct ensign. If you can find a mistake, feel free to list it here, and I will correct it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-read that article. It quite clearly states than none of the Majestics saw service in the Royal Navy. The ships in that article that were commissioned into the RN were all Colossus class. Adding the Royal Navy's ensign to these articles is misleading. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Ship's article says "Career (United Kingdom)" in the infobox of that ship, then either it was in the Royal Navy despite what you say, or that's a mistake with the article itself, not me. I go by what the infobox says. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But none of the Majestic ships' articles have a "Career (United Kingom)" section in their info boxes because none of them had a career in the RN. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Either we are not looking at the same "Majestic Class", or you're wrong. This is a list of ships in that class. Looking at their articles, HMS Venerable served 3 years in the Royal Navy, HMS Theseus served two, and several others on that list also appear to have served the Royal Navy. The only other "Majestic Class" I can find on Wikipedia is the Majestic Class battleship, but that class also served the Royal Navy. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Fry, I request that you take the time to read the articles you are flagging andor referring to. Also, please do not assume that all ships within a ship class saw service in the same navy. In this instance, the class article you are referring to is 1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier. This design incorporated two classes, the Colossus class, and the slightly upgraded Majestic class (as stated in the lead, the "Design and construction" section, and the list of ships). All of the Colossus class ships served in the Royal Navy. None of the Majestic class did. -- saberwyn 01:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Both Venerable and Theseus were Colossus class. If you actually had a look at their articles, as you put it, you would see this. If you don't know anything about a subject you might be better advised to learn a little before you start making edits to it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, I go by the infobox on the individual ship's article. I do not group all ships in a class together, nor am I going through these ships class by class. If the individual ship's article says that the ship in question served in a particular navy, either it did, or that is a mistake with the article. So far, neither of you have pointed out a specific ship where I added the white ensign, that did not serve the Royal Navy (or the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand Navies before the 60s when they also used the white ensign of the United Kingdom). Do that, and we'll talk. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, since you want to act like I'm editing something I know nothing about, let me now educate you. I added the white ensign to the HMAS Sydney (which was Majestic-class). You removed that white ensign under the edit summary "Sydney never commissioned into the RN". What you clearly didn't pay attention to was that the HMAS Sydney was commissioned by the Royal Australian Navy in 1948, and again in 1962. From 1911 to 1967, the Royal Australin Navy used the White Ensign of the United Kingdom. Not until 1968 did Australia adopt a unique white ensign based on the Australian national flag. So since the ship served from 1948 to 1958, and then 1962 to 1973, it flew under first the UK White Ensign and then the Australian White Ensign, and I was right in adding the UK white ensign. So educate yourself before you try and claim IDK what I'm doing. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HMAS Sydney (R17) and HMAS Melbourne (R21). These ships, at no time, served or were commissioned into the British Royal Navy (at least, according to A- and FA- class articles, and all of the works that I've read on them to assemble the articles). At their commissionings (1948 and 1955 respectively), the carriers were commiisioned under the Australian White Ensign. From 1913 to 1967, the Royal Australian Navy used a flag that was identical to, but not was the British White Ensign (hence, possible confusion), at which point a unique flag was implemented. As I understand it, the policy for ship infoboxes is to only use the last flown version of a ensign for the relevant career infobox. As the 1967 version of the RAN White Ensign replaced the 1913 version of the RAN White Ensign, the article of any RAN ship operating post 1967 should use only the 1967 version of the flag. I cannot speak for the Canadians, Indians, or Kiwis, but assume similar circumstances for these navies. -- saberwyn 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, it was identical to (and therefore there was no distinction) the Royal Navy's white ensign. Infact, the Admiralty was the one that initially forced the RAN, RCN and RNZN to use the White Ensign of the Royal Navy, with only the naval jack (being the national flag) as distinction between the four Navies. So these ships didn't have to serve the Royal Navy to fly the white ensign, they simply had to serve the Australian, Canadian or New Zealand navies before the 60s. As for your understanding of the policy to only include the most recently flown ensign, I've not read that, and I've seen many ship infoboxes which did not follow this, such as the SAS Somerset. So far, I'm completely vindicated in adding the UK white ensign to the Sydney and the Melbourne. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to read [[WP:BRD|WP:BRD]]. You were bold and made a change. I have reverted that change and now we are in the discussion phase. I propose that we move this discsussion to [[Talk:1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier|Talk:1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier]] and until a clear consensus has been established for your proposed change you should refrain from making it again. In fact I will copy this discussion there now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be discussed on Talk:1942 Design Light Fleet Carrier, the fact is that if a ship served the RAN, RCN or RNZN before the late 1960s, they used the UK white Ensign, that is a fact. Now, if you want to discuss showing both ensigns, or if only the most-recently flown ensign should be used in the infobox, that's a discussion that can be had, but you, Nick Thorne, came to my talk page and assumed bad faith, and also accused me of adding an ensign to a ship that didn't serve the Royal Navy, ignorant of the fact that even if that ship wasn't in the Royal Navy but rather the Royal Australian Navy, it still would have used the Royal Navy's white ensign between 1911 and 1967. You told me I should read about a subject before editing it like I know nothing about it, when it turns out you didn't know about the ensigns. The Sydney and the Melbourne both served the RAN before 1968, which means that they used the Royal Navy's white ensign as well as the Australian White Ensign after it was adopted in 1967. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Prior to around the 1950s-60s, all the empire and commonwealth navies - RAN, RCN, RNZN, RIN, etc., used the same White Ensign as the RN for their naval vessels. Before the colonies gained greater independence post-WW II, all of these navies would have been internationally regarded as 'British' and so the use of the White Ensign was wholly appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Leviathan = INS Vikram?

There's a recently created substub at INS Vikram (R13) claiming that Leviathan was to be sold to the Indian Navy and completed to match Hercules/INS Vikrant. Does anyone have anything that can confirm or deny this? Either way, what should be done about the article? (personally in favour of merge redirect here like the Leviathan article unless there's enough sourced content to support a standalone article, which should be under the Leviathan name). -- saberwyn 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And as nothing has been found in the six months (minus change) since this request was made, I have marked the Vikram article for proposed deletion. -- saberwyn 07:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why Canadian English?

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I was curious as to why you tagged the article for Canadian English? Per WP:TIES, the topic is clearly British, in my opinion, as they designed the ships, and used more than any other user. Was this a mistake, or did you have a particular reason, such as something in the article's history? I didn't want to change it without asking first. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat: It appeared in my list thanks to being in the category Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of Canada. I have no trouble reverting - please feel free to do so if you run into a similar issue elsewhere. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I understand. I'll change it to British English. BilCat (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)