Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is part of the Tosa class battleships series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 4, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 02:11, August 29, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Shipwrecks (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Barbettes[edit]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that when Kaga was initially converted to an aircraft carrier, that it maintained barbettes for its original 16" gun turrets. I've never seen that claim anywhere before. Furthermore, this drawing of Kaga's armor scheme does not show any barbettes for the original armament.

http://www.warship.get.net.pl/Japonia/Aircraft_Carriers/CV_1928_Kaga_class/Drawings/Kaga_protection.jpg

Coordinates[edit]

The coordinates need the following fixes: The map seems to point out a location at 0E, 30S ... ?

Popoi (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The coordinates are correct. There must be something wrong with this GeoHack coz it displays the wrong position on the map: -30.333333, 179.283333 instead of the correct 30.333333, -179,283333. If you click on Google maps bellow it shows the correct position on the map. Loosmark (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA? Not quite[edit]

I saw this was recently passed. It's a very nice little article; good work! I think that if it's to be considered a GA, it should have it's WP:LEAD expanded to cover the whole article, and in more detail. Probably 2 big, or 3 medium paragraphs worth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

I have some more photos of this ship that I'll try to get uploaded to Commons this week, including one showing the carrier operating during the China Incident. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've uploaded several more photos. Cla68 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, please give me a few days to add some additional detail to the article from other sources before nominating for FAC. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem waiting; I've got to wait until Sovetsky Soyuz class BB gets voted up or down depending on the unreliability of navweaps.com before I can nominate another anyways. Heck, feel free to offer an opinion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1. Or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Princess Royal (1911) which also desperately needs some eyes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Update[edit]

The article is getting close. I have a few other issues I want to take care of, including:

  • Checking a few more sources for any pertinent information, especially on the ship's activities between Pearl Harbor and Midway.
  • Scanning and uploading a few more images, particularly one to add to the "Reconstruction" section which currently has no images.
  • Clearing up a discrepancy in the sources. Maeda's account in Werneth states that Kaga damaged its hull in Staring Bay after the Darwin Raid, not before it at Palau. I want to try to verify which account is correct.
  • Starting stubs on the red-linked articles, primarily the aces.
  • Adding information, probably in a footnote, of the fate of the ship's airborne CAP Zeros when Kaga was hit; several of them landed on Hiryū and assisted that carrier's airgroup in its subsequent strikes against Yorktown.
  • The position and distance of the carrier from Oahu, Darwin, and Midway during those strikes would probably also be useful. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • All of these sound worthwhile, although I'd not worry too much about the redlinks. They can't be held against it at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I believe I have exhausted my sources on details for the carrier's operations between Pearl Harbor and Midway, found the launch positions for Pearl Harbor, Darwin, and Midway, and added footnote information on the Midway CAP. I was not able to clear up the discrepancy about the grounding incident, so will be leaving it as is except for perhaps noting the discrepancy in the footnote. I'll try to get the images uploaded and placed later today or tomorrow. After that, the metric conversions and alt text for the images need to be added and then I think the article will be ready for FA nomination. I'll be kind of busy over the next few days trying to meet a deadline in a current ArbCom case, but should be available after that to help finish getting the article ready for FAC. Cla68 (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Don't sweat the small stuff. I'll go over the conversions myself and I don't intend to worry about the alt text since that's no longer a requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've ordered Peattie and Parshall & Tully from Amazon; hopefully they'll arrive before the FAC goes live. I'm not sure whether it's a trend, but lately we've had a whole lot of people making requests and giving their two cents in ship FACs; I want to be ready in case there's a lot to deal with. Cla68 is a great writer so I doubt this article needs more copyediting than the stuff I did at ACR, but if you guys have questions or want me to go through it again, please give me a shout. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed a bunch of the small niggling MOS stuff on references, etc., but I only made few small changes in the text so I'm not really sure that another copyedit is necessary. A quick pass, though, might be useful. Conversions are done, so unless somebody objects, I'll start the FAC once the pictures have been uploaded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going through it now, and making a few cuts that I didn't make the first time around. When you use terms I like, like "convergent evolution", but use them in a context where it would take longer to explain than it would to rephrase, I'm making a list of those ... hopefully we can find another article to insert, explain and illustrate the concept, and if we can, then that might provide an opportunity to use it in more articles and link to the article with the explanation. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding the image with the caption "A diorama ...": if the information depicted in the diorama is almost entirely wrong, and since the diorama doesn't have clearly discernable details that might help, and since you've got enough images already, why include this one? I rarely care about image issues myself but if you keep this one, keep a handy reply to that question close at hand, because it might come up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I put it in there because it's the only image available depicting the carrier in operation after the Pearl Harbor attack. I'll remove the image for now since it might cause unnecessary grief during the FAC review. Cla68 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What's a "blind cover"? I'm not pulling up anything on Google. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Clarified.
  • I don't feel strongly one way or the other about linking "combat air patrol" twice and giving the acronym (CAP) twice, but it's going to be frowned on at FAC (if they catch it; this is a long and technical article, and many reviewers aren't going to read every line and remember what they read). - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Deleted the second link, etc.
  • There was a figure of 108 aircraft in the Midway raid section in a sentence that seemed too convoluted; I removed the figure, but if you want to put it back in, I'll check the sentence flow again. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My understanding of "struck below" in naval aviation is "stored below"; is that right? I'm not clear on what that sentence means. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay done for now. Shattered Sword and Sunburst have shipped btw, I should get them this week. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Got the sources, working my way through. Some of the information seems interesting to me and I'm adding it to the article, but Sturmvogel and Cla are the experts here and if you think the article reads better without the stuff I'm adding, please delete it. For that matter, anyone can delete it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: Peattie on p. 91 says that Kaga was used in the summer of 1940 for the sea trials of the Zero, which was of course a significant advance in fighter aviation so that might be worth a mention. But the source we're using for the article says that Kaga wasn't in "active service" in 1940 until November. Could it have been used for trials while out of commission? - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It's possible since the scope of the refit isn't precisely known. I'd prefer to ignore this issue unless one of us gets access to a really good book on the Zero to see what it says.
  • Okay done with Peattie, waiting on Parshall & Tully. One last thing from Peattie: it might be interesting to add that her main deck was completely flush at first, which was very unusual: they didn't build a conning tower thinking it would be an obstruction during takeoff and landing, but some pilots preferred to have a tower to orient themselves on. During her refit, the conning tower appeared in the form of the "small starboard island superstructure" mentioned in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • OK by me; I think I avoided specifically mentioning it from the lack of a ready definition/link to flush deck. Sheer laziness, I assure you. But it does remind me that we need a definition/article of an aircraft carrier island as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It's very possible that they used the carrier to test the Zero during refit or post-reconstruction trials. Unless the source is clear on it, however, we should leave it out. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • There is at least one book on the history of the Zero in English, called, ironically, Zero!. I don't have this book. If anyone has it or has access to it, it might be helpful to check it to see if it mentions Kaga. Cla68 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I have this book and Eagles of Mitsubishi (the design history of the Zeke) as well. I will look at them this weekend. (As mentioned on the FAC page, Zero! does mention Kaga.) Kablammo (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)i
            • Peattie, p. 91: "In June 1940 ... the Navy assigned fifteen of the new aircraft to the Twelfth Air Group already in China at the same time that the airplane's carrier trials at sea were taking place aboard the Kaga. At the end of July, [after the results were in], the Navy formally accepted the new aircraft as the [Zero]." - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
              • That sounds like good info for the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
                • That's better info, and good enough for the article, but I'd still like to get further confirmation from a recent book on the specifically on the Zero.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiro Horikoshi was the chief designer and was present during many of the prototype's tests. In his history of the Zero, published in Japan in 1970 and in English translation in 1980, he makes no mention of carrier flight tests. He states however that in May 1940 he was informed the navy would send the prototype to China about the middle of July, even though it had not yet been fully tested. "Operational tests, based on actual combat experiences, were continued by the Navy pilots under Lietenant Shimokawa, his objective being to advance to the front lines during July." JH "learned through the Navy bulletin that some Prototype 12s had finally been sent to China in July after the Navy was reasonably sure the airplane would be usable for actual combat operations." The Navy officially accepted the fighter at the end of July 1940. Aside from the difference in months (June vice July), this is consistent with the information above (on service in China), but no mention is made of carrier trials. Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter, pp. 93–95.

In his 1956 book Zero! JH mentions what appears to be the first combat missions in China, on August 19 and 20, 1940. The first actual combat was in September. Again, no mention is made in this book of carrier qualification trials. Kablammo (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Peattie's footnote for this bit about the carrier trials, I'm wondering if he's parroting the claim from Zero! So this makes me thing we'd best ignore it, or write up a note discussing the differences, although where and when the Zero had its carrier qualifications ultimately isn't particularly important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted an inquiry at the aircraft article's talk page. It seems from Horikoshi's book that he was not always informed, at least right away, of the IJN's activities, so it is not necessarily inconsistent with Peattie. And JH never mentions carrier qualifications at all; presumably, it was tested aboard a carrier somewhere before actual combat operations. Kablammo (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unique?[edit]

The article is categorized within Unique aircraft carriers, yet it has the Tosa-class battleship template. Could someone clarify? Brandmeistertalk 17:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The other ship of the class was scrapped, not converted into an aircraft carrier like Kaga.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate pronouns?[edit]

I know that in naval jargon and some common parlance it is okay to give ships, cars, and other objects the personal pronoun, but is that appropriate in an encyclopedia? My opinion is that it's not, but I'm interested in what others think. Dr.queso (talkcontribs) 19:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The longstanding agreement is that "she/her" for ships is perfectly acceptable. There have been numerous discussions over the years, mainly at WT:SHIPS and related pages, if you want to find them. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
After wading through a few pages worth of discussions, it looks like the issue here is that the articles on ships are heavily edited/policed by people who are into seafaring culture, and are fond of their nonstandard way of speaking. I don't actually see a consensus, just discussions that stopped being contributed to. There are plenty of people who argue that "that's the common usage, and we shouldn't change it," but in fact it's *not* common usage in most of North America (I can't speak to other English-speaking nations). It's only common usage to the members of this particular subculture (who of course disproportionately edit and view articles on ships.) If someone can point to an article from the past 30 years in the Washington Post, the NYT, the BBC, or any other major newspaper, or an article in an encyclopedia, or any style guide, that uses the gendered pronoun for ships, I'll reconsider my position. Dr.queso (talkcontribs) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
One more argument in favor of my position. You say that this has been discussed many times in the past years. Has anyone ever come across the neuter pronoun and started a discussion saying "wait, I don't believe saying 'it' in reference to a ship is acceptable in standard English usage, it should say 'she'"? I highly doubt it. I'm willing to bet the reason there have been so many discussions is that many people, in coming across the gendered pronoun, have gone "What? That doesn't sound like standard writing. That grates on my ears just as much as saying "ain't" would. Sure, some people say it, but they sound like uneducated hicks." That's exactly what brought me here to comment, and if other people are having the same reaction, its an indication that plenty of people are not used to hearing "she." Don't get me wrong-- I expect to hear the gendered pronoun if I watch a movie about seamen, just like I expect to hear people refer to their Harley Davidsons as "she," but that doesn't mean that most English speakers speak that way or that it won't sound unusual to them.Dr.queso = talk 20:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
(ECx2) The consensus has been that either "she" or "it" are acceptable, but that they should not generally be changed back and forth (a la WP:ENGVAR). If you think the consensus is not strong enough, you are welcome to start an RFC, but please do not change this article unilaterally. Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a variation in standard English; it is slang/jargon. Please show me the consensus stating that either is okay. Dr.queso (talkcontribs) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see the MoS - if you want to change this article, go change the MoS first. And please stop edit-warring this. You have been bold, and have now twice been reverted, so please stop and discuss. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to the MoS. I will start a discussion there; unfortunately I expect that a discussion on "Project Military History" will also be disproportionately made up of people who are used to the same jargon and nonstandard english being debated here. In any case, thank you for your patience in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talkcontribs) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think using either "it" or "she" is fine, but just stick to a single one in a given article. There are similar problems on Wikipedia such as AD/BC vs CE/BCE and British vs American spelling. For these, both are acceptable just try to keep in consistent for an article and do not change it unless there is a good reason to and there is a consensus for the change. There are more productive things one could do than squable over this. Which ever version was original for this article should be kept. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows what sources use, mingled with a bit of what appropriate manuals of styles say. Reliable sources about ships in English always use "she" in my experience, while the Chicago Manual of Style prefers "it". In my opinion both are perfectly acceptable. Don't edit war over changing them. (Hohum @) 02:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
When you say "reliable sources about ships in English," to what sources are you referring? I find that reliable sources intended for a general audience, including major news organizations and encyclopedias, rarely use "she," although I would expect that naval manuals and novels intended for an audience steeped in sailing culture might use the gendered pronoun. I'm amassing a list, which I will eventually use to supplement my case over on the MoS for military documents, but would love to see some counterexamples from reliable sources intended for a large audience. Just to be clear though, sources intended for members of the navy or for sailors are *not* relevant here, as they are not written for a general audience. (Using these sources in an argument would be like saying that most reliable resources on obesity use medical jargon: yes, that may be true, but most reliable resources on obesity are not written for a general audience. On the other hand, obesity articles intended for a general audience-- those found in newspapers, public statements from health organizations, encyclopedias, etc-- avoid medical jargon.)Dr.queso = talk 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: Just thought I'd leave this here. It was written a decade ago:
SHIPS should no longer be called "she", the industry's newspaper has decreed.
Lloyd's List, the 268-year-old publication which claims to be the world's oldest daily newspaper, is to abandon centuries of seafaring tradition by calling all vessels "it".
The reason, explained in yesterday's issue, is to bring the paper "into line with most other reputable international business titles".
Mr Bray, 38, who has been the editor for two years, said: "I decided that it was time to catch up with the rest of the world, and most other news organisations refer to ships as neuter."
But he added: "It's to be our newspaper style but I don't think there is anything wrong with calling ships 'she' in conversation. It's a respectable maritime tradition."
I'd like to re-iterate: If you're tired of having this conversation, then stop writing in a way that many readers object to. Just because an article is *about* the navy or the military doesn't mean it should be written in the same style that the navy or the military uses. Articles in project:medicine aren't written in medical jargon; articles in project:law don't use legalese. Everyone in the entire navy and their mother is free to use "she" to refer to ships, but most English speakers find it awkward and informal. As long as you use "she" you're going to have to put up with people like me who come here and think there must be some kind of mistake, and then are surprised to find that there is a consensus of people in this corner of the internet that their quirky tradition is appropriate for a general audience. It may be awhile before I post my argument on the MoS, but it is coming. Prepare your counterarguments, and I hope they amount to more than "it's tradition" and "the navy says so." Dr.queso = talk 04:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────When I say "reliable sources" I mean the sources used to create articles about ships. When I limit this to English ones, I only do so to show that "she" is perfectly acceptable in English (not to limit the sources used to English). Can you provide evidence that "many readers object"? Additionally, I have answered your question on my talk page with a quick sample of reliable sources which use "she" for ships. (Hohum @) 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"When I say "reliable sources" I mean the sources used to create articles about ships." That's a bit circular, don't ya think? As far as evidence that "many readers object"-- you'll note that I've already been told more than once that this argument has been rehashed multiple times. This is also a common sentiment in some of the threads that I was directed to. The people who prefer "she" are people with a strong interest in this subject, who remain on this page for many years and continue using that anachronistic phrasing. The arguments, you'll see if you go through them, are usually started by a reader who is not a frequent editor of this project, and they usually express their opinion and then quickly leave. I wanted to look into your sources, but I've just been called away. Looking at some of Eric Wertheim's more recent writing, though, I see he often refers to ships as "it"-- even if that's not characteristic of all his writin (I don't know yet) I'm not surprised that he hasn't changed the pronouns of the book he just took over editorship of that was written in 1976, especially since its intended audience can be assumed to be not the general population but those with a special interest in ships and the military. Anyway, more on this later. Dr.queso = talk 18:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr.queso =  as the proud owner of a user account with less than a week's editing history, you might find youself better received if you didn't just burst in herer telling everyone else that they are wrong. This subject has been debated and put to bed a long time ago. Until and unless you acheive a consensus to change the convention as it has already been explained to you in this discussion you are just wasting everyone's time here. You would be well advised to spend a lot more time learning how things are done here on Wikipedia than by apparently setting yourself up as some sort of ultimate authority on a given subject, ignoring what everyone else is telling you and not understanding that Wikipedia works by consensus. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. - Nick Thorne talk 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is opening your writing with demeaning sarcasm part of the standard honey trap you use to catch flies? And how exactly do you expect one to achieve a consensus without expressing arguments that support one's viewpoints? As to your slightly stupid assertion that I have "set myself up as some sort of ultimate authority"-- in what part of my writing do you find me claiming to be an authority on anything? You seem to be confusing a strongly held opinion supported by various lines of reasoning with blunt assertions from a position of authority. You'll find all of my writing falls into the former category if you actually read it. Anyway, as I have already stated, I'll be starting a discussion on the MoS (hopefully in the next few weeks) to try and get a consensus from a larger general audience. Thanks for your input. Dr.queso = talk 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An article can only as good as its editors....knowledge[edit]

The article currently states:

"The British carriers converted from "large light cruisers", HMS Glorious, HMS Courageous, and HMS Furious, each had two flight decks, but there is no evidence that the Japanese copied the British model."

Embarrassing really. A supposedly top article and its not even barely right! William Forbes-Sempill, 19th Lord Sempill, a British aviation expert first went to Japan in 1920 as part of a trade mission was sent there on the orders of the British government to help the Imperial Navy build aircraft carriers and train its naval aviators. Where is the source for the above statement, I don't see one? And in a supposedly good article too. Sempill was in Japan two years before the boat was even launched. He then became a Japanese agent, who for money, on his return to UK passed on secret information regarding British technical achievements to the Japanese in his role as a pioneering aeronautical expert. It is of little wonder that the Japanese, in less than seven years, had a carrier fleet to rival the UKs and USAs.

It's all there in the National Archives. Pity it is not here though. Just irks me that these articles are promoted as "good" when many just barely get close! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.142.55 (talk)

Sir/maam, if you have a source that should be considered for use in this article, because it contains important and relevant information, please just name it and/or link to it with the reason why it should be looked at. Taking a pejorative tone really doesn't help us. Cla68 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but it ain't for me do the work. I don't often edit on here simply because most of the topics are "protected" by self appointed experts. The information is all there in both Sempill articles. My tone is based on the fact that the only people who bother to do all this free work for Jimbo Wales are those with a vested in the topics. Hence people who love warships don't edit films about Disney or vice versa. All I know is what I have read. But like I say it's not for me to go and dig out the sources because I don't "work" here. However it is my right to point out to the sanctimonious editors who think they know everything that what is written is just their opinion of what sources to include. Anyway to keep the powers-that-be happy the only pertinent online source I could find is here but I agree it is not explicit. What is clear is that the British did provide the Japanese with technologies, which on the balance of probabilities would not exclude all things to do with naval aviation. Interestingly the British initially had reservations about giving such information to Japan, ultimately racism and greed won out; the western Europeans incorrectly thought the little yellow race would never achieve the know-how or skills to fullly utilise the weapons they would be creating. These assertions can be found in other published sources too, this article's statement that British technology did not (directly or indirectly) influence the creation of this carrier is quite frankly ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.119.14 (talk)
Your source doesn't have to be an online source. If you read what you said above in a book somewhere, please state which book(s) you read it in. Perhaps you have had some bad experiences elsewhere in Wikipedia that makes you think that we are wedded to the current text. As far as this article is concerned, we are not. If someone points out a different perspective in a reliable source, we are happy to hear about it. We just need the citation so we can look at it ourselves. Since this is a Featured Article, it is very important that any changes or additions to it are adequately sourced. Cla68 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The information is sourced, to footnote #7. As for the rest, what Cla said. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware that the RN had a Naval Aviation Mission (whatever the exact title) in Japan during the early 1920s? The article on Hosho has some information on their assistance with the early years of Japanese naval aviation, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sinking - excessive detail tags[edit]

Hi, I have tagged what I deem to be excessive detail. In an article about an aircraft carrier, knowing the names of individual pilots and also having squadron photographs of them is excessive. I think it is enough that the type of "enemy" dive bombers (from the carrier's POV) used and the "enemy" units involved in the sinking is enough. If anyone is interested in the names of individual pilots or the exact names of the US carriers involved in the sinking, they can click the links to the units or the article about the Battle of Midway. When I read this article about a Japanese aircraft carrier, at times I felt it to be an article about US dive bomber squadrons and I expect it to be centered on its subject. AadaamS (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the level of detail is excessive. Since the "page rating" box at the bottom of the article is currently rating this article as a perfect 5.0 under "Well-written", it appears to me that the majority of readers who voted in the box agree that the article is fine. Other opinions are, of course, welcome. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I also agree that the article as a whole is indeed good and my criticism pertains to the "Sinking" section. My opinion is that the minor details about the attacking squadron(s) in question would better belong in the articles about those squadrons. If anyone accuses me of nitpicking I would agree and say "yes, I'm nitpicking". AadaamS (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The links go to individuals notable in their own right, and there is no need to exclude them. This article is not overly long. Kablammo (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the article's detail is suitable. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will remove the tags, given the weight of opinion here. Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kantai Collection ?[edit]

Hello,

Wouldn't you think this article ought to mention the Kaga aircraft carrier has been impersonated into an anime girl in the Japanese game Kantai Collection ? As the game is WILDLY popular in Japan, I feel this would deserve a mention in the main article. Well, just mentioning :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.142.190.50 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)