Talk:List of aircraft carriers in service: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:49, 6 May 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of aircraft carriers in service article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Ships List‑class

	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, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Aviation List‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

List

This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime BL‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

BL

This article has been rated as BL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force

Lists List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Planned" carrier for France

According to a (very brief} article in Le Figaro;

(via Google translate)
France will launch studies on the replacement of the only French aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, which will be withdrawn from service by 2040, according to the military programming bill to be presented tomorrow in the Council of Ministers .
"We reserve the possibility of having an aircraft carrier at the same time as the Charles de Gaulle or after" the withdrawal of service of the latter, told AFP the entourage of the Minister of Armies Florence Parly , specifying that will also be launched studies on the future air combat system and on the tank of the future, under the military programming law 2019-2025^[1]

References

^ "Etudes sur le successeur du porte avions Charles de Gaulle". lefigaro.fr. 7 February 2018. Retrieved 17 February 2018.

An editor added an entry for France to the "Planned carriers" table based on this cite, with a "commission date" of "2040". I have since removed that entry. This fails WP:CRYSTAL. This is way too tenuous and speculative to support an entry to the table. Just because they announced a "study" to look into replacing Charles de Gaulle when she is possibly decommissioned 22 years from now, "and reserve the right to do so", is a far cry from actually planning a carrier, with the legislation, budgeting, contract tendering, etc. that goes into that process. - ^theWOLFchild 16:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need something more substantial before we can update the planned entry table. Something on the lines of an announcement in a WP:RS that the country indeed plans to build one, as is the case with Brazil should be a minimal requirement. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

I believe that all tbd abbreviations in the article should be capitalised to TBD. JackintheBox (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This and other articles have used "tbd" for years with no issues. That's years of stability and consensus. Why change now? - ^theWOLFchild 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thewoldchild. TBA implies that the abbreviation is an acronym for a proper noun, which this is not. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All other articles and all dictionaries that I have seen use the abbreviation of TBD in uppercase, such as when referring to a yet-to-be-determined date or value etc. For instance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I suggest doing that to this article as well for consistency. Moreover, TBD is an initialism, which should be capitalised. JackintheBox • ^TALK 13:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well other things exist, but that is not a persuasive argument. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TBD is not an acronym, as an acronym is "an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word", while TBD is an initialism, which consists of "initial letters pronounced separately", and is always capitalised, as can be seen at List of acronyms: T. Expressing TBD in lowercase would not be a correct format, just as it would be incorrect to show P.S., HIV, LCD or DIY in lowercase (all of which are initialisms for common nouns, not proper nouns). —JackintheBox • ^TALK 12:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As if yet, there has been no policy cited here, so it falls to consensus. So far, there is no consensus supporting change. Also, I'm not sure why this is so important to you, but no one else seems to have a problem with it. - ^theWOLFchild 14:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what I do on Wikipedia is to improve the grammar, punctuation and/or formatting of articles (which is important to me), despite whether there is any established consensus to do so. But since no-one seems to be supporting my proposed change on this article, I will just leave it as it is. Thanks—JackintheBox • ^TALK 05:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From our MOS, "...since acronym by itself is also frequently inclusive of initialisms. Herein, the term acronym applies collectively to initialisms." Also, "Acronyms whose letters are pronounced individually are written in capitals." Primergrey (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of differences of opinion on this when I changed tbd to TBD in the article, and I must say that technical distinctions between acronyms, initialisms and such didn't and don't particularly concern me in this case. I merely googled on <tbd aircraft carrier>, noticed that TBD in capitals was universal (I saw one Tbd, but not a single instance of tbd), and acted accordingly. A general consensus would be, I think, around the normally used form. Roy McCoy (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia's purposes, there is no distinction between acronyms and initialisms. The guidance is clearly to use all caps. Primergrey (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naval flag

In the first table, under "Summary", the 2nd column lists the country's Naval ensign, not their Naval jack, (along with a link to the name of the national navy). That is how the template is set up. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 17:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with ton displacement

Is there a problem with metric ton / imperial ton for displacement of US carrier? Isnt Gerald Ford supposed to be larger than Nimitz class?

07:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:8AC1:F000:21E:65FF:FE50:CE56 (talk)

Hmmm... I also thought they were heavier. I thought their page said they were 110,000 (of whichever of the numerous variations of tons we use). I found one source that says their displacement is 112,000 tons^[1] I suppose some researching and confirming is needed. - wolf 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-Gerald-Ford-CVN78

Page Title Is Misleading

Should be "List of aircraft carriers out of service" or "List of aircraft carriers being serviced". "In Service" implies working just fine. We thank a soldiers for their service, their deployment, not for their time out.

Can't say "List of aircraft carriers out of service" several on the list are still in service Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can we merge this sentence "currently in service, being serviced, in reserve, under construction, or being rebuilt" Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In civilian life a lift/elevator is "out of service" if it is being serviced/repaired. Maybe the military uses the word in a different way? You give an example of one of the the carriers in the list: "USS Abraham Lincoln just left for the middle east". Then surely it is no longer being repaired/serviced and shouldn't be on this wiki page!? I am not military person so please help me and others understand. Isn't this page supposed to be listing of carriers which are temporarily not being used due to repair? Sqgl (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Etudes sur le successeur du porte avions Charles de Gaulle". lefigaro.fr. 7 February 2018. Retrieved 17 February 2018.

[2] ttps://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=USS-Gerald-Ford-CVN78

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 :Can't say "List of aircraft carriers out of service" several on the list are still in service [[User:Mitchellhobbs|Mitchellhobbs]] ([[User talk:Mitchellhobbs|talk]]) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 :How can we merge this sentence "currently in service, being serviced, in reserve, under construction, or being rebuilt" [[User:Mitchellhobbs|Mitchellhobbs]] ([[User talk:Mitchellhobbs|talk]]) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
-:In civilian life a lift/elevator is "out of service" it is being serviced/repaired. Maybe the military uses the word in a different way? You give an example of one of the the carriers in the list: "USS Abraham Lincoln just left for the middle east". Then surely it is no longer being repaired/serviced and shouldn't be on this wiki page!? I am not military person so please help me and others understand. Isn't this page supposed to be listing of carriers which are temporarily not being used due to repair? [[User:Sqgl|Sqgl]] ([[User talk:Sqgl|talk]]) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
+:In civilian life a lift/elevator is "out of service" if it is being serviced/repaired. Maybe the military uses the word in a different way? You give an example of one of the the carriers in the list: "USS Abraham Lincoln just left for the middle east". Then surely it is no longer being repaired/serviced and shouldn't be on this wiki page!? I am not military person so please help me and others understand. Isn't this page supposed to be listing of carriers which are temporarily not being used due to repair? [[User:Sqgl|Sqgl]] ([[User talk:Sqgl|talk]]) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)