Talk:Italian aircraft carrier Cavour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The Cavour number is "550", not "552", see [1], [2]. By the way the italian navy not use the "C" prefix: Giuseppe Garibaldi (C 551) is Giuseppe Garibaldi (551), see [3]. --Il palazzo 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Photographs on Italian Navy official website --Il palazzo 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't have time to go into this in depth at the moment, but the quoted sources in the article do not appear to meet Wikipedia';s reliable sources policy, in particular the first two appear to be self-published web sites without any indication of their authorship. - Nick Thorne talk 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cavour home port[edit]

The article states that Cavour was never moved to Taranto because that port is too shallow, however Google Earth currently (Nov 2013)shows both Garibaldi and Cavour exactly there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


Many years ago, someone added CVS to this article, which is a retired US Hull code for Antisubmarine Aircraft Carrier. (Does the Italian Navy use obsolete American hull codes? Don't they use pennant numbers?) Anyway, in 2008, CVS was changed to CVH, by an IP user who is longer around. CVH was not linked to anything, there was no edit summary, no apparent consensus for the addition, and no apparent source to support it. From what I understand, CVH isn't even a real code. Further to this, in 2010, CVH was added to another part of the article, again by a IP user who is no longer around. Again, there was no edit summary, no consensus, no reference... but this time, CVH was linked to a disambiguation page, where it seems CVH was simply added as WP:OR, buy another IP user who is from the same IP range as the 2010 one... and of course, this one disappeared around the same time as well. In short, while it has managed to stay below the radar for quite awhile, CVH does not belong in this article.

@BilCat:, I'm hoping we can work together on this. Yes, it's a relatively minor issue, but as they say... "baby steps". You reverted my edit for the reason that it was "unexplained". I'm hoping that, now that I have provided an explanation, you will see clear to reverting my edits back into place. Thanks - theWOLFchild 10:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

note: (to anyone) - it appears that this issue will be addressed here. Please comment on that thread, instead of on this page. - theWOLFchild 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
update: still see page noted above - theWOLFchild 15:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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:

    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If 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 09:16, 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 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources used for 30,000 t displacement[edit]

Not sure if can be considered a reliable source for the above displacement figure. In its own list of citations, it lists this Wikipedia page as a source! Furthermore, the Telegraph article looks like it took its information and specifications directly from this page, and isn't even trying to hide it. These are most likely touching on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and as such, probably best not used. Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably one of the most reliable sources, the Italian Navy itself, says 27,100 t. Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
well, my dear friend that probably is your own wish to put 27,100 T, ! Yes the Italian site cite that number but that is not the "Total full load" Tonnage!, the Total full load Tonnage is about 30,000 T. already I have cited two or more sources about it [4].and since you care too much about Italian military and I thank you for it, what about the new British Aircraft carrier Queen-Elizabeth, in the main British Page says the Tonnage is about 65,000 T [5] , but here by Wikipedia appears always with 70,000 T! I pressume that the 70,000 t. doesnt appear in the main British navy page or Im wrong?. Italian and British Page says only the Normal Tonnage! after to show you many sources that show that Cavour has a full load Tonnage about 30,000, I think there no problems for the full load tonnage. one thing is the Tonne and other the "Full load tonnage", Italian and British page dont show the Full load tonnage!. already I have also started a discussion in the Talk:List of aircraft carriers in service. You are welcome to comment it!.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, is not a reliable source, and has to be removed. Secondly, when I made my edit to the info box (changing 30,100 t to 27,100 t) the only citation used at the time was this one, and it says 27,100 t. My edit was therefore in good faith, simply adjusting the figure to match the citation. So, I STRONGLY suggest you do not insinuate I was attempting to insert my own POV, as per your first sentence above. I also do not "care too much about Italian military" and do not appreciate (once again) what you are trying to insinuate. I had to deal with this sort of rubbish / paranoia from Benniejets. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
well my dear, you must know that behind a computer it is very difficult to Express our sensations, Calm relax! I only have said what I see, When I say " you care about Italian military" is Because you had also colaborate in other Pages and also I have thanked for that.! I dont wanted to say other thing. and about Bennie, what I can say... really I dont understand him, I think maybe wikipedia is not for him.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)