Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi 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 Akagi is part of the Battlecruisers of the world series, a featured topic. It is also part of the Battlecruisers of Japan series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 7, 2013.

WP:MILHIST Assessment[edit]

Could probably afford some expansion, but as it stands, it's more than just a good start - picture, infobox, references... LordAmeth 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture References[edit]

Is it worth keeping such trivia on the page? --UrsusArctosL71 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

yes. Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Popular Culture References" are nothing more than trivia sections renamed. They should be eliminated on ALL pages. While "which academic papers have referenced this academic paper" compilations are useful in the world of academic research, there is absolutely no significance to the fact that some work of fiction or another (such as an anime cartoon) uses the name as a character, or even a representation of a ship as part of the plot, because none of that has any actual influence on the actual ship being discussed. It is one thing to say that "many historical documentaries cover the ship's history" and quite another (and a pointless one at that) to say "a cartoon writer used the name of this ship". (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have some relevance in showing that the memory of the ship or whatever still resonates. Peter Flass (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


This is a useful source: Fuchida, Mitsuo; Masatake Okumiya (1955). Midway: The Battle That Doomed Japan, The Japanese Navy's Story. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help) Fuchida was aboard the carrier at Midway. The book is co-authored by a historian, and the US edition analyzes and comments on some of the original text, so it is not a purely first-person account.

The unusual portside placement of the island was intended to avoid interference with aircraft when operating with Kaga, an unsuccessful experiment. Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this lack of success is turbulence over the flight deck caused by the interaction of air currents around the portside island and from exhaust gases from the starboard uptakes. Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Fuchida isn't exactly the most reliable source.  Dr. Loosmark  17:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that may depend on the subject. As mentioned above, the English translation of the book has commentary in footnotes, some of which discuss factual errors. Like any source, it needs to be used with discretion, and compared with other literature. Overreliance on a few sources can be dangerous; factual errors can be found in the work of the most reputable of professional historians. Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen another reference (I think Chapman but couldn't swear to it) who also states that the port-side islands on Akagi and Hiryu was that they were intended to work as pairs with Kaga and Soryu respectively. As aircraft waiting to land circle the island, the idea was that the circles would counter-rotate so that planes flying between a pair of carriers would always be flying in the same direction, rather than on head-on approach. It was a good theory that just didn't work in practice. The port side island was nothing to do with the exhaust arrangements. (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Was the Akagi equipted with catapults fpr launching her airplanes. In documentaries it looks as the planes would just roll off and take off. Not using a catapult.-- (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • No, there were no catapults on Akagi. During the launch procedure the carrier sailed at full speed and was turned toward the wind. The carrier's velocity (over 50km/h) meant that the aircraft had the same initial velocity or in other words the aircraft had an airflow through its wing which transforms into lift. Then the wind blowing toward the wing added additional airflow and therefor additional initial lift. So even when the aircraft was stationary relative to the carrier it already had a considerable lift. The aircraft could then take off without any assistance. Path-x21 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information in footnotes[edit]

I notice that a lot of the information I added in the footnotes, especially details about the carrier's CAP operations at Midway, has been removed. Was there a concern that the footnotes were too long or had too much detail? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the ACR reviewers felt that it was too much information, especially when names of non-notable pilots were given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I would like to link to the aces' names in the footnotes, like was done in Kaga, but I will try not to put as much information on CAP operations. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Longitundinal Arrestor Wires..?[edit]

The text states that the original longitudinal arrestor wires were "unsatisfactory" but gives no supporting reference. Longitudinal, rather than transverse, arrestor wires were developed at a time when aircraft were very light and had no difficulty stopping on deck. However, as they were so light they WERE at risk of being blown over the side - and so longitudinal wires were entirely sensible.

Longitudinal wires were generally replaced by transverse wires in the early 1930s, when the weight of carrier aircraft began to increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Island superstructure[edit]

I don't know what it is. When I click on the hyperlink, I end up having gone in a circle: "The superstructure of an aircraft carrier." This amounts to the article saying that the aircraft carrier has the superstructure of an aircraft carrier. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See if the definition is better now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
For the information of the other editors of this article, "Beyondallmeaning" was a sockpuppet of an indefintely blocked user and has also been indefinitely blocked [1].They should not have been making any edits at all so all their comments may be disregarded.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Typos, I think[edit]

Two tiny queries:

  • is "matress" an accepted spelling in US English (caption of tenth picture)?
  • "squadron's" at note 8 should be "squadrons".

This is a fine article. Have supported at TFA list. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Renunciation of treaty[edit]

The third sentence of the introduction begins with the phrase, "Following Japan's renunciation of the treaty in late 1934," which seems irrelevant. The subject is not mentioned in the body of the article. The ship was converted from cruiser to aircraft carrier to comply with the treaty, and then rebuilt, also as an aircraft carrier, after Japan renounced the treaty. But what does the treaty have to do with the rebuild? The article's introduction should not raise a seeming contradiction which is never resolved. I recommend simply removing that phrase from the introduction.

If the treaty is important, the introduction could say ". . . Washington Naval Treaty, which [restricted cruisers?]. Following Japan's renunciation of the treaty in late 1934, which removed [whatever] restrictions, . . ." However, the text should then explain the relationship between the treaty renunciation and the rebuild.

HowardMorland (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Good idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good. HowardMorland (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit[edit]

Thank you I hold Wikipedia in high regard.

Please stop referring to inanimate objects as ships and airplanes in the gender specific. These objects are not a 'her' nor 'she'. They are things. This continued practice oppresses females — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As a carryover from our language's heritage as a gendered language, no. Maritime custom in English has always been to refer to ships as "she" and there is no reason to change that to suit someone's agenda. Can actually you read what you just wrote with a strait face? But perhaps I'm just a cynic in believing that people can persuade themselves of anything. I think that ships in Russian are gendered as he, but I don't believe that Russian males, or those of any other nationality, are oppressed by the practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pol098's changes[edit]

This editor made a thorough review of this article upon its Main Page appearance and some if his rephrasings were genuinely an improvement, but others were not and were reverted. Now this editor is reverting back to his preferred text and we may have an edit war on our hands. To make matters worse, Pol08 has either failed to notice or simply doesn't care that he's incorporating additions by another editor that are clearly in error regarding aircraft names and the conversion template.--Sturmvogel 66 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I (pol098) have been asked to explain some rather minor changes I made which have been challenged. What follows is pretty trivial, but here it is. Here are the detailed differences, with my version on the left replaced by Sturmvogel 66's on the right.

1. Conversion from knots to km/h in addition to mi/h is clearly appropriate. Display to 1 decimal place is suitable.

Not your change, Magus732 still fails to understand that nmi in the conversion template automatically converts to both mi and km. There was also no need to abbreviate a five letter word "knots". He and I have been going at it over this for a while now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think we agree that km/h and mi/h are both shown (exactly how doesn't matter). 1, rather than 2, decimal places is, I think, clearly better; when I was testing it always seemed to show 2. "kn" or "knots"? I don't care. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Normally, the template converts an equal number of significant digits, but the range of measurements seems to confuse it. You can control it by specifying the number of digits after the decimal point which I've now done as I agree with your that one decimal place generally suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

2. To say that listed deficiencies "would eventually doom" ships is a bit overplayed; it is perfectly conceivable that they would have been lost even without them. Saying the factors "contributed significantly" is less definitive about what might have been.

Perhaps "doomed" is a bit dramatic, but, I feel, is clearly appropriate in any situation where the ship would have been attacked by enemy aircraft.
OK, I prefer the less dramatic wording, but the difference in meaning isn't great. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

3. To say that the US Navy had divined the Japanese MI plan is not good wording; it implies something coming in a dream or the like. It was discovered (revealed?) by effective military intelligence techniques. Also, the critical point was not that signals were intercepted, but that the Japanese code had been broken, unknown to them; everybody expects radio signals to be intercepted.

I think that this got changed in response to comments in an earlier review, but, in retrospect, it was a mistake. I can accept your wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Changed back to your wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

4. A hidden comment on the Grumman Avenger wasn't actually originated by me, though I reinstated it; I don't actually support it. As far as I can see, the only "addition by another editor" that I incorporated to the visible text was changing "from VT-8 squadron" to "from Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8)", which I did notice and decided was appropriate. I noticed that the country entry in th4 template had been changed by others from "Japan" to "Empire of Japan" (or viceversa? I'm not sure); they both seem acceptable, but maybe I'm wrong.

The erroneous comment on the TBM and the first version of the squadron name were changes by Magus732 that I repaired. I prefer Empire of Japan for IJN ships as it clearly separates the Empire from the modern republic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that "Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8)" is wrong (it's how the article starts), but this isn't something I initiated, and I don't have any strong opinion on these points. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

5. [B-26s shot down] "for the loss of a Zero" says essentially the same as the wordy "One of Akagi's Zeroes, however, was shot down by defensive fire from the B-26s.

I could go either way on this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
They say the same, I'd choose the shorter. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

6. I would say that "One of the B-26s, piloted by Lieutenant James Muri, strafed Akagi after dropping its torpedo, killing two men." is relatively unimportant detail and nn in the context of the loss of the ship in a major battle. My edit summary said "drop sentence on strafing as unimportant in context", and this has not been challenged.

Actually I would challenge it. I believe that it is important as incidents of medium bombers penetrating the CAP and strafing a carrier of any nation are very rare.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, the fact of the challenge is enough for it to be included. Maybe a word or two on that this is uncommon, with a suitable source, could be added? Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any source that actually comments how often this happened during the war, so I can't source it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

7. "Depleted of ammunition, three of Akagi's CAP Zeroes landed aboard the carrier" seems a bit wordy, and it is unlikely that they would have landed merely due to depleted ammunition, but only if it was exhausted. "Three of Akagi's CAP Zeroes, out of ammunition, landed" is less wordy and better. I don't think omitting "on the carrier" will confuse any reader. [Deplete: to reduce something in size or amount; Cambridge Dictionaries Online]

My source says depleted, not exhausted, so you're making an unwarranted assumption. It's perfectly logical to land with depleted ammo if you've fired your weapons and are unsure how much remains. Very few things worse than to run out of ammo during an engagement with enemy fighters.
Note 19 on p375 of this suggests (if I read the reference right, and it refers to the same part of the battle) that the Zeroes had exhausted (sic) their 20mm cannon ammunition. I don't know whether it was in practice common to leave an active battle before actually running out of ammunition. Things I've read about other WWII air combat generally refer to breaking off when out of ammunition. Pol098 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Read my source more closely. The depleted ammo remark is associated with a Zero that landed at 07:20, coupled with a general remark that many fighters landed shortly after an engagement to reload ammunition. The actual status of the 07:36 aircraft isn't given so I've deleted it entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

8. "dive bombers arrived over the Japanese carriers almost undetected" is rather meaningless; you either detect bombers (and act) or you don't. "Undetected until too late" is clearer.

IIRC, they were detected by one of the ship's escorts, but word was not passed on to the carrier, so "until too late" is factually incorrect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. "until too late" is perhaps wrongish (detected by the escort, but not in time to get word to the carrier?), but "almost undetected", if you're reading closely, is very odd. Maybe "dive bombers were detected by he carrier's escorts, but were over the carrier before she was notified"? Longer, but informative. Or something else? Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pol098 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

9. An additional very minor and rather pedantic point: the text originally read "This process was limited by the number of ordnance carts (used to handle the bombs and torpedoes) and ordnance elevators, that prevented the torpedoes from being struck below...". It could be said that "the number of ordnance carts" didn't "prevent the torpedoes..." (the limit did, not the number), although this is at worst a minor grammatical point that doesn't obscure the meaning. I modified this wording very slightly, but it would be better to change it more, to something like "The limited number of ordnance carts available to handle the bombs and torpedoes, and of ordnance elevators, did not allow the torpedoes to be struck below...". Not only better, but shorter. Pol098 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that needs to be “The limited numbers …”, for the carts and elevators severally.—Odysseus1479 20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about this one, I like the existing wording, which incorporated some elements of Pol098's change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd changed one word, I think. As it happens, I think the current version doesn't actually include that change. I prefer the slightly shorter, I think more straightforward, and parenthesis-free version I proposed above, but don't have any real objection even to the original version, apart from it not actually being true if read pedantically. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Trekphiler just changed it to "preventing", but that's a nominalization that I was taught to avoid. I'm coming to prefer your text given in your original note, but perhaps somebody else wants to chime in as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see arguments on both sides, and I agree with some of Pol's edits. Would it be too boring to argue the various points out here, rather than edit-war to the death over it? --John (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome; I don't privilege my own writing over anyone else's. I do, however, have to be persuaded that alternate formulations are superior.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I (pol098 again) have added numbers to the various points in my previous posts, to make it easier to refer to them. I've also made some minor edits to my detailed comments (7 definition of "depleted", minor wording of 3, minor clarification to 4). There is a tendency when people perceive a conflict to try to mediate by seeking an intermediate solution. This is often inappropriate, in Wikipedia and in life in general. I suggest that this shouldn't be seen as a conflict, but as a debate on a number of specific points, each to be judged on its own merits, the purpose being to improve the encyclopaedia, not to mollify a couple of editors. For example, if even all of my changes are deemed to make the article worse, they should all be rejected, and viceversa. One criterion I apply which others may disagree on: wherever two forms of wording are equally acceptable as to content, the shortest should always be used; such wording cumulatively keeps the article shorter, and saves readers time, with the same information acquired through reading fewer words.

Comments from others on each of the points, please. (Later: this is happening, after each numbered point.)
Pol098 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


What was wrong with creating a link to the page on the Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun? It was the standard light AA gun of the Japanese Navy. It was used on ALL of their ships. I think it should be considered common sense that the "25mm AA guns" used on the Akagi were one and the same, and some people are curious to know more about these things. Without a link, they will have to go and search for "japanese navy 25mm AA gun" and see what they come up with (it will be the Type 96, as that is the only 25mm AA gun in the inventory). And I don't see why putting the proper name for the 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun in the infobox was wrong either. You go onto a typical page about a British warship and the infobox will say

"8 x BL 8-inch (203 mm L/50) Mk.VIII guns in twin mounts Mk.I 4 x QF 4-inch (102 mm) L/45 Mk.V guns in single mounts HA Mk.III 8 x QF 2 pdr (40 mm) L/39 Mk.VIII guns in quad mounts HA Mk.VII "

Why shouldn't the infobox here give the full title of the gun as well? .45Colt 18:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talkcontribs)

Because the infobox is a summary, the actual designations with links are given in the main body. I have no issues with links to the gun in the infobox, but not to the raw article titles. You wanted to change the abbreviated link that I used for the 20 cm gun to the full article title so I reverted your changes. We already get complaints that ship infoboxes are too long so I try to cut the information there to the minimum necessary and will eventually trim that excess information from those British ship infoboxes. If you feel that you really want to add the link in the infobox for the gun, please give the proper title, not the article titles as those don't usually conform to the real designations. Forex the 20 cm gun was formally designated "20 cm 3rd Year Type No. 1 gun", no caliber length or naval gun as used in the article title and that's pretty awkward to fit onto a single line of the infobox, which is the ideal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cost of building Akagi[edit]

One section states the cost of building the Akagi, then attributes this to Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword. This book, however, uses an unverifiable and possibly invented sources for the information (supposedly from Eric Lacrox, The Belgian Ship/over and Showa Zenshi, but no publisher information or date provided, not even the proper title for the second book provided, and "The Belgian Ship/over" does not even come up in a Worldcat or google books search). The reference to Shattered Sword should be discarded, and the section in this article about Akagi's cost should be removed or marked with [citation needed] tag.

I don't know who you are, but The Belgian Shiplover is a well-known, small-circulation, ship-history magazine/newsletter from the '60s and '70s. It is not the duty of any editor to validate the sources/citations used by a RS like Shattered Sword.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Another spurious name translation?[edit]

As with the entry for Kaga (now edited), we have here a translation of the name of Akagi as "Red Castle", when Akagi is in fact a prefecture. 'Aka' does mean 'red' and '-gi' does mean 'castle', but Akagi doesn't mean "a red castle". For the same reasons as the Kaga edit, I move this translation be removed. Tirailleur (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)