Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō

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

Featured article Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 15, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
October 7, 2013 WikiProject A-class review Approved
December 31, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


That "Nonetheless" in the second paragraph of the article is mystifying. It probably needs to be rewritten to clarify the point. Hue White 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an Error[edit]

This phrase is incorrect: "During this operation, one of the Zero fighters from the Ryūjō, flown by Petty Officer Tadahito Koga, crash landed on the island of Akutan. Koga was killed in the crash due to a broken neck, but the aircraft remained largely intact. This was the first Zero fighter to fall into the hands of U.S. military intelligence."

A Japanese Zero was obtained in China BEFORE the US entered the war and shipped to the USA. Unfortunately, it was ignored as "everybody" knew Japanese planes were inferior. Henryjones000 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Name Meaning[edit]

At the start of the article we're told that the name means 'prancing dragon.' However, at the start of the section on the vessel's construction we are told the name means 'dragon horse.' If the name meant both of these, that sounds important enough to explain. If it only means one of them, then the other should be dropped. If I had to guess which was right, I suspect that the first 'prancing dragon' is correct because dragon horse makes far less sense. Also, I vaguely recall some discussion elsewhere that the character whose meaning is in question is a very obscure one which indicates a meaning of 'position a horse makes,' so that while prancing is what it actually means horse is a plausible guess. Now I have no clue if that is right, and it has a citation so I'd rather not be the one to change it, but this incongruity should be dealt with. Sebsmith0 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)