Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ships (Rated C-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
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in September 2014.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Copyvio[edit]

The recent text dump is a copyvio of [1], which clearly states Copyright © BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited. Please stop adding this text. - TomKat222 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

3 new carriers?[edit]

India is not building 3 new carriers, India is building 2. Rademire2 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

India launches/floats hull of its indigenous carrier[edit]

http://www.livefist.blogspot.com/2011/12/hindu-reports-today-that-hull-of-indias.html

Courtsey:- The Hindu and Livefist.blogspot.com ( Mr. Shiv Aroor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.47.151 (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated material[edit]

This article now shares a lot of material with INS Vikrant (2013), especially the construction section. This article should be trimmed to avoid this duplication. --LukeSurl t c 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A class of ships[edit]

So if the first one is 40,000 and the second one is 60,000 tonnes and a different configuation, the it isn't really a "class" of two ships, is it ? It's really two different classes with one ship in each class.Eregli bob (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to tell when a class becomes two sub-classes or two classes but reliable, specialist sources refer to the two ships as a class. The difference in weight may be due to the first ship being conventionally powered and the second being nuclear powered which, AFAICT, is not enough to put them in different classes. Formerip (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is enough to put them in different classes, especially as the second carrier will be 20,000 tonnes larger. It's noteworthy that the American carrier John F. Kennedy, whilst starting out as a Kitty Hawk-class carrier, received so many modifications in building that she became a class on her own.202.248.41.90 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

why the hurry? the second ship is not even off the drawing board yet. when it becomes more readily apparent what the changes are we can then decide whether it is two classes of ship or one class of two ships. Pvpoodle (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that it is a new design makes it a different class. Ships of the same class share a common design. ScrpIronIV 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall we categorize her under a new class with a name of our own? Face-wink.svg --JAaron95 (Talk) 19:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I have been looking for a source that refers to her as part of that class. What I have found puts her as part of the same project (Indigenous Aircraft carrier, or IAC) and refers to her design as IAC-II. Just hoping for clarification. ScrpIronIV 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

The "See also" section is this place includes the British Queen Elizabeth class carriers. When you add the Vikrant Class Carriers in the Queen Elizaeth Class carrier "see also" section, it is removed almost immidiately. Where as , when the QE class "see also" section is removed from this page, it is always added back. Is there no control on what goes on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.69 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2014 (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 necessaryily 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:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsindian-navy-seeks-emals-system-second-vikrant-class-aircraft-carrier
    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 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of planned aircraft carrier[edit]

@M.srihari: number of planned aircraft carrier was changed from 2 to 5 and the citation given was incorrect. this is the given citation click here and given heading was India's New Aircraft Carrier Plans May Get a Boost i googled the heading of the news and find the correct the citation link which m.srihari tried to add, click here to see correct citation but there is no mention of number of carriers or 5 or anything related to number of carrier in the class they were certain that their is only 2 carrier one is ins vikrant and other is ins vishal and i never seen any report which says 5 or more than 2. if you wish to reply you can do so below. if think that no. of planned aircraft carrier 2 then you can revert your own edit if you wish to do so.Nicky mathew (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nicky mathew:Its in 3rd para last line" India’s ultimate goal, former rear admiral Ravi Vohra recently said, is the eventual establishment of a five-carrier fleet comprising a mix of large and small carriers."I have also read some articles before.if possible I wish to cite them also.If you think this is insufficient then you may edit it until i get strong and reliable data.M.srihari (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (IST)
They will not all be of the Vikrant-class though will they. So it is factually incorrect to say 5 are planned in the info box. Only 2 aircraft carriers of the Vikrant-class are currently planned. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, the figure of 5 the admiral was quoted as saying refers to the following:

  • INS Vikramaditya
  • The two Vikrant-class (Vikrant and Vishal)
  • And then two new future aircraft carriers of an unknown design/class

Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great:If it is 2 future carriers of unknown design,then better to quote a citation to have confirmed information. as you point out, vikramaditya counts 1.so 4 vikrant.

M.srihari (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, there is no confirmation that 4 Vikrant-class will be built. Your are incorrectly interpreting a citation. Wikipedia does not deal in speculation and OR, only facts supported by reliable sources.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@M.srihari: in wikipedia you cannot add your original research or make educated guesses see this wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:No original research . if we are uncertain about something its better not to add them, as almost all sources reported 2 so lets keep it 2 coz we are very much sure about that. within some years we will hear about more carriers from media if indian navy plans to build more, hope you will understand.Nicky mathew (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nicky mathew:please add a citation confirming only 2 carriers.

M.srihari (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (IST)

@Nicky mathew:edit made no. to unknown.If u wish to edit,please add a citation.

M.srihari (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2015 (IST)

@Nicky mathew:The citation is wrong with falsified info.A phrase in it reads "Her sister,the INS Vishal,entered construction in July of 2012 with no commisioning year set as of now." But we have already settled that INS vishal is only planned.So I reverted The No. of carriers to unknown. I also request your help in Blacklisting "http://www.militaryfactory.com/" For containing Falsified info.

M.srihari (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (IST)

@M.srihari: you cannot just add unknown just because you think it is. you do not have any ciation saying no one knows how many carrier they are planning to have under vikrant class, no one is reporting about any carrier after ins vishal, i have added citations which talks about 2 carriers which is ins vishal and ins vikrant in vikrant class aircraft carrier they are certain about plans to acquire 2 in vikrant class aircraft carrier if u have multiple trusted citations which talks about more than 2, then we can talk about it.Nicky mathew (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nicky mathew: as you also point out,the citations provided indicate that a first carrier is under construction and a second carrier is under design.There are no citations to confirm "ONLY TWO" carriers.If you think its is only two,you should prove it or better represent the fact in some other way to say "2 Confirmed".Unless until,I beleive we don't need a citation to say that the exact no. is not known because the topic of total no. is not discussed in public arena itself. I will not revert the edit you made now, but I strongly Request you to add a citation that says only 2 or to better represent it to say 2 confirmed.

M.srihari (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2015 (IST)

@M.srihari: Your are incorrectly interpreting citations.if you can prove with multiple trusted citations which points to more than 2 carriers then only you can revert or changed planned carriers. agian you cannot add unknown or 4 or 5 just because think it is, i have given more than enough citation to prove the claim. if you think their is more than 2 carriers then you should provide ciations to support your claim.Nicky mathew (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nicky mathew: since the discussion on representing no. of carriers as 4 or 5 has been concluded, I have

not insisted on those numbers. but you keep insisting that since plans for 2 carriers are known,there are only 2 carriers planned. Please understand the difference between saying "having confirmed plans for 2 carriers" and "there are only 2 carriers planned". I insist you to add a citation to prove the former claim because your edit means it. If not it is better to represent "2 Confirmed".Wikipedia can't have info that is not confirmed in public arena. Please reply as soon to end this issue or please clarify your position. M.srihari (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (IST)

@Nicky mathew: I have made the edit as "2 confirmed." to add clarity to the info. If you wish to revert it to the earlier info,I request you to provide a citation.

M.srihari (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (IST)

ok good, thank you understanding. 2 (confirmed) is totally acceptable for me but i cannot speak for other editors . please add brackets also. in emals i will removed unknown and add confirmed for ins vishal ( based on our discussion here). i will also remove emals from type because their no type called emals catobar. either it is stobar, catobar or vstovl (currently active carrier types)). emals is important but catobar is the right word for type of carrier. thank you for adding proposed heading in supercarrier, that was a very good choice you made.thank you so much for understanding :).Nicky mathew (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@M.srihari: Hi there! Your edit patterns seem to resemble you've been abusing your edit privileges... I doubt you even read the above replies by fellow editors. Answers are clear and in no way can remain without a consensus. I suspect you don't want a consensus.. Please also don't try to prove a point without a reliable source and even with a reliable source, do not interpret the contents in the way of your own, just add what's there. B, don't add speculations, Wiki is a place for verifiable information. Also, Wiki is not a battle ground where you work on your own way. Co-operation with other editors is essential! If you keep on continuing this behavior, we'll have to go to another level (higher). Please understand and kindly co-operate. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95:thank you Jaaron95. I appreciate that you clarified your views to me.I will make no further edits in Supercarrier and I wish to see active discussion to end the issue in the no. of carriers

without further engagin in edit war.Regards --M.srihari (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2015 (IST)

@M.srihari: thank you!! Face-smile.svg I appreciate that! However you are welcome to further constructively contribute to Wikipedia... Once again , thank you for your co-operation!! P.S. The above comment applies for this page too! Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
So, if everyone has arrived to a final conclusion, make the final edit. M.srihari still have some problems. Please answer an explicit yes/no and stop the ambiguity!117.198.184.5 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi @117.198.184.5: thank you for your interest.. If you didn't go through the above discussion, please do so, and you'll find that the user doesn't want a consensus. If the user still has problems, he may seek a third opinion (or) he might wanna go to WP:DRN/WP:RSN/WP:RFM (or) even WP:ANI.. How should one answer 'YES' (or) 'NO'? I don't understand... Ambiguity is brought about only by the user's opinion and there are no preexisting ambiguous content in the article. The user is giving his 'own' interpretation of the content which was not previously ambiguous. If he stands on a firm (or) a good point, it can then be accepted at any cost. But the edit seems to have no importance and is pointless... Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 05:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Jaaron95: You had answered at 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC) while M.srihari needed the help at 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC). By explicit yes/no, I mean: yes X statement is correct. No X statement is wrong. Third opinion was adviced by Primefac at the users talk page. (I am saying because there might be a slight possibility that the user won't feel that the conclusion is fair. (See: User talk:M.srihari)
117.217.114.126 (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@117.198.184.5: @M.srihari: it has been told.. Almost all the edits made by the user do not follow the policy guidelines, he is editing on his own interest (to the glory of his country not maintaining WP:NPOV). All the replies above have been made to tell the editor that it's a NO for the edits he made i.e., incorrect edit. He should contain himself from making such edits and exercise caution while making such edits... Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: I am not taking anybody's side, I just wanted to let the page watchers know that the user is not happy about the decision and might get himself into trouble. By the way, this page, in my opinion should be semi-protected.
117.217.116.43 (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: I strongly object your previous comments that all the edits made by me are not to represent the facts but to use wikipedia as a propaganda platform. A previous comment in the talk page by other editor "ok good, thank you understanding. 2 (confirmed) is totally acceptable for me but i cannot speak for other editors . " shows that he also understands my view. But a common consensus as you seek is not reached as other editors refuse to hear my view. In wikipedia, the misrepresentation of facts is unacceptable and that too without having any discussion. I you think my aim is to vandalize the contents, then I wish to object it.M.srihari (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
The fact that other editors do not agree with you does not mean that they refuse to hear your view. I for one have read your comments and I simply do not agree with them. You need to stop adopting your own interpretation on the sources and read what they actually say, not what you would like them to say. As things stand at the moment you are basically just saying "no, everyone else is wrong unless you agree with me". Sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. When everyone else is telling you something that you disagree with, you might be best advised to consider that it might not be everyone else that is wrong. - Nick Thorne talk 13:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nick Thorne:What is that you object,or how do you conclude that I wish to act unanimously.Explain me these with the comments I have made in this talk page. You just say that I vandalise and I don't wan't a consensus without explaining your views itself. Are you being judgmental because of the previous episode we encountered? Because even after My request to you to come to discussion, you seem to just delete all my edits and just accuse me that I am a Vandal. If you wish to contribute something constructively, then better explain the reason why you support that the edit is unnecessary without investing time on Creating a personality Profile of Me(As if you are an expert and I am just a Idiotic Editor)M.srihari (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@Jaaron95:In the previous comments,you accuse me of crystallballing and that I donot heed to toher editors view. If you just see the previous edit issues in this page or any other pages,after discussions with fellow editors, I have come to a consensus and the problems are sorted out. It is only in this issue and a new issue from

Supercarrier that the final decision is yet to arrive. So please stop calling me as a crystallballer or acting as an ambassador for my country.M.srihari (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@Nicky mathew:
@Jaaron95:
@Nick Thorne:
                     This is the question that I have issue with.
        "What does "Planned" in the Infobox of this page indicate?"

Just explain me that and I will leave this issue.

Okay M.srihari, you have kindly put to us your issue with what "Planned" refers to in the infobox. So let me explain. This article is about the 'Vikrant-class aircraft carriers', accordingly, there are as of yet only two Vikrant-class aircraft carriers planned; INS Vikrant and Vishal. So "Planned" in this article only refers to those two ships. It is really quite simple.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@M.srihari: Please clarify what you claim as facts.. No one accused you being 'a crystalballer or an ambassador'! That just represents your way of working, in terms of Wikipedia. "If you just see the previous edit issues in this page or any other pages,after discussions with fellow editors, I have come to a consensus and the problems are sorted out." That may be true in some instances, but in most cases you are poised to start a new problem.. And who is making decisions here? We only have 'consensus' in most cases. Your reply seems to be a personal attack As if you are an expert which is entirely not acceptable, you cannot do that... Everyone here wants to constructively edit Wiki (even you!) but that constructiveness can sometime become bothersome due to the guidelines and policies in Wikipedia and that's the reason you are getting reverted! From the beginning of this topic, experienced editors have answered your queries and then you ask them to cite preexisting contents of this article which is a widely accepted fact (you are wasting there time)? This type of arguments has to stop. Either you should converge so as to come a consensus or we'd have our talks in WP:ANI as you wish. And you asked "What does "Planned" in the Infobox of this page indicate?" It means 'a proposed/intended work (not just a speculation)' in this case it is the proposed ACs. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95: I accept the views and the final "consensus".The reason that I used "Decision" was not to mean unanimous editing but "consensus" itself. But, for the issue of personal attacks on other editors that you mention, most of them ("Even you in your reply") directly or indirectly mean that I always donot respect wikipedia guidelines while editing. If you think that I am the sole personal attacker, I request you to fully read the comments of some of the editors in this page itself and ask them too to stop calling me a vandal or disruptive editor. The reason for this talk page, I believe, is to have proactive discussions to only sort out issues and arrive at consensus. Just because the pre-existing info has remained undisputed for longer periods doesn't mean they should not be reviewed.

M.srihari (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@M.srihari: There is no such thing as 'final consensus'.. Mentioning "As if you are an expert" is a personal attack , while 'you are not respecting Wiki guidelines or disruptive editor' is not! You know nothing about that editor, even if you knew, that's not the way to say that. All the editors are against your edit and as said by the same editor, "When everyone else is telling you something that you disagree with, you might be best advised to consider that it might not be everyone else that is wrong." Previously existing contents remained undisputed 'cause there was no reason to dispute it and you want to challenge them based on your own interpretation. Proactive discussions are only to sort out problems not to create problems.. Do not come around the same issue again and again. Editors have given their reply to you (dis-agreeing with your edits). This has to end. And you are wasting time. You are highly appreciated to go to WP:ANI or I will, on the next disruptive edit to this article. If you want some help from other editors (who know little about your issue or this page) please go to WP:HD or if you want some instant opinions from other editors, please go to Wiki chat... Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nick Thorne:
@Nicky mathew:

I wish to explain my views for last time, to you two guys since other editors have responded. Lets take the example of some other project, say ARIHANT CLASS nuclear sub. We know that First sub. INS Arihant is under construction much like INS Vikrant. INS Aridhaman's design phase is over and is about to enter construction like INS Vishal. But both the MoD and Indian Navy have stated that 2 more subs shall be constructed under ARIHANT project. This makes the tally as 4. But my issue is no statement of such sort exists for Vikrant class about its future. Then how can we say 2 in no. of planned carriers? If you still think that its due to my own interpretation, then I think its better to leave the issue to you guys.M.srihari (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@M.srihari: If I may come in.. Project Arihant has constructed INS Arihant, and INS Aridhaman (which BTW is not in a stage similar to Vishal but it is almost ready for launch, but for the reactors). While, ATV-3 (3rd Sub) can be considered in the similar stage of Vishal. How sure are you about 4 Arihant class subs? Who knows what will happen in the future? There might be 10 more subs in Arihant class coming out! Does that mean the planned subs are unknown? Everything that happens in the future are Unknown. But, if a reliable firm (say, government) says that it'll be 10, then there you go, there are 10 planned subs. Similarly in the case of Vikrant class, the government has confirmed the production of two ACs and hence, 2 ACs are planned! When in future more ACs are confirmed, we shall make the change! Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball..! Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95:Both the pages of Arihant class nuclear sub and Arihant class follow on sub are still present in wikipedia. In Arihant class page, no. of planned is stated 4 and there also exist a page which state that a follow on new sub class is also present. Actually I refered them as an example to explain my position to solve this issue but it seems it has started a new issue. If U believe only if govt. approval is stated we can add the info, then I request you to make necessary edits in Arihant class page and take steps to remove Arihant class Follow-on Page as Govt. has officially not declared any info on it yet. The latter refers to what is called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball..! which is not created by me Itself!!M.srihari (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@M.srihari: thank you for bringing it to my attention. I seriously doubt the factual accuracy of that article as the references do not support the claim, and have already placed a {{hoax}} tag to sort it out! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for anyone whatsoever Face-smile.svg! Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nick Thorne:
@Nicky mathew:
@Jaaron95:Thank you for appreciating my efforts. As previously said, I wish Wikipedia to have TRUE TRUSTED CORRECT INFO. Please also check the if image used in it for created for INS Aridhaman.(If you can't find any source for this,then OK,I'm not coming for support to add it) Coming Back to our issue here,the only modification needed in that para is to Replace "Arihant" with , say "X". The meaning all turns to be same.M.srihari (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@M.srihari: And yet again my answer (my previous reply at 18:08, 12 May 2015 UTC) turns out to be the same, regardless of the subject being an 'X' or the Arihant.. Consider reading it (my reply) carefully again. Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95:Sorry,but cn't understand the last commentM.srihari (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@M.srihari: Edited my previous reply. What's the problem with the image? It's just an artist's depiction! Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95:The image in Arihant class follow-on sub page is used to depict INS Aridhaman and the Image in INS Aridhaman page is used to depict INS Arihant by some websites. I requested you to review this.M.srihari (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@Jaaron95:The explanation given by you in your previous comments could be shortened by this line Everything that happens in the future are Unknown. Right?? And that is what is actually lengthing this issue. Still Arihant class sub page indicates no. planned as 4 and if you google it, various "experts" have expressed their views in NEWS Media about the same. But the neither the govt.,Indian Navy or even Experts have cited the exact no. of carriers planned to be constructed under the banner "Vikrant Class". As stated by me before,
   If only official confirmation from either MoD or Navy is to be considered to make edits in WIKIPEDIA, then 
                               please reply YES. If else NO.
M.srihari (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@M.srihari: No no no! Not that simple! Please read after that Face-surprise.svg!!! Government has confirmed the production of two ACs as of now and No more currently planned but when there is a plan for more, we can add the 'more' no. of ACs! "If only official confirmation from either MoD or Navy is to be considered to make edits in WIKIEPDIA, then please reply YES. If else NO." Well, it depends. For example, if there is a classified project going on, the government will never ever confirm such a thing happening. If the project is a widely accepted speculation (by reliable sources), it can be added without a confirmation from Gov or Navy. In such a situation, NO and for others (as far as I can remember) YES Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95:This was the explanation that I actually asked for. Thank you!! I request you to make edits(If necessary) in Arihant class page and also please respond to the issue in it stated by me in another previous comment.M.srihari (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@M.srihari: I can't understand the image thing. Please be specific and clear (What websites?).. Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 19:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jaaron95:The image in Arihant class followon sub page in wiki is actually used to depict INS Aridhaman and the image used in INS Aridhaman page in wiki is actually used to depict INS Arihant, in many other websites.M.srihari (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
@M.srihari: that was exactly your earlier reply :P! If you are talking about the image in Arihant follow-on submarine, the image used there is not the image of what is claimed as 'the image of the follow on class'. Rather, it's the image of Arihant class sub.. So there can be no confusions and image might actually be taken down soon... Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Jaaron95: My question is, various websites depict images used in the pages of wiki for some other submarines example

           Image used in wiki page of followon is used to depict INS Aridhaman
           Image used in wiki page of INS Aridhaman is depicted as another CGI Of INS Arihant

I ask you to review it from internet and if you feel necessary,make the image edits in the corresponding wiki pagesM.srihari (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@M.srihari: The image in Arihant follow-on submarine is the image of INS Arihant or INS Aridhaman not the image image of the follow on submarine... Hence the images are correctly used. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Daft Class Question[edit]

Just a daft question but how can one ship of 40,000 tons and another of 65,000 be considered to be the same "class" ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they were originally to be the same, but specifications diverged when India decided to make the second one CATOBAR. Perhaps someday the navy or government will figure it out, but perhaps not. The US DOD occasionally does the same thing with its classes, though not usually to suchb a degree in tonnage variations. It's notorious for doing that with aircraft designations, such as with the F/A-18E/F. - BilCat (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ship Class[edit]

In the ship class table, Is it a mistake to specify INS Vishal as

               Nuclear-powered EMALS CATOBAR Supercarrier?

M.srihari (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Using "supercarrier" over and over for a ship that barely meets that qualification is unnecessary, especially in the table description. It's better to just leave it out. For the record, I personally oppose labeling the British QE class as supercarriers, but at least that has support from reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that "supercarrier" is not a proper noun, so it's not capitalized on English WP unless it starts a sentence. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
How could you say that the ship barely meets the qualifiacation? Could you please explain that. We are discussing here about INS Vishal, so I request not give examples of other articles such as QE. Please see the description of INS Vishal and the requirements of a SUPERCARRIER. And to note , supercarrier is not an offical description at all. It is just to indicate how huge the aircraft carrier is compared to other conventional carriers.M.srihari (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
Adding the word supercarrier is necessary in my view, as any reader would get maximum information about it when he just glances the table. The grammar mistake can be rectified by a simple edit "Supercarrier|supercarrier".M.srihari (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
It's not up to me to prove Vishal is not a supercarrier, but you have to provide reliable published sources (not blogs) that consider it one. So far I haven't seen any. I mentioned the QEs to show you that I'm not just criticizing an Indian carrier. I also don't believe the Russian and Chinese carriers meet the threshold either, but that just probaly means I'm racist to you. And compared to the Nimitz class, neither the Vishal nor the QEs are "huge". - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@BilCat:Please see the Dfc Discussion in Supercarrier talk page and the answer for your question lies there. M.srihari (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
All that's happening there is people giving their opinions. No consensus has been reached, and no reliable sources calling carriers at or under 65,000 tonnes displacement "supercarriers" has been cited. And, no, they don't have to be "official" sources, from reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I requested you to see my latest reply in that dfc. not to bring that topic here. See the latest developments after the user Antichous the great had replied. And then express your views (probably there so that we don't need two separate discussions on one issue).M.srihari (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari
I have read the discussion, and it the comments after Antiochus's question that I have called "unsourced opinion". Until someone provides such a source, what more is there to say that isn't original research? You haven't provided such a source there, so will my repeating a request for such a source there as opposed to here make a source suddenly appear? Probably not. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry but I can't understand your point. And again please give your views there. We can't have two separate discussions for same issue. Your question and Antiochus's question are same. So post your views there. When the Issue of whether INS Vishal is a supercarrier is over there, then we can put the consensus here and end the discussion.M.srihari (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Unsourced or poorly sourced material[edit]

I have edited this article today and removed/edited the contents as follows: removed unsourced statement from lead - source provided does not support the claim, also this claim does not belong in the lead anyway since it is not made elsewhere in the article, the lead is supposed to be a summary; since the sources only say that Vishal may be nuclear powered and may be fitted with EMALS, I have edited the text to reflect that. - Nick Thorne talk 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely concur here. ScrpIronIV 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose. AN unnecessary dispute on just lengthening the contents in the table unnecessarily. I doesn't make any sense. M.srihari (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari
Feel free to oppose; @Nick Thorne: has done valid research and his comments are perfectly valid. These systems decisions have not been finalized, and can not be presented as factual representation. ScrpIronIV 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So you wish to say that this edit made by User:Nick Thorne is actually his own research. Right??M.srihari (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari
The point you seem to fail to understand is that reading the sources to see what they actually say is not wp:or. It is, in fact, what we are supposed to do. - Nick Thorne talk 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)