Talk:Light aircraft carrier/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

May 2006

Note: Deleted last paragraph, which referred to USS Oriskany as a "jeep carrier" and which contained information copied from the Wikipedia article on said vessel. USS Oriskany (CV-34) was an Essex-class fleet carrier. "Jeep carrier" is a term generally used to refer to escort aircraft carriers of WW II vintage. Escort carriers, as a general rule, were conversions of merchant vessels or purpose built vessels built on a merchant vessel plan. In all cases, escort carriers were slow and not capable of keeping up with a battle fleet. Fleet carriers, by contrast, were fast, heavily armed vessels designed to steam with the battle fleet and, later, to form the core of a surface task force. In either event, neither Essex class carriers, nor "jeep carriers" were "light aircraft carriers" as that term is used in this article.

For similar reasons, deleted reference to light carriers as "jeep carriers" in first paragraph.

Finally, the statement contained in the second to last paragraph that the Saipan class carriers were converted Baltimore-class cruisers is factually incorrect. The Saipans were conceived as a follow on class to the Independence class light carriers and were not conversions. While the hull of the Saipan-class was based on the Baltimore class design, no Baltimores were converted into carriers.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cv/cvl48cl.htm

Also, see Wikipedia article on Baltimore-class cruisers, which explains the point further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccarthd (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

De Gaulle

Comparing De Gaulle to a Nimitz, a supercarrier, and saying it that its smaller is well, stupid, of course if you compare the largest carrier in the world to a normal carrier its going to be smaller. Sounds more like OR and French bashing than quality factual statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"French bashing"?? Puh-lease! It's just a comparison, and as an obvious one, hardly OR. Doesn't mean it need to be in the text though. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Preposed rewrite

I was reviewing this article and its little more than a stub, I wrote this section on the history of a light aircraft carrier to include, based on "U.S. aircraft carriers: an illustrated design history By Norman Friedman"

A light aircraft carrier is a term used to denote a small sized carrier, but still one capable of functioning with the fleet. in this sense, it is comparible to the term "light cruiser". Light carriers were origionaly a stop gap measure widely considered prior to wwII, and ultimately all non-US construction would consist of what the USN and INJ considered a "light carrier".

History Prior to the war it was realized that prewar carriers would be insufficient to provite suitable airpower to fleets in the pacific, and as a result a variety of conversion options were drawn up. Some of these resulted ultimately in the escort carriers and some were to ultimately result in the light carriers. Ultimately the hulls chosen were "light crusiers" and an experimental hull, USS Amsterdam was initialy slated for conversion. After examination, Admiral King wrote to BuShips that the ship would be useful, and that if they were to approve them quickly, 2 more might be finished at the same time, and they would have "three small carriers at the end of 1942, instead of [just] one." Ultimately, the USN would convert one fifth of its available light cruiser hulls to small carriers. Developmentaly, these ships shared a great deal in common with the escort carriers in that they sacrificed aviation characteristics for speed of construction, and hence resulted in inferior aviation platforms. Many regarded the escort carrier as being a superior platform to the light carrier, despite being smaller and slower.

Origionaly these ships were armed with a compliment of bombers in addition to their fighers, but experience would bear out that they were more useful in providing a CAP than in making a deckload strike. Because a carrier could only launch or recover a single fighter at a time, light carriers were, ton for ton, faster at launching their fighters than a full sized fleet carrier, and hence were more suitable for providing a CAPfreeing fighters on the larger vessels for operating a CAP over the target. In the course of the war it was realized that, in light of the earlier carriers USS Langely and USS Ranger a smaller carrier represented an inherently worse aviation platform, being less flexible, less survivable, and less practical in all respects. It simply was not physicaly big enough to, for instance, place a useful degree of anti torpedo protection on a ship of such small size. However, in retrospect it was realized that these carriers were a better choice than the light cruisers that they had been converted from.

However, despite these limitations, the navy did find having these smaller carriers useful, hence despite objections, the saipan class was designed, primarily to fix many of the shortcommings of her sisters, under the assumption that at least two of the light carriers might be lost before the end of the war. These carriers, being extremely modern, were quickly rendered useless for their intended purpose by the devopement of Jets and their becoming the standard carrier aircraft of the postwar period. The royal navy, however, continued to use what was, in essence, a light carrier for the entire postwar period, and this size range has characterized theirs, and most other operater's usage ever since. This proved especialy feasible with the development of not only STOL and VTOL aircraft, but with the succeful development of helecopters, which do not require such a large flightdeck as to CATOBAR operations. These ships benefited in particular from the development of the "Ramp" used to increase vertical velocity at the expense of forward velocity, although this placed limits on the total weight of any launched aircraft. Hence a few of the origional ww2 light carriers are still in use today in a variety of navies, having recieved a new lease of life.

In the US the "large/small" carrier mix would persist in the CVS vs. CVA mix, reserving the less capable carriers for the less demanding ASW work, and in our times, the LHD and LHA classes, which despite being the size of an essex class fleet carrier, are essentialy the modern american variant of "light carrier" and the number of aircraft carries is comparible, while the job performed is somewhat comparable to the escort carriers of ww2.74.138.206.229 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good rewrite to me. Unless perhaps it copies too much from your source. I was going to copy it in myself, until I thought about that point. Does anyone object to making this change? twfowler (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote this actually. It was brought down because one of the moderators suspected me of copying and pasting it from some other encyclopedia. Later he inspected it and said acknowledged that it was original, and promised to deal with it, but he got distracted. If you want to copy it, go ahead. It needs editing though for cross references. There are no actual copies from the sources, its just a synopsis of several books I read on the subject. 93.173.130.211 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC) spelling errors 93.173.130.211 (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

here is the spoofed up version that was actually published, if it interests you:

A light aircraft carrier is a term used to denote a small sized carrier, but still one capable of functioning with the fleet. in this sense, it is comparible to the term "light cruiser". Light carriers were origionaly a stop gap measure widely considered prior to wwII, and ultimately all non-US construction would consist of what the USN and INJ considered a "light carrier".

History

Prior to the war it was realized that prewar carriers would be insufficient to provide suitable airpower to fleets in the pacific, and as a result a variety of conversion options were drawn up. Some of these resulted ultimately in the escort carriers and some were to ultimately result in the light carriers. Ultimately the hulls chosen were "light crusiers" of the cleveland class and an experimental hull, USS Amsterdam was initialy slated for conversion. After examination, Admiral King wrote to BuShips that the ship would be useful, and that if they were to approve them quickly, 2 more might be finished at the same time, and they would have "three small carriers at the end of 1942, instead of [just] one." This was especialy important as these carriers would come into service at a time when there were only two flat tops available in the pacific, Enterprise and Saratoga

At this point there was not a clear distiction between the CVLs and the regular CVs, except for an understanding of size and power. Ultimately, the USN would convert one fifth of its available light cruiser hulls to small carriers.Conversion of more than this was prohibitive because of the demand for anti aircraft coverage for operations in both theaters. Developmentaly, these ships shared a great deal in common with the escort carriers in that they sacrificed aviation characteristics for speed of construction, and hence resulted in inferior aviation platforms. Many regarded the escort carrier as being a superior platform to the light carrier, despite being smaller and slower.

Origionaly these ships were armed with a compliment of bombers and topedo planes in addition to their fighers, but experience would bear out that they were more useful in providing a CAP than in making a deckload strike. Because a carrier could only launch or recover a single fighter at a time, light carriers were, ton for ton, faster at launching their fighters than a full sized fleet carrier, and hence were more suitable for providing a CAP, thus freeing fighters on the larger vessels for operating a CAP over the target; preventing the confusion that could result in running asychronous flights off the same deck. In the course of the war it was realized that, in light of the earlier carriers USS Langely and USS Ranger, a smaller carrier represented an inherently inferior aviation platform, being less flexible, less survivable, and less practical in all respects. It simply was not physicaly big enough to, for instance, place a useful degree of anti torpedo protection on a ship of such small size. However, in retrospect it was realized that these carriers were a better choice than the light cruisers that they had been converted from.

However, despite these limitations, the navy did find having these smaller carriers useful, hence despite objections, the saipan class was designed, primarily to fix many of the shortcommings of her predecessors, under the assumption that at least two of the light carriers might be lost before the end of the war. These carriers, being extremely modern, were quickly rendered useless for their intended purpose by the devopement of Jets which became the standard carrier aircraft of the postwar period. They were converted to communications or Command Ships

In particular, in post war service there became a distinction between AWS carriers and regular fleet carriers. The planes used in AWS service were generaly smaller, and the ability to go slowly and have more staying time in the air was actualy an asset, rather than a drawback. As a result, the "large/small" carrier mix would persist in the CVS vs. CVA mix, reserving the less capable carriers for the less demanding ASW work, and in our times, the LHD and LHA classes, which despite being the size of an essex class fleet carrier, are essentialy the modern american variant of "light carrier" and the number of aircraft carries is comparible, while the job performed is somewhat comparable to the escort carriers of ww2 Many of the other navies who recieved These small carriers in the years following ww2 were to use these carriers in exactly this role.

The royal navy, however, continued to use what was, in essence, a light carrier for the entire postwar period, and this size range has characterized theirs, and most other operater's usage ever since. This proved especialy feasible with the development of not only STOL and VTOL aircraft, but also with the succeful development of helicopters, which do not require such a large flightdeck as to CATOBAR operations. These ships benefited in particular from the development of the "Ramp" used to increase vertical velocity at the expense of forward velocity, although this placed limits on the total weight of any launched aircraft. Hence a few of the origional ww2 light carriers are still in use today in a variety of navies, having recieved a new lease of life. As of this writing, few of the origionaly WW2 carriers are still in service, having been phased out with the end of the cold war due to the perceived reduction in the use.

[just open the edit box and copy it there so as not to loose formatting. 93.173.130.211 (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

As written, this can't be added to the article. None of this material is cited, and it needs to have clear citations in every paragraph, and especially when different sources are used. I can help with that if needed, but you wrote it, so only you know where whatt came from. T

Also, it's not completely encyclopedic in tone, and needs a lot of rewiting before going to mainspace. The work really needs to be done in a user's sandbox/sub-page, not here on thetalk page. I'm willing to host that for you if you're not ready to register so you can do that yourself. - BilCat (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the material Is taken from Aircraft carriers: An illustrated design history by norman friedman. The article does however neglect the Japanese and british sides of the question. However, I've cleaned my hands of it. If someone wants to do the work, they're certainly invited. I put this here for someone else to do. 46.116.183.202 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your invitiation is declined. If you want to edit an article, so long as you follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines and edit in a collegiate manner, feel free. What you are not entitled to do is expect everyone else to do the work for you. Also, please learn how to indent your comments on talk pages. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Part of citing your sources is to include page numbers for each specific claim. I don't have access to the book, so what you've written is incomplete and useless to me, and to anyone else without the book. - BilCat (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

look this edit is already four years old, I only repasted this on behalf of someone further up who said that they should publish the rewrite; as I said, I washed my hands of this issue 4 years ago, and only looked here as an afterthought. With regards to sourcing, there are hundreds and thousands of articles that are still unsourced, and the bar at the top invites people to provide sources, which as far as I understand, is part of the point of wikipedia: A collaboration of different individuals together, each contributing what they have in hand.

The article at the time (as it is today) represents a stub, with out even 90% of the information already available in the many other wikipedia articles surrounding the subject. As a further aside, 90% of the material here is also in other articles on the subject in wikipedia, e. g. flight-deck, history of aircraft carriers, etc. The question stands: is it better to have a useless and redundant stub, or better to put a body in place which will encourage further effort by other editors? I lean towards the latter, four years ago I learned that wikipedia doesn't really care about improving the article, unless someone is willing to invest (in this case, at least 40 hours) writing and researching an article. I spent 20 of those reading up and writing this (including editing) but didn't have the time to do a thorough (non-redundant) sourcing of the article

Further I do not own this book either, I got the information off Google books. And with that, I wash my hands of this permenantly. 89.139.46.175 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

One last note for those not paying attention: the existing article, unlike 4 years ago, only sources a single statement. Perhaps we should rename this article "list of light aircraft carriers past and present". But as I said, People are busy yelling prior to verifying what they are yelling about. 46.116.0.119 (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No one is yelling. While I appreciate that it took you a lot of time to do what yo u did, it's not suitable for placement in the article as written. Sourcing issues aside, it's not written in an encylopedic form. A lot of work is left to bring it up to such a standard, including basically doing your research all over again in order to verify the content, cite the pages, and rewrite it. While WP is a collaborative effort, most people won't do your work for you, as Nick said. You already did the work once or twice, so it wouldn't be as difficult for you to address the issues as for somone else.

Thanks for mentioning Google Books, as that is a valid way to read the book. However, without page numbers, it might be difficult for someone else to add those, unless everything is taken from a few pages close together. Perhaps I or someone else will be able to do a cite and rewrite at some point in the future, but it's not a priority for me right now. - BilCat (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are a number of technical points that I would take isse with in the submission, hence why I would need to see the original sources to if that is what they actually state. As an example, while "light" in comparison to supercarriers, the Clemenceau-class and Audacious-class aren't generally considered light carriers, and these were all completed or built post WW2. Ditto for the Kiev and Kuznetsov classes, some of which are still in service. Nick probably has other issue too. Again, I would have to do a lot of research to bring this up to a quality I could keep in the article. As written, I see no major errors in the current article, omission of text coverage of Japan's light carriers notwithstanding. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

re: the russians: just a cursory glance at the pages on russian aircraft carriers will show that their concept of an "CV" doesn't jive with the rest of the world's usage. Only now have they started to abandon the traditional supporting role only and switch to all aviation ships, so I'm not sure that they're relevant to the discussion.

The french are the reason why I wrote "most other users", and aren't relevant to the page, except perhaps why they decided that fleet carriers were preferable vs. the british decision that prefered their light carriers [over a period of time]and regarding audacious, they're world war 2 holdovers. Subsequent construction, as well as most British usage were light carriers, until the new supercarriers, but remember this was written four years ago.

there should be a discussion about the decreasing complement of post war carriers, a ww2 light carrier and post war "fleet" carriers carried approximately equal numbers of planes but I didn't deal with that too much because it bears too much into original research. (note, essexes fulfilled the same job as light and jeep carriers after the introduction of super carriers. (which carried the same size complement as wartime essexes. 85.250.27.89 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

around the time I wrote the article, google books corrected the loopholes I used to coax entire chapters out of the book in question. the material here represents a distillate (as said, available on other articles already on wikipedia) of the only two relevant chapters in the book. however, the work is decidedly not less sourced that what it now replaces (just take a look at the two paragraphs), and represents a segnificant improvement in content and style over the current article. So from my point of view, I don't see why not. its alot more encyclopedic in style than many of the WW2 carrier articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.161.175 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see any major errors in the current text, as I do with what you've presented. I'm not sure what you mean by "represents a distillate (as said, available on other articles already on wikipedia)", unless you mean you copied the text from other WP articles, or added similar text to other WP articles. As to other WW2 carrier articles, other stuff exists, and perhaps it shouldn't there either. That can be dealt with on those articles' talk pages.

Remember, I already offered to work with you to improve the suggested text, but that's not what you wanted to do here. You're welcome to ask for other opinions, but honestly, your time would be better spent addressing the issues mentioned than trying to force the text in as-is. - BilCat (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

give me some time and I will try to give you a rough index of where this information is elsewhere on wikipedia. the small large mix was the innovation of norman friedman. also about most users using light carriers, australia, italy, india, argentina, canada, and the netherlands all used light carriers exclusively iirc. by contrast only france, brazil, england, and russia have used "fleet" carriers. (and even then britain prefered its light carriers in prectice) which is six to one, and if you consider the relative quantities, light carriers certainly win out. but as said, I'll at least try to give an index to the other articles here. 89.139.19.161 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, that simply will not cut the mustard. Links to Wikipedia articles do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability and relaible sources requirements and including them would simply provide a great deal of work by other editors to untangle the actual references behind the statements: it is unreasonable to expect others to do the work to support your contentions. So please don't bother to provide links to other Wiki articles, it is simply a waste of everyone's time. Now if you have specific issues with aspects of this page or have some suggestions for improvements, then certainly feel free to raise them, but please provide reliable sources to support your claims and try to keep your suggestions to manageable chunks. There is no deadline here and we can take the time to get things right, we do not need to try and fix everything in one fell swoop - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of those claimes are, IIRC sourced there.

as an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrier#cite_note-19 is the source for the first sentence of the first paragraph. The next source is in Friedman's book, page 190 for the quote. (at the end of the paragraph.)(and so for the entire work.) If time allows, I will post these. 93.173.145.29 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already asked you to please indent your comments. Failing to indent makes it hard to understand to whom you are replying and can be considered to be disruptive.

What claims are sourced where? What are you talking about? A link to a Wikipedia page is not a source and you cannot simply rely on a source from another article to support statements in this article unless you have access to the original source and are prepared to verify that it does actually support the claim here. See reliable sources. In other words you have to have seen the source for yourself and verified it supports the claim being made in the article for which it is being used. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

photos

I'd like to add some photos to this article, but am not entirely sure how.

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/am/uss_cvl_langley.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97612.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wjLSOEl0BZk/SWXuvU3lJzI/AAAAAAAAB9w/9XG4n6maLVk/s320/25_68097_3f1d65c7964c4c3.jpg

74.138.206.229 (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Post-postwar period

Wait... they still make light carriers. This article ends with the advent of commando carriers and ASW carriers. But smaller navies use light carriers still, and some of them are not from the post-WWII period, but the post-postwar period. The Royal Navy is building the Queen Elizabeth class and has the Invincible class in service.

76.66.198.128 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone just needs the time and reliable sources to add the nnformation. Byw, the QE class are bnot light carriers, but fleet carriers, and are even considered supercarriers by some. - BilCat (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Split list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as "No consensus to split". - BilCat (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the list of carriers be split off into a separate article. It would format this article better, and make for better presentation of the list.

76.66.198.128 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate agreement or opposition to the proposal here, with a rationale to support your opinion.

Oppose - As the article s written now, it's not all that long, and the list is clean and simple to edit. If the proposer intends to expnad the text in the article much beyond what it is now, do that first, and then perhaps we'll need to split it if the new text is long enough. - BilCat (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I totally agree with the user above. Admiral33 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of "British" as a clarifier

Any well-read English speaking user ought to know what "Royal Navy"stands for. Unfortunaltely, WP has mnany users who primarily speak a foriegn language, or are students still in the learning process, and often both. A simple adjective to clarify which country the "Royal Navy" belongs to is not too much to ask, as it's not that clear from the context. In the list, there are several "RZoyal Navies" listed, and there's no way a user can guess which coutry the RN belongs to if they don't already know. I know this is a difficult concept for people who grew up knowing what the Royal Navey is, but not all users have had that advantage. This has been allowed on a number of other aticles on WP, so this is not as big a stretch as some would have us to believe. Arguing on one article is certainly not ging to help it the IP user returns in a few months to make trouble on another article, ans he has already done with this one. Thanks for considering other users who may not be as advantged as you were, and relaize that part of WP's purpose is to inform and educate - it can;t do that if clarifications are not made. Thanks for your consideration of others. If you diswagree with the usage of US-related names, please take it up on those articles. - BilCat (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your private pedantry is inconsistent with common and official usage. English-language Wikipedia is written with English speakers in mind, and "Royal Navy" is the international usage, established by centuries-old convention throughout the seas and oceans of the world, and also standard on Wikipedia. The so-called "ambiguity" is entirely spurious, and your method of trying to force it through is inconsisent with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is a shared project, not the place for a single, determinedly uninformed individual to impose a personal, eccentric preference with little support, at odds with common and official usage, over the objection of other users, on the false ground that there's a consensus in favour of his faulty, non-standard misconstruction, when there demonstrably is not, and never would be. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with the personal insults, as in "uninformed individual", as at Talk:Aircraft carrier last year - you've no knowledge of my education, background or learning, so please stop that crap - I will take you to ANI this time if it continues. But please, show me exactly where "English-language Wikipedia is written with English speakers in mind"? Also, this usage you object to is used on other article, many of which I did not edit (thus my claim of consesnus is not "false"). (Goiven I've made over 60,000 edits on WP,so I probably know if what I'm saying is true better than some IP-hopper with no provable edit history.) Two users - coincidentally, both users being from Australia - is not the consensus of "other users". - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

An English-language encyclopedia is implicitly written for English-speakers, a point too obvious to need a detailed argument. Somehow, even as a lowly IP user, I've also made innumerable improvements to Wikipedia articles over the years, something which doesn't actually need to be demonstrated, as every improvement I make can stand or fall on its own merits. Unlike some people, it seems, I don't need to support my argument with a spurious appeal to authority, which would only be logical fallacy of irrelevance as to whether an edit should be discarded or retained. It doesn't matter if you or someone else has managed to sneak in a faulty usage here and there on minor articles; the consensus to use "Royal Navy" was established on the main Royal Navy page, years ago, and for sound reasons, as it is the international standard. Your only response to that is to claim ignorance, vicariously, on behalf of imaginary others, with an inconsistency that suggests an agenda. First you tried to bluff by saying there was a consensus in your favour, and, since the opposite is actually the case, instead you've been resorting to threats and insults, falsely stigmatising me as a "vandal" and threatening to have be "banned" for having the temerity to make an improvement supported by common and official usage, but at odds with your own private preference, as if Wikipedia were your private property. Since that bullying tactic hasn't had the chilling effect you were hoping for either, you now argue you don't even need a consensus, on the basis that the faulty usage has gone undetected for some indefinite period of time, and cannot therefore be brought into conformity with established usage. That's another silly argument. It won't wash. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you accuse others of falsehood, and then lay a line so thick with lies and misrepresentations it's ridiculous. You've obviously no intention of even trying to achieve any kind of consensus that is contrary to your own accepted views. I'm actually making attempts to solve this with more reasonable users, even if it goes against my preferences, while all you do is try to twist things that I say. I'm going to sleep now, but if the blantant lies and personal attacks on my intelligence, etc., continue in my absense, I will follow through on my warning, which is rtequired before taking someone to ANI. Please try to focus on the actual issues here, not the editors. BilCat (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You say you've been arguing on the merits of the case. But your own argument above is based mainly on an irrelevant ad hominem attack on me as an IP user. Manifestly false claims don't need to be destroyed in wearisome detail. Anyone can follow the edit history on the article and user pages to see the truth. As has been explained, the usage of Royal Navy was established on the talk page of the main article years ago, and since no real argument has been presented for doing otherwise here, we should just stick to that. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just protected the article for 24 hours to stop the edit war. Please discuss the use of 'British', etc, here. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but arguing the obvious on the talk pages of minor articles just leads to endless repetition. If necessary, it should be settled (again) at the talk page of the main article, and users should then try to conform to the standard usage on the minor articles as well. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Having participated in the discussions about moving the Royal Navy article, I well know they only apply to the name of the article itself - nothing said there excluded DABing for clarificatipon when needed, which Nick-D also practices, IIRC. (Oh, I thought Nick-D was a figment of my imagination- Glad tro know he wasn't! :) The proper venue for this diuscussionwould be at WT:MILHIST, and you're quite welcome to particitpate in a civil manner there. - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No exceptional need for deviation from the standard international usage has been demonstrated here, and my anonymity is no excuse for your rudeness. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The underlying objection is that this editor BilCat is attacking our global heritage by feigning vicarious ignorance of a naming convention that's been established internationally for centuries, and is generally understood and respected by other editors on Wikipedia, as witnessed where it's received actual attention, notably on the main article. And since his actual argument isn't a serious one, but highly individual and bogus, he's resorted instead to appealing, firstly, to a non-existent consensus in favour of his own private and stylistically clumsy alternative; secondly, to editorial inertia on a minor article where, by an oversight, the non-standard deviation hasn't yet been noticed and corrected; and, thirdly, to his own personal authority—as an editor who uses a nickname—and all the while reflexively threatening and belittling me as an anon IP user, all logically invalid lines of attack, which he's been doing since before he finally started posting comments on the talk page here. It's been a sorry way to carry on from the get-go. It would be nice if we could raise our standards. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it would be! - BilCat (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's intended to be flippant, you're only reinforcing my point. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it means you'd fail those standards, not me, but don't take my word for it. If I'm that bad, do somethign about it. My behavior, while not perfect, is here for all to see. The community can judge as they see fit.

But back to the issue here: Is the Royal Navy understood enough to never be disambiguated in every case of it's usage in WP? As an article title, the key is it's official name, and the history of it, and the common name. We both agree on those pointsw as they apply to the article. Where we differ is on whether that standard applies globally to all of English Wikipedia. Obviouisly, we both disagree on that point, and there doesn't seem like there's likely to be any reconciliation to be had t=on that point. But my view is simply a diffenrece in interpretarion, based on the fact that WP is self-governing, and that it allwos clarification, disambiguation, and link piping to be used when needed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my "attacking our global heritage by feigning vicarious ignorance of a naming convention that's been established internationally for centuries." None of that matte3rs on WP unless the community decides it matters. And I don't believe it has in such a way as to exclude clarification when needed in other articles. Any assertion otherwise by you is untrue, and it needs to stop. Deal with this on the actual issues. If you can't do that, others will, and in the end, the Community's decision on the matter will be the one that stands. My reecord is that I accept such decisions when they are made, and uphold them even when I disagree. You'll note that I;ve never tried to nmove the ROyal Navy article, and I won't, not without a clear consensus to do so. Can you make the same claim towards this issue? Will you abide by a consensus that disagrees with you? Does your track record here bear that out? Unfortunaltey for the rest of us, only you can know that answer. - BilCat (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: adherence or otherwise to standards, an unsupported argument is a formal fallacy of irrelevance; if the "community" is open-minded and amounts to more than a little clique you've deliberately canvassed, and people review the edit history here and on the user pages, they'll be in a position to see your hostile, peremptory, and proprietorial attitude. Basically, this whole situation is the result of a deliberate wind-up by you, and your manipulation of procedure, to impose a marginalising and non-standard usage. The argument for Royal Navy is straightforward and irrefutable. It's been repeated often enough, and never answered. Internationally, the common usage (and official usage) is Royal Navy, so your so-called disambiguation is spurious. And it would be inappropriate and insulting for an editor to abuse procedure (in this case a page history of editorial inertia) to try to entrench a personal and highly individual preference in deliberate defiance of customary usage. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't take the high road after all. So be it. I'm done here. This issue will be taken up elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a rebuttal, so again you resort to other means to try to impose something you can't defend logically. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to be accommodating, but you seem to use rhetoric as a substitute for logic, and I'm afraid that going on present form, the prospect of setting myself up for an ambush seems a legitimate concern. Strings can be pulled. Decks can be stacked. A sham consensus obviously isn't some super-value that trumps common usage, and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we just have to wait for the inevitable wikilawyering, where the proceduralist uses some minor rule to subvert another that's more fundamental. 59.101.136.106 (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Using uneccessarily agressive language does not help your cause. Please calm down and refrain from being so confrontational. As it happens I agree that the word "British" should not be inserted before "Royal Navy". My reasons are that to most English speaking people the term is unambiguous any way and adding the word "British" look clumsy and unnecessary. For those who do not know what the Royal Navy is, a simple Wiki link on the first occurrance of the word in an article is more than sufficient for them to find out who and what the Royal Navy is. This is the English Wikipedia and I am not convinced by arguments that we need to make extraordinary efforts to "assist" those with poor English skills or knowledge. In fact adding these sorts of unusual words works against those who are learning English by giving them the false idea that such usage is common or usual amongst English speaking people when it is not. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out the obvious doesn't do any harm at all. The merits of the case exist independently of my own possibly overly frank presentation of them, but the whole thing is exasperating, and I think it's worth making that clear, too. I'm sorry, but this whole disambiguation wheeze is so extraordinary it can really only be intended as a deliberate insult to the service. We've gone through the motions of arguing it through with the same individual in the past, which gives it more credibility than it deserves, since it's an obvious example of baiting. We're not supposed to assume good faith against all evidence to the contrary. There really does come a point where patience ceases to be a virtue.

This "British Royal Navy" thing is an irregular, non-standard construction. The word order even manages to be inconsistent with the standard usage followed in other examples it pretends to follow. "British navy" would be less offensive, but it's only descriptive. "Royal Navy" is the official name, a proper noun, the common usage, used overwhelmingly in the sources, national and international. It would take incredible ingenuity—a real effort—for a reader to confuse the British navy with the navy of Thailand. The fact is in ordinary usage we tend to drop "royal" from non-Commonwealth navies anyway, which precludes any such confusion, so the level of ambiguity in the article is being magnified artificially by the pedantic forms used in the article list.

There isn't a proper standard alternative, because there's never been a need, until this fellow came along to insist upon it. The implication is that, on the insistence of someone with apparently less than zero knowledge of the subject, or, rather, his advocating on behalf of such people as he can stretch his personal inventiveness to imagine, the standard international usage has to be abandoned on the pretence that it somehow wouldn't be understood internationally. The notion is as nonsensical as it is incredible. It would be like disambiguating "NASA" to "American NASA" or "NASA (USA)" everywhere so as not to confuse any literal-minded Martians. It's simply absurd, and doesn't merit a serious consideration. The words are being used in context. The context is pre-existing.

If we want to teach non-native speakers English we have to teach them English, not reinvent the language on their behalf. And teaching English to non-natives isn't the main function of English Wikipedia anyway, which is to impart knowledge to existing English speakers, who can be assumed to have a reasonable familiarity with common usages of the English language. These include "Royal Navy". 59.101.136.106 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue has come up at WT:AV#British Royal Air Force, and is being supported by another admin. Given that consensus, I'm restoring my previous edits here. The IP user is welcome to join the discussion their,and try to achieve a consensus to support his preferences. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously no justification to claim a consensus. 61.68.163.167 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing obvious is that you disagree with it. That doesn't change the fact that this type of clarification is supported by other users in a related discussion. You're welcome to discuss ithere, but further disruptions to the article will be treated as such. - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't cite a single cherrypicked dubious opinion from a contributor to another article (even challenged within its own recent edit history) to claim a consensus to make a contentious change to this article a month after the discussion was settled here, and revert on that pretext. It's an abuse of procedure. 61.68.175.113 (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing above where anything was "settled" in support of your edits, as the various IPs above are clearly one person. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't produce a counterargument to the points raised during the substantive discussion. Instead, opportunistically, you waited a month to reimpose a change you knew to be contentious, and did so on false pretenses, by falsely claiming a consensus here to do so, by appealing to a single disputed edit on an entirely different page. Once again, you're sending bullying messages to me instead of arguing the doubtful "merits" of your case. 61.68.175.113 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I waste my time doing that? You've made it clear from the beginning that you won't accept any kind of clarification as you deem it clearly unnecessary. You've also made it clear you've no respect for WP policies, particularly those on edit warring and no personal attacks, so your claims of my own "abuse" and "bullying" are quite laughable. - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm commenting on your observable actions (your manipulation and abuse of procedure), not speculating on your internal motivation. 61.68.175.113 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit today

I made several changes just now: First I changed the list to refer to the countries rather than their navies as we have on other similar pages, thus avoiding any contention such as the "British Royal Navy" thing. I removed all the "ex-" from the class names since this is simply wrong. These ships remained in their class, whether they were sold to another country or not. I removed the "British" from the "Royal Navy" in the middle of the second paragraph in the History section, since it is redundant. The paragraph is already talking about the British 1942 Light Fleet Carriers, so Royal Navy is not ambiguous in this context, although I did add a Wiki link to the "British" at the beginning of the paragraph.

BTW, I trust BillCat that your edit summary was refering to someone else, even though it immediately followed my previous edit of the article. I would not be very happy to be described as a vandal and a long term jingoistic user editing against consensus. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant the IP user whose rants are above - sorry if that wasn't clear! Thnaks for making the changes to the list - I should have thought of those changes myself, but I guess I was to close to the trees. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Dedalo(R01).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Dedalo(R01).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian aircraft carrier Cavour

Cavour carrier with more than 30000 tonne isn't a light aircraft carrier.If it stays here also the around 40000 tonne carriers of France,India ,Russia and China should be added at this list.It hasn't been used a scientific criteria.Or all these ones are in this list or the Cavour must be deleted.At the moment the others aren't in the list so Cavour isn't a light carrier.Benniejets (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't even qualify as a light carrier. It is designated as merely a CVH, or helicopter carrier. I have no issues to its removal from this list for that reason. Scr★pIron^IV 20:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the Giuseppe Garibaldi does not qualify, either - it is designated as a CVS, or anti-submarine carrier. It should be removed as well. Italy can have a light carrier when they build a CVL. Scr★pIron^IV 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Garibaldi is just 13450 tonnes.Cavour is more than 30000.It's a VSTOL carrier.Explain me the difference of size to be defined light while the russian ,french and indian are just around 40000.User :Oshwah asked for reliable references to expalin this ,not bla bla bla.Benniejets (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

In the article about Cavour is defined as carrier by reference.It is described as a VSTOL carrier.You are inventing.User:Luigi Portaro29 and User:BilCat agree with me that it mustn't be in this list.Benniejets (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not about size, it is about function. The Italian carriers have official designations, neither of which fits with the light carrier designation of CVL. The reliable reference is the Italian Navy, which gave them their designations of helicopter carrier (CVH) and anti submarine carrier (CVS). They don't even meet with the designated role of a light carrier. None of the four carriers listed in this article as "light carriers" are actually officially designated as such. You wanted these removed, and I agree they should be removed. They are nowhere near light carriers. Scr★pIron^IV 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok i'll remove all them.I'll follow your instructions.Benniejets (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I never actually agreed that Cavour "mustn't be in this list". I certainly don't agree with comparing Cavour to the conventional fleet carriers in any way. I'm not supporting the removal of the entire list before I had a chance to even comment, but I won't restore it either. From this point on, I'm not having any discussions with Bennie. He does not comprehend what I said, and worse, doesn't know he's not comprehending. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Article split?

This page has a problem beginning right in the lede: equating "light carrier" and "light fleet carrier" as if they are synonymous terms. They aren't.

"Light Fleet Carrier" really only applies to the ships based on the RN's 1942 Emergency Light Fleet Carrier design: the Colossus, Majestic and Centaur classes. These ships were as big as the smaller fleet carriers (e.g. Ranger and Wasp), built along the same lines, carried a full air group, and were only "light" in that they were built to mercantile standards rather than the heavier construction characteristic of warships.

"Light Carriers," proper, in a WW2 context referred to conversions* of cruiser or liner hulls that were markedly smaller than fleet carriers and carried an air group hardly bigger than escort carriers- from which they differed chiefly in speed and little else. In fact the Independence design was based largely on that of the Sangamon-class CVE. Postwar the term attaches readily to purpose-built carriers which nonethelesws are quite small and carry a limited air wing, such as the Invincibles, Chakri Naruebet and Principe de Asturias.

Or adaptations, in the case of the Saipans

--Solicitr (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)