Talk:Supercarrier/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

changing china entries

BillCJ, please explain why you would change what I have entered and not use the discussion page?

Policy: Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

rephrase correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content move text within an article or to another article (existing or new) add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced request a citation by adding the tag

My orignal text : The Peoples Liberation Army Navy is considering building 2-4 carriers in the 50-65,000 ton range.They could operational by 2015.[1][2]It has also been report that in October 2008 the PLAN purchased 50 Sukhoi Su-33 NATO reporting name ‘Flanker-D’ the russians only carrier based multi role fighter. China Has also stated publically, that is also expected to complete work on a never-finished former Soviet aircraft carrier ( Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag ) moored in the northeastern port of Dalian, to provide training for carrier-based pilots and crew.[3][4]

I have sited souces that state 2-4 carrier, you removed it. I never stated convention carrier, they are in 50,000-65000,ton range, very close to the Euro carrier. I have another soucre states 2015 " exact context " U.S. government and independent analysts say it could be 2015 or 2020 before China could be ready to deploy an operational carrier.

This is your text. These could join its fleet as early as 2015, though US and independent analysts predict it could take China until 2020 to deploy an operational carrier.

Am I the only one that see a differnce interpretation, you make it out the US thinks 2020, when in fact it didn't state that.

Quote second source: — would likely be comparable to the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class ships, now just beginning construction. Slightly larger, at 65,000 tons, the Queen Elizabeth is designed for a complement of around 1,400 sailors, including its ship’s company and air wing, and designed to carry about 40 strike aircraft, plus additional helicopters, according to “Combat Fleets of the World.”

So were do you get small conventional carriers????

I appreciate the assistance in cleaning up the text, but you really should discuss changes that don't reflect the orginal context...thank youJacob805 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The first was probably an edit conflist. That happens sometimes. Just fixt it as long as the source justifies it. As for the second complaint, I don't see "small conventional carriers" anywhere in that section, nor did I add any such thing. I did restore "smallER conventional carriers", but that means something different in standard English. If you're going to discuss changes, you should discuss those that were actually made. - BillCJ (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bill, this is what was left this morning before I reverted back to my orginal text, is shows it was done under a no sign IP address 61.68.175.168, located in Australia, I wonder who this could be?... I will report it as vandalism.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy is reportedly planning two smaller conventional carriers, in the 50-60,000-ton range, to patrol the South China Sea; these could join its fleet as early as 2015, though US and independent analysts predict it could take China until 2020 to deploy an operational carrier.[18][19] In October 2008 the PLAN purchased up to 50 Sukhoi Su-33 ‘Flanker-D’s, Russian carrier-based multi-role fighters. China also expects to complete refurbishment of an uncompleted former Soviet carrier moored in the northeastern port of Dalian, to provide training for carrier-based pilots and crew.[20][21]12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

The PLAN has now received and commissioned the ex-Varyag carrier Liaoning into service as of the end of September 2012. It displaces about 67,000 tons full. Entry made. If someone feels this is not a legitimate entry, they will need to explain why the QE belongs but the Liaoning does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.68.26 (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

reason for British carrier removal

Building a supercarrier is a uniquely American enterprise. There are 21 aircraft carriers in service around the globe; 11 belong to the United States. A few other nations--Britain, Spain and India--have plans to build aircraft carriers. But no one else makes them this large or with such advanced capabilities. No one else is about to try. Article by Popular Mechanics . http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/navy-ships/4321136 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my removel of the Britsh and French carriers is being reported as vandalism, stating I have not quoted a source. Please read the article by popular mechanics. I have quoted a source. The source to include the British and French carrier was taken out of context by the British press. I have also changed the tonnage as someone keeps putting in 100,000 tons. It is a know fact the Queen class is no where near that weight, fully loaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the definition listed in the article says "usually displacing over 70,000 long tons" that is not the same as saying a ship must displace 70,000 long tons to be a supercarrier. There are many notable sources (mostly in the UK) that call these ships supercarriers. They have acquired this term, I think, mostly due to their abilities rather than size (keep in mind their full load capacity is similar to the standard complement of aircraft carried by a Nimitz and the QE class dimensions aren't far off either). If I recall, the Forrestal class (60,000t) were called Supercarriers too despite not being much bigger in displacement to the Audacious class Ark Royal (54,000t). You seem to be trying hard to remove these ships for some reason. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't the listing of British Aircraft Carriers wait until they have ships that actually carry aircraft? Hcobb (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom three entries in Classes don't carry aircraft yet, the Ford class, QE class and future French carrier. The QE class will carry aircraft when they come into service. Currently the British still do have ships that carry aircraft. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, carriers don't carry aircraft while they undergo overhauls and refits, so we should remove them then too. And don't forget the carriers that are at the bottom of the sea for whatever reason - if they were sunk without aircraft on board, then they aren't carriers either, but if they were sunk while carrying aircraft, as in a battle, then they are still carriers. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers which are larger than conventional aircraft carriers, such as the Charles de Gaulle, are called supercarriers. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers are much larger than conventional aircraft carriers such as the Charles de Gaulle and will be closer in size to the Nimitz class supercarriers. It seems strange that you removed the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, which are under construction, but did not remove the same sized and indefinitely postponed French PA2 carrier. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact you are a well known anti-British troll IP from Salzburg?

On another note, of course an aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier while it doesn't carry aircraft. It is like saying a B-52 is not a bomber while it's not carrying bombs. Quite vivid blur (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above is irrelevant now as both the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers exceed 73+k long tons. Twobells (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear Arms

Should we have a section about the history of nuclear armed supercarriers? Some sources are hinting at a return, but nothing I'd consider reliable on the subject.

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20110102/OPINION02/101020308/Heading-into-a-new-cold-war- the U.S. 5th Fleet's nuclear aircraft carriers represent highly mobile airbases for attacks by both conventional and nuclear weapons.

Hcobb (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ford Class

Shouldn't the U.S. "Ford" Class be added to this article? It's the replacement for the Nimitz class and is even bigger. The first ship has been under construction for a couple of years now. Trifler (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's already there. - Nick Thorne ^talk

QE class

I have altered the wording of the sentence about the construction of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers. Saying "As of 2013 the United Kingdom was constructing" raises the question of what is happening now, is the UK still constructing them, or has it abandoned construction?. I have changed the wording to talk about the start of construction so that this question is not raised. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I originally changed wording using "currently" to text with "as of 2013", I'll respond. Current wording is better than what I used; I'm not strongly in favour of my actual "as of" wording, just concerned about the many articles that end up as time passes with ludicrously out-of date wording—"currently" is always a bad sign. Wikipedia, a reference work rather than a news medium, shouldn't depend upon when "now" is; an article might be printed out or copied and kept, and is anyway not guaranteed to be updated—many articles aren't. "The question of what is happening now" raised in the previous comment shouldn't be relevant; unlike a newspaper, an encyclopaedia is a source of overall, encyclopaedic, information, not news.

To give a concrete example to show that this is genuinely a problem: an article I recently (Nov 2013) edited, not at all unusual, with first sentence "The 2008 Trofeo Federale is currently an ongoing four-team tournament running from September 1 to September 16, 2008". Pol098 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, however since construction is due to continue for some years and the articles on aircraft carriers are actively monitored by a number of people, including myself, the problem of the wording becoming out of date is not one I would lose too much sleep about in this case. Nevertheless, I agree that where we can remove a potential problem we should. My problem was as I said with the inherent questions raised by the "as of" wording. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not news, but regardless, that wording would raise the question in any article I read. In this case especially so if a reader, like me, is aware of much of the history of naval ship construction and the number of ships that have been started but not completed. Anyway, I think we have reached a suitable solution and I agree that the current wording is better that either of the two previous alternatives. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs updating as one (Queen Elizabeth) has been 'floated' and the other (Prince Charles) is currently half-way through construction having had confirmation that on completion the UK will field both carriers. Also, both carriers exceed 73k long tons. Twobells (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Vikrant-class

Does Vikrant-class qualify? Rob984 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The INS Vikrant (2013) itself too small, but the second one, INS Vishal, is planned to be about 25,000 tons larger, putting it in the same tonnage range as the QEs and the Kuznetsovs. - BilCat (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Supercarriers in service

Liaoning and Kuznetsov do not meet the displacement of 65,000 in the definition at the beginning of the article. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doyna Yar:Yes, but the definition of supercarriers is itself disputable (Please see the section "Does Vishal Qualify?"). We need a reliable definition. So could you please help it by finding a definition ?M.srihari (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

The very first line in the article states "Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of aircraft carrier". That statement alone to me demonstrates the pointlessness of this article and it's redundancy to the other fine aircraft carrier articles here on Wikipedia. I'd like to see it deleted. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doyna Yar:Yes. But If you see the citation provided for that definition, it is by two experts and it is almost 25 years old. We don't have any new data or definition included which is more clear and reliable. You could give your response in the section (Definition of Supercarrier)so that it helps in the discussion..Regards--M.srihari (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Bilcat reverting legitimate edits

The Queen Elizabeth-class carriers now exceed 73+k long tons making them the second largest carriers by nation yet Biltcat keeps reverting the edit. Twobells (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about my edits. What I changed was "third largest supercarrier class in service", which you kept changing to second. That is false, as the Nimitz and Ford classes are larger.. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Vishal not yet under construction

I have removed the entry for Vishal from the under construction table. No steel has been cut on this ship and the design has not even been finalised as yet. At best this ship is in the planning phase and plans can and often do change. The ship may change significantly in design and, as has been the case with Indian carriers in recent years, it may be delayed for a considerable time before work really starts. Until then this ship should not be considered to be under construction. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: yes, i support removal of ins vishal from the list. first of all it was added under the heading Supercarriers under construction MOD said they might start construction by 2018 thats when IAC 1 will enter into service and then they will start construction of IAC 2 which is ins vishal. the editor who added ins vishal is already involved related edit disputes in DRDO AURA,INS Vishal,Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System ,Vikrant-class aircraft carrier etc. major changes were made without proper or any citation, please check them also if possible.Nicky mathew (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers

@Nick Thorne:

@Nicky mathew:Have added citations for the disputed no.s in chinese supercarrier. Have added confirmed to INS Vishal. THe question is how to just leave it typed INS Vishal, a name ,under the column no. of carriers(?).If you both have problem, then lets discuss.(@Nicky mathew After all,I thought the dispute was over from youIr views in User talk of Vikrant Class)M.srihari (talk)

@Nick Thorne:The chinese aircraft carrier plans for 5 carriers stipulates a mix of supercarriers,fleet carriers and smaller amphibious carriers wihtout specifying the exact no. of each type. I made the previous edit of 5+ wihtout noticing it but now I reverted it. M.srihari (talk)

This whole section is problematic. The references are either inadequate to source the claims made in the table, or the links do not work at all.

1} the link against the "tba" for the number of Chinese carriers is broken, and seriously, tba?.

2) the article refered to talks about the opinions and aspirations of a Chinese military official, this is not a reliable source for the claim being made

3) under "number of carriers" for India the table states "INS Vishal (confirmed)" - the name of a ship is not a number, the correct entry should be 1, since Vikrant does not fall within the definition given in the article for a supercarrier

4) the reference cited for the tonnage of the Vishal is almost entirely about Vikrant and simply ends with the sentence "India also has a 60,000-tonne IAC-II project that is currently in the planning stages." This claim really needs a better reference.

In my opinion this section should be deleted as it really falls into the speculation end of things, far better to wait until construction actually begins on any of these ships since planned shiups very often change considerably even quite close to the start of construction and indeed are often not built at all. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur Nick. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2015(UTC)

About ins vishal tonnes, almost media outlets reported either 60, 000 or 65,000 so I dont see any problem, if required we can change no. Of carriers to 1(I suppport that ). current indian govt and the indian navy is taking aircraft carriers very seriously, its very highly unlikely that will scrap plan for construction of ins vishal. But china's carrier programme have unclear objectives some say 1 is under construction and other say 2, some say none. No clear idea and I dont think the Chinese government will reveal much either.Liaoning is a Stobar not catobar carrier (changed that now ) . Also what about launch date of future Chinese aircraft carriers? Is it 2025 onwards, Just like ins vishal ? (Some recent were made and needs serious attention )

Well I do not support removing proposed carrier completely but (1)we will have find all information regarding Chinese aircraft programme and enter them in the table or (2)remove the table completely and write as a para so we can expain all uncertainty well enough to the readers or (3) just a note for propsed carrier and explain all uncertainty briefly in the note section for both Chinese and indian carriers. In any case all claims should be well cited.... just saying

So anyone support any of these idea as a possible solution ? Nicky mathew (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the information in the section is properly sourced and by the very nature of the subject of the section (proposed supercarriers) all the information is subject to change at any time. We are supposed to be building an encyclopaedia, this is not the place for speculation about what might or might not be going to happen at some fuzzy date in the future. Many things are proposed, only some of them actually happen. Unless someone in the next 48 hours comes up with some decent sources or a convincing and substantial argument as to why this section should stay in the article I will delete it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Added some reliable references for INS Vishal but i do not know much about Future Chinese Aircraft Carrier. I do not have any formal objection regarding removal of section proposed supercarriers anyway go through those references.Nicky mathew (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Where? - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]. Did'nt click save page button first time,i am really sorry for the inconvenience that i may have caused you.Nicky mathew (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologise, we all do stuff like that sometimes. I've even reverted someone without realising it - fat fingers on a smartphone. :(

Anyway, although I appreciate your effort to find sources for the Vishal info, it still leaves the substantive question. Should the section be retained? Even though we can say with a degree of certainty that there is a proposal to build Vishal, it still remains just a proposal until steel is cut. The design is nowhere near finalized (eg: will it be nuclear propulsion or not - definitely not certain) much can change including when and even if this ship will be built. Furthermore, the section doesn't even mention US carriers. Do we really think that there are no proposals to build more of the Ford class carriers?

This is an encyclopedia, we are not in the business of predicting the future. Let's remove reference to future carriers here. If there is sufficient source material and the subject can be shown to be suitably notable then maybe a separate article might be appropriate, but frankly I doubt it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Again I do not have any formal objection regarding removal of section proposed supercarriers. if all agrees then please remove section proposed supercarriers. Nice meeting you nick :).

It looks like users are still edit warring over the proposed supercarriers section, I have protected the article for a few days so you can come to some agreement, I dont have time at the moment but I will look in later to see what is going on, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: I agree that this is an encylopedia that is not a machine to predict future. But I wish to point out certain facts

• http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/csl-offers-to-build-another-aircraft-carrier/article7212380.ece

from the following url, it is for sure that INDIA will construct another carrier, but the steel is not cut for it yet.

• http://www.businessinsider.in/Chinese-officials-just-confirmed-theyre-building-a-second-aircraft-carrier/articleshow/46522573.cms this url states that china also has plans to construct carriers.
• How will you represent these facts in Wikipedia?
• And moreover,pages that are speculative are deemed to be removed,not something that is being widely discussed or accepted. If this is true, Then thousands of pages such as Sixth-generation jet fighter are qualifies for removal because they are not yet under construction or even design. I request you to reply soon. M.srihari (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I don't think having a topic proposed carrier will do any harm.. Actually we are not predicting the future, which will be crystal balling, but we are keeping the content which will be of interest to many. Sure, they will have to be supported by reliable sources and should be of wide interest. And here I think, for INS Vishal, there are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage and I can bet on the 'interest' part (it is of wide interest I can say). Although not sure about the Chinese carrier, I recently came across an image in facebook by 'Battle Machines' which claims, it might be the first AC of the class under construction. Link here. And both ACs have proven notability and has separate articles of their own. "it still remains just a proposal" yes and that's exactly what the heading tells; Proposed. If the project get's cancelled, then it'll be appropriate to bring them under the heading, 'Abandoned' (P.S. there are ships which were abandoned long after the steels were cut i.e., even after completion of the whole structure (eg. Soviet Union AC Varyag (now Liaoning) was abandoned after the construction of the whole ship but for the electronics). No one knows about the future, doesn't mean an encyclopedia shouldn't have any content on the future.. I recommend the heading be included in the article. And on a lighter note, I think we are cornering the new editor because he is 'new'. I request editors to consider his views equally important to the views of other editors. Regards. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 17:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Before commencement of new supercarriers, countries are likely to keep the great majority of the information classified. What information is released may or may not bear any strong correlation with what the plans actually are and may often be released with the aim of providing misinformation for competing nations so as to obfuscate their real intentions and to perhaps cause those other nations to waste resources responding to them. Whilst we may have reasonable information on some individual ships (and I have no objection to including reliably sourced info in individual ship or class articles) this article has a broader remit. Consequently I feel we owe it to our readers in this case to stick with reliable information that gives a correctly balanced view of the overall situation. Once actual construction has begun, we are dealing with real facts that can be verified. That some ships are never completed does not alter anything in this regard. Far more ships are planned and not started than are started and not completed. By the very nature of major projects planned by governments little can be said with any certainty about those projects and very little can be said about some at all since not all governments are forthcoming about their future planning, this means that a "Planned supercarriers" section will always be incomplete and present a false idea of the actual balance between different countries. Carriers under construction are however much more difficult to hide and are inherently more verifiable so I maintain that the cutting of steel is a reliable threshold for inclusion in this article since it seeks to provide a world wide view of these ships.

As for the new editor, I do not propose to make a full rebuttal here to what you say except tp note that the editor in question badly needs to read and understand a number of the policies and norms about editing Wikipedia, especially: WP:RS WP:V WP:CONSENSUS WP:NOT - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sourced info should only be provided through this platform (Wikipedia) to the readers is acceptable. But the fact goes that there are various articles that make it almost 100% sure that the "Proposed" carriers are due for construction. But how could we leave this information unexposed when it is widely accepted. And for the dark projects, is it necessary to delete every info from wikipedia about projects that are not under construction or that are not confirmed by the respective governments. because this would amount to hiding a greater part of knowledge from the readers. Thus I propose to include the "Proposed Supercarriers" section as it clarifies about hte status of the projects ( From the title Proposed) and also provides info that the steel is not cut yet, but construction will surely occur in Future.M.srihari (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I'm glad that Wikipedia's policies meet with your approval.

I am not suggesting that reliably sourced material pertaining to proposed supercarriers should not be used at all on Wikipedia. Because, as your comment would seem to support, not all info on all proposed or supposedly proposed supercarriers is available, this article is not the place to present such necessarily incomplete information. Using the first cut of steel is a useful landmark to use as a prerequisite for inclusion in this overview article. Where we have reliably sourced details on planned ships, that information can be included either in individual ship articles or articles relating to proposed ship class or some other article relating to that country's navy and future plans. Including the information here does not clarify the situation as you claim, on the contrary it would serve to provide a distorted view of the future, because that information would always be incomplete. This article seeks to provide an overview of the supercarrier, we should not have a section that can only ever tell part of the story.

Finally, to claim that planned construction of ships "will surely occur in Future" is nonsense: history is full of plans that never eventuated. Once construction has actually begun we than have facts that can be backed up, it is not someone's opinion, propoganda or spin.

There is no deadline to Wikipedia. In an article like this we can afford to wait until the information becomes concrete before we include it in this article. If these ships do go ahead we will get the appropriate information in due course. What is the screaming hurry? - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish you could use better words in this conversation. Sentences like why this screaming hurry are very disrespectful.You again say the fact that only information that are 100% sure should be included and that information that is widely speculated in Media should not be included. And what do you propose for topics like Future aircrafts like 6th generation jets? Do you feel they should be removed. Because it is a dark project and no info or even design work has begun. While in your previous comments, you have explained about the features of Supercarriers,their construction,etc in your own way. Isn't this a speculation by you? How did you conclude that this is the standard procedure followed by all countries? And the whole case that you make are on the basis of these views of yours. Please don't delete articles for your own speculation. Your method of placing the same views again and again is not helpful and is only delaying a consensus.M.srihari (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Did you even bother to read my post? Information that is widely speculated on in the press or elsewhere is still speculation. You make a number of claims about what I am supposed to have said here that are without any basis in fact. I never said that only information we can be 100% sure of should be incuded. Where in my previoius comments have I "explained about the features of Supercarriers,their construction,etc in your(my) own way"? How is something I never said a speculation? Where did I "conclude that this is the standard procedure followed by all countries"? Where did I "delete articles for your(my) own speculation? What does that even mean? Oh, and who is the one delaying consensus? Perhaps you might like to look in the mirror for your answer. You are skating on thin ice on the WP:NPA front, I suggest you think very carefully before you write further such comments here, or elsewhere in Wikipedia for that matter. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Before commencement.......of these ships" please read this whole paragraph that you have typed in which you taken pain to explain your own version of the "practices of countries constructing supercarriers". Either you take steps to edit it or just accept the fact that you have started this unnecessary dispute because of your own speculation. And again, please don't prolong this issue and prevent a consensus.M.srihari (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Moderated Discussion

Moderated discussion is underway at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Any editors who are not currently participating in the discussion are welcome to participate. Please direct comments about Proposed Supercarriers to the noticeboard. (Comments made here may not be taken into account.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Moderated discussion is closed. An RFC is in progress here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Section on Proposed Supercarriers

The following discussion 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.

---

Should a section Proposed Supercarriers be added to the article? If so, this section will summarize proposals reported in reliable sources for new supercarriers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Enter your !votes as Support or Oppose in the Survey section. Threaded discussion should take place in the section designated for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Support Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Support M.srihari (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Oppose. Readers will expect such a section to list all proposed supercarriers. This will be impossible: nations may not reveal what they propose building; and even when they do, it may not be clear whether, once launched, it will be regarded as a "supercarrier". Maproom (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Support, but only for notable proposals. The ratio between rejected proposals and actually built ships is probably tens (if not hundreds) to one, and in most of the cases there is essentially no difference between the rejected proposals and the ship that was eventually approved. If there is a verifiable proposal that has some novel or unique features, it should be here. “WarKosign” 06:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Twobells^t@lk 14:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL. I think ships can be added once they have had their keels laid, and we have reliable sources verifying they meet the verified definition of what a Supercarrier is (which appears to have changed over time).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose One of the main reasons for this poll(and many supports for it) seems to be INS Vishal. I'm from that country too, but Wikipedia is not a place to just show-off your country, no matter how great it is. Daiyusha (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I see no reason not to include so long as the sources are good. There is already a section for cancelled projects, so even if they are planned, not constructed and canceled, they are apparently still notable enough for inclusion in the article. The INS Vishal, which most the debate seems to surround, is apparently notable enough for it's own article. What is the point of an article on supercarriers if not to unify and provide context for all the disparate pages on individual projects and vessels? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an overview article. Including information in this article implies that what is included is the full story, particularly since we have information on all extant and past supercarriers. However, information about planned ships is often nebulous and unreliable or indeed deliberately withheld by the planning government. As a consequence a "planned supercarriers" section will always be incomplete and misleading and so should not be included in this overview article.

Certainly, for those planned ships for which there is good reliable sources, information can be included in articles about the particular ship or ship class in question or the planning country's navy etc. Once construction has commenced, reliable substantive sources become available. Timothyjosephwood, I understand your argument about the point of an article on supercarriers. It is precisely because we cannot provide proper context for planned ships, every detail of which is subject to change and in many cases we will not even know about the plans at all, that I believe we should not place this incomplete information here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Should you not then remove references like that to the CVA-01? It seems contradictory to me to include information on ships that were planned but cancelled, and then say that you shouldn't include ships that are planned because they might be cancelled. Either way is fine, but I think that for consistency, if you reject the section you should probably reject mention of the ships that were planned, never started construction, and then were cancelled. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree to view of Timothyjosephwood. How can the rejection of such a column be justified when there are references cited in the same article about the past proposed (not even constructed) and cancelled supercarriers . Both the columns, Proposed Supercarriers and Cancelled Supercarriers do no harm to the overall information provided in this article. Rather deleting either of them citing incomplete information available is actually crystallballing the article because their inclusion provides information currently released by the respective governments and thus do no harm to wikipedia policies. It is true that only incomplete information is available. This indicates the construction has not yet started but the respective governments have confirmed the overview of the designs.M.srihari (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Do we have any reliable sources referring to Vishal as a supercarrier? Or are we categorising her as such ourselves? If we are, then should we really be doing that? Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great Well, to be absolutely precise, it's 65,000 tons, 5000 tons short of 70,000 (P.S. 65,000 tons will be the minimum displacement, and is bound to increase) to be what is called a "supercarrier"... When Charles de Gaulle a 40,000 ton np-AC, Liaoning a 67,500 ton d-AC, and Admiral Kuznetsov a 61,390 ton d-AC can get a place in the article, I find it rather fascinating that a 65,000+ ton , probably, np-AC is being talked upon! I also disapprove the fact (if there is one) that, Supercarriers are the ones that are 'exactly' above 70,000 tons.. Plus, reliable sources need not specifically mention 'INS Vishal is a supercarrier', rather 'INS Vishal is a 65,000 ton AC' is equally approvable..Apart from INS Vishal, is there a tonnage problem with the 90,000+ ton np-AC of China currently under construction? Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish to bring to notice this sentence here "Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of aircraft carrier, typically those displacing over 70,000 tons (64,000 metric tons)."It's not an official description at all. So the absence of official confirmation is not a problem as stated by Jaaron95 |M.srihari (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Technically this threshold ((70000 tons))should not be considered a parameter for addition but the relative capacities of the carriers under discussion (such as no. of fighters carried). If any carrier comes close to the tonnage but meets other parameters, then they should be included (In my View).M.srihari (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

That's exactly why I added,

I also disapprove the fact (if there is one) that, Supercarriers are the ones that are 'exactly' above 70,000 tons..

--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great makes a very good point. We do not decide what these ships are called, we follow the sources. I have not seen any sources describing the Chinese or Indian ships as supercarriers. Interestingly this source from the Vishal article uses the term "super-carrier" in several places but, perhaps tellingly, only about the American ships and not once does it use the term about the Indian ship. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne:

Supercarrier is an unofficial descriptive term for the largest type of aircraft carrier, typically those displacing over 70,000 tons (64,000 metric tons).[1] Supercarriers are the largest warships ever built, larger than the largest battleship class laid down by any country.

see the first line again carefully. How can you expect official confirmation for a unofficial descriptive term "Supercarrier". Even the planned chinese supercarriers of 90,000 tons category are not mentioned supercarriers in the media. So does it mean they don't qualify as Supercarriers?M.srihari (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@Antiochus the Great:,@Nick Thorne: you both ask for citations to prove INS Vishal as supercarrier. But please bring citations that states only 70,000+ tons carriers qualify as supercarrier. Because the current citation provided is by two experts (1990) who state that there were 14 US supercarriers and 1 Soviet supercarrier. which soviet carrier are they mentioning.(As far as I know only Admiral Kuznetsov was operational and that too is five to eight thousand tonnes short for this description)M.srihari (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Please see the list decommisioned supercarriers. It states Forrestal class as the first supercarriers but they displace only 60,000 tons (smaller than all the carriers that are under discussion here).M.srihari (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

You completely miss the point. We do not call ships supercarriers because they are over some magic tonnage threshold, we call them supercarriers because they are referred to by that term in reliable sources. The tonnage factor in this article is simply an observation about which ships are called supercarriers today. FYI, the first ship to be called a supercarrier was not a Forrestal class carrier, it was HMS Ark Royal which was only 22,000 ton, as per the first line of the history section of this very article. The tonnage is not important, what the sources say is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the article here clearly states that Supercarriers are the largest ships ever built, larger the battleship class of any navy. From your explanation itself, we can conclude that we can't expect reliable articles to prove this. And also, please read the Article regarding Forrestal class. It states that they are the first class that fits the current definition.M.srihari (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

You are quotng the lead which is only a summary. Read the second paragraph of the history section, the current usage of the term as used by the US press refers to ships of the size you mention, but earlier usage was different. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What kinda argument is this? It reads like 1,000 meter is not equal to 1 km if a reliable source doesn't say so.. 1,000 meter = 1 km, what's the need for a reliable source here to say yes, they are equal? What kinda Wikipedia's policy states that? The article clearly defines what a supercarrier is and if it's not the case, we'll change it to supercarriers are the carriers which are mentioned so, in reliable source. Please don't argue over a pointless point, the carrier in it's current form is worthy of mentioning in this article. Here are the sources which states INS Vishal, a supercarrier; source1, source2. And is there a reliable source definition problem for the Chinese AC currently under construction? If so, I can find some... --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 11:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The definition as used here by Miller and Peacock is 25 years old, and was written at a time when the 60,000t Forrestal's were still in commission. I think it is fair to say, that since then, the thinking on what constitutes a supercarrier may have changed? Going by modern or recent reliable sources, only the American Nimitz class are frequently and unarguably referred to as supercarriers. Regarding Kuznetsov, apart from Miller and Peacock's 25 year old publication, I cannot find any further mention of it as a supercarrier. The Queen Elizabeth class are sometimes referred to as supercarriers by the media, but I personally do not consider a fickle and sensationalist media an authority on the matter, especially when the usage of the term is but the journalists opinion - not an expert opinion. Liaoning and Vishal are not and have not been refereed to as supercarriers by any publication, media source or otherwise. So based on the sources we have, we can conclude the American carriers are indeed supercarriers, while the QE class are sometimes referred to as supercarriers and Kuznetsov was considered to be a supercarrier in 1991 by Miller and Peacock. Anything other than this is WP:OR I am afraid... and I agree with Nick Thorne, that we cannot use an arbitrary tonnage figure to start categorising aircraft carriers ourselves. Unacceptable as far as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are concerned. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The references given by Jaaron95 actually solves the problem. Asking for expert opinions is actually prolonging this discussion unnecessarily. Personal views such as Media statements can't be accepted is actually against wikipedia policies. Miller and peacock didn't refer just the forrestal class. They bring Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and Nimitz(14 carriers) under the umbrella Supercarriers. This is itself a clear expert opinion(that carrier of 60,000+ tons qualify) . We can't expect expert opinion on carriers that are just in planning phase.M.srihari (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

This seems to be a reasonable argument (by Antiochus the Great). The definition of a 'supercarrier' could have changed overtime (And I suspect INS Vishal fitting that category sooner or later if, in the least of chances, the provided sources are insufficient/not reliable enough).. In that case, this article needs major tweaking.. Article should mention the history and the current definition of the word 'supercarrier'. Carriers which doesn't meet the current supercarrier definition should be removed from the list without fail (if they were supercarriers in the history definition of 'supercarrier' they can be included in the 'history' section). And I, in no way find these arguments in objection to the current dispute of adding the topic 'proposed supercarriers' to this article, which will contain the planned carriers of China, which evidently fits the current definition of 'supercarrier'. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur User:Jaaron95. I request other editors to include in their reply, about their view on the original issue (Proposed carrier section) also so that we may finally reach a consensus on both the issues.M.srihari (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Jaaron95, those sources are rather vague, Tellis is merely speculating on the possibility of a US partnership and if the USA would help India develop its first supercarrier. No clear indication if he is referring to Vishal or a future design, both are equally plausible depending on how you read it. Note that the second source is simply quoting Tellis from the first, so at best, we have one source that maybe referring to Vishal as a supercarrier. M.srihari, no it does not solve the problem, it creates another, see WP:UNDUE. Per that policy, we cannot have an article where Vishal (supported by a single speculative source that might be calling it a supercarrier) is being given equal weight alongside the Nimitz class (supported by plethora of reliable sources). Due and Undue weight is something we cannot ignore, this also applies to the QE class and Kuznetsov et cetera, not just Vishal. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Antiochus, we'll leave that issue of including INS Vishal for the time being and wait for reliable sources to pop up. Whether or not a carrier is a supercarrier is the next thing. It's now the dispute of whether or not a 'proposed supercarriers' section should be included... Regards--JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 12:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read this article http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/csl-offers-to-build-another-aircraft-carrier/article7212380.ece. It states that a senior navy officer has confirmed INS Vishal as a 65000 ton supercarrier. And for the views of tellis(see this http://carnegieendowment.org/files/making_waves.pdf), see the latest developments after renewal of DTTI. There are a thousand articles in which experts state that India might ask USA for assistance in Vishal's construction.And also please express your opinion on Proposed Carriers section too.M.srihari (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I have started a separate section to discuss inclusion of INS Vishal. please discuss it there because this issue has also occured in Vikrant class page also. Lets concentrate on the issue of whether to add Proposed carriers section in RfC and arrive at a consensus soon.M.srihari (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

No forward movement in this issue. Please respond to this issue also.M.srihari (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

• It is apparent that no consensus has been established to include a "proposed supercarriers" section. Consequently, unless someone posts a substantive argument different from any we've seen so far I have said all I intend to say on the matter. As for the issue of Vishal that remains entirely moot unless a consensus to include this section is established. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not enough users have participated in the RfC (as it is pretty young) and the results are obscure... The RfC can be retained for another 25 days.. WP:NODEADLINE --JAaron95 (Talk) 06:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

JAaron95 is right. The RFC will run for another 24 days. There is no need for a snow closure, and attempting a snow closure would be disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I take great exception to the implication that I was attempting a snow close of the RFC. I was just pointing out that no consensus had yet been reached and that unless new arguments are presented I do not intend to post in this thread again. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I have just become aware of this debate and wanted to inform you of one basic fact: Janes describes R08 & R09 as 'Supercarriers'. Also, for the record I don't think that this vague definition relates purely to tonnage anyway, rather a combination of elements. In fact, even R91 was described as a 'SuperCarrier' by Mark Beyer, Leonello Calvetti and Lorenzo Cecchi in their work 'Aircraft Carriers: Inside and Out' so the Queen Elizabeth class would most certainly belong in the category. In closing, to be perfectly frank, you'll find that the majority of naval experts refer to the British, American and Russian carriers over 55k short tonnes mainly as 'heavy aircraft carriers'. best wishes Twobells^t@lk 14:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is the threaded discussion for whether to included 'proposed supercarriers' in the article or not.. Discussion on the definition of 'supercarrier' go to the following heading.--JAaron95 (Talk) 14:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Twobells^t@lk 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Twobells If I may, may I know why you oppose the inclusion of the 'proposed carrier' section in the article? --JAaron95 (Talk) 17:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there are so many planned defence designs the article would be bogged down, however, I don't see anything wrong in starting a new 'propoposed military projects by nation' or 'proposed naval projects by nation' article, your best bet would be to subscribe to Janes Defence Weekly or Jane's International Defence Review, those technical journals are by far the best source of planned and on-going defence projects. In fact, the best tool for this is Janes 360, however, you need accrediation, regards. Twobells^t@lk 18:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Are we not specifically talking about 'Supercarriers' and not all defense projects as a whole? Currently there are roughly less than 10 carriers proposed worldwide which are of wide interest and are published by multiple reliable sources, how come the article will get 'bogged down' as the article is not that long!? And if I may, which policy/guideline of Wiki is backing you? Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 19:15, 15 June 2015 (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.

Indentation

Please do not change the indentation of my posts in a way that changes the apparent post to which I was replying, as was donw in this edit. If you do not understand how a properly threaded discussion works, please find out before you make such changes again. I was replying to a post by AtG, not one from JAaron95, that is why my post was indented as it was, after JAaron's change it appeared that I was re[lying to one of his posts. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! Didn't know indentation works 'that' way.... --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 10:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition For Supercarrier

Let's have the discussion of whether to include vishal in this section .M.srihari (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

I repost my reply here "Please read this article http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/csl-offers-to-build-another-aircraft-carrier/article7212380.ece. It states that a senior navy officer has confirmed INS Vishal as a 65000 ton supercarrier. And for the views of tellis(see this http://carnegieendowment.org/files/making_waves.pdf), see the latest developments after renewal of DTTI. There are a thousand articles in which experts state that India might ask USA for assistance in Vishal's construction."M.srihari (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

There is so much wrong with this post I am not even going to try to argue with it. I am sure you are here with the best of intentions, but competence is required. It is not us for to decide if Vishal is a supercarrier, we follow the sources: they do not say that it is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the source I have mentioned above. I wish you to respond because that way we could have a much meaningful discussion and end the issue (To note, this issue is also present in another article too)M.srihari (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Please read and understand UNDUE. A passing comment attributed to some unnamed official in a solitary source just does not cut the mustard for NPOV. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So, the only way to end this issue is by getting a source in which a distinguished expert gives the exact definition of a Supercarrier. Other than that, we can't end this issue. So I request that we search for a reliable source in which the exact definition is present.M.srihari (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

NO. If you want to include this ship, you need to find evidence that multiple reliable sources refer to it as a supercarrier. There are literally thousands of sources available to demonstrate that the term is used for the current generation of US carriers. By comparison, one or two isolated sources is not enough to support the claim for Vishal. We do not need to provide evidence for how the term supercarrier is defined, we only need to show that it is commonly used to describe certain ships. One of those ships is not Vishal. Your continued "I didn't hear that" approach about this simple fact is beginning to wear thin. Continuing down that path could be seen as disruptive, take care before you post again. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me worry about the steps I take. I am just asking a definition for what is a Supercarrier. There is no clear definition stated in the article. If we wish to truly develop the article, then we need to first add a reliable definition. And to mention, not only INS Vishal is at stake here, each and every carrier except the US ones are disputable. So, if there is no proper info, then all these need to be removed because only the US has such super large carriers and thus their experts use this term. Please think about the issue here. It is not the wikipedia policies, that are a issue. And,lets just have a temporary freeze in this section and concentrate on solving the proposed carrier issue because it is the one that is dragging for long. M.srihari (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

This is misguided. Wikipedia does not have the duty, or the power, to decide what words mean. It is Wikipedia's policy to follow common usage, as found in published sources. Maproom (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maproom:Wikipedia doesn't have that duty. But we editors do have it.(Perhaps every decision to be taken can't be covered by wikipedia policies when they are complex like this.). This is a matter of common logic. How can a reader know what is a supercarrier without a valid definition. I think This will misguide the readers, and also complicate the editing process too.M.srihari (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Not only is it misguided, it is pointless. Even if someone was to find several highly respected authoritative and reliable sources that provide a definition of the term supercarrier we still could not use that term to describe any ship unless the sources also say that the term is used to describe a particular ship. By way of example, suppose there was a ship with a flat top full length flight deck, a ski ramp designed to launch fixed wing aircraft, a hangar deck with lifts designed to transfer aircraft between the flight deck and hangar, maintenance facilities for aircraft and tanks for aviation fuel. Would that be an aircraft carrier? Not of it's a Canberra class LHD. You need to understand that we do not decide what things are called no matter how much we think it fits some definition. The sources decide, we must follow them. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne:It is neither a misguided nor a pointless argument. If we need to prove something, then we need to first know what it means. I take the same example provided by you. The Canberra Class is an LHD with a Ski jump ramp because it is based on the design of a multipurpose Amphibious assault ship Juan Carlos I. It is indeed a LHD since the Australian Navy has confirmed that it has assigned it the role. But, the ship Juan Carlos I meets the necessary conditions for an MRSV, a LHD as well as a Light Carrier. If the role is clearly stated, then we don't have any issue. But, say, if the australian navy didn't confirm it, then it should be called an Aircraft carrier.(Much like the HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which doesn't have any operational fighters on-board but is called as aircraft carrier.) You can see that, if there are no reliable sources and no definition given for a LHD or aircraft carrier, then we may have a situation In the Canberra class LHD page, similar to the one here.M.srihari (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

@Nick Thorne: And I wish to make note of the fact that Vishal, Kuznetsov or Liaoning are confirmed by the respective governments as aircraft carriers(!) but they didn't make a point of whether they are Light(?),medium or Heavy(Super) carriers. And of course, we don't have a good definition for Supercarrier.M.srihari (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Firstly, do not attempt to say what I want to do, I will speak for myself. Secondly, your continued, apparently deliberate, refusal to get a key Wikipedia policy is becoming disruptive. One last time I am going to try to make it as clear as I can. We do not decide how to categorize ships. We follow the sources. The only thing that matters here is what the sources say. For a term like supercarrier, which is not an official designation but it a term used by the popular press, you need to demonstrate that the press use the term to describe the ship. One passing reference does not cut it, unless you can show that the ship is commonly or usually referred to as a supercarrier in the press you have nothing except at best a fringe view. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne:Pf ft....Who is commanding you sergeant Major??? I think you are probably making statements from my side. You say that the issue is that I don't bring any policies to support my views. Then prove me that I'm wrong that I shouldn't ask for a definition by wikipedia policy. I will step out of the argument right away. You can't respond to my reply back there. Accept that. And again, Are you asking for an expert opinion or media opinion. Let me present some of the views presented in the RfC.

You completely .........sources say is

by You.

The definition as ........are concerned.

by Antiochus the Great. And the source that you have asked for is provided by JAaron itself

What kinda argument ........ I can find some...

.

And moreover, I wish to add an extra point here. Since Supercarrier is an description coined by US media, some other countries don't use them in there home media.(I hope you understand.) The Proposed russian Shtorm carriers are referred as heavy weight carriers in their home media. And the chinese media also doesn't seem to go with this term. So you say that we need to created diff. pages for these? If you say so, then perhaps the answer is given by Jaaron back there(see the discussion I have quoted). Reply to this please.(And I ain't commanding you)M.srihari (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Unintelligible gibberish. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wish to inform (warn) you that calling others discussions as "unintelligible gibberish" is a serious personal attack. Please be civil. Nobody is forcing you to participate in the discussion. If you wish, you could stay out of it. And, please see the wikipedia guideline about common sense.M.srihari (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Feel free to take it to AN/I, but beware the boomerang. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think I have other good jobs to do. I know that my hands are clean. But beware, you are way to sucked up into this and your previous actions itself act as a proof that you just wish to keeps your senses numb.M.srihari (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

At present, the inclusion of Vishal does not satisfy WP:UNDUE. We only have a single source where Tellis appears to refer to Vishal as a supercarrier - this to me suggests the notion of the ship being a supercarrier is but a fringe viewpoint, not a widely accepted viewpoint (see WP:FRINGE). This same argument applies to both the Kuznetsov and Liaoning too. It also semi applies to the Queen Elizabeth carriers. Furthermore, we on Wikipedia cannot categorise a ship as a supercarrier based on an arbitrary tonnage figure from a 25 year old citation - we must have reliable sources that say so.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Antiochus the Great: Yes. I agree that a mere tonnage from a 25 year old source can't be taken as an evidence. That is why I request that we first find a reliable source that defines what is a supercarrier, because we don't have one in this article. I hope you understand my Point. And by the way, could you express your views on the proposed carriers section, Nick thorne has made his views clear. I hope you read the views of the user Timothyjosephwood and reply for it. It could give a refreshed start to the discussion there. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

• Hello, I have just become aware of this debate and wanted to inform you of one basic fact: Janes describes R08 & R09 as 'Supercarriers'. Also, for the record I don't think that this vague definition relates purely to tonnage anyway, rather a combination of elements. In fact, even R91 was described as a 'SuperCarrier' by Mark Beyer, Leonello Calvetti and Lorenzo Cecchi in their work 'Aircraft Carriers: Inside and Out' so the Queen Elizabeth class would most certainly belong in the category. In closing, to be perfectly frank, you'll find that the majority of naval experts refer to the British, American and Russian carriers over 55k short tonnes mainly as 'heavy aircraft carriers'. best wishes Twobells^t@lk 14:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: thanks for your participation, appreciate it. You have shelled out from other sources that supercarriers are not the ones that are only above 70,000 tons. I have two questions for you.. A) Should the article continue having it's existing definition of supercarrier (especially in it's lead)? B) What makes a carrier eligible for to be termed as 'supercarrier'? --JAaron95 (Talk) 15:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95: yes, the lede seems neutral and pretty descriptive, if pushed you'd usually find that defence sources like IHS would say that heavy aircraft carriers aka 'supercarriers' usually have a displacement above 65k short tonnes as well as the ability to project extensive hard power, regards. Twobells^t@lk 15:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: if it is so, INS Vishal displacing 65000+ tons and reportedly produces 83 MW of power is a Supercarrier!?--JAaron95 (Talk) 15:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95:Early days, but yes once the keel and island have been laid I see absolutely no reason not to add it to the article, the trouble is so much is vague at the moment, IF the INS Vishal does carry heavy fighters or potentially UCAV's then of course it should be added as the balance of the criteria for a heavy aircraft carrier has been fulfilled. Twobells^t@lk 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "disputed" tag

I have reverted the insertion of a "disputed" tag in this edit for two reasons. Firstly the allegedly disputed info is in the article lead and a full description of how the word "supercarrier" has been used historically is already in the body of the article with appropriate refs. Secondly, one editor exhibiting chronic IDHT as shown clearly in the Definition For Supercarrier section of this talk page does not constitute a dispute in any meaningful usage of the word. If there were multiple editors on both sides of the argument there would be a case for the tag, but there is not. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

I have reverted a series of 4 edits by M.srihari. These edits seem to have been to make a point. In addition, the last of these edits, which removed 4,683 bytes, was improperly marked a minor edit. This sort of nonsense has to stop. Wikipedia relies on the sources. Editors do not get to decide which ships are called supercarriers. There are available RSs that describe the QEs as supercarriers. Editors' personal opinions do not matter. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor's moves doesn't seem to be of good faith, rather a nationalistic view and are clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Also the editor doesn't seem to take heed of other editors and is firm in his views, right or wrong. I don't mind taking him to WP:ANI or even higher.. Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 07:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please take me there, I wish to make my point to them rather than making quarrels here(especially to you guys again and again). And By the way, Can't you see the edit made by ScrapIronIV supported by Nick Thorne in removing Kuznetsov Class, when we already have a discussion ongoing here Mr.JAaron95 ??M.srihari (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

If you guys think that my edits are disruptive and once again remove Kuznetsov Class, I will again remove QE class, The definition,etc,etc whatsoever that is disputed here as it fits Nick Thorne's logic. Regards--M.srihari (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

It's not about "definitions" it is about what reliable sources call them. QE series have multiple sources, Kuznetsov does not. And I see your entire point is to get your "baby" defined that way, too. Ski-ramp carriers that can't deploy full size fighters just don't make it. BUT... If everyone starts CALLING them "supercarrier" then they can be included, regardless of definition. Scr★pIron^IV 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You little "baby". I remember you back there in your unblock request where you promised not to make further edits in the articles when you are banned. Perhaps, you don't even know what does block mean. So start to walk first before you try to rush with your views.M.srihari (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

(edit conflict)I have reverted the editor's insertion of the unsoutced info about the Soviet/Russian carriers. He claims consensus but where is this consensus? - Nick Thorne ^talk 16:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

INS Vikramaditya (45,400 tons of load displacement)

INS Vikramaditya has 45,400 tons of load displacement capacity and I think this air-craft carrier (ACC) can be mentioned in the article in place of the British and French ACCs both of which have lesser load replacement capacity than this ship. But we often find English Wikipedia articles to be biased and thus it cannot be classified as a neutral source as this is misrepresentation of facts or selective reporting. Is Wikipedia really neutral or some kind of bias exists against developing countries or it is only the representation of Western countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.189.125 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you referring to the images, the French and British carriers aren't cited as supercarriers, they're simply used to visually compare a supercarrier to a medium-sized and light carrier. The British are building two super carriers, which have a displacement over 64,000 metric tons. Rob984 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Supercarrier definition

In size and technology American aircraft carriers are in a class of their own. A simple resolution to the dispute regarding what constitutes a Supercarrier is to introduce a new class name.

• Hypercarrier: aircraft carriers over 100,000 tonnes
• Supercarrier: aircraft carriers between 70,000 and 100,000 tonnes

A similar concept is shown here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower#Hyperpower. Another example is with Supertankers. When considerably larger supertankers were launched new terms were introduced: VLCC (Very Large Crude Carriers), and later, ULCC (Ultra Large Crude Carriers).

An alternative unofficial descriptive term is Ultracarrier. B. Fairbairn (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So this is just your own views, any sources? Probably in WP:NOTFORUM territory here. Frankly, supercarriers are hardly a class of there(?) own. Other than size, what is actually the difference between Charles de Gaulle and Nimitz? Charles de Gaulle is already so huge that there is no limitation on the amount of equipment that can be fitted. Maybe the American carriers have significantly more advanced technology, however this isn't related to the size of the carrier. So really, "super" carriers are just medium-sized carriers with higher capacity for more aircraft and slightly faster sorties due to the extra catapult. The 70,000 definition is rather arbitrary and infers nothing of capability beyond capacity and sorties. The US DOD even justifies such large carriers primarily on cost in relation to capacity. Same with the UK, wanting to expand carrier capacity at the lowest cost, so instead of building 3 carriers, build two huge ones. Except now they can't afford a commando carrier :/ Rob984 (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered Charles de Gaulle has two catapults, as it has an additional one at the rear of the ship on the landing area. This means its rate of sorties is actually quite similar, as long as no aircraft are landing. Rob984 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha - All I need to do is pay a journo to write an article suggesting hypercarrier, and I have a source. Two articles and the term is official!

Tonnage distinguishes super tanker classes. It's logical to apply the same criteria to other forms of 'super' large craft. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Erm no. You cannot just pay a journalist "to write an article suggesting hypercarrier"... as the resulting article would merely be the journalist personal opinion and not a statement of fact. It really ticks me off, that at some point, somewhere, a great many contributors to this project have forgotten that the personal opinions of a journalist are to be treated no different to the personal opinions of everybody else (I.e they don't belong on Wikipedia). Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Right yeah, lets ignore that suggestion. Anyway, I think we should look if there are alternative definitions for "supercarrier" that are focused more on capability, rather than size. In regards to size, "supercarrier" seems to just be a media term. Especially given these carriers are considered by some analysts to be more vulnerable and therefore less effective than a larger number of smaller carriers. Rob984 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Journalists rarely report objectively and are renowned for using inaccurate facts, yet on wikipedia all you need is an article by a journalist to satisfy the 'external source' qualifier. My suggestion of paying a journo to write an article was a tongue-in-cheek, cynical one. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Only the US Navy has aircraft carriers over 100,000 tonnes in weight. How do they label their carriers? According to the US Navy web site fact file, aircraft carrier is the correct term. It appears that "Supercarrier" is as Rob suggests a term concocted by a journalist. If so, should there even be a Supercarrier page on wikipedia? B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The term supercarrier has been around a long time, and has been in pretty much continuous use since the late 1950s for the USN's large carriers. This includes books published by historical writers, who aren't really "journalists" in the sense of newspaper (and internet) reporters, which is how I understand your use of the term. "Supercarrier" has been used in the titles of many non-fiction books about the carriers, and has even been used by a TV series (a thankfully short-lived one, as the writing and acting were quite bad!) As such, its usage is usage is well attested to in multiple reliable published sources (even though it is a totally unofficial term so far as the US Navy is concerned), and thus more than satisfies WP:GNG for existing as an article.

As to the ludicrous idea of paying a journalist to use a term so one could add it to WP, you'd need to a lot more than one journalist to make it noteworthy. That would apply to anything, not just "hypercarrier" or "ultracarrier". While I understand your cynicism, we don't generally write whole articles on one writer's minor use of a term. Even including it in an article would be problematic, as explained by the others. - BilCat (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly the Oxford dictionary defines supercarrier as a very large freight vehicle, very big cargo ship or very large aircraft carrier. B. Fairbairn (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Discrepancies

With all the back and forth going on here, I am almost afraid to make an entry. But, here goes. The use of the word ton is inconsistent in this article. Sometimes it is spelled TON and sometimes it is spelled TONNE. Also, in the descriptions under both of the photographs it seems that the ships' displacement comparisons are done under different conventions, where one is listed as ton and the other is listed as metric ton. That is confusing and detracts from a true comparison. And, as all current "supercarriers" are at this time American, why are all the displacements in this article even listed in metric units without even a mention of the displacement in the same units as shown on the U.S. Navy's own official web site? 3dSurveyor (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the discrepancies are the result of what I refer to as the "Too Many Wiki-cooks Syndrome." (As in the old proverb, "Too many cooks spoil the broth.") The article is written in American English, so metric ton should be used, not tonne. As to your other points, they do need to be addressed, but are beyond my knowledge to correct on my own. - BilCat (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supercarrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820182239/http://www.defense.gov//releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16035 to http://www.defense.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Add metric conversions for all imperial units?

I've added them to the captions of the two images in the lead (so you can actually compare the figures for the American ships with the French and British ones), but I also think all short tons and long tons throughout the article should include metric conversions. Sources are going to use different units and I certainly don't think we should try to convert them all to one unit (because the data would not be verifiable), but I reakon including conversions to metric using {{convert}} (so they appear adjacent to the cited figures) is a decent solution. Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3