Talk:Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning/Archive 1

as designed

shouldn't the "as designed" information be removed from the infobox? It should be in the companion article, Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, not this one. 70.24.246.151 (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I included those specs here as there's no updated info on the new configurtion based on reliable sources available at this time. Having it here will at least give readers an idea of its size and specs, whithout making them look at another page. We can replace it once updated info become avaliable. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated photo??

Can someone who has the copyrights to some newer photos of the ex-Varyag post them onto this article? The ship is now largely fully refurbished and has already completed its first sea trials. There are mutliple sources across the web displaying newer imagery of the ex-varyag (like http://alert5.com/2011/08/17/photos-varyag-out-at-sea/ , for example) , I'm just not sure if any of them conform to wiki's strict guidelines for uploading photos. The current image, however, of the ex-Varyag as a rusting hulk is severely outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCQknight (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be awhile, as I doubt the PLAN just lets anyone with a camera in view of the ship. They take national security very seriously. - BilCat (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Could try Google Earth On There Navy Yards, it's gotta park there sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Associated Press has a pretty good picture of the Varyag at sea: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/slideshow/ALeqM5gsDIXw0lMCiDUT3zN_BgUMvYo0vw?docId=ff45a05f37d542fea0f6854bfff884e1&index=0 75.158.81.6 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you be allowed to use a photo from the Official Website of the Chinese Government News Agency which is a Government Organization? Their photos are in the Public Domain due to them being a Government Agency. Am I correct? If so here is a link for you to check out. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-03/30/c_131498394.htm Magnum Serpentine (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

MERGE WITH Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

Merge was the consensus; now done. --John (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agree - Why have two articles for the same ship especially as it never enterred service with the Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian Navies?Petebutt (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose both articles are large, and the Chinese article will only grow larger. Perfectly good size based split. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Agree - I don't see too much reason that the same ship could have 2 article. But, if the merger is done, the title is definitely no longer good to be Chinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag, it should be something like Varyag (aircraft carrier). The aircraft carrier's Chinese name didn't change after the reconstruction, no something like "ex-" was added to its Chinese name, officially it's still named "Varyag" (瓦良格). So it's reasonable to omit the "ex-" in its title, to be Varyag (aircraft carrier) for the merged article. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose - My primary reason for splitting the aritcle was in addition to reducing its length, to allow room for growth on the carrier in Chinese service, and for updated specs, while allowing the other article to remain relatively stable, with the older specs. As to the name of this article, do we actually know that the PLAN still calls the ship Varyag? To my knowledge, we have no idea what they call it, because they haven't told anyone publically. However, I don't oppose renaming the article back to Chinese aircraft carrier Varyag, but that should probably be discussed separately. - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC) The two article have lots of things duplicated from each other (#Sold at auction, #Towed to China), actually, each of them has not too much content non-duplicated, it's no good. Usually we don't have exact same paragraphs in two articles, if something's duplicated we use template to have both updated simultaneously with the same proper attributions in the template's history. But here I don't think template is good. I feel that not the "stable", "length" things but the large amount of the duplicated content disturb editors. An article don't need to be "stable" and the length of the merged article would be about 25K (with everything) which is still very reasonable (see size rule). It's also wrong to create content forks to escape from guildlines and advices such as WP:Recentism. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC) SOrry, but I don't appreciate your accusations ofwrongdoing on my part. I explained my reasonings, and nowhere was I trying "to escape from guildlines and advices". This isn't a POV fork in anyway, and content forks are allowed. - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Agree - size is a red herring. The article is currently 23k with all pics and diagrams etc. It could be 36k of text alone before it needs to be split on size alone. There is absolutely no need to split this article at all at this point in time. The carrier's previous history will be helpfully in one article and helpful to read when people are reading about the first Chinese provisional CVBG visiting Hawaii in five-seven years time. Carrier articles have routinely gone over 60k; only at that point should any split be considered. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Agree - Much of the content is the same between articles. Most of the text in the Soviet article could be used in a history section of the China article without adding too much length to the overall article. Killian441 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Agree - Regardless of what the current articles do and don't have, is there really enough that could be uniquely said about the Soviet ship that would justify a separate article from the Chinese ship? I rather doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Agree - Most of the Russian ship's history is already covered in the Origin section. Any additional pertinent information could be added to that section. This part of the article doesn't need to be very extensive though because there really isn't a lot of significant history before it was sold. It wasn't even a ship yet, just a hull. "There isn't any there there" as Gertrude Stein would say. Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Oppose - primarily because we already have precedent on this exact issue. See ARA General Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46). It would seem the ship topics segregate when they enter new service. They have different political/national directives and different technology with only a hull/deck in common, which is even less than the example I found. MartinezMD (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Support The comparison with Belgrano is an interesting one but not that compelling; that ship had two separate careers in two separate navies. The Varyag, as Shoeless Ho points out, was only a hull in Soviet service and never did anything. Given the degree of overlap between the two articles I think a merge would make sense. --John (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Agree I could see the need for two articles if the carrier had a significant history in active Soviet service. But it doesn't. Scopper81 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Support - sorry Bill, but I think these two belong together, seeing as the ship was never commissioned by the Russians. (And does this thing have a name yet?) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Support per above. 46.13.56.75 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

CIWS, original specs, etc.

Commenting on the ship's specs, if I'm not mistaken, this ship has CIWS installed at 3 points (2 aft + 1 fwd), not 4. There's also ASW rocket launcher installed in aft position(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knGBLUH1egg

The Varyag was never completed in Ukraine and none of the original spec weapon systems were installed. I don't think listing the original weapon specs in the right column is necssary, but if you wish to provide the information, it'd be better to present it in the body of the article with comparison between original Soviet specs vs. modernized Chinese specs.

As for merging the 2 articles, if the contain repetitive information, then I say go for it. -- Adeptitus (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Arresting gears

Russia refuse to sell China the arresting gears for the Varyag.

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=13702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.229 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What?

Varyag was launched on December 4, 1988, and renamed Varyag (Varangian) in late 1990

So it was renamed to the name it already had? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.31.15 (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked back in previous edits and found that it had originally been named the Riga when the keel was laid down. Apparently that info got lost in the shuffle of subsequent edits. I added the info back into the article. Shoeless Ho (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Role

This ship is a carrier of aircraft, otherwise known as an aircraft carrier. The prolix description of its alleged role does not give any real meaning to the title of "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser". Like the Royal Navy's "Through-deck cruiser", these are just euphemisms adopted for (different) political reasons. The vessel was bound by the Montreux Convention whatever it is called, for it is an aircraft carrier - a rose by any other name, as Shakespeare said. Accordingly I would suggest that the section is not about the role of the vessel at all, but its deliberately misleading title. I suggest that the section should be renamed - perhaps to "Soviet attempts to avoid compliance with Montreux Convention" - and it be clear that the alleged role was nothing more than a Soviet smokescreen to support the artifice124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Amusement Park

Wasn't there some controversy about the future use of the hull? I seem to remember that at that time there was talk about the Chinese only being allowed to buy the hull on the strict condition that it would not be put to military use? --BjKa (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but since that time, there has been a major change in power in Ukraine, and possession being nine-tenths of the law ... No one seriously believed that once it was in Chinese waters anything could be done if the Chinese decided to 'nationalize' it and put it to use as a military vessel. Several Jane's articles discuss the issue.

Perhaps this information should be in the article with proepr reference; as the ship was mentioned lately, I read an article about this condition at http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/varyag.asp but I am not sure if it is a reliable source. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Tug sailor that died

Are you sure his name was "Aries" Lima? Because *Aires* Lima would definitely be a Portuguese name (even though he could still be Dutch...). 89.153.150.71 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Liaoning

Much of the text says "Varyag" under Chinese ownership, that should be updated to "Liaoning". It should be Varyag only for the term under Ukrainian control, and Riga for the term while the Soviet Union still existed. -- 70.50.151.6 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it depends on context. Since the ship was only named Liaoning on 25 Sep 2012, references to her for earlier dates may well require usage of the earlier name. Also, the vessel was renamed Varyag whilst the Soviet Union was still extant - it was named after an earlier famous Soviet cruiser. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the earlier cruiser was pre-Soviet Russian. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Landing videos from Chinese News programs

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=55a_1353810189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.126.239 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Russian pilots

According to several Russian and Chinese sources (e.g. Epochtimes), J15 were flew by Russian pilots because all Chinese naval pilots were failed to perform landing/take off from the aircraft carrier safely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.190.136 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

^{Moved this section to the end of the article.}

How could this be true? The article itself has already indicated that "The first pilot to land on the Liaoning was revealed to be Dai Mingmeng (戴明盟)", with reference provided. 98.210.64.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What references? Please supply them if you wish to include the information in the article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's reference 45. Not in English, but you can view a just-about readable translation here: [1] Thom2002 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Epoch times is not a valid source. Dark Liberty (talk)07:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Epoch times is not a trustable source. - JesseW900 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-English language references

A number of references for this article are non-English and are entirely written in Chinese characters. This is the English Wikipedia and I formally request that either English translations be provided, or the references be removed and replaced with English ones. Refer WP:NONENG. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read you will see that WP:NONENG says, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." If you dispute the statements referenced, then translations of relevant sections of the source may be added as footnotes. There is no requirement to translate all references, especially if they are not disputed. Also there is not need to remove non-English references unless another English language reference is available. Given this is a topic about a Russian/Chinese ship, it is very likely that a great deal of information about this topic is available in Chinese or Russian only. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Operating near Senkakus?

The last sentence states the Liaoning's squadron was operating near the Senkaku Islands and cites a news article. But reading the article I don't see anything about that. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.40.12.144 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

International incident with US warships in international/disputed waters

This seems relevant: Chinese Naval Vessel Tries to Force U.S. Warship to Stop in International Waters, 13 Dec 2013. N2e (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

How so? See Wikipedia is not a newspaper - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not an Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier

This article is in the Category:Admiral Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers of the People's Liberation Army Navy and the infobox says "Class & type: Admiral Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier". However, since commissioning, the ship is the PLAN CV-16 Liaoning. Its class is Liaoning. Although the hull was laid down as Admiral Kuznetsov-class, it was never finished. The armour and other systems were never installed and it was never commissioned by the Soviet navy. The Uchranians completely gutted the ship and the Chinese built their ship within the empty hull. The Liaoning does not fit any of the specifications of the Admiral Kuznetsov-class. It is a new class of its own. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Otherwise this is wp:or - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC) ~ ~

Only source I've found that suggests that the Chinese consider this to be a new class is:

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20131003000077&cid=1101 Discussing China's future carrier, Li said that some improvements will be made even if it the vessel in the same class with the Liaoning.

Western sources lump it in with the Soviet class, but they've most likely been wiki-struck. Hcobb (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that source does not name any class to which Liaoning belongs. Ships do not change their class because they have been modified, even greatly. Naval history is full of examples of ships that have been greatly altered and yet are still witihin their original class. At most, some are considered to be "modified Foo class", not some other new class. Unless there seems to be a consensus in the sources that this ship is considered to be some exception to this standard practice, she should remain listed as in the class she was originally laid down as. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the original source but I do remember an article in the Chinese (English language) press at the time the ship was commissioned. I googled all day but it gets swamped with later events and adverts for teachers in the province with the same name. Best I could find was an article on sinodefence but I will be the first to day that that is not a good source. Another source [2] uses the word Liaoning Class but only in reference to a forum discussion. Again not a good source.

alert5.com has an article entitled "Liaoning designated as Type 001 class aircraft carrier" which is a rough translation of the poster in the photo which was sourced for sina. The same poster can be seen in xinhuanet article about the commissioning. In our article I don't see any mention of "type 001".

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that any of those would qualify as reliable sources. even if one or a few do qualify, we would only be entitled to provide coverage for that pov in accordance with the relative weight of those sources, given that the overwhelming majority of the relevant reliable sources place the ship in its original class I doubt we could do more than mention that some sources put her in a new class. However we are nowhere near that yet as we do not have any reliable sources for the new class. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It incorrect that "Ships do not change their class because they have been modified, even greatly." That custom only applies to western navies. Chinese ship classes do not have names, they are numbers and letter codes. Admiral Kuznetsov is not the class, it is the NATO reporting name. In Russian the class was Project 1143.6 (Проект 1143.6) and in when commissioned into the PLAN the Liaoning was assigned Type 001 (001型). There are lots of references to this title in the Chinese press if you google. For example:

• 官媒首次曝光我国首艘001型航母舰上舰内照
• 001型航母入列儀式傳遞話外強音
• 仪式标牌显示“辽宁舰”内部型号是“001型航母”
• 视频: 001型航空母舰交接入列仪式 - Clip from CCTV news report
• [ 酷六001型航空母舰交接入列仪式] - Same CCTV news clip on a different video site
• 直击“001型”航母入列

Xinhua news, "Chinese President attends aircraft carrier "Liaoning" handover ceremony in Dalian". There is the the words Chinese: 001型航母舰交接入列仪式; pinyin: 001 Xíng hángmǔ jiàn jiāo jiē rù liè yíshì; lit. '001-type aircraft carrier ship out commissioning ceremony'" and the caption below says, "Chinese President Hu Jintao (C, front), also chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), and Premier Wen Jiabao (3rd R, front) attend the aircraft carrier handover ceremony held at a naval base in Dalian, northeast China's Liaoning Province, Sept. 25, 2012. China's first aircraft carrier "Liaoning" was delivered and commissioned to the Navy of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Tuesday after years of refitting and sea trials. CMC Vice Chairmen Guo Boxiong (3rd L, front) and Xu Caihou (2nd R, front), State Council Secretary-General Ma Kai (2nd L, front), director of the PLA's General Armament Department Chang Wanquan (1st R, front) and Navy Commander Wu Shengli (1st L, front) also attended the ceremony."

In past cases, when the Chinese bought a ship form the USSR, they changed its class number - even if the ship had no modification. Example, Chinese destroyer Anshan (101). It was originally a known as Решительны. It was, in English, either Gordy Class destroyer or Gnevny-class destroyer. In Russian it was Project 7 class (проекта 7). She was launched by the USSR navy in 1941 and used through WWII. In the 1954 it was transferred to the PLAN where she was renamed Anshan (207) and listed as a Type 6607 or Type 07 class destroyer (Chinese: 07型). The NATO reporting name for this class is the Anshan Class. In 1974 its hull number was changed to 101. Chinese: 101 鞍山 07型 愤怒级 1954.10.26服役 1992.4.24退役. The other Type 07 destroyers are Fushun (102), Changchun (103), Taiyuan (104) which were likewise Chinese acquisitions for the USSR Project 7.

Similar stories can be made for the Russian Project 629 submarines which are Chinese Type 6631 or Type 031, Russian Project 633 became Chinese Type 033, etc.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Issues with current article

The infobox has a reference for the displacement given as "Keene, The Battles of Coxinga: Chikamatsu's Puppet Play, Its Background and Importance, 45." which is a book written in 1951. I doubt it says anything about the Liaoning ship.

The infobox also says "General characteristics are for the Varyag as originally designed" but then under "Armament:" lists both before and after refit in an unclear way. Shouldn't the infobox list the current specifications as reported on CNTV and military.china.com and put the old spec into a section within the article itself. (Or else have two infoboxes with old and new spec)

Reference No.3 nbcnews is under the heading "as designed" meaning the Varyag was desiged for, but the article linked is talking about the Liaoning not the old spec of the Varyag.

The section "Aircraft carried: Shenyang J-15 Changhe Z-8 Ka-31" has no sources and conflicts with military.china.com which says 26 fighters, 20 Kamov Ka-27, and 4 Kamov Ka-31. I will accept that the military.china.com article is from 2011 and there may have been updates since, but if so they need references.

The history section begins "The Liaoning ship has spent a piece of its' near-30 year life with the Soviet, Russian, Ukranian, and now, Chinese navies." besides spelling errors, the ship was never in the Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian navies. It was never commissioned by these navies. Also did Russia ever make claim to the ship post 1991? Surely it went direct form the USSR to Ukrainian control. If otherwise, references need added to the current article or the sentence may be removed.

In the section "Sea trials and handover" there is confusing grammar that needs updating. For example, "In July 2012, the ship set out for the longest sea trials so far, 25 days, and there was speculation that this would have involved testing the launching and recovery of aircraft." uses the words "so far" which is out of date. The sentence " Reuters reports PLA officers stating the carrier is far from operational with extensive further trials and exercises required" is in present tense but should be changed to past tense or removed as out of date. The sentence, "Currently, there is no official confirmation on any operational aircraft on the carrier," shouldn't have the word currently as that was over two years ago.

See WP:NOTNEWS, do we need a log of ever see trial and training ex this ship does. We don't have such logs for other ships. Only notable events go into an encyclopaedia such as active service deployments. The latter parts of the article need to be made into a narrative rather than just a list of dates with new editors just adding one sentence remarks ever time a news story is published mentioning the Liaoning. As WP:NOTNEWS puts it, "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." and the same may be said for a ship. As such I removed the section about training in the South China Sea.

The section "Strategic implications" only mentions Japan when other navies in the region are involved. This section needs expanding to cover the whole region.

Reliable References. Read WP:RS then look at:

• 1. Keene: I don't see how this book is relevant here.
• 5. navyrecognition.com looks like a self published website.
• 6. Russiafile.com was a dead link when I tried it.
• 9. The World Reporter is not a profetional news site. It is a student run online news journal (Blog).
• 13. osaarchivum.org was a dead link when I tried it.
• 14. blogspot.com need I say more?
• 15. china-defense-mashup.com is another blog.
• 16. milavia.net is a self published website.
• 20. and 21. strategypage.com is a self published website.
• 22. jeffhead.com is a self published blog.
• 25. cnair.top81.cn was a dead link when I tried it.
• 30. Manilatimes.net was a dead link when I tried it.
• 33. China Times ref give title in English but this is a Chinese language paper making it impossible to verify. Original story title or link required.
• 43. airforceworld.com is a self published website.
• 51. navy.gov linked page failed verification. The linked page doesn't mention anything related to this article or cited claim.

There are also 5 citation needed templates on the article. Some of these date to August 2011 and need to be addressed.

External links

• VaryagWorld.com - self published website should be removed
• Transformation of the Varyag into a PLAN Aircraft Carrier - a blog, also in references should be removed
• "Varyag Aircraft Carrier" article on sinodefence.com - broken link. Article isn't there any more.
• Actual physical location in the World - no its not. The ship is no longer in Dalian. Home port is now Qingdao.

In short, large parts of this article need rewritten or updated.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Recommend you begin to edit and make some changes to start to improve the worst of those. My only thought beyond that is to suggest that you may want to start slowly, to allow discussion of anything on the Talk page, until you gain a broader consensus. But I don't believe that edits to remove junk sources, or statements that don't really relate to the article or are unsourced. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Steam power is listed. Is it coal, oil, or what that generates the steam to power her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.180.167.11 (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't find a clear source. I don't think there's been a new coal-steam ship in 50+ years. Originally it seems to have been "gas" (natural gas? LP?)[3] just says "turbo" for steam. Here is an interesting article on the subject of fuel and propulsion for the ship: [4] MartinezMD (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Jinping inspection

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1420471/xi-jinping-told-aircraft-carrier-captain-build-combat-readiness-official

Is the Jinping visit notable? Hcobb (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by anonymous editor

I have reverted 3 edits by 108.65.249.168. These edits introduce a number of grammatical and spelling errors, use the wrong English word or at least one that is not what would be normally used by a fluent English user in the given context. Also, there is no such ship prefix as "PLN". If you want to make edits that have been previously reverted, please discuss it here first as per BRD. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur. There were also style errors such as de-italicizing ships's names. As far as I can tell, none of the changes the IP user made were necessary. - BilCat (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While editing the article I inadvertently introduced two or three mistakes, that perhaps you hastily concluded that the entire edit was not good, but those are not grounds for doing a revert without including the many improvements that were made to the article, as any administrator would attest.

The two versions have been merged while retaining the original context. If there are any changes you wish to make, even if there are errors, build upon the current version; don't revert all the edits and call that progress. I look forward to working with you in the future. 108.65.249.168 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, 108.65.249.168, I believe the correct process was followed. See WP:BRD. You bold edit was fine, but if someone felt it should not stay, the correct approach is to revert it and take it to the Talk page. In this case, it looks like two editors thought that the correct course of action. (At this moment, I am agnostic on the specifics, and haven't yet looked at them. I'm just commenting on the process for gaining consensus on a controversial (set of) edit(s).)

I recommend you draft your (fixed) proposed change, put it here, and then discuss with all interested editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) 108.65.249.168, I explained my reason for reverting in my first post in this section, you have not addressed these issues. What you need to do now is explain here what changes you want to make and get agreement before you make them again to the article.- Nick Thorne ^talk 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC):

I don't need to explain anything. How sad that these editors are fighting over a few punctuation marks, and that Nobody bothered to even read the recent edits, and BilCat making false claims that the ship's names were de-italicized (perhaps it was a hasty judgment). Moreover, it looks like are these 2 editors, which do not reflect the Wikipedia community as a whole, are interested in introducing false material, false content, and bad grammatical errors, which is tantamount to vandalism.

While there were two or three mistakes, they are part of the editing process, and I indicated earlier twice that a mistake had existed, and second, that those errors introduced have been corrected.

This is not directed to any editor in particular, but towards Nick Thorne's actions.

Notable Violations of Wikipedia Guidelines:

1) Wikilaywering - arguing the word of policy WP:BRD to defeat the principles of policy.

2) Playing policies against each other - WP:BRD vs WP:BOLD and "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." which you could have refined it but you were on your imagined high executive position and reverted rather than introducing improvements.

3) Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view (Gaming the system). Over a few punctuation marks.

4) Abuse of other editors, attempting to override 3RR, and attempting to warn block over a few punctuation marks (if there were any other changes, they were restored to the original context) - this one applies to BilCat's actions, which are very serious.

My edit (597117741) stands as the correct version, and should be restored or at least discussed upon by a neutral party with arbitration.

It is your move.

108.65.249.168 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there 108, you are stepping way into NPA territory there. Accusing other editors who are acting in good faith of policy violations, Wikilawering, cherry picking and gaming the system is way out of line. Also, no one here is anywhere near 3RR, that is a very serious accusation. These accusations may earn you a visit from the boomerangand get you a trip to AN/I unless struck out. I am unimpressed by anonymous editors who barge in, ignore the usual protocols and start throwing unfounded accusations around when someone challenges their unexplained and un-sourced changes to an article. I am more than happy to discuss any proposed changes you might wish to make, but the burden is on the one wishing to make the changes to justify them when challenged, not the other way round. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the article

Discussion on "improvements" to the article will be listed here. No drama and I would prefer those who are involved in a dispute to post here after 24 hours after cooling.

So far I have no position on the article, and would like someone to view the changes in punctuation. I made and see if they are okay. Any other changes should be kept in the original context. (Liaoning CV-16, should be kept as is (there is no PLN designation.))

I don't have anything else to add other than some 30 - 40 minor changes, so please, feel free to discuss. 108.65.249.168 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing? You cannot expect other editors to do your work for you. If you tell us what you want to change, then we can give an opinion. BTW, Liaoning is not CV-16, the correct identification according to Wikipedia's ship naming standard is Liaoning (16). The "16" is her pennant number. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits by 108.65.249.168 and agree with the reverting. The only changes that 108.65.249.168 which should stand are the insertion of two spaces which had been omitted in the infobox and in the external links section. Some changes were factually incorrect due to bad grammar. For example you can't say "The Liaoning has spent 30 years with the Soviet, Russian, Ukranian, and Chinese navies." because that would mean the ship is 90 years old, with 30 years in each navy. The other changes do not conform with manual of style, for example changing em-dashes to hyphens when the em-dashes are correct. Some changes also break MOS:ENGVAR and specifically MOS:RETAIN which says that you shouldn't change spellings form one variety of English to another. E.g. changing "north eastern " to "northeastern " or changing "travelling" to "traveling". You should first establish which variety of English has been established by the first substantial editor of this article and edit the spellings consistently to that established style. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you revert back to 108'ss version. instead of just making the changes you suggest? - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's editing system was designed by someone to whom the use of "user" and "friendly" in the same sentence is a novel idea and I saved the wrong version while looking at all the diffs. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry if I came on a bit strong. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Page move

I recently reverted a page move to include (16) after the ship's title. Could I suggest any such moves are discussed here before actioning them? --John (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, wouldnt the name "CNS Liaoning (CV-16)". I am unsure if CNS is a valid prefix. Lead of List of active People's Liberation Army Navy ships implies it is. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the appropriate title for this should be Liaoning (Chinese aircraft carrier) because that fits with wikipedia style, and also with most disambiguation lists. StarHOG (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141217124136/http://www.russiafile.com/varyag.htm to http://www.russiafile.com/varyag.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120601151447/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/143-4-146.shtml to http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/143-4-146.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111209071223/http://www.manilatimes.net:80/index.php/news/world/12229-chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-starts-2nd-trial to http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/world/12229-chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-starts-2nd-trial

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Current status? Operational? Just sitting around? Or what?

What is the current status of this aircraft carrier? The article lede leaves us with some events happening in 2012. The body prose says some things happened in 2014. Has anything happened since?

Is the military still outfitting the ship, and training personnel? Or is this an operational/active aircraft carrier now? N2e (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A six month late reply, but this link will answer your question: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38431999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.45.81 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed between Liaoning and Essex-class USS Lexington carrier?

For whatever reason the Liaoning carries the "designation" of CV-16, SOME sort of disambiguation page between it and the museum ship USS Lexington (CV-16) HAS to be thought about and provided for...then when the brand-new carrier gets ITS commissioning, its "CV-17" apparent "designation" will quite likely require the same with the now-scrapped Essex-class USS Bunker Hill (CV-17)...again, I've no idea exactly WHY the two Chinese carriers have those alphanumeric designations, but "disambigs" are quite likely going to be needed for both of 'em. The PIPE (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There's the hatnote that you just added at USS Lexington (CV-16), and there's one on the Bunker Hill article also. Those are probably sufficient for the time being. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Photos and diagrams

This article needs photos of Liaoning instead of only Varyag. Also diagrams about the Type-001 class which isn't exactly the same as Kuznetsov. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)