Wikipedia

Talk:Timeline for aircraft carrier service/Archive 1

< Talk:Timeline for aircraft carrier service
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Nick Thorne in topic Ship checklist

Began article

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following a suggestion on the Aircraft carrier talk page, I have started this page. It is only a quick and dirty attempt at this point and I have only gone through the Majestic and Colossus class carriers so far. I will be adding to this as time permits. If you feel like Wikifying it better, or adding more ships, feel free! <grin> Nick Thorne talk 06:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • British done now, plus ex British carriers that served with other Navies.Nick Thorne talk

Status

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  • I've done the Avenger class escort carriers, but I'm going to leave the rest of the escort carriers until I've done all the rest. Will work on non-US carriers next because there is not so many of them, then the US carriers before making a start on the rest of the escort carriers (cringe at the sheer number of them).
  • Now done all non US and non-Japanese carriers. Excorts still to do.Nick Thorne talk 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Have now completed all main line carriers up to and including any under construction (have been laid) as of today. I would like feedback on whether to include all the escort carriers, if I do not receive any, I will proceed to include them probably starting next week.Nick Thorne talk 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
After discussion with some other Wikipedians, I will start a separate timeline for escort carriers when time allows. However, the few escorts that served as carriers for other navies post war (WWII) will be included in the main timeline as well.Nick Thorne talk 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we include big deck amphibs of the US and Italy as carriers for force levels with an asterisk since they can and do dual purpose with V/STOL's? This is how I did the Essex LPH's but they had no fixed wing, HMAS Sydney is also a probleam as is Bearn being transports, not sure if we should list the Dedalo 1967-76 since it was only a helicopter ship til 1976 when the Harriers arrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.100.90 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem ships for counting: Bearn, Delado, Geuseppi Gerabaldi, Bulwark, Hermes. These all went into and out of the fixed wing business several times during their career, Bearn was like the Sydney religated to aircraft and troop transport for most of the war and after. Delado and Geuseppi Gerabaldi had to wait for their Harriers to either arrive or be legalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.11.3 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

I have not separately referenced any of the information in this list since the list is derived entirely from articles within the Wikipedia. The first time each ship is named (or renamed) I have Wiki linked it to the relevent article. Would other, more experienced editors, who read this please advise me whether this satisfies Wikipedia's verifiability criteria?Nick Thorne talk 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The following is moved here from the article:
This article is not independently referenced as all information is derived from the relevant pages in the Wikipedia. Where necessary and possible those articles have been ammended to include the required information for this list by following the references for those pages. Where that is not possible, only the information available on those pages (for example only a year for a particular date may be available) then only that information has been used.
Nick Thorne talk 05:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I realised that I had used a number of references when compiling the timeline, especially when I had to update source articles to include the necessary event dates. To this end I have included a list of those references, which are applicable here. In one case to date, and as appropriate in future I have/will include in-line references for particular events as seems necessary. Nick Thorne talk 06:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at referencing the article. I will follow the example of the layout used in the HMAS Melbourne article, since there will necessarily be a great number of these once done, given that there are about 160 carriers in the list and each one has a number of entries in the timeline. Nick Thorne talk 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Force Levels

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

What format would be best to show national carrier force levels for each year? I would think force numbers and maybe class breakdown and active, reserve, and in overhaul status totals later for each nation listed before or after the comissioning/decomissioning list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.100.90 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added several years of force levels, all numbers are based on the timeline math for comissioned or decomissioned/sunk ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.100.90 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Once we have force levels done we really need to recheck out math, if anyone can get a few years of Janes Fighting Ships this will give us what we need and also good references. I will try to recheck my UK force levels because it seems I have grossly overcounted at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.100.90 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Picked up a couple of errors, but the count is still not right. Might have to make a big spread sheet and enter all the ships manually, or something, to work it out. I assume I have missed some decommissioning dates somewhere. Will get back to this later, when I get some time, but I suggest we not add anymore dates until we get this sorted. Nick Thorne talk 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Added relevant dates to timeline such as wars and conflicts and treaties affecting development of carrier aviation Perhaps important to carrier aviation historical dates would be useful too, for example: start and end of wars or actions involving carriers including smaller actions such as Falklands, New Guinea crisis, Suez Canal, etc as well as the 1966 UK decision to eliminate carrier aviation, the Regan 600 ship US navy policy, and the disintergration of the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.100.90 (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are some errors on the dates of decommissioning as well as the time the ships were held in reserve before being scrapped or preserved. I'm planning to go through each and every CV on the list tomorrow and fix the discrepancies. -MBK004 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently creating a spead sheet with every ship noting year of commissioning, decommissioning, recommissioning or sunk. So far I've finished up to the end of the 1940s. Found one major discrepancy - I had missed the date of the sinking of USS langley in the timeline (fixed now). When it's done, I'll use the spread sheet to calculate the totals for each country for each year and compare that woth what's on the timeline. If you could just list any ships that you've had to alter the dates of herre, I'll make the necessary changes to my spreadsheet before I try to use it to put the data back into the timeline. Also, I'm thinking of removing the escort carriers that I have listed here, I can refer to "ex escort carrier HMS Biter" when that ship was transferred to the French and include it in the timeline for its French service. I don't want to count the escorts in the fordce strength figures, Any thoughts on this? Nick Thorne talk 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I can already tell you that there are quite a few reclassifications and dates of being struck from the NVR of US carriers missing; Midway spent some time in reserve after being decommissioned (she wasn't opened as a museum in 1992 as the timeline suggests). As for the CVEs, leave them out, if we had to include them this timeline would be extremely bloated since there were more CVEs than CVs and CVLs in WWII. -MBK004 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I knew I would miss a few dates, plus the ship articles sometimes were a bit vague, I just decided to get the bulk of the work done and pick up the details later. There was a lot of work just getting the basic data in. I did not generally include the dates that ships were struck, mostly because it is not recorded in the article for many ships, especially the non-US ones. Obviously, for the force strength figures it is irrelevant anyway. Finally, I agree on the excorts but I'm not in a rush to make a timeline for them just yet. Nick Thorne talk 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Still working on the spread sheet, offline. I'm up to the 70s, so when I manage to get back to it - probably next Tuesday - it shoulf not take too long to finish it off. I have found a few errors so far and am fixing them as I go. Once it's complete should have a better idea of what's missing, and then I can update the figures in the timeline.Nick Thorne talk 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Have finished the force levels.Nick Thorne talk 02:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

←I've been quite busy lately and haven't had a chance to go through the timeline like I would like to. Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend. Also, if you're planning to have an in-line cite for each ship, for the US ones don't forget about the NVR. -MBK004 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am planning to have an inline cite for every entry (I don't see any other way if I am to get this timeline up to FL status). I probably won't be able to do too much over the weekend after I finish tonight.Nick Thorne talk 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

New entries

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am currently going through the timeline adding references for the existing entries, but it would save me a lot of extra work if people adding new entries could quote their sources as they go. Don't worry if you're not familiar with the formatting used, I can fix that easily, its getting the source that's the hard bit!Nick Thorne talk 01:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have mostly been using wikipedia entries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.11.3 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference info requested

Please provide as much of the following as you know.

For web sites, just the URL will suffice

For books: author, title, date published, publisher, where published, Doi (if known), ISBN, page number of reference, number of pages in book

For articles: author, date, article title, publication name, publisher ISSN

Ship checklist

Latest comment: 15 years ago147 comments1 person in discussion

Each ship will be crossed out as its entries in the timeline are referenced. You can help with this work to improve the verifiability of the timeline. Entries in this list are alphabetical by country then ship, with earlier ships of the same name listed first. I will enter the ship's names first and then as time allows I will wikilink them here, before I attempt to start the work of referencing.Nick Thorne talk 10:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

France

India

Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Russia/USSR

Spain

Thailand

UK

USA

Image copyright problem with Image:HMS Perseus (R51).jpg

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The image Image:HMS Perseus (R51).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Missed this one. Non-free use rationale supplied. Nick Thorne talk 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_for_aircraft_carrier_service/Archive_1&oldid=1072577329"