Talk:List of aircraft carriers by country/Archive 1

Please update for the UK

The UK currently has no fixed-wing aircraft capability, as the only carrier that remains commissioned, HMS Illustrous, has been converted to helicopter-only operation. 1. I think the map should be updated to reflect that until the QE class carriers are built, the UK is a 'historic operator' of aircraft carriers. 2. As well, the listing of HMS Illustrious should be removed, as no other helicopter carriers are included in this list. In the meantime, I have added '(No fixed wing capability, as it has been converted to helicopter-only operation' next to the text because I am not sure how to carry out the change, if to put it under 'retired' or 'converted'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Aircraft Carriers

The list clearly states that it does include ships that weren't commissioned, therefore the Chinese carriers should not be included in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xingfenzen (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for the assertion Canada is looking to buy...

The article currently asserts "Canada is planning on purchasing an amphibious assault ship helicopter carrier to support its overseas missions."

Canada is planning to replace the two Protecteur replenishment vessels, but not with amphibious assults helicopter carriers. I suspect this is the source of the article assertion. If no-one can provide a source for the assertion I will feel free to remove it in a couple of weeks. -- Geo Swan 02:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

At least for my voice, no need to wait a couple of weeks on removing that. *shrugs* Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Include US and Russian aircraft carriers

For Russia and the US there is no list in this article, just a link to longer pages for each countries aircraft carriers. All other countries' crafts are listed here. Sure the list would be longer but I do not see why that is a problem. The list is incomplete without the US and Russia. A link is not sufficient. Does anyone object to my suggestion? If so please include your opinion here. If your problem has to do with the length of the article, please include your reasons why exactly that would be a problem. --Jon in California 8 August 2007

This should be aircraft carriers only

Why does this page list seaplane transports, seaplane tenders and stuff like that? Loosmark (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ships Allowed on the List

The page says "The list below does not include helicopter carriers, aircraft carrying submarines, or ships that weren't commissioned." but the Surcouf is on the list. Shouldn't it be taken off then? Noha307 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong data on Spain's first Dedalo

It says "Dedalo (1901, ex-British Neuenfels converted to seaplane carrier, sold to Spain 22 October 1918) - Sunk 18 July 1937". First, it was ex-German. Second, it was decommissioned on September 1936 but because of the Civil War and various other reasons it wasn't scrapped at the moment. It sunk itself because of bad condition and disrepair on March 1940. I am going to change it. --X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.20.207 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

seaplane carriers

am i the only one who thinks seaplane carriers should get off this list? Loosmark (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with youMarc29th (talk)

And i don't - why not ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships for other opinions.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

if you'd check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships you'd see that i have already done that more than 2 weeks ago. Loosmark (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in US numbers

The entries for List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy, list of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy, and List of aircraft carriers in service state the the US has eleven carriers in service and one under construction. I'm not sure if this page includes a wider range of classes, etc that accounts for the difference so was reluctant to make the change myself. Sgwheeler (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, while this includes ships that are mostly helicopter + hornet carriers for other countries, it does not include the 10 active Amphibious assault ships the US Navy has and operates, which are comparable to many of the other carriers. Comparing a Tarawa class to an Illustrious class, they carry about the same number of Harriers, and the Tarwa is larger, albiet slower than the Illustrious. Is this just to avoid the huge imbalance of numbers? (Similarly larger than Italian and Spanish ships, though closer in speed to some of them)

5 Tarawas built, 2 in service, 2 awaiting disposal, 1 destroyed as target

8 Wasps built, 8 in service

0 America class bult, 1 under construction

(The Iwo Jima class while also a helicopter carrier might not make the list as it never carried fixed wing aircraft)

7 Iwo Jimas, 7 retired

68.102.173.52 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I once added the total tonnage of each nation's aircraft carriers, but that was deleted by (Personal attack removed) who wants to promote the idea that an aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.184.126 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Japan

Since the Japanese Hyūga class "helicopter destroyer" is capable of taking VTOL fixed wing aircraft, shouldn't it qualify for this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordicreb (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

are you sure they are capable of operating VTOL aircraft? Loosmark (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what "capable of taking VTOL fixed wing aircraft" means, and more importantly, where such a claim is sourced from. AFAIK, the Hyūga is not designed or equipped to operate VTOL fixed wing aircraft. Doens't mean that one could not land on the ship in an emergency though, but that does not a VTOL carrier make. - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If one looks to asses the situation today, it looks confusing that Japan is third on the list when almost all of the "20" carriers have sunk in 40's. Also I don't think that there is any way that USA could field 50+ carriers today even though there are over 50 decommisioned carriers alone.

The Japanese must really suck. This article claims they've commissioned 20 aircraft carriers, and the list of sunken carriers shows they've lost 21. I mean, that's really bad when you've lost more carriers then you've commissioned. Rklawton (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

United States LHD and LHA classes

Considering the Tarawa, Wasp, and especially the new America class have aircraft complements and aviation capabilities matching or exceeding some foreign aircraft carriers listed here shouldn't they be included as well? Lamjus (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

German Reich is not Federal Republic of Germany

Nazi Germany built aircraft carriers, not the Federal Republic of Germany. German Reich (Deutsches Reich) was the official name for Germany from 1871 to 1945. The modern Germany is called Federal Republic of Germany. They are totally different countries, different Regimes and have totally different territories. This is the Flag of Federal Republic of Germany. The flag of German Reich in world war II is . The statistic of aircraft carriers of the German Reich can't be counted to the Federal Republic of Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SH9002 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't listing flags here (that's another discussion), just the basic names of the nations. Note that we haven't distinguished between the Empire of Japan and modern Japan either, and probably shouldn't. There is most likely a guideline on this issue at WP:MILHIST. I'll try to find it so we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Empire of Japan and modern Japan are the same. Japanese just changed the name of their country, but the political base is remained. It's Constitutional monarchy is not changed. But the situation of Germany is totally different. --SH9002 (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

France has been through 3 governments in the time that aircraft carriers have been in existence (the French Third Republic, the French Fourth Republic, and the French Fifth Republic) ignoring the governments that did not make any aircraft carriers (i.e. Vichy France and the Provisional Government of the French Republic). Are you making the suggestion that France be split into 3 lists? Because that is the precedent that you are setting. Even though Germany only attempted to make aircraft carriers while the Nazis were in power, having one set of rules for one country and another for a different country does not make any sense and is not encyclopedic. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you made a good suggestion for the refinement of the history of aircraft carriers in the situation of France. It's not bad for the Wikipedia. By the way, please don't make mistake between country and government. The Government does not equal the Country. The modern France is French Republic, not other countries in the history of France. French change now their governments by election every time, but the country unchanged.--SH9002 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis were elected to power, but displaced by force and a new government elected so I don't see the difference in that the same nation/entity is involved. In this simple list we don't need to differentiate the country to its particular governmental type (If you were going to do the job properly then Nazi Germany goes after Japan but before Netherlands) The flags can go later too IMHO. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about German aircraft carrier I (1915), a project of Imperial Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know about it - but have added itGraemeLeggett (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bill - Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany and modern Germany are legally the same country and 'Germany' is the standard English-language name for this country. While there might be merit in separating the different incarnations of Germany in articles on its politics, foreign relations, etc, it's just silly to suggest that this be applied to articles on ships. Nick-D (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"please don't make mistake between country and government. The Government does not equal the Country" I believe that is exactly what we are asking of you. The German government from 1933 till 1945 was the Nazi party. The country was Germany, it didn't even change its name. Don't forget that the Allies declared war on Germany not the Nazis and you should read the article on Germany which states, As a modern nation-state, the country was first unified amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. There is no point in separating Japan into different sections by its political government, we shouldn't split France by that criteria, nor should we do the same for any country listed. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Allies declared war on Nazi Germany not the Federal Republic of Germany or German Democratic Republic. Germany is just a short term of different countries in the history of German. If this question is so simple, can any one tell me, if German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany are/were the same? and can we say Adolf Hitler or Otto von Bismark was the Chancellor of German Democratic Republic or Federal Republic of Germany? if I read the article about legal status of the German Reich in German version, then at least for me is still a questionable issue. --SH9002 (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is zero difference between your argument and that of the political difference of the French Third Republic or the French Fifth Republic. Political governments while notable and important historical facts are not Countries as this article's focus is. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that SH9002 has a personal ojection to Nazi Germany being identified soley as Germany, ie that he finds it offensive on some level. Thus he is trying to place a barrier between identification of Nazi Germany with modern Germany. Nevertheless, as he himself points out, the country was never named "Nazi Germany", so I am confused as to his desire to use that label in the article. However, whatever his reasons for wanting to use the "Nazi" label, the consensus is clearly against him. I respectfully advise that it is time to move on, per WP:STICK. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir BilCat, if you want to do your WP:OR research about me, you can write it in your Blog. About German issue, you should better check the article about German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, legal status of the German Reich etc. first. BTW, I am a chinese citizen not german clear? --SH9002 (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I never assumed you were German, I just feel you have some sort of bone to pick here for some reson. This isn't the place to do that. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok sir, you are very affectionate. But it's not necessary to show your feeling here. Wikipedia is not the right place to do that. --SH9002 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Phoenix, here we are talking about German Reich and Federal Republic of Germany. If you want to talk about France or Japan etc., you should better make other sections. --SH9002 (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize they are the same subject, even if you dare not admit it. You either have a list by Country or a list by Regime not both. This article's name is List of aircraft carriers by country not List of aircraft carriers by regime. Are you saying that Germany was not a country from 1933 to 1945? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My equestion is about which Germany, not about Germany. I did ask you, were German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany the same country? You gave nothing to this simple question. --SH9002 (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Germany is still Germany no matter the political government much like France is still France. You failed to answer my question. Did the country of Germany disappear while the Nazi party ruled? You might wish to read up on Successor State since this is a well known precedent that even applies to international law. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My answer is very clear, this Germany is not that Germany. Weimar Republic was ended in 1933, as Nazi Regime ruled, Nazi Germany was the country ruled only by Nazi party, and Nazi Germany is disappeared since the Nazi government collapsed. German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany were 2 countries independent to each other, and were both in the UN. 1990 this two countries reunited to one country as Federal Republic of Germany. German Democratic Republic is then disappeared, and Federal Republic of Germany goes on. --SH9002 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Then take it up with the official Germany wiki page that apparently has it all wrong and for that matter the philosophy of Successor State that governs international law (where Federal Republic of Germany was seen as the successor state in international affairs). Until those are changed I cannot understand your argument. This page reflects what is considered a country not regime and if you check any history book you will find that the country of Germany was founded in 1871. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

so, what about German Democratic Republic, did your history book said, that Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1871, and German Democratic Republic was independent from the Federal Republic of Germany? forget about that questionable history book. My question is still the same, about which country? I did not ask about which regime. --SH9002 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that listing under Germany is sufficient and correct for this article. Is this the case?GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What i can accept is without any confused flags. But Phoenix changed it back WITHOUT ANY CONSENSUS. That is the state. --SH9002 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "shouting" (bolded all-caps) is not necessary, and is frownded upon by the MOS. Phoenix reverted per Bold edit, revert, discuss, and I further reverted you, thus upholding the previous stte of the article. At no point has anyone else supported your changes, thus you have never had the consensus here at all, and it doesn't look likely to change. - BilCat (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

what you reverted was also wrong. --SH9002 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? That's an obvious mistake, and has nothing to do with Germany. Now you're just lashing out, and that's not good either. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on this debate is that since those carriers were operated by the Nazi-Germany there should be a Nazi flag there.  Dr. Loosmark  15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We haven't been using flags on any of the sections, so that's really a separate issue, as we either uses flags on all the entries, or none at all. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about the main section, not the table. We should probalby be using the flags of Imperial Germany and the Nazi German Flag, not the modern one. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an unnecessary complexity that would also effect other countries listed. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs accurate information, just like in many articles have, see Kaiserliche Marine, Reichsmarine, these articles don't use the flag of modern Germany, but the historical original flag. so this article should use the same criterion. --SH9002 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not true Germany tried before the Nazis came into power German aircraft carrier I (1915) -- Phoenix (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

according to this article about German aircraft carrier I (1915), that carrier was not actually under construction, "was abandoned after negotiations within the German Navy over a proposed moratorium on new ships." --SH9002 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-operational owners

I think is it mis-leading to list owners of pre- or post-operational ships on this page. In most cases, these were just hulks on the way to the scrappers, or, in the case of Ukraine, possesion of an unfinished ship wich they had no intention to operate. China's possession of the Varyag was similar, at least until the PLAN strated to refurbish and complete the ship. - BilCat (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Bill. Someone tried to include HMAS Melbourne under China in the last day or so because China "bought" the ship - never mind that it was bought for scrap. These sorts of things are a nonsense, even if China has (or had) kept the old girl to study carrier design, at no time did they intend to operate her, and indeed given her condition after a few years without maintenance that would have been quite some effort to achieve. We had enough trouble keeping her going with constant mainenance as it was. ;) - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. This also confuses the huge difference between the hull of a carrier which is owned by a private company and an operational carrier operated by a national government. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Just whoever does this needs to edit the map to reflect this change. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a clue even how to edit the maps, so I can't do it. - BilCat (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have done that and removed the section on Ukraine. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

The table specifically states "The table below does not include, aircraft carrying submarines, seaplane tenders or ships that weren't commissioned." I think that statement includes all of Germany's WW2-era ships, and perhaps more are included. It appears that this page was originally intended to list carriers that were actually in service at some point, not just those that were planned or partially built. As the page is evolving beyond that, we need to reach a consensus on what the page should actually cover. I prefer the previous scope, with perhaps another page for planned or partially-built/-converted carriers. I think it would get too complicated to try to keep up with all of them on one page, and we really don't need to elevate paper ships to the same level as commissioned ones. - BilCat (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I dont believe that the same is done for other countries... But we could also add a row saying planned. What do you think? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a note to the "Planned" header to the effect that these ships were cancelled before completion. Might I suggest also that we not include these ships in the totals for each country. In other words the total should be only the number of ships that each country has actually commissioned. I know that this would make the German total zero, but as it stands I think that the US figure does not include the planned but not built ships, although I am prepared to stand corrected, I just don't feel like trolling through all the info to perform a count. Regardless, I thik it would make more sense not count incomplete and paper ships in the totals. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure that makes sense. A note would have to be added to the totals stating as much. If you wish to count what the US has commissioned or canceled it has already been made for you, just go to List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I did it. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good solution, Nick. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the non commissioned ships as intending to exclude vessels not operated as naval vessels but that did carry aircraft such as aircraft transporters (eg the ferries that carried aircraft out of Liverpool to the MACs). It would be good to revisit the definition of inclusion for this article so that we are sure on what goes in. There are bound to be some awkward cases - like Ark Royal which could fly off seaplanes but they couldn't land on though they could be recovered while under way (and as Pegasus in the Second World War had a fighter catapult). To my reading - the table of aircraft carriers operated is not incompatible with the rest of the list which names those built/half-built and planned.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the Totals to reflect only commissioned aircraft carriers since history has shown that ships under construction dont always get finished. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I changed the "Planned" column to "Never Completed" as I realised that "Planned" to a visitor to the page might imply that these ships are currently planned, rather than it being a historical reference. I believe that "Never Completed" better reflects what we are actually talking about and does not cause any confusion. Furthermore we might wish to include a new Planned column for ships currently actually at the planning stage, but for which construction has not yet commenced. A case in point would have been the Queen Elizabeth class ships until steel was cut last year. Also I am sure the US has a number of ships planned to replace older ships as they come out of service. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Escort carriers

Related question on content, why are escort carriers excluded from the list/totals?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple, they are not Aircraft carriers they are a different class of ship. I included them earlier but discovered what I considered to be a mistake on my part. Do you think that I was incorrect? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Escort carriers are a specialized type of aircraft carrier. I beleive they're not included here because there were so many of them 9about 100), split roughly between the USN and the RN, and they would inflate the numbers here. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BilCats suggestion makes more sense than excluding them (and presumably the Merchant aircraft carriers just because they aren't "fleet carriers". Though I notice that HMS Campania was much the same size and capacity as HMS Hermes (95) which does appear in the list, so I presume its as much about their use in defence rather than offence. However, to that end we need a note with the table explaining the position.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with early aircraft carriers is the fact that they were converted battleships... It wasn't until the 20's with the appearance of the Hermes and the Hōshō that we started to get purpose built aircraft carriers. So I would say that early aircraft carriers would be included because they were historically significant and because that was what they were at the time. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that escort carriers should be here - they were 'proper' carriers and could and did operate significant numbers of aircraft in combat operations (the British often used their as attack carriers in the ETO and the US used them to provide close air support for ground troops). Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it the consensus that escort carriers are aircraft carriers? Anyone directly opposed to their addition? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be opposed to simply bundling them in with the rest. All the carrier articles in Wikipedia make the distinction of excluding escort carriers. If they are to be included here against this trend I would suggest that they have a column of their own. Generally the literature treats escort carriers more by class (if at all), rather than by individual ship, whereas the reverse tends to be true of "normal" carriers. This is not to say that the escorts were not valuable nor that their crews did not experience real danger etc, rather IMHO, if we are to write articles about the escorts, then they should be separate from the "ship of the line" type of carriers. I do not think MAC ships should be incuded either, as they were not commissioned warships, and their main purpose was not aviation but cargo. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My first instinct was not to include them but now I have no qualms either way. It looks like only 3 countries made escort carriers US, UK and Japan and that was only during WWII... Other countries did purchase some from them later though. I do have one question, the ships currently listed for Japan, were any of them escort ships? I would not suggest that we add another column to the list since it is already at full width. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Japan, the answer to your question is no.  Dr. Loosmark  05:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is the consensus... Should we include escort carriers? If not what is the reason. If so why should they be included. So far Nick Thorne is opposed and Nick-D is in favor. Any other thoughts on this matter? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose creating another list dedicated exclusively to escort carriers.  Dr. Loosmark  05:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is the table is already full. How can it be changed to include this? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another list would mean another article with its own table, so it does not affect the current article/table. Would it be worth including a note on CAMships/fighter catapult ships alongside the escort carriers or simply direct them under the see alsos? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is this we either include escort carriers as aircraft carriers like we do with supercarriers, fleet carriers & light aircraft carriers; or we consider escort carriers as something different and dont include them like we dont include aircraft carrying submarines, seaplane tenders or merchant aircraft carriers. We cannot segregate them and include them in the list at the same time. Personally, even though I am the person that removed escort carriers from this article, I am leaning towards their inclusion, but I want to hear what others have to say. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ok I have created the article with the list of escort carriers: List of escort carriers by country. So far I have added the Japanese and UK escort carriers.  Dr. Loosmark  16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentine carriers

The list of retired carriers for Argentina, contained the following entry

• • ARA ''San-Martin'' (V-3): San-Martin class future middle carrier

This information was unsourced and except for the entry on this page there are zero hits on Google for the alleged ship. Also, none of the books on carriers I have consulted contain any information regarding this ship. I have removed the entry. If the ship is real, then please provide a suitable reference for it before re-inserting the entry, also, if it is a planned ship then it should not be added to the "retired carriers" section. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese carrier numbers

A number of IP editors have been changing the table WRT to Chinese carriers adding a "1" to the column of carriers in commission. The ex-soviet carrier Varyag is undergoing extended sea trials and has not been commissioned into the PLA Navy as yet so far as I am aware. My understanding is that these trials are likely to be ongoing for several years and the Chinese are adopting a very cautious and slow approach to the introduction of naval aviation. If and when this ship is finally accepted into the Chinese navy and once a reliable source states so then we can add a "1" to the column in the table. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

American numbers

Shouldn't the 8 Wasp class carriers in service not been counted as commissioned carriers ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.246 (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

China and the map

The map should include countries working up carriers as well... and those that abandoned them without entering into service (Germany) File:AircraftCarrierOperators.png -- perhaps purple and dark blue?

70.24.248.211 (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia Canberra class landing helicopter dock / STOVL Carrier

Australia is building two Canberra class landing helicopter dock which are based on the Spanish Navy Juan Carlos class STOVL Carrier both can carry jet fighters. They should be included in the list. (AUS2016 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

Why? Australia does not intend under current planning to acquire any fixed wing aircraft for these ships. Until and unless this changes, these ships cannot be classified as aircraft carriers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia is considering cross-decking with other nations fighters. (AUS2016 (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

Please provide reliable sources that state that the RAN will be using these ships as carriers. Everything I've seen says that the RAN has specifically decided against this option, and that the ships are not fitted to safely operate fixed-wing aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling the Canberra Class LHD a carrier is misleading at best. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary, and even if we end up hot decking USMC F-35Bs, that still wont make it a carrier. It's a Helicopter Landing Dock. The RAN has specifically excluded the use of Aussie fixed wings on these. In keeping with the Be Bold notion of WP, Im taking the Canberra off the list. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for a month

In light of the steady stream of vandalism to this article from IP editors and newly-registered accounts, I've decided to semi-protect it for a month as an experiment to see if that helps to reduce unproductive editing. IP and new editors are very welcome to use this talk page to propose that changes be made. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Planned vs Under Construction in table

I reverted a good faith edit by User:Rail88 of the table column heading back to "Under Construction" from "Planned". This was discussed and settled a long time ago. The issue with "Planned" is that some editors started to insert ships like the never completed German WWII carriers and other ships that never existed in any form except on paper, since they had been "planned". Leaving the column title at "Under Construction" removes the ambiguity and does not clutter up the table with shipe that never were, nor will be. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't Indonesia need to be on the list

Per this wiki entry, they have one and are considering buying a second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Indonesian_Navy_ships#Aircraft_Carrier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregfreemyer (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom of the page as per talk page guidelines. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source and the information will be included. However, since Indonesia does not possess a carrier, that will be a little hard. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes turn on for an indefinite period

As this article is subject to a steady stream of unexplained and unhelpful edits from IP accounts I've decided to enable pending changes to provide something of a filtering mechanism. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

This has been copied here from my talk page as a more appropriate venue for the discussion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

With this edit, you have basically accused me of vandalism. That is clearly not the case. The edit was made in part of a effort to clarify aircraft carrier pages while also making them more consistent. This is currently being discussed on the aircraft carrier talk page - which you are well aware of as you have left a comment there yourself. The edit should stand until the issue of aircraft carrier definition has been resolved. Your edit summary was not only disingenuous, but insulting, and your revert was an abuse of your roll-back rights. - thewolfchild 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits were only the last of a series of edits by different, mostly anonymous, editors that had corrupted the page. Your edit left the USN with the following numbers: Total 28, In Service 19, In Reserve 2, Decommissioned 56, Under Construction 4, Never Completed 12. The USN has only 10 carriers in service and in any case the total should be the sum of decommissioned, in reserve and in service - using your figures 56+2+19=28, if that is not nonsense I don't know what is. You had Canada with a total of 5 carriers, which is rubbish, Canada has only ever had 3 carriers - by long standing convention within Wikipedia and within naval circles generally WWII escort carriers are not included in carrier totals. So, although your edits were not responsible for all the nonsense, they were responsible for some of it. If you want to make complete changes in the focus of Wikipedia articles (by expanding their scope beyond what the consensus currently holds) you should first go to the talk page and seek consensus. Finally, the reason I reverted all those edits (which included a number before you edited the page) was to restore it to a point where the numbers added up correctly and extraneous information was removed. You were not the only editor that had their edits reverted, but your edits did contribute to the nonsense. I did not insult you, I did not call the edits vandalism, I assumed that they were inserted in good faith, but they were nonsense nevertheless. Nonsense inserted in good faith is still nonsense. BTW, I did not use my roll-back rights, I used Twinkle. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"My edit left...", again, that is misleading. I did not put those values in. All I did was A) change the number of USN active and under construction carriers and B) change the number of RCN carriers from 45(!) to 5. Your assertion that my edits were "nonsense" is absurd and insulting. Consensus could easily establish that amphib. assault ships and escort carrier are aircraft carriers, thereby making edits correct (and your edits "nonsense"). In the meantime, my edits are not incorrect, as the issue is currently being debated. Regardless of what tool you used, it was wrong and insulting. I'm just trying to improve these pages, if you don't agree with me, fine... you just don't have to be rude about it. I already asked if you would consider helping, but it seems you're not interested. - thewolfchild 03:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not misleading, your edit did indeed leave the numbers I quoted, consequently when you had finished the arithmetic was as I stated. That is part of the nonsense I was talking about. I reverted back before the ridiculous figures for Canada were posted (not by you) so that the article would be in a sensible state. If you want to argue the point about inclusion of LHAs, LHDs, escort carriers CAM ships or whatever, please feel free, but in the normal BRD cycle, you don't get to make the changes and have them stay during the discussion, the bold changes get reverted first, then we discuss. You complain about rudeness, but I think you should re-read your posts on the Aircraft Carrier talk page. The utterly dismissive and frankly offensive tone of your comments about the Thai carrier is just a start. You accuse me and others of being elitist and you stray onto WP:NPA territory in your comments. I have let it slide so far, but I now draw the line. Stick to commenting on the edits, not the editors. I am sure you have been involved in Wikipedia long enough to understand the implications of failing to do this.

BTW, I formally decline your invitation to assist you in your efforts to "improve" the articles because I do not agree that your "improvements" do, in fact, improve the articles concerned. Being collegiate does not mean just doing things your way. There is an established consensus in the carrier articles and you have so far failed to produce any convincing arguments why that consensus should be changed. Until and unless that consensus changes do not expect assistance from me to implement your changes which I oppose. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought "being collegiate" meant discussing without being rude, condescending and abrasive. As for what "consensus" means, maybe you should read up on it. - thewolfchild 19:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

'Decline' acknowledged. - thewolfchild 01:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Your antics on the Talk:Aircraft carrier page have exhausted my willingness to extend an unlimited assumption of continued good faith. Competence is required - you may be acting in good faith but that is not enough on its own and you have strayed far into the the territory of disruptive editing with your attempts to brow beat everyone into agreeing with you. Well intentioned disruptive behaviour is still disruptive behaviour. I do not have an unlimited tolerance for this, so be advised. - Nick Thorne talk 10:21 am, 21 September 2013, last Saturday (6 days ago) (UTC+10) You need to have a look at that page again. You turned it into a battleground. You never had any interest in "engaging" in "collegial" discussion. You just had to have your way, and when you couldn't, you lost sight of the whole topic, and instead continually pestered me with your personal attacks, to try and provoke me into disruptive, off-topic arguments, in an effort to have me blocked. You did this with little regard as to the impact it would have on the topic at hand. (and what a fine mess you made... Sad. Miserable. Hypocritical.) You never once tried to have a reasonable and civil dialogue. Now, you come here , preaching about some mythical "tolerance" and good will on your part? And you go so far as to threaten me that this so-called "tolerance" is about to run out and that I need to "be advised"? Well, you go right ahead and do... whatever it is, your threatening to do. You know where my talk page is, should you need to post any notifications. I'll be waiting... - thewolfchild 01:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Above post restored after being deleted by TWC. Please do not edit or delete other editors' posts. - Nick Thorne talk 05:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Above post was not deleted, but moved to the appropriate place, along with my response. This does not belong here. - thewolfchild 13:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Due to changes at the Aircraft carrier article, there should be consideration given to making corresponding changes to this article, ie: adding escort carriers and amphibious assault ships, changing totals, etc. Thoughts anyone? - thewolfchild 00:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)