Talk:Aircraft carrier/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

To include, or not to include...

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

---

Have not reverted, but have continued to seek improvement and clarification with latest edits. - thewolfchild 02:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for going to talk. This discussion of "What is an Aircraft Carrier?" has been tricky over the years to get consensus; does a amphib with only 4-6 harriers count as a carrier(the Gulf War and Iraq War deployment of LHA and LHD phibs as light carriers pushed them over the top), what about a phib used as a carrier Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I_(L61), does the Chakri Naruebet count when it's Harriers were worn out after ~three years, and what about the Illustrious, converted to a phib, the aircraft sold for parts? So far the liberal definition used here has been anything that has ever regularly been designated as a ship which operates fixed wing aircraft including Harriers and is still in commission gets listed in "Classes currently in service". Changing the inclusion from regular fixed wing operations to "Fixed-wing and Rotary-wing capable" is a fundamental change to the whole page and stretches the meaning of an aircraft carrier IMHO to the breaking point, taken literally any frigate, corvette, oil tanker, or cruise ship with a helicopter flight deck would be safely inside this definition, without consensus backed by citation of definitive experts I do not think such a basic change is warranted. I had concern that this definition float would happen when the beautiful and useful graphic comparing ship classes was uploaded which included Hyuga, I now see this concern becoming reality.109.67.140.225 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Never-the-less, the change was needed. It's crazy to lump the 106,000 ton Nimitz class with that 11,000 ton joke that Thailand has, and then go further and include the STOVL carriers of some countries, but segregate the much larger, newer and more capable STOVL carriers of the USN. Then there is your comment "citations from definitive experts". The USN is arguably the world experts in all things naval and even they can't seem to figure out some standard class descriptions. All WP can do, as a reference for readers, is clearly lay out this info in the best way possible. Your argument about "oil tankers" and what-not doesn't stand. At it's most basic, the term aircraft carrier applies to ships capable of carrying jet fighter craft, which all the ships here are, or were at one time. I had tried to distinguish the "rotary craft only" as being re-purposed, but that was shot down. I am gonna note that now tried noting that however, in my continuing effort to improve this page. (along with the help of Fnlayson - thanks.)

- By the way, are you also 109.67.104.36? Is there some reason you cant edit with a user account? Blocked?, banned? lazy? or maybe just shy? I only ask because it's difficult have a dialogue with a bunch of random ip's. If you don't have an account, I would urge you to consider the benefits of getting one. It's easy, anonymous and free. If you already have one, would you please edit with it? Thanks. - thewolfchild 01:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, also wanted to address these comments:

"...does a amphib [sic] with only 4-6 harriers count as a carrier..." [?]

You seem like you're trying to craft an "almost pregnant" argument. These ships do carry fixed-wing aircraft. They meet the very same definition of aircraft carrier that a Nimitz class does. Yes, it may only be 6 most of the time, but they are capable of carrying more, just like the other STOVL carriers on this list that seem to satisfy your idea of what should be included in the list of active carriers. And as for the Juan Carlos, why wouldn't it count?

"Changing the inclusion from regular fixed wing operations to "Fixed-wing and Rotary-wing capable" is a fundamental change to the whole page and stretches the meaning of an aircraft carrier IMHO to the breaking point..."

Erm, no it doesn't. It doesn't add or remove any content that was already there. It simply adds one, simple, minor, step to help organize the section. So I must respectfully disagree with... whoever you are, as you are fundamentally wrong. - thewolfchild 02:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but amphibious assault ships are not built nor intended for use primarily for the operation of fixed wing aircraft. That is the defining characteristic of an aircraft carrier. You may make as many disparaging comments about the carriers of other nations as you like, the size of a carrier is not significant in its definition, it is the purpose for which it was built and operated that determines whether, or not, a ship is an aircraft carrier. That is why "that joke that Thailand has" (as you so politely put it) is a carrier and the Wasp class LHDs are not. You are not the arbiter of what gets included in Wikipedia articles - this is supposed to be a collegiate enterprise - and the consensus has been well established here about what constitutes a carrier for the purpose of our articles here, and what does not. You are entitles to try to change the consensus, but you are not entitled to dictate what that consensus should be. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

You say: "...amphibious assault ships are not built nor intended for use primarily for the operation of fixed wing aircraft. That is the defining characteristic of an aircraft carrier."
According to whom? You?

You also said: "That is why "that joke that Thailand has" (as you so politely put it) is a carrier and the Wasp class LHDs are not."
And yet, the HTMS Chakri Naruebet has no fixed-wing aircraft what-so-ever, and is now; "used for royal VIP cruises, helicopter operations, and as a disaster relief platform."
Was that it's "intended purpose" ?

Meanwhile, the Wasp's "design was modified to allow for the operation of AV-8B Harrier II aircraft ... making the Wasp class the first ships specifically designed to operate these." And; "a Wasp operating in the sea control or 'harrier carrier' configuration carries 20 Harriers (though some ships of the class have operated as many as 24)"
These ships were "intended" to have the ability and option of being used for the "purposes" of a 'light aircraft carriers', and therefore are "aircraft carriers".

You said: "You are not the arbiter of what gets included in Wikipedia articles" (which I never claimed to be)

You also said: "...you are not entitled to dictate what that consensus should be." (which I also never claimed to be)

These condescendingly rude comments are in contrast to your statement that: "this is supposed to be a collegiate enterprise"

Well, sir, I don't find you being very "collegial". I do find that you have somewhat of an elitist attitude. These articles do not belong to whatever group of editors "contributes the most" or even seem to "know the most". These articles belong to everybody, and need to be crafted as such that everybody and anybody reading them will have a clear understanding of the content, while still complying with wiki-policy. That is what I am trying to accomplish here. I haven't significantly altered anything, I have only tried to clarify existing content. To improve the article. What are you tying to accomplish with your complaints, insults and accusations?

As for the "definition of an aircraft carrier", when you look it up in just about any reliable source, it is basically "a ship that carries aircraft". Now obviously we are trying to narrow that here in these articles to something more like "a naval warship that carries fixed-wing fighter planes". To go beyond that, we would need to be very carful. You claim that there is an established consensus for this. I would be interested in seeing that, and even taking part in it. Perhaps you could show me this consensus? But, please, don't bother responding if you can't withhold the vitriol. Most of these aircraft carrier articles are in need of improvement, if you have the interest, perhaps you would consider lending some assistance? - thewolfchild 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are both broad and narrow definitions of "aircraft carrier". These generally exclude ships with hangers for helicopters and a small flight deck, or, historically, those with facilities for launching and recovering seaplanes, as in WW2, which are just aircraft-carrying ships.

Broadly, an aircraft carrier is any ship which carries any type aircraft, and has a large flight deck with occupies at least half of the top deck space of a ship. Narrowly, it refers ships to built or intended for use primarily for the operation of fixed wing aircraft, with a large flight deck that covers most of the ship. These may be considered "pure" aircraft carriers, and are usually considered as fleet carriers, but that term is less common in modern times. Both of these definitions are correct in modern English usage. However, the narrow definition is probably the more common one, especially in navies which operate such ships, such as the US Navy. Ships which operate helicopters only, or V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, may or may not be considered to be aircraft carriers in the narrow sense, but usually are in the broad sense.

This article has generally focused on the narrow definition, but has over time been expanded to cover the broad definition. But the non-pure carriers also have their own articles, such as helicopter carrier, ASW carrier, and amphibious assault ship. This article is really the only place to cover pure carriers. We do have an article on the fleet carrier, though again that is more of a historical term.

As WP follows common usage for terms, within defined definitions, the scope of this article should probably as a brief introduction to aircraft carriers in general, but focus on carriers which are designed and used primarily to operate fixed-wing aircraft, ie the "pure' carriers. As such, LHD/LHAs should not be covered here, nor should pure helicopter carriers such as those of modern Japan. Ilustrious and "that joke that Thailand has" has can covered in the history section, but should probably not be listed as aircraft carriers in service. However, I would list the LHDs of Italy and Spain here, as they are effectively full-time dual-role ships, especially as Spain only has one one carrier at all now. I would not list the LHD/LHAs of the US Navy, as the service also has pure aircraft carriers. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So... what about the America-class amphibious assault ship? When it goes into service, does it get added or not? - thewolfchild 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

the America-class amphibious assault ship are still LHAs, so probably not. However, we'll have to see how the USN actually uses the type in service. It's my understanding that the class will still be generally used in the amphibious assualt role, even without a well deck. LPHs don't have well decks either, and generally aren't includes here, which I didn't specify above. An example is the RN's HMS Ocean (L12), which to my knowledge has never been listed here. Note that Illustrious has been re-roled by the RN as an LPH while Ocean is undergoing refit. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You mention well decks, but my understanding is that only the first two America class ships will have not well decks in favour of larger aviation facilities. The remaining ships of the class apparently will have well decks. But either way, I don't see how that is a deciding factor in how to define these ships. - thewolfchild 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The well deck is irrelevant as to whether or not a ship is considered an amphibious assault ship (LHA/LHD/LPH) or not, which was my point. - BilCat (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK... well, like I said, you brought up the well decks in the first place. I wasn't sure of the relevance. Now you say there is none. So we're back to me not understanding why you brought them up in the first place. Anyways... let's just skip that, and get back to definitions. Can you or anyone else here point me to where consensus had established that USN STOVL light carriers don't count, but every other counties' ships do? Thanks. - thewolfchild 17:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The USN does not have "STOVL light carriers". It has amphibious assualt ships. - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And if the USN/USMC decides to equip these LHA's with a couple dozen of AV-8's or F35's, what then? (even if it's just one? even if it's temporary?) Because, these ship were designed with the intention of being able to operate as light aircraft carriers, just like the STOVL carriers of other nations. - thewolfchild 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If the USN decides to re-classify these ships as CVs, or something similar, then you may have an argument. Until then, not so much. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is it that USN hull symbols are the deciding factor here? There are ships from other nations that are nearly identical (or lesser) in size and ability, without the CV designation, and they are considered aircraft carriers. - thewolfchild 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The USN hull symbols actually aren't the deciding factor. Cavour is classed by the Italian Navy as a CVH, basically a light STOVL carrier. The Juan Carlos I is classed as an LHD by the Spanish Navy (hence the "L" prefix in its pennant number "L61"). It was intended to to operate in a secondary role as a carrier when Spain's primary carrier, Principe de Asturias, was not available. As such, the JC1 shouldn't have been listed here. However, the PdA has since been prematurely retired, so JC1 is SPain's ony carrier-type vessel. As such, the carrier-type role is now more important than was planned. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I included the LHA, LHD, and Juan Carlos since even though they are not officially CV but rather L class shlips they now almost always carry an air wing similar to most STOVL carriers, the America will do the same and is a light carrier in the fashion of the LHA/LHD classes in wartime, I support its inclusion once in commission. Part of the reason why I went for such a clear cut use in wartime etc. is that after a few years I got tired of reverts and I try to format my work in a most obvious/non-controversial way which still preserves the facts, the fact is while the Juan Carlos will always get called a carrier even though it is a phib, it is controversial to double the US's already huge carrier numbers. BTW I prefer talk to take place on the talk page not a personal page(and no I am not banned or I couldn't post even unlogged) that way it is not personal but stays on topic, so no I have never made a wikipedia account and rely on my cites and content not my rep. Also the helicopter-only sub-category is a good idea as long as we don't end up with a helicopter carrier edit war with Hyuga, Dokdo, etc being added and deleted, if that happens I think we should go back to the old format to preserve the page integrity.79.182.99.46 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with your comments here. As for 'CV' vs. 'L', see my comment above to Nick T. As for your comments regarding talk pages and user accounts... that is your right to go that way. But so far, you have used no less than 3 different IP addresses in this discussion alone. As they are all from the same part of the world, I can only assume their likely from the same person. In situations like this, where you are posting multiple comments, perhaps you could employ a nick name to manually sign at the end. For example;

• ( Comment comment comment, blah blah blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. Solomon. - 79.182.99.64 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) )

It would be simple for you to do, make things a little easier, and preserve the anonymity you desire. Anyways, please consider it. - thewolfchild 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IP 79.xxx, et al, added the USN LHAs and LHDs to the article without gaining a consensus to do so first, and it has been controversial ever since he/she did it. In addition, a photo of Dokdo is now in the article, and Hyuga and/or her successor has been added recently also. So, yeah, now is the time "to preserve the page integrity". - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but how has it been controversial? I had a look thru all the talk discussions here, but all I could find, was a section where it appears you have argued for the inclusion of these ships. - thewolfchild 13:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, there was no real discussion at the time IP 79.xxx/109.xxx began to make changes to the scope in 2011. ANd I did support the inclusion of the USN's big deck amphips in 2007, but no change in scope occured at the time. That was over six years ago, and I have since changed my mind regarding the scope of the article. You'll note that at the time I called the LHAs/LHDs "amphibious assualt carriers". but that was mainly a term I made up. No one else uses that term, and that was influentioal in changig my mind about the scope of the article, that it should focus on the narrow definition of aircraft carrier, and exclude the USN big-deck amphips. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

BilCat, I would also support removal of all phibs including the Juan Carlos, also up for discussion would be Chakri Naruebet and Illustrious but IMHO we must have the criteria we are using at the head of the list. This list simply will always be POV we just need to find the most clear/useful/authoritative POV which will get the least amount of revision. there are several ways to go that I see; 1-all active CV type ships, 2-only active CV ships with an active air wing, 3-ships with active air wing of any class, 4-???. Page integrity to me is using the same criteria across the board. My opinion was that the USN has called them harrier carriers, that was enough for me and I would not have objected to a discussed reversion. thewolfchild I get the utility in a discuss like this to have a nick(IP/nologin thing started years ago, work related, ssh tunneling out of firewall) so bla, bla, yadda, Solomon (for now)79.182.99.46 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have agreed to excluding Juan Carlos I before the Principe de Asturias was prematurely retired, but as it is now Spain's only carrier-type vessel, it should be included here. - BilCat (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the LHA\D's should remain in the article. As it stands now, with them included, it provides a better view of the 'big picture'. Though these "amphibs" (or just "phibs") currently serve in the primary role of bringing USMC MEU's to shore, and only use a half dozen AV-8's to support that mission, they were designed with the capability of serving as light aircraft carriers. Hence the fact that they can carry a couple of squadrons of Harriers, and potentially F-35's. That is also why they are comparable to the other STOVL carrier's of other nations - not just visually, but in size, weight, length, and capability. So, they should continue to be included, but with a clear explanation of the current/main/primary role they serve. There seems to be a couple of 'traditionalists' here who object to the inclusion, for they only consider "CV-type" ships to be real aircraft carriers. But that narrow definition aside, we must be prepared to cater the many readers who don't know of these distinctions, and have come to learn about 'aircraft carriers', and LHA\D's are 'aircraft carriers'.

(And, 'Solomon' I'm glad you agreed with the need to use (for now) a nick name. Mind you, you could use any one you want, just as long as you're consistent, so we know who you are with each ip change. I only used 'Solomon' as an example because... well, never mind. Anyway, I understand your reasons for anonymity and I glad we found a compromise.) - thewolfchild 13:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Some quotes from the USN official web-site;

"Unites States Navy Fact File"

---

Amphibious Assault Ships - LHA/LHD/LHA(R)

Description

The largest of all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck.

Features

Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these ships transport and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) or Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) with a combination of aircraft and landing craft.

The Tarawa-class LHAs and Wasp-class LHDs provide the Marine Corps with a means of ship-to-shore movement by helicopter in addition to movement by landing craft. Three LHAs � which have extensive storage capacity and can accommodate Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and LCAC craft � were active during Operations Desert Shield / Storm. Since that time, LHAs (and later LHDs) have been participants in major humanitarian-assistance, occupation and combat operations in which the United States has been involved. Such operations have included participating as launch platforms for Marine Corps expeditionary forces into Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and 2002, Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and humanitarian support after the catastrophic Tsunami in 2004. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, two LHDs served as �Harrier carriers,� launching an air group of AV-8B attack aircraft against targets inside Iraq.

(LHA-6) was placed under contract in June 2007 with NGSB, now Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). LHA 6 will be an aviation-centric modified repeat of the LHD 8 and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 2013. Key differences between LHA 6 and the LHD class ships include an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck, and an electronically reconfigurable C4ISR suite.

Background

Amphibious warships are designed to support the Marine Corps tenets of Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS) and Ship to Objective Maneuver (STOM). They must be able to sail in harm�s way and provide a rapid buildup of combat power ashore in the face of opposition. Because of their inherent capabilities, these ships have been and will continue to be called upon to also support humanitarian and other contingency missions on short notice. The United States maintains the largest and most capable amphibious force in the world. The Wasp-class LHDs are currently the largest amphibious ships in the world. The lead ship, USS Wasp (LHD 1) was commissioned in July 1989 in Norfolk, Va. LHA Replacement or LHA(R) is the next step in the incremental development of the �Big Deck Amphib�. She is being designed to accommodate the Marine Corps� future Air Combat Element (ACE) including F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and MV-22 Osprey with additional aviation maintenance capability and increased fuel capacities, while also providing additional cargo stowage capacities and enabling a broader, more flexible Command and Control capability.

Just thought it might help contribute to the discussion. - thewolfchild 15:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting quote;

"It is, for all intents and purposes, a light aircraft carrier, Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix wrote of America".

Figured I'd ad that as well. - thewolfchild 15:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The key phrase in what you quoted above in in the first line: "resembles a small aircraft carrier". The USN does not consider its LHAs and LHDs to be aircraft carriers in the narrow sense. This is further illustrated by the second quote, in with the captain states "for all intents and purposes". Are LHDs and LHAs aircraft carriers in the broad sense? Yes. But should the scope of this article be the broad sense or the narrow sense? That's the key question here. Historically, the article has covered the narrow sense, at least until "bla, bla, yadda" (IP 79.xxx/109.xxx) began to change the scope unilaterally in December 2011. And you're right, there was no real opposition to the change at that time. But now it's come to a head.

At this point, we're mainly going in circles. It may be time to hold a survey on what the scope should be, and post a comment about it at MILHIST and WPSHIPS, the primary wikiprojects for this article. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Really, why? You've just said the article has been this way for 2 years. (!) There is already an implied consensus in that fact alone. But you want to push that aside, and any benefit that an untold number of readers may gain from the inclusion of these types of aircraft carriers, just to satisfy the demand of a "narrow" definition by... who? You? and Nick? Don't you think that all sounds somewhat... unreasonable?

You claim that; "The USN does not consider its LHAs and LHDs to be aircraft carriers in the narrow sense." Based on what? And, isn't the USN part of the US government, and isn't the US government represented by Congress? And doesn't Congress claim that LHA/D's are basically aircraft carriers when they challenge the need for Ford class super-carriers?

You have to remember, that at the end of the day, these LHA/D's are aircraft carriers. In every sense of the definition, save for your unsupported "narrow" one. I don't think it's the place for a group of wikipedians to alter this definition, just because... well, whatever your reason is. - thewolfchild 23:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we do a greater disservice to the reader by trying to cover the big-deck amphibs both here and in the type article. I actually laid out my reasons for why I support a narrow scope for the article in my initial comments in this discussion. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right - I'm trying to build a consensus to support my position as being the normative one in in reliable sources. That can be done without your agreeing with me, and the opposite is true too. Four editors isn't really a broad enough spectrum of editors to try to establish a clear consensus for what the scope of the article should be. As long as we have wider participation, I'll have no problem accepting the final outcome of such a discussion, whatever the consensus may be. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, forgive me, but I'm a little fuzzy on what your idea of 'consensus' is. I have asked repeatedly to be shown the discussion where consensus was established to "narrow" the definition of 'aircraft carrier' and omit the aircraft-carrying, STOVL, amphibious assault ships. I had a look thru the talk archives, but couldn't seem to find anything. What I did find, is several people asking about these ships, indicating there is a need to include them. Actually, the only "consensus" I could find was you and Nick telling B. Fairbairn that he couldn't have a table in the article.

But anyway, I think the lines are too blurred to try and carve out the definition you seek. You may think it's as easy as saying "the big Nimitz class ships ARE 'aircraft' carriers and the Amphibs. are not. That's why the Nimitz ships have CV and the rest don't! " But we're not talking about just the American ships. LHA/D's are just to similar to the other STOVL 'carriers' of the other nations to discount.

Of course, once we get past the size and ability of these ships, you guys will argue, "but it's NOT their purpose!." But since they were designed with that ability, obviously they had the possibility of that purpose mind. And, they have been used specifically as carriers.

So then you'll say "but that's not their PRIMARY purpose! ". By which point your whole argument will become as narrow as the definition you seek.

All that aside... Bill, lemme ask you, if it is determined that LHA/D's are to remain in this article, will you still contribute? Would you suggest any changes for improvement? What would they be? - thewolfchild 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why?- BilCat (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC

Actually, Bill, you can disregard. I was really just wondering if you would stop contributing if the article remained as is. You have offered a lot to this page, I wouldn't want to see you driven away. Sorry if my question offended you. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually stop contributing to an article when I disagree with a clear consensus, ie. if it is determined (that what I meant by a clear consensus) that LHA/D's are to remain in this article. That said, I have stopped watching articles during my period of semi-retirement because they became too contentious for one reason or another. There are enough times of stress in my personal life that I don't need WP adding to it. - BilCat (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I actually found myself wondering if the LHA\Ds do remain, that perhaps a significant re-write of some sections to differentiate between the classes would be needed. I of course would be willing to help, but I would like to think that since you have invested so much time with this page, you would want to be involved, even if you do disagree with the content. On that note, I find myself wondering if a major re-write is just what is needed here. Start of with the most basic definition of "aircraft carrier" in the lead, and mention every kind of carrier there has been in history (balloon, single plane/heli, subs, civilian, etc.) Then bring the major focus to warships carrying fixed-wing. At that point, your down to CV/fleet carriers an amphibs. Do a section on the amphibs, then ref of to their own article, leaving the remainder (and majority) of the article for the traditional carriers you would like to focus on. I think there could be a reasonable compromise here. Anyways, let me know what you think. - thewolfchild 03:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just about what I've been calling for, except for your addition of a "section" on STOVL-carryibg amphibs. To clarify, do you mean a whole section under a sub-heading, with or without a list of the LHA/D classes, or just a paragrph in the Lead section, or something in between? I'd definitely support a paragraph in the Lead or another appropriate place. We can dicuss the details below in the next sub-section for ease of editing. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a paragraph-sized sub-section, somewhere appropriate along the timeline of the article. It doesn't need to be too large, or have anything more than a single picture. No tables, no full listing of ships. Just an brief outline of the Wasp and America class, the similarities and differences between them and the CV-type. Basically explain how they are a variation of the aircraft carrier, but used primarily in the role of landing MEU's. If anything, the traditionalists here could look at this as an opportunity to 'set the record straight' on the story between carriers and assault ships. This could be helpful to the reader who has no idea about these things and though they might think LHA/d's are carriers, might become confused at their absence from the article without explanation. I'm sure we could collaborate on it and work something out. - thewolfchild 07:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
-MOVED TO BOTTOM OF THREAD

Off topic

Extended content

TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC) "Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC) If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, well, I respectfully disagree. Those were insults, pure and simple, and uncalled for. But, anyways, do you see me crying about it? Or running off to ANI? No. I told him what I thought about it, and then asked to move on and stay on topic, which I think is the best thing. On that note, I think you're comment was unnecessary, and I will ask you as well to please stay with the discussion, and refrain from baiting, making off-topic comments and personal criticisms. Honestly, I'd really prefer to keep things on point here. - thewolfchild 03:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC) QED. - Nick Thorne talk 05:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC) RIL. - thewolfchild 05:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC) TWC, for the record, BR is an admin, and part of their duties are to act as referees to keep discussions from getting too heated. He would not have spoken up unless he felt it was necessary to do so. - BilCat (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, I'm aware of that. That's why I find his comments just as troubling. But, look... when I replied to Nick's attack on me, I said then, I want to stick to the discussion. When I replied to BR's anything-but-neutral comments, I again said, I would like to keep the discussion on track. Now, I'm not sure why you feel the need to jump in as well, but I will say it for the last time; I am done here. I will continue to discuss this aircraft carrier issue at the bottom section of the thread, if anyone is interested in discussing this, there. This will be my last response to the disruptive, off-topic editing within this section of the thread. Thank you. - thewolfchild 07:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(Note: This section of the thread has gone off topic. All replies regarding the discussion of aircraft carrier definition and amphibious assault ship inclusion within the article, should be added to the most recent comments at the bottom of the thread.)

Sub-heading 1

I have posted notes on the WPMILHIST and WPSHIPS talk pages requesting input on this discussion. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added a note to WPAVIATION, as this is closely allied to aviation. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Amphibious assault ships are not aircraft carriers. Arguing that they are "because they're so similar to the other STOVL 'carriers' of the other nations" is WP:SYNTH, in its purest form - "A is A, C is like A, and B is like C, therefore B is like A". Now, it might be worth having a footnote section for that sort of ship, but to classify them as aircraft carriers, when they are not, is not what we should be doing. They are built as amphibious assault ships, classified as amphibious assault ships, and referred to in sources as amphibious assault ships - therefore it is WP:OR for Wikipedia to refer to them as aircraft carriers. The ships used by Spain, Italy, and Thailand, howwever, are built as aircraft carriers, classified as aircraft carriers, and referred to in sources as aircraft carriers - therefore they are, in fact, aircraft carriers, regardless of size. (The fly in the ointment would actually be the Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with The Bushranger's comment above. Amphibious assault ships are designed to land large numbers of soldiers quickly, and have a very different mission and design to those of aircraft carriers. They might look like carriers, but the design and how they're used are quite different. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with The Bushranger and Nick-D's comments. Aircraft carriers are not Amphibious assault ships. — -dainomite   05:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dainomite: "Aircraft carriers are not Amphibious assault ships". - Nobody here is claiming they are. The debate is regarding whether or not amphibious assault ships can be considered aircraft carriers, and to what extent. Regardless of what the 'naysayers' claim, they do fit the basic, precise definition of "ships that carry aircraft", but further to that, they have similar design profiles, carry squadrons of fighter jets (unlike any ship in the world except fleet carriers) and can (and have) filled the very same roles as fleet carriers. They are, essentialy, aircraft carriers. ("Primary role" not-with-standing) - thewolfchild 21:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Me too, TheBushranger is spot on. A more marginal case is the old Invincible class ski-jump "Harrier carrier" formerly in service with the British Royal Navy. I'd suggest that most lay people see these as aircraft carriers, indeed Wikipedia's article is called Invincible-class aircraft carrier and they are also listed in the Light aircraft carrier article. while at the time the Ministry of Defence officially described them as "Through-deck cruisers" and to my knowledge that never changed. On the one hand, calling these cruisers "aircraft carriers" is also technically WP:OR. On the other hand, carrying attack aircraft was their primary function and excluding them from an encyclopedic article on aircraft carriers seems nonsensical. In such circumstances the best way forward is to ignore what we beileve to be correct and stick ruthlessly to what the authoritative references say. Do they describe the Invincible through-deck cruisers as "light aircraft carriers" or don't they? If they do, we can add inline citations and breathe a sigh of relief. If they do not, we will have to restructure a shedload of articles, one of the many joys of Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The article says that as well as describing its planned operations "anti-submarine cruiser", "Through deck cruiser" was a useful way of avoiding using the phrase "aircraft carrier" after cancelling the CVA-01. Since reliable sources as well as the serious press called them aircraft carriers - the Invincibles can be counted as aircraft carriers - just not very big ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's OR to refer to the Invincible class ships as aircraft carriers as this is what they're consistently called in reliable sources. I've never seen the term "Through-deck cruiser" taken seriously, and the sources which mention it always note that it was a deliberately misleading designation used by the RN for political reasons. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I'd suggest it would be a good idea to add some inline citations to that effect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This will repeat themes from the thread but hopefully collect them into a compact package. I agree that US phibs are not called carriers firstly because of their primary purpose as a phib but also as not to become a threat to the big deck supercarrier in congress, this also is said to have killed the flight deck prepositioning concept ship for the USN. the F-35B is cited to be considered along with the America class a few paragraphs down to be a threat to supercarriers not unlike the Elmo Zumwalt Sea Control Ship was seen as. Do I think a LHA/LHD is a carrier? My opinion is definitely yes because of the wartime Harrier-Carrier rather than a prospective sea control mode. I believe that the LHA/LHD have more place on the list than the Narubet but any choice is arbitrary; GLobalSecurity a source a few rungs below Janes thinks so [1] though they also inexplicably also include Ocean denting their credibility. A thought exercise, as a ASW platform with 2-4 Sea Harriers(pre-Falklands) would we list an Invincible class ship a carrier? What about now after her conversion to a LPH from CVL? I feel this would be the similar criteria we might use for a LHA/LHD with the 10+9 rather than 19 and * with disclaimer below. I made changes which I though had the greatest utility to someone looking for total number of active fixed wing world flight decks and included the 9 the USN had in triple secret reserve that few people know about, the footnote balancing the addition out to my satisfaction. The primary projected real life role of the Juan Carlos is being a phib used mostly as a carrier post PdA, perhaps a different case but might also deserve a footnote. In any case opinions are nice but one arbitrary choice must be made and IMHO most importantly that criteria defined clearly introducing the active carrier list. Solomon(for now)79.177.123.217 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

thewolfchild, I should also add that I appreciate your edits and opinions just as I do the edits and even the reversions especially those who watch Aircraft Carriers, except for vandals I mostly see people who want to get well researched correct(in their view) information out in an easy useful format.Solomon(for now)79.177.123.217 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In some cases ships are classed as cruisers as treaty workarounds, as I recall (which explains some of the Soviet/Russian class designations). But that's neither here nor there. With respect to the US stuff, what it should come down to is the ship's primary mission. If the ship is carrying a large complement of Marines or other assault troops, that would seem to indicate that its primary mission is to get those troops to shore. Aircraft are present to provide transportation and/or fire support for that effort. That, IMO, has more to do with a ship being an aircraft carrier or not than a hull number. Intothatdarkness 17:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In the broadest sense, an aircraft carrier is any ship that carries an aircraft as part of its equipment, which would include ships such as SS Michael E. IMHO, this article should concentrate on those vessels which are designed to carry large numbers of aircraft and to effectively operate as a floating aerodrome. That said, other vessel types which carry aircraft should be mentioned as a separate section towards the bottom of the article, with individual examples named/linked. A few ocean liners carried aircraft as part of their equipment. Mjroots (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the very first comment out of the gate (in this section - Bushranger) characterized the 'inclusion argument' as one of "it looks like an aircraft carrier, so it must be one! ". Wrong. That is not the argument here. I have never based my position on appearance. I have based it on pure definition, similar definition and past use, capabilities and expectations. The pure definition of an aircraft carrier is a vessel that carries aircraft. That definition can be found in a multitude of reliable sources, which means Wikipedia needs to be very careful in how we alter it. Indeed, the claim that including the LHA/D's is somehow "WP:OR" is simply wrong. My argument includes the similar definitions to be found among CV-type aircraft carriers, STOVL aircraft carriers, light aircraft carriers and The LHA/D's (by which I'm referring to the Tarawa, Wasp and America class). Those definitions being; used for force projection, full length decks for launching and landing fixed-wing jet fighters, extensive aviation facilities, capable of carrying multiple squadrons of F35's (with EW planes and helos), have been used in the light aircraft carrier role in the past ("Harrier carrier"), and no reason to think they wouldn't be used as such again, and at combined program+unit cost of over $10B, these ships could be considered as 'capital ships'. The only real argument here against inclusion, is that they haven't been referred to as 'aircraft carriers' in US navy nomenclature. But they were designed to be used as a carrier if required, they have been used as carriers previously, and there is every reason to believe they will be used more and more in that role. Even if we agree here to not call them aircraft carriers, They are essentially a variation of the aircraft carrier and there is every reason to have them included in the aircraft carrier article. By the way, I'm not pushing to leave the article as is. It would be perfectly reasonable to re-write it (as much as necessary) to specify the difference between traditional/fleet/supercariers and these ships. I am willing to help with do that, to consensus specs. - thewolfchild 03:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, USN big-deck amphibs are an essential variation of the aircraft carrier. But as you just stated, they are not considered "traditional/fleet/supercariers". Thus the question here is more one of scope than purely of definition. These ships, and their various roles, are covered at amphibious assault ship. I don't see the need to lump them in here too. That said, I don't have a problem adding them as a note to the in-service section, as was done at times in the past, but we shouldn't include them in the totals for aircraft carriers. Specialist sources almost never do, even if some mainstream sources and popular culture often do. - BilCat (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have ask, do you consider Wikipedia a "Specialist source" or a "mainstream source". I would think that the specialist sources you're referring to are for professionals, people in the industry and hard-core enthusiasts, whereas WP really is more for mainstream readers. But that aside, I'm wondering if you had read my reply to you above (@ 03:52, 13 September) where I proposed something similar to your comment here. If we do some rewriting with the lead, leave the LHA/D's in the active list (with an *asterisk) and have at least a small section about the LHA/D's as a variant of the carrier, leaving the majority of the article space to CV-type carriers, then I think we can settle this issue. Of course, it also depends on what others think as well. - thewolfchild 05:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, I call it a duck, and as no reliable sources call the LHAs/LHDs "aircraft carriers"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And when that 'duck' is parked in the Persian Gulf, with squadron after squadron of AV-8B's flying sorties off it, and the Navy refers to said 'duck' as a Harrier Carrier... what then? - thewolfchild 07:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

About your comment; "...no reliable sources call the LHAs/LHDs "aircraft carriers"" Are you sure about that? - thewolfchild 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I responded up there, but we should continue the discussion here. My reference to mainstream sources was that they aren't always accurate, and are often misleading or even wrong, about military terms. The specialist sources I have in mind are books and websites by military and aviation writers, that are usually written for laymen as well as professionals. Sites like AvWeek and FlightGlobal don't usually make the sorts of silly mistakes and errors that mainstream media and pop-culture make about the military. Even though WP is written for the general reader, we still need to be as accurate as possible. A good example of how WP handles this is in the Lead section of the article on Bullet, and its colloquial use to mean a complete Cartridge (firearms). - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(moved from mid section of thread) Perhaps a paragraph-sized sub-section, somewhere appropriate along the timeline of the article. It doesn't need to be too large, or have anything more than a single picture. No tables, no full listing of ships. Just an brief outline of the Wasp and America class, the similarities and differences between them and the CV-type. Basically explain how they are a variation of the aircraft carrier, but used primarily in the role of landing MEU's. If anything, the traditionalists here could look at this as an opportunity to 'set the record straight' on the story between carriers and assault ships. This could be helpful to the reader who has no idea about these things and though they might think LHA/d's are carriers, might become confused at their absence from the article without explanation. I'm sure we could collaborate on it and work something out. - thewolfchild 07:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion #1

What about something like this:

"Amphibious assault ships, such as USS Tarawa and HMS Ocean, serve the purpose of carrying and landing Marines, and operate a large contingent of helicopters for that purpose. Also known as "commando carriers" or "helicopter carriers", many have a secondary capability to operate VSTOL aircraft."

- BilCat (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion #2

I was thinking of something more along the lines of;

USS Bataan, a Wasp class amphibious assault ship with Harrier fighter jets and helicopters on the deck Amphibious Assault Ships See main article: Amphibious Assault Ships Used in the navies of the UK, France, Spain, Italy and South Korea and, the United States with the current Tarawa, Wasp and America class LHA'a and LHD's. These ships have variously been referred to, and compared to, "light aircraft carriers", "amphibious assault carriers", "commando carriers", "helicopter carriers" and "STOVL carriers". These ships are not only a variation of the traditional carrier, but an evolution in the doctrine of naval and marine corps aviation. While their primary role is that of Amphibious Assault - the transport, landing and support of a USMC MEU on a beach-head, they also have the capability to provide force projection, sea control, ASW, fleet escort and serve in the role of carrier, when required. The role of the Amphibious Assault Ship is quite distinct from the primary role of the fleet carrier, but it is a role that is none-the-less constantly changing, both due to the advent of the JFS program and the constantly shifting paradigms in amphibious warfare.

With links and refs included, that's just a rough idea, for starters. - thewolfchild 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(moved from off-topic section of thread) So it seems like there is support for phibs(except perhaps Juan Carlos) being excluded and making this officially a list of built and named as CVs, perhaps below the list as seen in its current incarnation, there could be a header for Amphibious Assault Ships Used as Carriers and move the Juan Carlos and LHD/LHAs there, a Repurposed CVs Without Fixed Wing Aviation heading might also be appropriate. I am somewhat concerned that the tone of discussion will become voting for/against users rather than for/against content.Solomon(for now)79.177.123.217 (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears there may be a compromise to have amphibs included, but with some changes to the article. (see above comments from Bill and myself). I would be interested in seeing what you might care to contribute to this, if it goes in that direction. - thewolfchild 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As for your concern that "the tone of discussion will become voting for/against users, rather than"... a proper consensus? I wouldn't worry. There was a brief disruption, but cooler heads have prevailed and I believe the focus is now on the article, where it should be. We're all good wikipedians here, I'm sure things can remain collaborative and collegial. Speaking of which, Bill and I have posted ideas for moving forward. Would you care to add anything? - thewolfchild 21:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to establish consensus for the inclusion of these vessels. I for one remain implacably opposed to including anything other than a note that such vessels exist and providing a link to the appropriate article - which is not his one. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Nick, these vessels have been included in the article for several years now. As I see it, you presently don't have a clear consensus for the removal of them. Nor a clear mandate to even seek consensus for removal yet, as the question of just how to apply the definition of "aircraft carrier" here has not yet been decided. - thewolfchild 01:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that anything that an aircraft lands on is an aircraft carrying vessel and hence possibly an aircraft carrier in the broadest sense. Concentrating it down to those vessels that operate fixed-wing aircraft eliminates the helicopter-equipped cruiser, helicopter carriers and commando carriers. Deciding then whether a smaller vessel with a handful of VSTOL aircraft counts as an "aircraft carrier" because it isn't used quite like those huge floating airfields that the USN operates could be contrary to the requirements to include a broader world view - for a small nation, a hand-me-down like an ex-Illustrious would be for them a significant projection of force against neighbouring small nations. Although small, they may have a larger airwing than a Merchant Aircraft Carrier of the 1940s. An amphibious assault ship operating fixed wing aircraft is a bit of a cross-breed - like the Japanese battleship Hyūga after she was outfitted with a flight deck - but there is no reason why they can't be mentioned under the overall heading of "aircraft carrier" though listing them all individually would be unworkable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well said. - thewolfchild 01:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps below the Carriers list have an actively STOVL ops capable amphibious assault ships list disclaimed by explaining the difference CV vs L* in two line intro. For example "While designed primarily for serving a different function than aircraft carriers the similarity in design means some amphibious assault ships are designed or can be retrofitted to operate STOVL aircraft in a manner similar to aircraft carriers." It is clearly a step outside the narrow focus some wish for the page, but as Wikipedia is often the kickoff for tracking down the sources or getting ideas for papers while keeping the page pure it does leave out significant relevant information which would not detract at all from usefulness of the list of carriers. To research carrier capable phibs you must first know or remember that they can be and sometimes are used as carriers a fact stated by the USN. I hate to see bloat but an in service list is a useful easy to read summary for the large percentage of people who skim most of the article.Solomon(for now)79.177.123.217 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Time for a vote?

You guys have discussed this to death. Nobody is going to change their position now. Dare I suggest that now might be a good moment to summarise the bone of contention and take a vote on it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NOTVOTE. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dave, not sure who you are aiming that comment at, but yes, a useful read for everybody. I particularly had in mind the "...they are one tool useful for developing mutual consensus and evaluating whether consensus exists" and "...every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll" bits. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the comment was directed to you. We don't need to have a "vote". Everybody simply adds their comment (including you), stating whether these ships should not be included, or if they should, then to what degree, or in what fashion. After enough comments are added, if there is a clear majority in favour of one way or another, then you have a consensus. - thewolfchild 01:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Surveys can be helpful when there isn't a clear consensus among the several editors, or when we haave several different options to choose from. Since we are trying to hammer out a proposal above, we can see how many object to the final outcome. If it's still unclear at that point, then we can hold a survey. - BilCat (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In doing somewhat of an informal survey, I have so far seen approximately 17 different users in favour of inclusion and only about 5 opposed. Basically, the amphibious assault ships should be included and since Bill, Solomon and myself seem to be the ones actually willing to work on this article, I propose we close this discussion (as further arguing seems pointless), and now focus on what needs to be done, to fix the page. - thewolfchild 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind listing these users and which way you're surveying them? An in-line list would be fine. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I too would be interested to see how you arrived at these figures, since it does not seem to agree at all with my reading of this talk page. BTW, you seem to assume that others are not willing to work on the page because they do not agree that your proposed changes are an improvement. I remind you that you do not own the page and you are not the arbiter of what needs to be done. If the consensus is not to include your changes, that cannot be interpreted as an unwillingness to work on the page. Frankly that shows an lack of the assumption of good faith. You might find that if you adopted a less combative approach you might achieve a lot more - you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Bill, as I said, the number is approximate, but here is where I found them; x2, x1, x2, x1, x3, x2, x1, x1, along with the contributors to this thread. - thewolfchild 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can and does change, as does people's opinions. Using past discussions really doesn't help to come to a clear consensus, and just skews the ivotes. What does your informal survey show just using the current discussions? - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I took the time to look at your links, at least half of them do not support the position you are attributing to them. Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is your obvious bias that leads you to think these posters support your proposal (when in fact they do not) rather than a deliberate intention to mislead. However, as Bill has said, resurrecting ancient discussions does nothing to assist in assessing the current consensus, whatever the opinions expressed at previous times might have been. Bill and I have both asked you to look at the current discussion and give us your assessment of what the current Zeitgeist might be. You have so far refused to do this, I suspect because, like me, you can see the way the wind is currently blowing. A little more openness to other points of view and a little less confrontation might serve you better than over-reacting to the comments of others snd trying to bulldoze through your ideas for "improvement" of the article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I only looked at discussions on this talk page, regarding the inclusion of any vessels other than 'fleet carrier'. These are other users who have at one time commented on this issue. These are comments that have leanings toward this article not being so exclusive. I never made any claims beyond that, so please don't put words in my mouth. That said, I must say, Nick, I took you to be a miserable sort, but you have made me laugh with here. "Ancient"? Really? These are just comments that have been archived. They are not hieroglyphics from some cave. And my "obvious bias"? (I almost shot my drink outta' my nose on that one). If you mean my "point of view" as opposed to your "point of view", then sure it's my "bias"... as opposed to your "bias". Now you say that "Bill and I have both asked you to look at the current discussion and give us your assessment of what the current Zeitgeist might be. You have so far refused to do this." You show where I was asked that, each time. And then explain just how I "refused" to answer. (or is this just you creating inflammatory comments to make?) If you really think "the wind is blowing" strongly in one particular direction, please demonstrate that for me as well. Clearly. With facts. And cites. Inline will be fine.

You then say "a little more openness to others points of view...", this, from the one who is "implacably opposed to including anything other than a note that such vessels exist...", you call that open? Actually, have you read anything you have written here? You have not shown the slightest bit of willingness to collaborate on anything that isn't the exact way you want it. And, lastly, just how am I trying to "bulldoze" anything?. This is a discussion. There are opposing points of view. That's it. You really can't handle not having your way, can you? Just as you can't seem to put fingers to keyboard without going off-topic, insulting me and disrupting the discussion. Since non-interacting wont work, I will simply ask you again... can you please stay on topic and refrain from the insults and accusations? Please?? - thewolfchild 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

(response to comment by Nick Thorne 22:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
Nick, this the third, Third!, time you have gone off-topic, and posted an angry diatribe full of baseless accusations at me. "Arbiter" (again), "page ownership", accusations of "bad faith", and on and on. Meanwhile, you have also had the nerve to preach to me about "engaging other editors", "combative editing", "dictating", and of all things, "having tantrums". Well, sir, that's exactly what your comments are. Clearly, Bushranger did you no favour with his administratively implied approval of this puerile behavior, as I see many of your posts are quite blunt, surly and condescending. Hardly the "collegial" editing you exhort. Sometime soon, you should read up on Hypocrisy, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. But in the meantime, if you're going to continue having such difficulty controlling your anger and refraining from this continually disruptive editing, then perhaps you should step away from your computer for awhile, for the good of the project. Whether you do this or not, is entirely up to you (for now), but either way, I've had enough of your nonsense. Three times is enough for me. I am no longer interested in interacting with you. I ask that you please join me in a self-imposed interaction ban between the two of us, for the good of the project.
In short, I'm done with you. - thewolfchild 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

While Nick can be a bit surly at times, he doesn't badger people so much that they withdraw from these discussions, as you've done with BR in particular. I for one have about "I've had enough of your nonsense" one several occasions,including this one. If your "interaction ban will include you withdrawing from this discussion altogether, then that would probably be for the best. If not, the Nick has every right to respond to whatever you say here, and tell it like he sees it, just as you do quite regularly. I can try to work on a compromise with Solomon, as his suggestions have points I can negotiate with. If you don't like that, then take him to ANI, where he can defend himself to others, and your own behavior can be scrutinized also. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Surly" ? If that is what you call 'surly', what do you the Rocky Mountains? 'Road bumps'? As for BR (Bushranger), you think I badgered him? I disagree. I think what he did was wrong. Way wrong. I called him on it. And, at the same time, I asked if we could please stop the discussion from going off-topic. Something that Nick is completely incapable of, that BR didn't with his comment, and now you're doing as well. I was not proposing that I "withdraw from this discussion altogether". That is an inappropriate comment for you to make, (and a somewhat of a surprising one). Nick does not have the right to "tell is like he sees it" He must abide by the guidelines of the project. These guidelines prohibit much of the rude and disruptive editing that he has engaged in. There is a difference in what he posts and what I post. Before his first attack on me, I had not accused anyone of being rude, being an arbiter, page ownership, not being collegial, assuming bad faith, not engaging other editors, combative editing, distorting others comments, wp:battle, not catching enough flies, etc. etc. Every one of my posts has been on topic. The only off topic one, such as this very one, has been in response to the outrageous allegations being levied against me. As for ANI, I am not the kind of man who goes crying to ANI every time my 'feeling get hurt'. But if either of you fellows would like to start one, be my guest. In the meantime, I will simply ask again... can we please stay on topic and refrain from these battle ground comments? Please?? - thewolfchild 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of withdrawing from this page, if you don't want me to respond to your endless repetition of the same argument ad nauseum, then simply stop making those same arguments. I will not be bullied away from an area of my major interest by someone with an apparent agenda who suffers very badly from I didn't Hear that. If you do not wish to interact with me, then fine, go and find some other corner of Wikipedia to disrupt. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

So be it. As I said, that is your choice. But if you choose to continue, it would be nice if you could actually contribute to the discussion, show that you're willing to work on any future version of the page that includes "anything more than a note that these vessels exist", and refrain from going off-topic, insulting and accusing me ad nauseum. You have shown us plenty of examples of bullying, but I'd like you to show me just one example of me bullying anyone. You claim I have an agenda... ok, I'll bite, what is my 'agenda'? You wanna accuse of that, let's see you back it up. (In fact, it would be see you back just one of any of the accusations you have made, or support any of the insults you've made, to show they are not just that). As for now, it seems I am stuck interacting with you. It would be nice if you could make it more of the collegial enterprise you claim to be a champion of, and I think a good way to start is to stop trying to bully me off to "some other corner of Wikipedia". Another good way to start, would be to please stay on topic, and refrain from further insults and accusations. Can you do that? Please?? - thewolfchild 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur. BilCat (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do. - thewolfchild 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: It has been suggested that my recent post, where I wrote: "Basically, the amphibious assault ships should be included and since Bill, Solomon and myself seem to be the ones actually willing to work on this article, I propose we close this discussion (as further arguing seems pointless), and now focus on what needs to be done, to fix the page.", was designed to exclude editors from any further contributions to the page. Well, it meant nothing of the sort. I only mentioned Bill, Solomon and myself, as we are the only ones who have shown enough interest in improving the current status quo of the article, by actually posting individual suggestions for improvement. Forgive me for not including those who are "implacably opposed" to working on these improvements. Obviously, anyone here is free to contribute, and no single user is above the rest. That said, the amphibious assault ships have been included in this article for over two years and many, many edits. There is a de-facto, if not de-jure consensus that they belong. Therefore, it would now take an overwhelming consensus to have them removed. In the meantime we should work towards improving the article, with them included. - thewolfchild 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I entered this discussion with the understanding that we were trying to establish a new consensus without giving too much weight to either viewpoint as needing an overwhelming consensus to make a change, just a clear consensus. I and Nick T have respected the "de facto consensus" by not just ripping out all the amphib stuff outright. I think I could have done so on the basis that article existed without it for far longer than 2 years! We were in the process of working on a compromise, but you seem to have withdrawn from that, and have now retreated to your previous position, have tried to justify it by appealing to old discussions, and then you made a whole new proposal below, further muddying the waters! Do you still support your original compromise solution, or is that now off the table entirely? - BilCat (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

First off, "you and Nick" can't just arbitrarily "rip out" anything. And if you think you had the right to do so before because of "what existed in the article two years ago", then you should have made that change two years ago. But then again, you were in favour of having them included, and in fact vehemently argued for that a while ago, on this talk page. And we know where Nick stands, we haven't seen him to appear to be open to any kind of a compromise. In fact, he's "implacably" just the opposite.

But, with that said, maybe we all need to take a deep breath, cool down a bit, and consider just what it is we are "trying" to do here. For my part, I read the article a short while ago and made some minor adjustments to already existing material. (that is important, please note that). The user now going by 'Solomon' reverted me, I then made further changes, along the same lines as my original ones, but modified somewhat so that I felt he would agree with it. Which it seems he did. He then invited me to discuss this here. Now, as we have established, amphibious assault ships have already been included in the article. At the time, just looking for some more clarification, as to the differences and similarities between them, supercarriers, fleet carriers, STOVL carrier, heli-carriers, etc, etc. This is where we touched upon the actual definition of "aircraft carrier" and how wide or narrow it should be. From there discussion became more of should they be included and why, or not included and why not, should they eliminated altogether, or should the existing content be modified. In my view, they should be included, and more than just a brief reference. These are the only vessels that can function in the same capacity as a STOVL/fleet carrier, (and indeed they have and are likely too again).

This is why I had proposed the paragraph-sized sub-section that I added above (of course, that wasn't carved in stone, it could have been modified. It was just to give an idea of what I thought the minimum amount of 'amphib' content should be). I hadn't noted much of a response to that suggestion, but unfortunately, the whole discussion went horribly off-topic and so I suppose there wasn't much focus on that suggestion. But, none-the-less, it still stands. As does my offer to work with anybody who would like to improve the article. I haven't taken anything "off the table". As for the possible "solution" I posted, that is simply another suggestion for people to consider. Whereas the first one was the minimum, this is more of a comprehensive change.

We need to consider what readers who don't know these vessels as well as Nick and you do, are looking for when they come to these pages. What may seem like a huge difference to you two, could be considered a subtle difference to them. We really should, at a minimum, include something along the lines of what I suggested, to help avoid confusion. Either way, I hope we can refrain from any further nasty comments and keep this discussion focused on finding a solution. Can we do that? Please? - thewolfchild 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(more off topic edits)

Extended content

Wolf, you've written far more off topic comments per letter than everyone else here combined. Move on, stop responding to every perceived slight you think Nick or anyone else is making, and we'll stay on-topic. - BilCat (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC) (sigh...) Geez, after all I wrote, about the subject at hand, that's all you have to say? You're still going on about this? OK, let's start with this; Your comment that I have "written far more off topic comments (per letter?) than everyone else here combined (!) is simply wrong. And it will stay wrong unless you can prove it. (I am tired of these insults and accusations never being verified). "Move on" you say? That's what I've been trying to do ever since Nick's first attack on me. Perhaps you noted that I have requested just that (moving on) within and/or at the end of almost every single post I've made? Furthermore, if you guys stop writing these perceived slights, I will stop responding to them. Now, about "staying on topic", do you have anything to add to the discussion, because that's what I'm interested in reading. (This is me, 'moving on'...) - thewolfchild 06:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Why do you think it's someone else's responsibilty to stay on topic? You chose to respond to the perceived slights. No one makes you do that. Just don't respond, and we'll stay on topic. - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Actually, I think it's everybody's responsibility to stay on topic. And... how about nobody writes anymore slights (or insults, or accusations) to me, and then I won't have anything to respond to. (Then we wouldn't go off topic in the first place) I think you need remember where this all started. I don't know how many times I'll have to say this, but can we please, please just carry on with the discussion now? Can we now say we're done with this? Tell you what, if you don't comment here any further (and, instead stick to the topic at the bottom of the thread), then we can say you have chosen to do just what you've called upon us to do, stay on topic. - thewolfchild 07:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Does this everybody include you? If so, why then do you continue to do (with bells on) the very thing you accuse others of? - Nick Thorne talk 07:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Of course it does, that's why I'm the only one repeatedly asking for this discussion to remain on topic. Unlike you, who started it all with the off-topic comments, filled with insults and baseless accusations. Yes, I have responded to them, to both defend myself (as is my right) and request that you discontinue your disruptive editing (but... I keep asking, you keep disrupting). Every comment that I have made that is considered 'off-topic', has been a response. Now, as usual, I will ask, can we please end this here, and now, and from this very point, keep the discussion on topic? Thank you. - thewolfchild 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Wolf, this is not on topic. You're going off on another perceived insult because I called what you wrote "wordy", followed by another lengthy diatribe about how you're the only one trying to "improve" the article, and how hard it is. You get offended far to easily. - BilCat (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC) You made comments about my contributions to which I asked you to clarify. There is nothing wrong with that and it most certainly is on topic, as we are discussing and debating potential content to add to the article. Please note that in the diff you provided, I did not claim you were; - a spoiled child having a tantrum, - that you are not collegial, - that you do not engage editors, - that you lack good faith, - that you act in bad faith, - that you are an arbiter, - that you are a dictator, - that you act against consensus, - that you are antagonistic, - that you treat WP as a battleground, - that you own the page, - that you are combative, - that you are uncooperative, - that you are confrontational, - that you are a bully, - that you 'bulldoze' your own POV, - that you are close-minded, - that you are dishonest, - that you are ignorant, - that you are defiant, - that you are disruptive, - that you are controlled by bias, - that your edits are for a self-serving agenda, - that you 'induce nausea' - that you are the equivalent of vinegar. ... did I? Yet, you somehow found that comment of mine so egregious, you had to point it out as such. While at the same time, all those insults and accusations I just listed, are from real comments within this very thread, (that many user would get blocked for), but your only response to all those, is to simply brush them off as being "surly". (of course, they weren't directed at you, were they? they were directed at me, by someone who you are in agreement with in this debate). I challenge you to find one comment of mine, that comes anywhere as close as bad as all those, that wasn't in response to those very same insulting, accusatory, unprovoked, belligerent, uncivil, bad faith comments. But, oooh no, you'd rather just go on and on (and on) about some supposed wrong-doing on my part. And, you'd seemingly would rather continue with this nonsense, than join me in any effort to resolve the issues at hand. Maybe you guys are getting some kind of kick outta' this, but I'm not. I have lost count now how many times I have you two to stop this disruptive editing, and stay. on. topic. Unfortunately, I feel you two have now driven this past the point of conclusion. That you two have become so bitter and hostile, that you are now unwilling to find a reasonable solution, as seen with your continuing comments at this point in the thread, and Nick's comment below. I hope this isn't the case. I hope that from this point, we can try to be civil, mature and cooperative. I hope we can come to a resolution here. - thewolfchild 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Solution?

It seems to me that the debate on what ships to include and not include stems from the very definition of 'aircraft carrier' The definition is simply too far reaching for what some users here seem to care for. Therefore, I think the problem comes from having a page titled 'Aircraft carrier', but only really having 'fleet carriers' making up the main content. Perhaps a solution would be to take a majority of the fleet carrier content here, and migrate it to the current Fleet carrier stub, thereby freeing up this page to provide more info on all aircraft carriers/types. That is simply one solution I am proposing. - thewolfchild 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually did consider that as a solution. However, as I stated in my very first comment, "These may be considered "pure" aircraft carriers, and are usually considered as fleet carriers, but that term is less common in modern times." (By "that term" i meant fleet carrier.) Since WP follows common usage, if you can show from reliable sources that it is still in general use in modern usage, then it might be worth considering your proposal. Still, the fleet carrier article could use some expansion, whichever way we decide to go here. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I don't think modern usage supports having the fleet carrier article take the main content here. I wish it did, but again, WP follows common usage; it does not set precedents itself. - BilCat (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these comments lean toward agreement or disagreement. But you say "These may be considered "pure" aircraft carriers, and are usually considered as fleet carriers, but that term is less common in modern times." Can you show with reliable sources that this is the case? At the same time, why would I need to cite the fact that the term "fleet carrier" is used, when we have an article about it, right here at WP? And really, what is more substantial than "common usage", but a widely used and accepted pure definition? Other than the fact it would take a bit of work, this idea is a good idea. It satisfies everyone, from the traditionalist, to the purist, to the naïve, to the uninformed. Having a page titled "Aircraft carrier" satisfies the pure definition, allows the content regarding "fleet carriers" to be unsullied and contained within it's very own page, with no other types mentioned to any degree other than as a note (which I would think might satisfy Nick), it allows for a broader picture of all the types, from balloon carriers to decked cruisers, to subs, freighters, civilian vessels, et al. It also creates a good jumping off point to all the other carrier type articles here on WP. I think it works well.

But then again, this is just a suggestion. If not this, then something... - thewolfchild 05:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Fleet Carriers" would exclude too many carriers that no-one disputes should be included, such as the Colossuses and Majestics. I'm sorry but some subjects do actually require a degree of technical expertise to explain. The "average Joe" might not understand all the finer points of difference before coming to the page, and so rather than pandering to ill-informed views of those unfamiliar with the subject at hand, it makes much more sense to me to use the correct technical terminology and, where necessary, explain it. Surely, that is the whole point of an encyclopaedia, to provide a source of information, not reflect what readers already think they "know". - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was kind of my whole point... Since "aircraft carrier" is such a broad term, why use it to title a page that covers all types? Thereby leaving the more narrowly defined types to their own respective articles, and giving you the "more narrow definition" and exclusivity you seek. This has nothing to do with avoiding technical terminology to dumb things down, this is more about clarification and organization, which all contribute to making this a more effective "source of information". As for your comment about "reflecting what readers think they know", that's not what I was alluding to at all. In fact, I stated that this would be beneficial to the "naïve and uninformed", which is actually groups of people who don't know, hence the reason to have an encyclopedia - to inform them.

But like I said, this is just a suggestion. What do you suggest be done with this article? - thewolfchild 06:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(additional note: The "Colossuses and Majestics." are currently classified as 'Light' Fleet Carriers - thewolfchild 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) )

"Aircraft carrier" is not really such a broad term, except to the literal minded and the uninformed or when trying to make a point. The sources all pretty much use the term the same way, as indeed do the navies of the countries that actually operate them and they all make the distinction between what are aircraft carriers and what are marine assault ships. Also, even if this was not the case, Wikipedia is not the place to correct wrongs, we follow the sources. Therefore what should be included in the aircraft carrier article should be in concordance with what the overwhelming majority of relevant available sources say and thus should only mention other types of vessels to make distinctions and to point readers to other articles about different types of ships. Once all this argument has died down I fully intend to work within the consensus to edit the article to remove inappropriate content, but now, in the middle of a dispute, is not the time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, "Aircraft carrier" is really such a broad term, as supported by the even more broad (if not vague) definition, found in a multitude of reliable sources. Your shot about being "uniformed" aside, this is not just about being "literal" and "trying to make a point". Just as the navies that operate these vessels "differentiate between what are aircraft carriers and what are marine assault ships", they also differentiate between the different types of aircraft carriers, just as wikipedia does, and should. There is no "wrongs to correct", as it simply is not "wrong" to call any of these types of aircraft carriers just that... aircraft carriers. Now, you may be trying to trade on the old saying that "all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles", but never-the-less, there are different types of poodles, and they need to be compared and contrasted to be better understood.

The very same principle applies to aircraft carriers, of all types, including amphibious assault ships. Now, there may be many difference in the design and purpose of these ships, that separate them from fleet carriers, but, they are aircraft carriers none-the-less. They have been used as aircraft carriers in the past, they have been designed to be used as aircraft carriers in the future, and in all that time, including the very present, they do carry fixed-wing fighter aircraft. Not usually as many as a (US) fleet carrier, but they do carry them, and they do use them. That is why it is necessary to have enough information about them in the (current) aircraft carrier article, to help distinguish between the two types (as well as help your desire to more "narrowly define" what is a 'fleet carrier'). As for what the "over overwhelming majority of relevant available sources say" that an aircraft carrier is... well, they're referring to 'fleet carriers' as 'aircraft carriers', because that is what they are, a type of aircraft carrier. The real question is, is there an "over overwhelming majority of relevant available sources" that state amphibious assault ships are not aircraft carriers? (in direct contradiction to their very definition). To put it simply, the actual definition, some sources, their design and use all say that these ships are aircraft carriers, therefore you would need an "over overwhelming majority of relevant available sources" to say they're not, before you can edit any articles here to that effect.

Now, as for your "full intent to work within the consensus to edit the article to remove inappropriate content"... you have been asked repeatedly to provide proof as to the consensus you (and Bill) have claimed was already established. Barring that, thus far there has been no clear consensus to 'not have any amphibious assault ship content within the aircraft carrier article' established within this thread. Therefore, without consensus to do so, just what edits do you intend to make? And, what do you define as "inappropriate content" ? I look forward to all your answers. - thewolfchild 11:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the US Navy says? Let's see at this page it says

U.S. Navy Fact Sheet

Amphibious Assault Ships - LHA/LHD/LHA(R)

Description

The largest of all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck.

Hmm... Resembles a small aircraft carrier. Therefore, is not actually one. I think the USN trumps your uninformed opinion. You can repeat the same BS as many times as you like, I will continue to call you for it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wooo! Way to go bro! You just went and posted... the exact same info I posted, Eight Days Ago. Way to... um... "trump me". You call me "uninformed" ? (another insult, what else is new), well, at least I'm awake. Speaking of 'BS', I responded, thoroughly, your last post, point for point, (maybe you slept thru that too), it would be nice if you could maybe respond to that. And, maybe try and do it the "collegial", "engaging", "smothered in honey" fashion that you are so famous for, instead of your "trump", "uniformed", "BS" battleground approach you just demonstrated here. (I will assume good faith, and further assume you just did that to show the new people "what not to do".) Anyway, I look forward to that response, and in the meantime, if I have any other old comments that I would like you to re-post, I will let you know. - thewolfchild 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the word "resembles", then? Both times? Do you not understand the meaning of the word? - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First, you your side claims that I based my argument for inclusion, solely on visual appearance, (which I didn't), just so you could tell me I can't use that argument. Now you want to turn around and use the very same argument for exclusion? Either way, appearance alone doesn't matter, as I've listed multiple reasons that you have thus far ignored and/or refused to address. As for your last question, you can't seriously be asking me if I know what the word 'resembles' means, so I will simply add that to the long list of insults and personal attacks you have compiled here. What would be interesting, is if you could put aside your personal feelings towards me, and post one, meaningful, civil, and collegial comment to me. I assure you I would both welcome it, and try to build upon it, as I know a few of my comments have not been completely proper either. This has gotten us nowhere. - thewolfchild 06:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (re:edit... that better?)

Please provide a diff for where I supposedly said that you based your "argument for inclusion, solely on visual appearance", otherwise I really must insist that you strike the comment as being, at best, inaccurate. I am getting tired of being accused by you of all manner of evils in your posts. My tolerance is not infinite, unlike your apparent ability to see insults and personal attacks. I might remind you that accusing others of making personal attacks often results in being hit by your own boomerang. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as you continue to post "all manner of evils" and direct them at me, I will continue to request that you stop. This latest display of denial on your part is nothing less than shocking. When your "tolerance" runs out, feel free to take action if you wish, at which point you could very likely see just what the meaning of wp:boomerang is. In the meantime, at least I made an effort to elevate this debate from the state that it is at. I see you're still unwilling to match that effort with an attempt at unbiased, impersonal, collegial discussion. However, please know that I remain at the ready, should you change your mind. - thewolfchild 00:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or the Invincibles either. I made a similar argument about pandering to what readers think they know earlier, and I stand by it. We have a section on carrier types, and I think that's the place for explaining the differences, which already explains about Russian carriers. We can expand on the text I provided, or try to trim the wordiness and OR out of Wolf's proposal. There's no need to list the USN amphibs in the main classes under carriers in service at all if we do that, other than perhaps a footnote. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC

Um, "wordy" how? Because it's longer than the single-sentence blurb you suggested (which is seemingly even less than the "note that such vessels exist" that Nick would settle for? And you do realize that it was just a suggestion, on a talk page, which is a far cry different from an actual contribution to an article. I certainly wouldn't propose adding anything that was 'OR' or lacked sources. The purpose of it was to just demonstrate the idea of having an actual sub-section, making it at least the size of a full paragraph, making it "worldly" (and not just limited to the US), mentioning their primary purpose, contrasting them to fleet carriers, mentioning their use as a carrier, mentioning their constantly changing design and intended and some of the reasons behind these constant changes. If agreed upon, any final draft would obviously be acceptable to the majority of users here and certainly be verifiable. And, again, this is what I suggested the article needs at a minimum to help distinguish between amphibs and fleet carriers. It was open to discussion, just like my page move idea. But that said, I seem like the only one offering suggestions, to try and improve an existing page. A page some of you aren't happy with, (because of content I did not add) and suggestions I am hoping will satisfy you guys. I am trying to take into account your need to dismiss the widely held, broad definition of 'aircraft carrier', and instead have become synonymous with the very narrow description of a fleet carrier. This is no easy task. It would help if some of you guys would offer some suggestions, instead of just continually telling me mine are wrong. So, please, do you have any proposals for actual content change? - thewolfchild 07:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just made one. Please stay on topic. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You really are just gonna go on and on about this, huh? Anyway... it seems you're suggesting adding a hybrid of both your and my suggestions, to the "Types" section, but which sub-section? "By role", "By configuration" or "by size"? Or, by adding a new sub-section? Perhaps you could clarify? And, as I requested in my previous comment, what do you find unacceptable about my suggestion (and why?), and what would you consider using from it? (in combination with your own). Also, if your considering expanding "Amphibious assault ship", listed under "By role", are you also considering expansion of "Anti-submarine warfare carrier", "Helicopter carrier", "Light aircraft carrier", "Seaplane tender & seaplane carriers", and "Balloon carrier & balloon tenders" as well? (they are also listed under "By role"). Once this issue has been decided, are considering a suggestion to re-write any other parts of the article? - thewolfchild 08:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was suggesting adding something after the paragraph about Russian carriers. As to other suggestions to rewrite other parts of the article, shouldn't we finish this one first? - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oy... I wasn't adding "other suggestions [of my own] to rewrite other parts of the article", I was simply trying to determine just how you planned to integrate your suggestion into the article, should it be approved. Your comments are not particularly detailed or descriptive. And the way this is going, do you think this will ever get finished? - thewolfchild 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OF course it wasn't very descriptive. It was 5 am in the morning! - BilCat (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, ok, but in fairness, that's not really my fault. I was sincerely just trying to figure out just what your suggestion entailed. But, hey, that is pretty early. There's no rush. Get some sleep, we can continue when you ready. - thewolfchild 18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

All useless, silly and off-topic comments here

Does anybody think we ought to list every highway in Sweden as an airbase? That's not the primary purpose for which they were built, but there are or have been contingency plans to operate jet fighters from them. Hcobb (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you go ahead, do all the research, make sure you have plenty of reliable sources, compile your list, then submit it here for evaluation, consideration, consensus and approval. Email Nick, I'm sure he'd be glad to give you some helpful advice. Good Luck! - thewolfchild 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier discussion cont'd here

Are you sure a straw poll won't help?

Seems to me you guys need closure on this. Now I know some don't want a poll, I guess just to bang on arguing convinced you'll win, but others are in evident pain with all this, and these are the ones I am feeling for. Just look at all the verbiage since I last suggested it, has all that gotten anybody anywhere (other than bad-tempered)? Just a thought. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's long past time for one. Would you mind making a proposal here? - BilCat (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, in the spirit of WP:NOTVOTE which says, "participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion, and focusing a long or unruly conversation on a specific question at hand" the first thing is to clarify what question(s) to ask. This dispute is about what types of ship should we be including here, which is pretty much about the definition of an "aircraft carrier". The article lead currently begins:

"An aircraft carrier is a warship designed with a primary mission of deploying and recovering aircraft, specifically fixed-wing, but also rotary-wingcraft, acting as a seagoing airbase."

It seems to me that the argument is about whether this needs a refresh. So one question to ask for a poll might be:

Should the definition of an aircraft carrier, as given in the article lead, be:

1. Let alone, it's right as it is.
2. Relaxed to provide equal status for fixed- and rotary-wing craft.
3. Clarified to include types such as amphibious assault ships on the basis that launching and retrieving aircraft is a significant part of their primary mission.
4. Relaxed to include types such as amphibious assault ships on the basis that carrying aircraft is such a major part of their overall role that they "look like" aircraft carriers.
5. Relaxed to include all ships which are designed to launch and retrieve aircraft in the course of operations, even where this only supports the primary role and is not integral to it.
6. Relaxed to include types which are commonly regarded as an aircraft carrier, where that common usage can be reliably referenced.
7. Other (please give details).

Comments can favour more than one option.

Would that help clarify the issues and opinions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Option 1 only - This is the traditional definition, and that used by most navies. USN LHA/Ds to be noted only as a footnote in In-service list, but defined in Types section, which can define pure helicopter carriers also. - BilCat (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Option 7 anything that includes a quantitative description of USN STOVL amphibious assault ships, their primary roles in MEU landing ops, their additional role as 'light aircraft carrier', and comparisons to fleet carriers. This could include (but not be limited to) the article the way it is now, Solomon's suggestion, or my suggestion or Bill's more expanded suggestion. Oh, yeah... and pic would be nice too. - thewolfchild 21:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Draft

Dropped a copy with a first draft below for us to edit which I hope has the disclaimers to provide useful information to the public while also not distracting from the topic or misleading people into thinking that a LHA is not a CV or that all L*s can or do operate fixed wing aviation. Once the issue is solved or if it is a problem we can delete it.Solomon(for now)79.179.137.130 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

CV and L*, edit this!, hopefully we can come to a consensus here :)

Aircraft carriers in service

See also: List of aircraft carriers in service

Chart of aircraft and helicopter carriers from around the world

Four modern aircraft carriers of various types—USS John C. Stennis, Charles de Gaulle, USS John F. Kennedy, helicopter carrier HMS Ocean—and escort vessels.

HTMS Chakri Naruebet (foreground) and USS Kitty Hawk

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

USS Bataan, a Wasp class amphibious assault ship with Harrier fighter jets and helicopters on the deck

Aircraft carriers are generally the largest ships operated by navies. A total of 19 aircraft carriers, and 10 STOVL amphibious assault ships are in active service and maintained by ten navies. Additionally, the navies of Australia, Brazil, China, France, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States also operate ships capable of carrying and operating multiple helicopters.

Aircraft Carriers Currently in Service

Brazil (1)

• NAe São Paulo (A12): 32,800 tonne ex-French carrier Foch (launched 1960), purchased in 2000.

China (1)

• Liaoning: formerly an incomplete stripped hulk of 57,000 tonne ex-Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag, commissioned on 25 September 2012, and began service for testing and training. On 25 November 2012, Liaoning successfully launched and recovered several Shenyang J-15 fighters.

France (1)

• Charles de Gaulle (R91): 42,000 tonne nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, commissioned in 2001.

India (1)

• INS Viraat: 28,700 tonne ex-British STOVL converted carrier HMS Hermes (launched 1953), purchased in 1986 and commissioned in 1987, scheduled to be decommissioned in 2019.

Italy (2)

• Giuseppe Garibaldi (551): 14,000 tonne Italian STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1985.
• Cavour (550): 27,000 tonne Italian STOVL carrier designed and built with secondary amphibious assault facilities, commissioned in 2008.

Russia (1)

• Admiral Flota Sovetskovo Soyuza Kuznetsov: 55,000 tonne Kuznetsov-class STOBAR aircraft carrier. Launched in 1985 as Tbilisi, renamed and operational from 1995. Without catapults she can launch and recover lightly fueled naval fighters for air defense or anti-ship missions but not heavy conventional bombing strikes. Officially designated an aircraft carrying cruiser, she is unique in carrying a heavy cruiser's compliment of defensive weapons and large P-700 Granit offensive missiles. The P-700 systems will be removed in the coming refit to enlarge her below decks aviation facilities as well as upgrading her defensive systems.

United States (10)

Supercarriers:

• Nimitz class: ten 101,000 ton nuclear-powered supercarriers, the first of which was commissioned in 1975. A Nimitz-class carrier is powered by two nuclear reactors and four steam turbines and is 1,092 feet (333 m) long.

Aircraft Carriers Currently With Helicopter Operations Only:

Thailand (1)

• HTMS Chakri Naruebet: 11,400 tonne STOVL carrier based on Spanish Príncipe de Asturias design. Commissioned in 1997. The AV-8S Matador/Harrier STOVL fighter wing, mostly inoperable by 1999, was retired from service without replacement in 2006. Ship now used for royal VIP cruises, helicopter operations, and as a disaster relief platform.

United Kingdom (1)

• HMS Illustrious: 22,000 tonne STOVL carrier, commissioned in 1982. Originally there were three of her class but the other two have since been retired to save money. Fixed-wing aircraft carrier operations ended after first Sea Harrier and then RAF/RN joint force Harrier fighters were retired by the UK as a cost-saving measure in 2010, now operating as a Landing Platform Helicopter until Ocean is out of refit and then to be preserved as a museum in 2014.

STOVL-capable Amphibious assault ships

While not an aircraft carrier in the classic meaning or primary mission, some but not all amphibious assault ship designs, which are similar in appearance to an aircraft carrier with a long flight deck, are fixed wing aviation capable meaning they can operate as a STOVL carrier, or may include a small fighter detachment to support landing operations and provide a combat air patrol.

Spain (1)

• Juan Carlos I (L61): 27,000 tonne, Specially designed multipurpose strategic projection ship which can operate as an amphibious assault ship or STOVL carrier depending on mission requirement, has full facilities for both functions including a ski jump ramp, well deck, and vehicle storage area which can be used as additional hangar space, launched in 2008, commissioned 30 September 2010.

United States (9)

• USS Peleliu (LHA-5)* a 40,000 ton amphibious assault ship, last of the Tarawa class, ships of this class have been used in wartime in their secondary mission as a light carriers with 20 AV-8B Harrier fighters after unloading their marine expeditionary unit. Scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014 and replaced by the 45,000 ton USS America (LHA-6). In their typical mission they operate 4-6 Harrier fighters along with helicopters and equipment of the MEU.

• Wasp class* a class of eight 41,000 ton amphibious assault ships, members of this class have been used in wartime in their secondary mission as light carriers in the with 20 to 25 AV-8B Harrier fighters after unloading their Marine expeditionary unit. In their typical mission they operate 4-6 Harrier fighters due to be replaced by F-35B fighters along with helicopters and equipment of the MEU.

Comments

• Weak support - For the sake of compromise, this could work. I would rather see the test under the Amphib section moved to the Type section as I suggested earlier. Also, the lead need to be restored to its pre-Wolf version which doesn't includec the LHA/Ds in the total, though they can be mentioned there as as add-on. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've changed this to emphasize that Oppose including the STOVL ships in the main totals, if including the LHA/Ds in the list means we include the in the aircraft totals. Obviously this will depend on the outcome of the straw poll above which will determine the final scope of the article. To be honest, there's no give on the other side with Wolf's changes comments, so I see no need to moderate my position now. Others can help to determine the final consensus. - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC) - corrected word choice error. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

extended content

Huh? ... What "changes"? All I did was comment. (and ad a pic) This is Solomon's proposal, not mine. If you read my comments, I was pretty open to almost anything, so neither your comments or your flip-flopping make any sense. Can you clarify this? - thewolfchild 20:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) My comments stand as written. Again, I see no compromise here. - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Hmm, yes well, during the (ec) I was trying to state that I now actually have made changes to Solomon's suggestion, that address (even negate) all of your concerns. (the ones I understand, at least). - thewolfchild 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC) There is no arbitrator here who needs to "understand" anyone else's comments. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) OK, well I have taken this down to a new section below. This section is really for comments about Solomon's proposal. - thewolfchild 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. (I added my touch - a pic) Whether it's this more involved re-write, my suggestion of a paragraph-size sub-section, or... if need be, Bill's offer of a much 'simpler' edit, I'm satisfied as long as these ships are included, and there is some info comparing and contrasting them to fleet carriers. I for one remain implacably opposed to excluding them to anything such as only a note that such vessels exist and providing a link to the appropriate article - of which this is one. - thewolfchild 19:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note; I have changed the section lead slightly, to separate the 'fleet carriers' from the STOVL 'Amphibs', and also separated the totals. (This is not my preference, just an offering to appease the traditionalists). - thewolfchild 22:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Leave the assault ships out of this article. Remove the separate section for carriers now only operating rotary wing aircraft, this can be mentioned in individual entries for each ship concerned within the country sections. Edit the size comparison graphic to remove assault ships unless a suitable caption is applied indicating they are included only for comparison. Move all other references to assault ships leaving an entry under "See also". - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I would support this or nearly any format which still mentioned STOVL capable phibs but explained they were not exactly carriers but can act as one, I also think that US LHA/LHD should be co-located with Juan Carlos if we wish to split them off; separating heli-only was just to see what it looked like, not sure we gain or loose anything with it. Solomon(for now)79.182.151.97 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Good to see a straw poll at last, even if it's ad' hoc. It looks pretty deadlocked, so may I suggest a compromise: add a separate section for Amphibious assault ships containing a "main" link to the associated article and a brief explanation that these do not just carry aircraft but do so as a part of a more comprehensive role. Unless and until someone can dig out enough authoritative and unambiguous sources to settle the matter, agreement can never be reached. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is way too early to draw any conclusions about this straw poll. So far only the main protagonists of the dispute have registered a vote. Until and unless a much wider group of editors contribute this poll means nothing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Steelpillow, I had put a suggestion forward, similar to your compromise awhile back (see here), and Bill did also, twice, although to a lesser degree. There wasn't much of a response to any of them. As this thread stands now, I don't see any resolution coming soon. But, quite frankly, I think the entire debate is being looked at the wrong way. - thewolfchild 00:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Through deck cruisers

Invincible-class aircraft carrier were originally called "through deck cruisers" by the Royal Navy to hide them in the defence budget from those who thought all aircraft carriers were obsolete if ever the cold war went hot. So just because something is called something other than an aircraft carrier, does not mean that it is not one and vise versa. Probably the best way forward to to either just list those ships that carry fixed wing aircraft on them which can take off and land on the ship (own definition), or better still use an authoritative third party source --not one from the armed services that operate the ship (eg Jane's Fighting Ships) -- and base the list on their designations -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. (not sure about the 3rd party bit). Anyhow, the proposed re-write above does seem to coincide with your opinion. Perhaps you care to have a look and comment whether you support it's inclusion in the 'aircraft carrier' article or not? Thanks - thewolfchild 20:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PBS, while we shouldn't exclude armed services definition from consideration, I would be interested to see how Jane's handles the issue. It might be enlightening, but I don't have access to it myself. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. What the... ? OK, Bill, I am going to be straight with you here, and tell you I have not the first clue as to what you are talking about in the above CV/L proposal comments section. First you commented: "Oppose - I've changed this to emphasize that Oppose including the STOVL ships in the main totals, if including the LHA/Ds in the list means we include the in the aircraft totals. Obviously this will depend on the outcome of the straw poll above which will determine the final scope of the article. To be honest, there's no give on the other side with Wolf's changes, so I see no need to moderate my position now. Others can help to determine the final consensus." - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what you meant by "Wolf's changes". This was Solomon's proposal, and I made no changes, other than to include an image. Your "moderation" vs. my "no give" doesn't make sense to me. I stated as such, and asked "Can you clarify this?" - thewolfchild 20:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) There was no immediate response, so I set about making changes in Solomon's proposal, to try and accommodate your concerns. Apparently, while I was doing this, you left the comment: "My comments stand as written. Again, I see no compromise here." - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC) There was a edit conflict, but after I finished re-writing the section lead, separating the fleet carriers and the amphibs and removing them amphibs from the aircraft carrier totals (which seem to be your concern), I then posted this comment; Hmm, yes well, during the (ec) I was trying to state that I now actually have made changes to Solomon's suggestion, that address (even negate) all of your concerns. (the ones I understand, at least). - thewolfchild 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC) You then posted this comment to me; "There is no arbitrator here who needs to "understand" anyone else's comments." - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) ??? Again that makes no sense. I am asking for clarification because you are posting complaints, naming me as the blame for... something (?). Complaining about changes I have made to... something (?), Stating I am unwilling to "give" on my side of... something (?) I think I am entitled to ask you just what you are talking about, especially since it is all directed at me, but with no actual facts provided. Yet, the first time I ask, all you say is "My comments stand...", then I ask you again and you then say "There is no arbitrator here who needs to understand...". Well, first off, I again have no clue as to what you mean by "no arbitrator here" (though is sound similar to Nick's "arbiter' insults he threw around earlier), but regardless, whoever/whatever this "arbitrator" might be or mean, it's not that, that needs to understand "anyone's comments", it is me, that needs to understand your comments, as they relate to me. I am asking you again, if you could please, just simply clue me in to what you are talking about (as what pertains to me at least). What comments do you mean? What so you mean by "no give"? What, if any, response do you have to the changes I have since made to Solomon's proposal and what do you mean by "arbitrator"? If you would enlighten me, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. - thewolfchild 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) No comment. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Right... so you can't make sense of it either. Well, in the future, I will thank you to not make accusations toward me, or complaints of me without some sort of explanation and support. I have not made any vague or accusatory comments about you, without explaining myself and backing it up, I would ask the same from you. So then next time you feel like making one of your 'other naysayer-like', rude, confrontational type comments, just instead do as you have here, and go with "no comment". - thewolfchild 22:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I understand my comments, and they stand as written. No insults were intended, so nothing needs to be explained. This talk page is for discussing the subject of the article, not for explaining every time certain user is mentioned, nor appeasing their bruised egos. The proper place for addressing my supposed uncivil behavior is ANI or similar, not an article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Really? You made these comments about me in association with this article, and as part of a discussion on this talk page. This is exactly the place I would ask you to clarify these comments. Just how are they "discussing the subject of the article"? You said "insult" - I didn't say insult, I said "accusations and complaints". Your comments are just too vague and bizarre to be determined as insults. Just what would I take to ANI, anyway? Drivel that doesn't make any sense, and then, heaven help us if an admin asks you explain and then we'd have watch you stutter and stumble, trying to make something up after the fact. No, I think I got the answer I need. And by the way, "Standing by something" is taking responsibility for your actions, not hiding behind some evasive, non-answers. Now, quite frankly, I don't really care anymore. I've learned enough about you, right here this last couple hours, I don't need to know anymore. If it's all the same to you, I'll just continue with the actual, on-topic discussion. 23:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC) final comment I noticed you've changed your comment above to: "Oppose - I've changed this to emphasize that Oppose including the STOVL ships in the main totals, if including the LHA/Ds in the list means we include the in the aircraft totals. Obviously this will depend on the outcome of the straw poll above which will determine the final scope of the article. To be honest, there's no give on the other side with Wolf's changes comments, so I see no need to moderate my position now. Others can help to determine the final consensus. - BilCat (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC) - corrected word choice error." - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) But either way, the fact is this; The only changes I made were to accommodate your complaints about aircraft carrier totals. I re-wrote the section lead to separate the fleet carriers from the Amphibs. and I separated the count for the two as well. Therefore, any comment that you make (or try to "unmake", after standing by it) that states there was "no give on my part" with my changes, is simply wrong. Furthermore, the only comments I made was that I was basically open to any of the suggestions made thus far, Solomon's, mine and your's. I stated the minimal that I would find acceptable, but other than that, I made no overt demands for any kind of combining the two types together, or a major re-write with large amphib content included. Therefore, any comment you make that states there was "no give on my part" with my comments is also, simply wrong. Basically, I do not accept that I am the reason you changed your mind. I won't speculate as to the "real" reason (and incur bad faith accusations) but that, along with to your bizarre and confusing accusation and complaints, and your refusal inability to account for them, just looks bad. (not to mention this) Now, with that said, I'm done here. - thewolfchild 00:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To continue, or not to continue...

Quite frankly, this whole debate is becoming pointless (and needless)... on a couple of fronts. One issue of the debate is whether or not amphibious assault ships can be considered 'aircraft carriers'. The other issue is whether amphibious assault ship content should or should not be included in the 'aircraft carrier' article.

As it stands right now, there is such content presently included. A couple of users (that I will refer to as 'traditionalists') are now arguing that it should be removed, but as of yet, have no consensus to do so. They have based their argument on the premise that these ships are primarily used in the role of amphibious assault, and further argue that the term 'aircraft carrier' should really only apply to those ships that are traditionally referred to as "fleet carriers". They support this position by claiming that the United States Navy doesn't typically refer to these ships as carriers, and also by referring to the USN's usage and application of the American Hull classification symbol system - ('Fleet carriers' are typically assigned the hull code CV or CVN. Amphibious assault ships are typically assigned the hull code of LHA or LHD.)

Only four editors have really 'weighed-in' on this issue, 2 (including myself) calling for the continued inclusion of the content, 1 seeking to exclude a majority of the content and 1 seeking to exclude virtually all the content. Another 8 or 9 users have left comments with leanings in both directions, but thus far there is no obvious consensus either way. There have been 2 attempts at 'straw polls', but one is tied 1-1, the other is tied at 2-2.

This is where I feel the entire issue has become pointless. First off, it simply cannot be reasonably argued that these LHA\D's are not aircraft carriers because the simple fact of the matter is, they are. They fit the very definition of the term 'aircraft carrier' in every way, as supported by at least 10 reliable sources for definitions.

(list of reliably sourced definitions of 'aircraft carrier' )

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines an 'aircraft carrier' as; aircraft carrier noun "a military ship that has a large deck where aircraft take off and land" (with an expanded definition included;) aircraft carrier noun (Concise Encyclopedia) "Naval vessel equipped with a platform that allows airplanes to take off and land. Takeoffs are facilitated by the use of catapults or by a ramp at the end of the flight deck. For landing, aircraft are fitted with retractable hooks that engage arresting wires on the deck, or they are built with vectored-thrust engines that allow them to be landed vertically. Britain's Royal Navy developed the first true aircraft carrier near the end of World War I, and carriers played leading roles in World War II naval engagements such as the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battles of Midway and the Coral Sea. The largest modern carriers are 1,000-ft (300-m) nuclear-powered vessels of the U.S. Navy, which can carry 100 jet aircraft. Other types include the light carrier, equipped for anti-submarine warfare and ground attack, and the helicopter carrier, intended for conducting amphibious assault." Wiktionary aircraft carrier (noun) "A warship with a deck on which airplanes can be launched and landed" note: this article, along with Wiktionary articles from five (5) other languages, use this image of the USS Saipan (LHA-2), (an amphibious assault ship) to depict an 'aircraft carrier'. Collins Dictionary aircraft carrier (noun) "a warship built with an extensive flat deck space for the launch and recovery of aircraft" Example; "Emma is a physical training instructor on the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious" (Sun, News of the World - 2001) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary aircraft carrier (noun) "a large ship that carries aircraft which use it as a base to land on and take off from" Oxford Dictionary aircraft carrier (noun) British and World English - "a large warship with a deck from which aircraft can take off and land" US English - "a large warship equipped to serve as a base for aircraft that can take off from and land on its deck" Cambridge Dictionaries Online aircraft carrier (noun) "a large ship that carries military aircraft and has a long, flat surface where they take off and land" Dictionary.com aircraft carrier (noun) "a warship equipped with a large open deck for the taking off and landing of warplanes and with facilities to carry, service, and arm them" Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English aircraft carrier (noun) "a type of ship that planes can fly from and land on" MacMillan Dictionary aircraft carrier (noun) "a ship that carries military planes, with a long flat area from which they can take off" Reference.com aircraft carrier "ship designed to carry aircraft and to permit takeoff and landing of planes. The carrier's distinctive features are a flat upper deck (flight deck) that functions as a takeoff and landing field, and a main deck (hangar deck) beneath the flight deck for storing and servicing the aircraft. The aircraft carrier emerged after World War I as an experimentally modified cruiser. The first aircraft carrier built (1925) from the keel up as an aircraft carrier for the U.S. navy was the U.S.S. Saratoga. The aircraft carrier remained an experimental and untested war vessel until World War II, when the Japanese destroyed or drove out of the East Asian waters the British, Dutch, and U.S. navies with carrier-borne aircraft. By 1942 the aircraft carrier had replaced the battleship as the major unit in a modern fleet, and in World War II it was indispensable in naval operations against a sea- or land-based enemy. The battle of the Coral Sea (1942) was fought by naval aircraft, and the two opposing fleets never came within gunshot range of each other. After World War II aircraft carriers were enlarged and improved by the British and U.S. navies and became the nucleus of the standard naval combat formation. With the introduction of nuclear-powered carriers in the 1960s, extremely lengthy voyages became possible because such carriers do not need regular refueling. (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2004.) aircraft carrier "Naval vessel equipped with a platform that allows airplanes to take off and land. Takeoffs are facilitated by the use of catapults or by a ramp at the end of the flight deck. For landing, aircraft are fitted with retractable hooks that engage arresting wires on the deck, or they are built with vectored-thrust engines that allow them to be landed vertically. Britain's Royal Navy developed the first true aircraft carrier near the end of World War I, and carriers played leading roles in World War II naval engagements such as the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battles of Midway and the Coral Sea. The largest modern carriers are 1,000-ft (300-m) nuclear-powered vessels of the U.S. Navy, which can carry 100 jet aircraft. Other types include the light carrier, equipped for anti-submarine warfare and ground attack, and the helicopter carrier, intended for conducting amphibious assault. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online)

Furthermore, there are additional sources that have variously referred to these ships as 'aircraft carriers', or some sub-type of 'carrier', such as; "STOVL carriers", "light carriers", "Harrier carriers", "assault carriers", "escort carriers", "anti-submarine warfare (ASW) carriers" and "commando carriers". These ships have been used primarily as aircraft carriers in the past, and have continued to be designed and built to have the option of being used in the carrier role in the future.

The "traditionalists" have argued that that these ships are not referred to as 'aircraft carriers' in various naval nomenclature, technical manuals and professional/industry references, but a lack of such reference does not confirm the opposite. So far, no reliable sources have been provided that state "amphibious assault ships are not aircraft carriers".

Additionally, the "traditionalists" have argued that the definition of 'aircraft carrier' should be narrowed to only those types of ships that are used in the role of 'fleet carrier', for the purposes of this article. Herein lies the problem... even if these users are able to establish a majority consensus for this, they still have no basis to co-opt such a generic term for such a specific purpose, especially when based almost solely on personal preference. Also, how could anyone expect to limit the content of the 'aircraft carrier page' exclusively to 'fleet carrier'-type material, when there is a Fleet carrier stub, right here in the project? That is where the bulk of the 'fleet carrier' content should be, leaving the 'aircraft carrier' page available for all ships that fit the broader and actual definition of aircraft carrier. Those types of carriers that already have their own article, can simply have a link and a brief notation, with as much or as little information as necessary. Those types that do not have their own article pages, can then have more detailed sections here.

This is where I feel the debate has become needless. As I see it, if these "traditionalists" would let this go, and instead focus on expanding and improving the 'fleet carrier' stub, then they would have no 'amphibious assault ship' content to be concerned about. That could bring this whole debate to an end. I have already brought this forward as a possible solution.
(Here is my initial proposal, and the two "traditionalists" responses to it, along with my replies;)

"Solution?"

Solution? It seems to me that the debate on what ships to include and not include stems from the very definition of 'aircraft carrier' The definition is simply too far reaching for what some users here seem to care for. Therefore, I think the problem comes from having a page titled 'Aircraft carrier', but only really having 'fleet carriers' making up the main content. Perhaps a solution would be to take a majority of the fleet carrier content here, and migrate it to the current Fleet carrier stub, thereby freeing up this page to provide more info on all aircraft carriers/types. That is simply one solution I am proposing. - thewolfchild 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC) I actually did consider that as a solution. However, as I stated in my very first comment, "These may be considered "pure" aircraft carriers, and are usually considered as fleet carriers, but that term is less common in modern times." (By "that term" i meant fleet carrier.) Since WP follows common usage, if you can show from reliable sources that it is still in general use in modern usage, then it might be worth considering your proposal. Still, the fleet carrier article could use some expansion, whichever way we decide to go here. - BilCat 00:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Note that I don't think modern usage supports having the fleet carrier article take the main content here. I wish it did, but again, WP follows common usage; it does not set precedents itself. - BilCat 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if these comments lean toward agreement or disagreement. But you say "These may be considered "pure" aircraft carriers, and are usually considered as fleet carriers, but that term is less common in modern times." Can you show with reliable sources that this is the case? At the same time, why would I need to cite the fact that the term "fleet carrier" is used, when we have an article about it, right here at WP? And really, what is more substantial than "common usage", but a widely used and accepted pure definition? Other than the fact it would take a bit of work, this idea is a good idea. It satisfies everyone, from the traditionalist, to the purist, to the naïve, to the uninformed. Having a page titled "Aircraft carrier" satisfies the pure definition, allows the content regarding "fleet carriers" to be unsullied and contained within it's very own page, with no other types mentioned to any degree other than as a note (which I would think might satisfy Nick), it allows for a broader picture of all the types, from balloon carriers to decked cruisers, to subs, freighters, civilian vessels, et al. It also creates a good jumping off point to all the other carrier type articles here on WP. I think it works well. But then again, this is just a suggestion. If not this, then something... - thewolfchild 05:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Actually, the term "Fleet Carriers" would exclude too many carriers that no-one disputes should be included, such as the Colossuses and Majestics. I'm sorry but some subjects do actually require a degree of technical expertise to explain. The "average Joe" might not understand all the finer points of difference before coming to the page, and so rather than pandering to ill-informed views of those unfamiliar with the subject at hand, it makes much more sense to me to use the correct technical terminology and, where necessary, explain it. Surely, that is the whole point of an encyclopaedia, to provide a source of information, not reflect what readers already think they "know". - Nick Thorne 05:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Well, that was kind of my whole point... Since "aircraft carrier" is such a broad term, why use it to title a page that covers all types? Thereby leaving the more narrowly defined types to their own respective articles, and giving you the "more narrow definition" and exclusivity you seek. This has nothing to do with avoiding technical terminology to dumb things down, this is more about clarification and organization, which all contribute to making this a more effective "source of information". As for your comment about "reflecting what readers think they know", that's not what I was alluding to at all. In fact, I stated that this would be beneficial to the "naïve and uninformed", which is actually groups of people who don't know, hence the reason to have an encyclopedia - to inform them. But like I said, this is just a suggestion. What do you suggest be done with this article? - thewolfchild 06:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC) (additional note: The "Colossuses and Majestics." are currently classified as 'Light' Fleet Carriers - thewolfchild 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) ) (unfortunately, the debate deteriorates after that point, as has happened frequently here).

I am hoping that at some point, common sense will prevail. - thewolfchild 03:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stating your version of what you think your opponents views are and then arguing against them is what is known in the logic racket as a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy. If you intend for any constructive dialogue to take place it will be necessary for you to strike all such commentary from your post and allow the other side to make its own arguments. Until and unless you do this, do not expect to be given the time of day on this debate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick, for yet another off-topic, critical comment. If you feel my "version of what I think my opponents views are" is wrong, please feel free to post a corrected version. In fact, that might help, because so far, it doesn't appear as if you guys are all even on the same page. Do not try to dictate to me what I can and cannot add to my comments. I will not be striking anything, simply on your say-so. Also, please do not preach to me about "constructive dialogue", most of your contributions to this thread indicate you don't even know what that means. All you do is bluster on and on about how 'wrong' you think I am and how this article should only have content you think it should have. From this point, I really don't care if you "give me the time of day" or not. If fact, I would be quite content if you didn't. You will just have to try and find another sparring partner to battle with. - thewolfchild 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is getting very difficult to follow and I can't see a good place to contribute my opinion, so I'll just insert it here. This has arisen because we have a controversial definition at the beginning of the introduction. In particular, the sub-clause specifically fixed-wing needs a reference or must be removed; it is constraining the article and this discussion is going around in circles as a result. My personal prefence is that we should be including material, not excluding it because it doesn't meet some narrow, contrived definition, especially when that definition appears to be based on a single national POV rather than reflecting global usage. This is a high level article so it should be broad, inclusive and accessible. Principle of least surprise: If a lay reader sees a ship that has aircraft on the top and they want to look it up they're going to come here first, not to the article on submarines or the article on rubber dinghies. We should make distinctions between roles in the body of text here and link out to more detailed articles elsewhere if needs be. (PS. I like the table with the carrier pictures - I think this helps visually clarify the difference in size) Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as this sounds quite similar to what I am proposing. - thewolfchild 19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

One other thing I meant to say: Although I agree with what you're proposing, I do think that you should step back from this talk page for a few days, as should User:Nick Thorne. While I appreciate you both might feel strongly about this, I think the argument between the two of you (and the multiple headings, polls, suggested text etc) is discouraging other editors from weighing in (it did for me anyway). Without the input of others no consensus will be achieved. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A worthy suggestion. A couple of days off would not be a significant delay in the process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I should point out that it is not I that have created all the new sections, polls, suggested text etc, nor have I contributed the great majority of the sheer volume of the verbiage here. However, in the interest of the project I will refrain from posting on this page for four days provided that TWC also agrees to the same and makes no more than one post indicating their agreement. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, why don't you also point out exactly what you have contributed here? In the meantime, I'm glad you finally agreed to taking a break (like I suggested earlier), and I'm also glad you're not accusing these guys of trying "bully" you, simply for suggesting this. I happen to think taking a break would be a good idea, and I'm not imposing any conditions on my agreeing to this. See you all in a few days. - thewolfchild 02:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay great, a ceasefire. Are there any admin-type people still watching who could open a new section (I think we do need one) and invite (again) comments from project talk pages etc? I've already put my hat in the ring so I won't be neutral. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Definition revisited

I think it's worth trying to review where we got to in the above discussions and where we want to go from here. The discussions seemed to hinge around an acceptable definition of what is, and is not, an "aircraft carrier". The article lead currently defines it:

"An aircraft carrier is a warship designed with a primary mission of deploying and recovering aircraft, specifically fixed-wing, but also rotary-wingcraft, acting as a seagoing airbase."

Some editors find this unacceptable and seek to modify it. The discussion brought up many shorter definitions and some other common or national usages, but singularly lacked a heavyweight definition from a source of the calibre of say Jane's fighting ships.

My first thought is, are we prepared to revisit the article lead based on the definitions quoted to date, or do we need to go down that reference library and get in the queue? There seems little point in a discussion where the evidence is still seen as lacking.

Personally I am happy to revisit the article lead based on what we already have. Do others feel that way too? If so, then we can usefully discuss the actual changes needed. (Oh, and for the record, I am not an "admin type", just an ordinary editor). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A dictionary records the definitions of words as they are used in the language. It's going to be hard to take a contrary line to the dictionary definition in his article. Certainly not in the opening line of the lede.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well looking at a small sample: Collins[2], Merriam-Webster[3], Oxford[4] and Dictionary.com[5] I don't see that any of them mention or make a distinction between fixed wing or rotary aircraft. The consistent elements are that an aircraft carrier: (a) possesses a long flat flight deck (b) is used for launching and recovering military aircraft (c) can rearm/refuel said aircraft. This article only refers to one of these criteria; what sources are we using to insert different criteria and support ignoring the others? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the discussion where a phib is described as a carrier is incorrect but as the description below shows it is so like an aircraft carrier it deserves mention and even inclusion in totals with a disclaimer. [6] http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4] It should also be remembered that if the USN is too forceful calling phibs carriers it could cause budget problems in congress.Solomon(for now)79.181.123.128 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That same reference describes an LHN being used as a "Harrier carrier". A Harrier is an aircraft, and there is an argument that that makes it an aircraft carrier in everybody's language except US politico-speech. The British issue with "Through-deck cruisers" is a close parallel. Is there any reliable reason (i.e. discounting local political jargon or our own personal opinions) why these classes do not meet the standard dictionary definitions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

♠I'm far from sure resort to a general dictionary for a specialist term like this is really helpful.

♠Furthermore, I've always taken "aircraft carrier" to mean a ship that only, or primarily, operates fixed-wing, & "helicopter carrier" to mean a dedicated rotorwing ship.

♠In addition, if you start broadening the definition to "any ship carrying rotorwings", that means rating every ASW DD or helicopter-capable cruiser as "aircraft carrier", which is pure nonsense. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

While I mostly agree that the dictionary definitions can be overly simplistic, for the lay reader a warship with a long flat deck running across the top (which would rule out ships with helicopter decks abaft) and lots of aircraft (regardless of type/mission) is going to be an 'aircraft carrier' and that's what they'd come looking for. Among those who know the topic some may link aircraft carriers with fixed-wing aircraft, but we need sources to support that as a definition, not least because it appears to be peculiar to the USN (perhaps unsurprising). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think with regard to the smaller warships such as destroyers and cruisers with a helipad, there is the issue of "primary function" - the chopper is part of the warships capability along with its surface gun and missiles; and that aircraft is in the singular. Generally for carriers (as I understand them) the aircraft complement is the majority of the ships offensive power. Though to muddy the waters, I can lay my hands on a pamphlet that gives the British Invincibles roles as anti-submarine, fleet air defence with the Harriers and air defence through missiles, and command functions. I also note that HMS Hermes (R12), HMS Bulwark (R08) and HMS Albion (R07) were all aircraft carriers carrying about 25 jets before they operated as "commando carriers" with helicopters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Trekphiler's comment brings us back to the question, are we happy with the (mostly dictionary but some national) definitions we have, or do we need to broaden our search? I disagree that rotary wings open us to the "anything tucked away" argument: large capital ships in WWII often carried fixed wing aircraft on launch catapults and are similar "don't-be-silly" cases. Dictionaries generally require the deck to be "large" or "long", which rules out both classes. It's only the "assault ship" classes with large flight decks that need concern us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We cannot rely on the USN and similar institutions to define what the phrase aircraft carrier means, because their usage of such terms may be hampered by bureaucratic roadblocks. For example, the Russian Navy on paper refers to the Admiral Kuznetsov as a "heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser" to bypass a treaty that prohibits carriers from traversing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. Despite this anomaly, we do know that the Admiral Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrier because it has a complement of aircraft that provides the carrier with its primary mission of force-projection.

Likewise, the Russians also referred to the Kiev, Minsk and Novorossiysk as "heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers". If you compare them with the Invincible class, you would be hard-pressed to find any difference. They were both deployed on ASW missions, with a comparable composition of aircraft complement -- the British class could carry 12 to 18 Harriers and 4 to 10 choppers, while the Soviet ships too could carry V/STOL jets (12) and choppers (16). However, the latter were larger and heavier and would have been tasked with offensive engagements had war broken out. Now if you compare these two classes with the American class, which is expected to carry ~10 choppers, 12 MV-22s and 6 STOVL jets, all three have flat decks, all three carry a mixed complement of rotary- and fix-winged aircraft. What differentiates them are specific tasks that each of them are geared towards (ASW, offensive engagement with enemy ships, and amphibious operations).

So it all boils down to the emphasis in the roles a particular class of ship is tasked with. If it only carries choppers, it's a helicopter carrier. If it also carries amphibious forces, it's an amphibious landing force. If it is geared towards ASW, it's a light aircraft/ASW carrier. If it only carries fixed-wing aircraft and has a large displacement compared to its contemporaries (HMS Ark Royal prior to the war, Midway-class during the war, and Forrestal-class after the war), it's a supercarrier -- I suspect that people envisage the supercarrier when they decide to read about aircraft carrier.

My lead would read something like this:

An aircraft carrier, in its broadest sense, is a warship designed with a primary mission of arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase. Aircraft carriers thus allow a naval force to project airpower worldwide without having to depend on local bases for staging aircraft operations. Historically, the terms aircraft carrier refer to ships that have full-length flat decks [edit: 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)] and operate a large complement of fixed-wing aircraft, which are used for the primary purpose of force projection. However, according to the type of aircraft they carry and the operational emphasis the carriers have, aircraft carriers can be further be classified as helicopter carriers, light aircraft carriers and ASW carriers. Others, such as amphibious assault ships, may [edit: 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)] also carry aircraft but have a primary emphasis on amphibious operations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)

Steelpillow, lets say that an amphibious assault ship is a multipurpose vessel with a primary purpose which is not that of an aircraft carrier, but when it unloaded marines and equipment, the helicopters going ashore with them as in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom the empty ships were stuffed with expensive harriers easier to operate from a flat safe deck at sea than a improvised strip. When they are aircraft carriers then they are aircraft carriers better in most ways (IMHO) than other STOVL dedicated carriers, but when they are phibs they are phibs with just a few harriers along for close air support and combat air patrol. It is a tricky situation where both sides are getting it right part of the time where I think some creative inclusive minded writing is needed.

As for the unsigned comment directly above I like it until we get to the last sentence, an amphibious assault ship accomplishes its task of conducting amphibious operations mostly with helicopters(and sometimes well deck) though it could be read that the helicopters and/or airplanes are only a secondary purpose. It also doesn't explain that the majority of phib owning nations do not operate fixed wing aviation from them, the large number of US LHA/LHD skewing the perception. Solomon(for now)79.181.123.128 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not keen on several elements of User:Sp33dyphil's proposed definition. We can't have "designed"; several historical aircraft carriers were conversions and in any case "designed with a primary mission" is poor use of language. I also think it is important to get a description of the flight deck in at the beginning, as per the dictionary definition; this helps to clarify that we're not talking about warships with helicopter decks. WP has a full article on this that we can link out to. The main problem, as discussed above, is the assertion that an aircraft carrier is a vessel which carries strike aircraft and not a vessel which carries aircraft that drop troops to conduct strikes. This is unsourced and doesn't bear scrutiny. We need to make a distinction, but not to the extent that we exclude certain variants from the article. I would propose the following for the first paragraph:

An aircraft carrier is a warship with a large full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase. Aircraft carriers allow a naval force to project airpower worldwide without having to depend on local bases for staging aircraft operations. They have evolved from wooden vessels used to deploy balloons to nuclear-powered warships that can carry dozens of fighter jets, helicopters and other aircraft. In modern navies these ships are often classified according to the type of aircraft they carry and the operational emphasis they are assigned. Variations include helicopter carriers, ASW carriers and amphibious assault ships.

The second paragraph also needs a bit of work, but let's focus on the first. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"Comment" - I agree with the basics of your proposed lead. - thewolfchild 01:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not emphasis carriers that carry fixed-wing aircraft only -- I think this aspect should have more weight to it, since this is what people (well, I do) usually imagine when they think of "aircraft carriers". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I think you mean "primarily"; no modern carrier carries only fixed wing aircraft. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Sp33dy's proposed Lead paragraph. It defines the terms broadly, then narrows the scope to how the term is generally used by knowledgeable sources, as I've suppoted from the beginning here. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Sp33dy's version is that it asserts facts which are not borne out by the dictionary definitions. Specifically, dictionaries do not focus on fixed-wing operations, nor do they exclude phibs. Personal opinion is not an adequate justification for contradicting sources. Unless authoritative and non-national / non-political sources can be found to support these views, I see no justification for rejecting Wiki-Ed's approach to these issues. Do we all need reminding of WP:VERIFY? However wrt Wiki-Ed's version I would similarly like to see some justification that the early balloon launchers qualify. Were they really designed with a through deck to specifically store, launch, recapture, replenish and relaunch balloons? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Unless authoritative and non-national / non-political sources can be found to support these views,..." Where in WP policy is that found? I can't find such a statement in WP:VERIFY. Also, I what "authoritative and non-national / non-political sources" state that LHA/Ds aren't called aircraft carriers by the USN for solely political reasons? - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I take that to be an interpretation of "reliable, third-party," as given in Wikipedia:Verifiability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see these national sources as having sufficiently reliable or third-party status. There is an "apparent conflict of interest" and that is enough. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I retained the mention of balloon carriers from the existing intro. It probably should be changed to the twentieth century developments which can be referenced. Billcat/Sp33dy - can you provide refs to support your views? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to contradict myself here because despite my reservations above about the reliance on military and political institutions to define our terms for us, I have to rely on the USN to back up my claim. The USN's Aircraft Carriers Fact file says that "Aircraft Carriers support and operate "aircraft that engage in attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets that threaten free use of the sea". I am not aware of any helicopter whose mission is to engage airborne enemies, given its utter vulnerability to SAMs and enemy fighter aircraft. They are almost exclusively for scouting, carrying supplies and engaging ground targets in support of ground troops. Therefore I have to conclude that the USN is referring to fixed-winged aircraft. So I suppose we can use national sources, but not rely exclusively on them, and that our interpretation should be between that of the dictionary and the US Navy's. The dictionary's definition is too broad, while the USN's too narrow. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's rather a narrow way of interpreting a narrow definition! Fixed-wing aircraft that might be used to attack targets ashore would not be used to attack targets in the air or at sea, so they can't be thrown into the same catch-all category. Also worth noting that while helicopters are not used against aircraft (apart from Airwolf of course), they are used against targets ashore, afloat and under the surface, which seems to be an odd ommission given that USN carrier air groups have sizeable ASW helicopter components.Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Driveby comment following notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Third_opinion:_definition_of_Aircraft_carrier: The problem with defining aircraft carriers is that its such a slippery slope with multiple interpretations. I've seen definitions ranging from "US Supercarrier Only" (because only something big enough to carry more aircraft than some small land-based air forces truly deserves the moniker) all the way down to "anything with a helipad or a catapult" (because it carries an aircraft, right?). My personal definition of an "aircraft carrier" is "a ship designed primarily to launch and recover multiple fixed-wing aircraft from a flight deck, and operated to provide air support and air attack options to naval forces". Most of my Wikiwork revolves around the Royal Australian Navy, so to me, Sydney, Melbourne, and are aircraft carriers. The Canberra class amphibious assault ships (designed primarily to transport, land, and support an amphibious force) are not, and the Australian government has repeatedly asserted that while it may look like an aircraft carrier, the ship will not be operated like one. The seaplane tender Albatross exists in a weird semi state. In Vic Cassells The Capital Ships, he describes Albatross as "an economical substitute for an aircraft carrier",(p12) and Sydney as "Australia's first true aircraft carrier" (p.165). Bernard Ireland's Aircraft Carriers of the World includes flatdeck amphibious assault ships in, but these are repeatedly emphasised as similar but different to aircraft carriers, with lines like "carriers that are configured to deploy V/STOL aircraft and helicopters are no substitiute for 'real' carriers" (p.7), and "Although not true aircraft carriers in the sense that their function is not primarily that of operating aircraft, modern large amphibious-warfare ships have, with the development of helicopters and V/STOL, become potent aviation-capable ships in their own right." (p. 186). To me, an Aircraft carrier article would focus on the fighter-using flatdecks, but contain summary sections on amphibious assault ships and other 'almost-carrier' ship types. -- saberwyn 07:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Good summary, Saberwyn. And thanks for the cites. It's similar to want Bishop and Chant write in their book Aircraft Carriers. On p. 7 in the Intoduction, it states, "Also covered in these pages is that close relative of the carrier, the assault ship..." Most modern books on carriers that I've read take a similar approach, as I've been asserting here all along. - BilCat (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Saberwyn & BilCat In general I think I agree with your thoughts. To be specific what of the Juan Carlos, Wasp, and eventually America classes in this article? My opinion is that completely ignoring phibs which are built and used as secondary mode carriers is just as misleading as simply presenting them without any explanation as the same thing as a Nimitz or Invincible class ship. As the time of this writing I like the way the article looks though I think the intro should include totals for both with and without the LHA/LHDs and I also prefer to see a 10+9 by the US totals so even lazy students will look into why instead of just saying the USN has 19 carriers. Solomon(for now)79.181.123.128 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think those sources are a little bit weak on this point, but I think we could use the second quote that Saberwyn has taken from Ireland's book to support a slightly more inclusive policy on this article. I think what we should be looking for is an article which covers all flat-top, aircraft carrying warships, focusing on the "true" fleet carrier, but also mentioning the other variations to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the scope of their role (so an ASW helicopter carrier ought to get more coverage than a phib because its aircraft target naval vessels). Does that correctly represent the general view or are some people still vehemently opposed to any reference to anything which doesn't operate fixed-wing aircraft? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It sound a good solution to me. Worth adding those cites to the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Steelpillow, I think helicopter only vessels should be briefly mentioned and linked to but I don't think they add to the totals as they do not operate fixed wing aircraft, I think consensus is settling around dual purpose vessels not heli-only ones unless they had previously operated as a carrier.Solomon(for now)79.181.123.128 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

So far no one has mentioned WWII escort carriers. They have to date been excluded from carrier totals in Wikipedia articles, but if you are going to broaden the definition of aircraft carrier, then it is likely that the new definition will include these ships. If that is what we want to do then fine, but we should make sure we are aware of the all consequences of any decision to change the consensus might be. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Consequences"? - thewolfchild 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

if there's a source that says escorts (and the MACs) weren't aircraft carriers (as opposed to not fleet carrier's) I'd be surprised.GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What WW2 escort carriers are currently in sevice? But obviously is amphibs are included, thenescort carriers should be too. In fact, the first LPHs were converted CVEs. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@solomon, I don't see Saberwyn's sources or the surrounding discussion as backing your claim. Rather, those source quotes treat rotorcraft as a reason why phibs are more like aircraft carriers. For example, "Although not true aircraft carriers in the sense that their function is not primarily that of operating aircraft, modern large amphibious-warfare ships have, with the development of helicopters and V/STOL, become potent aviation-capable ships in their own right." This does not make sense if helicopters are the wrong kind of aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A ship is classified by role, not by the type of aircraft it carries to achieve that role. In the same way we don't classify gun-carrying warships according to calibre of the guns. Sure, a battleship has big guns; but so does a battlecruiser; so does a monitor. In turn they are all different from cruisers/destroyers/frigates. And there's a big difference between them and submarines. If we were rewriting a modern naval taxonomy from scratch we would probably split warships betweeen surface ships with (primarily) gun/missile armaments, sub-surface ships with missile/torpedo armament, and surface ships with (primarily) aircraft armament. This should be a high-level article about aircraft-carrying warships, not about one of the subsets (and by that I mean fleet carriers too) so it has to cover them all to a greater or lesser extent. The sources draw distinctions based on roles and so should we. The only alternative I can think of would be to have a higher level article called "aviation capable" warships or something like that, but I can see all sorts of problems with that, mainly that someone seeing a warship with a long flat flight deck and aircraft on the top is going to come to this article for information; we write for the lay reader, not for the naval/history expert. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to include STOVL amphibs here, then I don't see how we can exclude any warships with long flat flight decks, even helicopter-only types. I'd rather not go that way at all, but that seems to be where the consensus is headed. That means including LHDs and LPHs of all nations, including those of Australia, Britain, France, and S. Korea, or the DDHs of Japan. It might even include the LPDs and LSDs of the USN and others which have partial but large flight decks. That does lean more towards Wiki-ed's idea of an article on "aviation capable" ships, which is a term that the USN uses. That would leave this article to cover primarily the traditional ships with fixed-wing aircraft as their primary role. And yes, while WP is written for the lay reader, we need to inform them, not pander to their ignorance. - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention all types, and even enumerate them, but there's no obligation to list them all here (there's enough "list of aircraft carrier by ..." articles already (in service, by country, by configuration).GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@saberwyn Your sources appear to more or less back up what I'm saying. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

so far, so good

Hi guys. Looks like a lot of good work being done here in the last 4 or 5 days. And quite co-operative, at that. I congratulate you all. (I am going to continue participating here , and if Nick decides to return, I have every intention of letting bygones be bygones, and I will treat him as civilly and respectfully as he treats me.) Now, on to business;

• One of the earliest issues debated here was should this page contain any amphibious assault ship (amphibs) content. Looking at the way this discussion has been leaning, I think it would be reasonable to say that, "yes", this page should (continue) to contain amphib content. Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong.
• The next issue was determining just what is an 'aircraft carrier', and I see there still is some sticking points among the contributors here. I hope most of you noticed that a few days back, I posted exactly 10 solid dictionary definitions of 'aircraft carrier'. At another earlier point, I posted several more sources that all refer to amphibs (specifically the USN LHA/LHD classes) as being some variant of aircraft carrier, but a carrier none-the-less. I've noted that some of you fellas have referred to your sources, and stated that they do not refer to these ships as carriers. Well, that's fine, I won't dispute that, but I will ask, do any of the "purists" here have a reliable source that specifically states these ships are not carriers ?
  

Those two points aside, has anyone considered using the Fleet carrier stub to help with redistribution of content on this page? - thewolfchild 21:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you cease mentioning other editors in your posts either by by name or by referring to others using such terms as traditionalists and purists. In fact please do not mention other editors at all, keep you comments totally on the content and there will be no further escalation.

On the subject of definitions it does not serve the encyclopaedia well to use generic definitions when discussing a specialist topic. Those "solid" definitions are all from general sources and whilst they are fine in a generic discussion in normal day to day conversation, this article is about a specialised subject for which the words being used have a more technical definition. We do not serve our readers well if we dumb down the encyclopaedia, instead this should be a place that people can go to learn about subjects and if we have to take the reader by the hand and explain the more technical use of a word that they might think means something slightly different, is that such a bad thing? - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you follow your own advice, and furthermore, try posting just one comment that is not directed at me, scolding me, and telling me what I can and cannot do here. Do you realize, that before you were asked to leave, you hadn't posted one single collegial comment that wasn't directed at me? I have pledged to try and avoid having this thread go off the rails as it did before. I ask that you join me in that effort... please.

That said, no one here is trying "dumb down" the content of this article, (if "dumbing down" means adding content you don't like). A simple point of the matter is, except for the fact that the primary role of these ships is amphibious assault, they are in every other way 'aircraft carriers'. I had asked if anyone here, (which includes you) if you can provide a reliable source that specifically states these ships are not aircraft carriers. Do you have such a reference? On another note, I do agree with you that we should provide information for the readers. Well- sourced, well-written and well-balanced. This article should be a 'jumping off point'. This is where we should use the broad definition, and include info on all carrier types and variants. Basically there should be a balance among the content for the 'CV/CVN-type' fleet carriers, supercarriers, ASW carriers, Heli-carriers and STOVL-capable amphibious assault ships. From here, they can all split off to their respective articles, and that's where you should be focusing on your more narrowly defined, technically advanced, CV-specific, specialized content. Balance... is that such a bad thing? - thewolfchild 00:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One cannot prove a negative proposition. The sources do not directly say that these ships are not carriers, rather they use terms that compare these ships to carriers. Saying that such and such a class of ship is "like and aircraft carrier" does not mean that it is one, only that it is like one - this can only make sense if it means that the ship under discussion is not in fact a carrier. I don't think one can escape from the requirement that the ship needs to be designed and/or used primarily to operate aeroplanes for it to be classified as a carrier. Marine assault ships operate aircraft in support of their amphibious operations, which are the actual primary role of the ship. We can mention that these ships exist and point to the relevant article, but I do not agree that marine assault ships should be included here, either in the totals or with any extensive coverage within the text. Another way of looking at it is to consider the make-up of the complement of the ship. When operationally active a carrier basically has two major components, the ship's company and the air group. A marine assault ship has both of these but the air group is relatively small and the main offensive component is a third group, the ground strike force, whether they be marines of regular army. This is a major point of difference and should not be glossed over. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeking proof, so much as I am asking if you have actual RS support for your claim that amphibs are not 'aircraft carriers'. Your comment ending with; "...this can only make sense if it means that the ship under discussion is not in fact a carrier." is strictly your interpretation. These sources where you mention that amphibs are referred to as "being like", is more of a comparison of primary roles. The differences between these types (ie: CVN v LHA), things like size, weight, propulsion & range, size of aviation assets... do not prove (or support) the contention that amphibs are not 'aircraft carriers', because the fact is, they are. It is not WP's place to put personal preferences ahead of fact. Trying to segregate/eliminate amphibs from this page by comparing size of assigned "components" is "glossing over" the fact that amphibs are aircraft carriers, just ones with a different primary role. - thewolfchild 20:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, looking at the entries in Jane's (I have access to the 2000 edition) for the countries that have both carriers and marine assault ships, they are listed under separate categories - the assault ships are not listed as carriers. Jane's is about as an authoritative a tertiary source as you could possibly get for things naval. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be finding some promising references to support both sides of the argument. Would it make sense to explain in the article that both PoVs exist and to make no judgement? If not, which references should be discounted and why? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So we should both count STOVL amphibs as carriers and not count them too? How do we list the STOVL amphibs and not list them too? How do you do that? - BilCat (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You give separate counts, something like "X conventional AC, Y amphibs and stuff, totalling Z in all" where of course Z = X + Y. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what we've been doing, and what the dispute here is about. It's not really a neutral solution. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While Jane's is certainly a well-respected source, it is not the only source. We should also consider what Global Security has to say about what 'is' and 'is not' and aircraft carrier, as well as just how many carriers there are in total, in the world. Look at it from this point of view, how many ships would the USN consider as having available to them to use as a "sea going airbase", for launching squadrons of jet fighters? The number is 19, not 10. This is the same number that a military opponent of the US would take into account, for their planning. There are also other sources that refer to amphibious assault ships as carriers as well, seen here; [7] [8] [9] [10] - thewolfchild 20:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@BilCat, but what we don't do is explain both PoVs and give sound references to both, giving context to those alternative numbers. given that, Do you think there is a more neutral option open to us? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Explain what? That dictionaries and general interest magazines and newspapers call them carriers, but specialist sources and navies do not? I think WP can do better than pander to ignorance. Aircraft carriers don't have well decks, vehicle parks, troop accomodations, and 600-bed hospitals. Amphibious assault ships do. Perhaps we should also list amphibs on the hospital ship page too? Maybe we already do - I haven't looked. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries and newspapers are "ignorant"? Anyway, you have listed the few differences between CV's and LHA'a. How about listing the many similarities? And lastly, if a hospital ship had a full-length big deck, was able to carry, maintain, launch, retrieve, fuel and arm a squadron of aircraft, then they should be listed here as well. As for the hospital ship page, amphibs are not currently mentioned there, but they should be. (maybe I'll take care of that). - thewolfchild 21:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is simply titled "Aircraft Carrier". This page should therefore have content that covers all types of carriers, and should not be limited to what one small group feels are 'real' carriers, based on primary role. You cannot hi-jack a broad term like this to try and shoe-horn it into such a narrow meaning. This page should be a jumping-off point for all the types that have their own article, by providing a limited (and equal) amount of info for each type, (also comparing and contrasting among the types), before referring off to each individual page. Types that do not have their own articles, should have their own more detailed sections here. As for totals, all carrier types, such as (alphabetically - including, but not limited to); amphibious assault ships, assault carriers, ASW carriers, commando carriers, conventional carriers, escort carriers (past & present), fleet carriers, Harrier carriers, Helicopter carriers, light carriers, STOVL carriers, STOBAR carriers, super carriers, etc., etc... should be counted here. Those seeking to limit certain totals, like the number of fleet carriers, should highlight that total on the fleet carrier page. - thewolfchild 22:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What dictionaries will you be using to define "fleet carrier"? - BilCat (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)→

I will leave that to you. You are one of the editors here that was seeking a narrow and exclusive definition of what you consider to be a true aircraft carrier. On that note, have you (and anyone else here) considered expanding the Fleet carrier page? - thewolfchild 23:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@BillCat. WP:VERIFY is clear. We pander to the reliable sources, whether they be ignorant or no. Our own opinions are not relevant. On the particular matter of specialist vs. non-specialist usage, WP:NOTJARGON reminds us that "Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." WP:DICTIONARY likewise informs, "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used)." If you wish to argue that the mainstream dictionaries etc. are not acceptable tertiary sources for such usage, this talk page is not the place to do so. OK, I know it's totally frustrating when you see what you regard as some ridiculously ignorant misnomer out there, I have several times had to swallow my own opinion on one word or another, you would not be alone if that's any compensation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@SteelP, I actually do understand WPV quite well. I do accept that dictionary definitions aee valid, but even WPV recommends choosing some sources over others. It says, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." But if the consensus here is to use the dictionary definitions only to define the scope, not other reliable sources presented above which use a narrower scope, then that's fine. But that widens the scope to the point that even ships with partial flight decks are included, judging from the dictionaries that TWC has quoted above. Some of the definitions are so broad that frigates, destroyers, and cruisers with a flight deck for helicopters would be included, and there isn't much support here for going to that extreme. So, we're going to have to make some editorial decisions about what the scope of the article should be, no matter what sources we use. - BilCat (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are concerned that "if the consensus here is to use the dictionary definitions only" that would have bad consequences. I only suggested it when those were the only reliable references on the table. Now we have some more, I have had to change my ideas accordingly, which is why I am now suggesting we use the specialist definitions alongside. I do not see the dictionaries widening the scope as much as you fear: there is no need to run with the broadest, and as a group they do require the flight deck to play a major role, so I think that would keep things manageable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bilcat that we do need to make editorial decisions around scope. I think we should start with a general dictionary definition and then refine it with the reference supplied by Saberwynn. This puts the focus on carriers carrying (fixed wing) fighters, but allows us to mention the other types in passing without going too wide. As Steelpillow says, this is manageable. How about:

An aircraft carrier is a warship with a large full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase.(Insert dictionary reference) Aircraft carriers allow a naval force to project airpower worldwide without having to depend on local bases for staging aircraft operations. They have evolved from converted cruisers to nuclear-powered warships that can carry dozens of fighter jets, helicopters and other aircraft. Within modern navies other aviation-capable ships with full length flight decks are classified according to the type of aircraft they carry and the operational emphasis they are assigned. (Insert Bernard Ireland reference) Variations include helicopter carriers, ASW carriers and amphibious assault ships.

It might need a bit of tweaking to bring it closer to what Ireland says, but if this is going in the right direction we can move on to talking about how we actually cover this in the body text. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks good. We have the section on types which can be expanded with annotations to describe each type, citing the specialist sources as needed. That leaves what we'll list in the classes in service section. Alternately, we could remove that section altogether. However, it was added to give some balance to the futre carrier section, so I do think it's needed in some form. At this point, I'd favor listing all the full-deck classes, including helicopter-only types but probably not the large partial-deck types. - BilCat (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ed - For the most part it reads ok, but Jane's is not the only reference we have. Consider GlobalSecuirty's page that clearly classifies the amphibs as carriers, and includes them in the overall total for the USN carrier fleet. You have carriers, but then you lump the amphibs with the ASW and helicopter carriers. This is sort of where the problem all started.

@Bill - re: your comment: "At this point, I'd favor listing all the full-deck classes..." That's great. That's part of what I've been asking for all along. - thewolfchild 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not the part I'm agreeing with. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with thewolfchild that this latest proposal still does not acknowledge the more inclusive usage of the term. To maintain neutrality, this usage would need stating and referencing, perhaps along the lines of:

An aircraft carrier is a warship with a large full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase.(Insert dictionary reference) Aircraft carriers allow a naval force to project airpower worldwide without having to depend on local bases for staging aircraft operations. They have evolved from converted cruisers to nuclear-powered warships that can carry dozens of fighter jets, helicopters and other aircraft. Within modern navies, many variants are in use. These are sometimes classed as sub-types of aircraft carrier (Insert reference for broad PoV) and sometimes as distinct types of aviation-capable ship.(Insert reference for narrow PoV) They may be classified according to the type of aircraft they carry and the operational emphasis they are assigned.

Types of carrier (first main article section)

Not all authorities regard all these types as true aircraft carriers:

• Fleet carrier
• Amphibious assault ship
• ASW carrier
• etc. etc.

OK I know it's horrible and clunky. but I can't see how else we could accurately reflect what the references are telling us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a start. I'd replace "fighter jets" with "fighters, strike aircraft..." - fighters attack and defend but its the strike aircraft that attack the enemy's carriers, shore installations etc . And I wouldn't use "dozens" - "many" would do for the intro. I would also consider moving the "large" from in front of flight deck to in front of "warship".GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

@SteelP, I see where you're going with this and I agree with you for the most part. (I'd replace "authorities" with "sources") But I'm wondering if you and the other guys realize that the following pags exist;

• supercarrier
• fleet carrier
• amphibious assault ship (commando/assault/STOVL carrier)
• light carrier
• escort carrier

• Helicopter carrier
• Anti-submarine warfare carrier
• Seaplane tender
• Balloon carrier
• Airborne aircraft carrier
• Submarine aircraft carrier
• Flight deck cruiser
• Aircraft Carrier (Medium)
• Sea Control Ship

(Is there more?, I stopped looking)

The point is, is there a carrier type that is not covered by one of these pages? (or on any pages I may have missed?)

(And, therefore needs this page to focus on one type more than the others?)

(And, That requires this page to have any kind of narrow focus?)

This page should reference every type of aircraft carrying capable ship. The lead should be kept broad and then perhaps the second paragraph can state there are differences among full and partial deck, fixed and rotary wing, CTOL and V/STOL. There could also be reference to which ship types various navies use in the primary role of carrying full Carrier Air Wings (for strike, ew, air supremacy, etc), as opposed to the primary role of assault, and ground force air support, and even cap. This way we can still use a lot of the content already in the article. - thewolfchild 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good-sized list. The present article does seem a good place to summarise the mess we find spread across the references and guide the reader through it. But including every ship capable of carrying any type of aircraft is just silly. What about the HMS Hood and the Tirpitz which each carried a seaplane on a catapult and retrieved it with cranes? What about weather balloons? That would include every vessel ever floated. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and to find out where we should return to the references. I see no mandate there for anything without a large and dedicated flight deck at the very least. That list of articles looks a pretty good starting point to me (bar the odd unsourced rogue article). Other suggested changes to my draft are fine by me, too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that while an "aircraft carrier" is a subset of aircraft-carrying ships, I don't think anyone above (I'm sure to be corrected if wrong) is proposing that this article covers helicopter cruisers or those interwar capital ships and cruisers with a spotter aircraft on board in depth nor claim that their numbers should be added to a list of fleet carriers.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, no-one is saying that. This is another red herring. Let's keep focused on improving that definition. I think Steelpillow's suggestion with GraemeLegett's amendments would work. Do we have a consensus on that? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually TWC said just a few posts above here "This page should reference every type of aircraft carrying capable ship." As far as I am concerned, that way madness lies. The term "aircraft carrier" is a naval term and IMO should be used in that context. As WP:RS states:

Context matters
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Using general purpose references like dictionaries to push a one size fits all POV does not serve our readers at all well. Relevant sources like Janes and Globalsecurity.com make the distinction between aircraft carriers and other types of naval ships that embark aircraft. In particular they make a specific distinction between aircraft carriers and marine assault ships. If we continue down the path of seeking to include these other types of ships within the definition of aircraft carrier we will serve only to make Wikipedia a laughing stock. This article should be about aircraft carriers, other ship types can easily be accommodated in a section about similar types with links to the relevant pages, but the body of this article should remain on topic. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Red herring"? "Madness"? "Pushing a POV"? Let's not get carried away. All I said was "reference". That can be done with a couple of sentences;

Throughout the 20^th century, there have been various types and configurations of ships that were capable of carrying aircraft. Some merely carried weather balloons and others were retrofitted with catapults to carry a single spotter plane. The idea of having aircraft on board has evolved to the point where it is now included in the design of virtually every warship capable of fitting a deck of some size for aircraft. While there are presently several classes of ships that have partial decks for helicopters, UAV/UCAV and even VTOL aircraft, this article will focus primarily on warships with full-decks, such aircraft carriers and STOVL-capable amphibious assault ships.

That's just an example, (it could be written many ways, and include links to articles, etc.), but it would be easy to simply let any reader know that many types of aircraft-carrying-capable ships exist, using only a small space to do so. I'm not suggesting full sections be dedicated to every single type, so please treat my comments as such. - thewolfchild 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Updating my proposed lead and first section with all that produces something like this:

An aircraft carrier is a warship with a full-length flight deck and facilities for carrying, arming, deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a seagoing airbase. Aircraft carriers allow a naval force to project airpower worldwide without having to depend on local bases for staging aircraft operations. They have evolved from converted cruisers to nuclear-powered warships that can carry many fighters, strike aircraft, helicopters and other types. There is no single definition of an "aircraft carrier" Within modern navies, many variants are in use. These are sometimes classed as sub-types of aircraft carrier and sometimes as distinct types of aviation-capable ship. They may be classified according to the type of aircraft they carry and the operational emphasis they are assigned.

Types of carrier (first main article section)

Not all sources regard all these types as true aircraft carriers:

• Aircraft Carrier (Medium) [remove per subsequent discussion]
• Amphibious assault ship
• Anti-submarine warfare carrier
• Balloon carrier [remove per subsequent discussion]
• Escort carrier
• Fleet carrier
• Flight deck cruiser
• Helicopter carrier
• Light carrier
• Sea Control Ship
• Seaplane tender [remove per subsequent discussion]
• Supercarrier
• Through deck cruiser [added per subsequent note]

References given

Note, these start from about 18 in the following list:

{{reflist}}[reflist deactivated because it interacts with the archive templates]

I have omitted Bernard Ireland because he is confused and ambivalent: his Illustrated Guide to Aircraft Carriers of the World features over 170 "Aircraft Carriers", many of which he saya are not actually aircraft carriers after all. Authorities, do'ch'a love 'em? Maybe the refs I have given can be improved on, but I hope that basic verifiability is now in there.

Good enough to go live yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems with the proposed Lead. As far as the type/role list, Aircraft Carrier (Medium) is really a specific class proposal for a medium fleet carrier, and Sea Control Ship is a type of light carrier, proposed by the USN and built by Spain. I'd move these two to the end of the article to the See Also list.

We still need to discuss the scope of the rest of the article. As the Lead pretty much leaves the scope wide open, we should list all in-service full-deck classes, including STOVL and helicopter-only types such as the modern French, S Korean and Japanese classes, broken down by type of aircraft (fixed-wing CATOBAR/STOBAR, STOVL, and helicopter-only). This is still not my personal preference, but fits the general consensus here. If the consensus ever changes to limit the list to the CATOBAR/STOBAR, I'll support that without reservation. - BilCat (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal looks fine to me, ( except the "Not all sources regard all these types as true aircraft carriers" - isn't necessary, it may cause readers to question the content). I would agree to this. Just like I agreed with Ed's proposal, and just like I agreed with Solomon's proposal before that. In fact, the only thing I haven't agreed on here is the demand to "rip out" all material not dealing strictly with traditional fleet/CV-type carriers. In regards to your comment; "...Bernard Ireland ... is confused and ambivalent: his Illustrated Guide to Aircraft Carriers of the World features over 170 "Aircraft Carriers"..." Are you saying that as a source, he shouldn't be relied on here?

Hopefully we can settle this soon. - thewolfchild 21:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's just go with this definition. As for the rest of the article I would suggest we use the existing "By role" list minus the balloon carrier and the seaplane tender (neither meet the definition) and any historical types which are covered by the History of the aircraft carrier article. Also, I think we should remove the "By size" list altogether as it misses types listed under "By role" and if it did include them then it would get complicated (for obvious reasons). I don't think much else requires alteration - this is a fairly stable article. However, I believe some people had some opinions on the section covering "Classes currently in service". In my view we should split according to type using the list in the "By role" section; start with fleet carriers and then move down the list to vessels which less closely match the definition (so phibs last). Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm fine with it, except for the "Not all sources..." part. As for the 'lesse/non-types', I did post a comment earlier that clarified my position on that. (See: "Red herrings? Madness?...") Perhaps you could review and comment on the paragraph I proposed (as an example) to deal with these types, and keep the focus of the article on the big-deck ships? As for the content, I agree that "By Role" is a good way to go. Perhaps we could have a table, with all the full-deck type carriers, with country, type-classes, hull-classes, primary roles, secondary capabilities, CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL, Helo, propulsion, etc. I would be to create an working model for comment and modification. - thewolfchild 00:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I put the "Not all sources..." bit in there because a) it's technically correct and b) if it wasn't there we'd start this discussion all over again. Like I say, it's horrible and clunky but at least I hope it's workable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On Bernard Ireland: on the one hand he claims his book covers over 170 aircraft carriers, on the other hand he claims that many of these ships are not actually aircraft carriers. However beautifully this might encapsulate the whole issue, I see no practical use for it as a reference - even to point out its self-contradictory nature could be seen as WP:OR. Of course he may well be useful as a reference on other aspects, but I am not concerned with those here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

By comparison, Maurice Cocker had the common decency to name his book "Aircraft Carrying Ships of the Royal Navy". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Removals of some classes from my list have been suggested. My thoughts:

• Aircraft Carrier (Medium): Remove, this is a trivial distinction here and should be linked further down.
• Sea Control Ship: Keep, the name is different enough to warrant mention as useful to the visitor.
• Balloon carrier: Remove, leave it to the historical page.
• Seaplane tender: Remove, leave it to the historical page.

I have amended my proposal accordingly. Subject to finding the right template and a few minutes' space (which I don't have right now), I intend to tidy up and move across my amended version and close this discussion. No doubt many discussions over specific types and article sections will follow in due course, but I am hopeful I will not be reverted wholesale. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Through deck cruiser: Add - I almost forgot. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Light relief

I saw this cartoon and thought we could all do with a little light relief from these discussions: [11]. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is my own ASCII art illustration of this new class of carrier:

             ^                                  |                           
            / \                               __|__                         
           / | \                             _|__|_                      
          /  |  \                            |   |                       
    -------------------                      -----------------------    
     \     \   /     /                        \     \   /     /
      \     \ /     /                          \     \ /     /
       -------------                            -------------

 The mighty aircraft carrier                *A another aircraft carrier 

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

*Heh. Couldn't resist. - thewolfchild 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay. I'll play. Spot the difference. Which nation owns which carrier? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

    |                                         |
  __|__                                     __|__          
 _|__|_                                    _|__|_  
  |   |                                     |   |
   -------------------                      ===================    
    \     \   /     /                        \     \   /     /
     \     \ /     /                          \     \ /     /
      -------------                            -------------

---

Sorry, I give up. Which one belongs to which country?

    |                                         |
  __|__                                     __|__          
 _|__|_                                    _|__|_  
  |   |                                     |   |
   -------------------                      -------------------    
    \     \   /     /                        \     \   /     /
     \     \ /     /                          \     \ /     /
      -------------                            -------------

Here's my question; There is a difference between the two ships above. Does anyone know what it is?

- thewolfchild 00:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Armoured flight deck = British. Although, I probably should have specified they were supposed to be WWII carriers. I can't see any difference between your carriers apart from a difference in the position of the flight deck which I assume it more to do with the screen layout than by design... And we should probably stop drawing on the talk page before someone comes along to tell us off. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I also should have made a correction (done now). The difference is; the one the right is an aircraft carrier, the one on the left is an amphibious assault ship - thewolfchild 13:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Okay, that was quite funny. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Through deck cruiser

OK I know this is just the Invincible class, but it is a term that visitors may want to find out about, so listing and linking it among the various types seems like a good idea to me. GraemeLeggett disagrees and removed it. Any other views? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Graeme here. As you say, it was a single ship class and the term was coined simply to get around a bunch of bureaucrats. It's not really a "type" of aircraft carrier and I think readers can find the class and the term easily enough. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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