Talk:Courageous-class aircraft carrier

Shouldn't be an article about the battlecruiser class?

Hi, I've reached this article from the entry for the "Glorious class" in the wikiarticle List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. However, this article is devoted to Glorious class as aircraft carrier, not as the original battlecruiser design. Shouldn't it be better if an article dedicated to the battlecruiser class exists, and all the detailed "generic" info about the battlecruisers in this article is relocated to it, just leaving a summary and a link?
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a split. Furious never really served as a battlecruiser, her single gun was removed and she became a pure aircraft carrier. Glorious and Courageous only served for five years as battlecruisers. It makes more sense to keep the articles on these ships together, and discuss how their designs evolved over time. We wouldn't have separate articles on Courageous as a battlecruiser, and Courageous as an aircraft carrier, but have one article that covers both periods and the transition. Similarly here we have a whole section and four paragraphs devoted to the explanation of the battlecruiser design, then a follow on section about how and why the usage of these ships changed. Benea (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benea, thanks for your feedback! What you say about the individual ships makes sense to me. However, I have to disagree with you about the class. It's not the same a battlecruiser design (addressed in the class' wikiarticle) than an aircraft carrier one. I believe that having two different (albeit shorter) articles (interlinked) would be much more useful and accurate. What's on from this point? Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is not so large as to need splitting up, better to keep the (complex story) of their design and conversion together than end up with two shortish articles. Perhaps if this article grew in size so as to become unwieldy then it would be an idea to review the situation again. Splitting now, before basic issues such as lack of footnotes are covered would be counterproductive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an analogous situation elsewhere with Lexington-class battlecruiser and Lexington-class aircraft carrier... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Woman on Furious in 1944 photo?

In the August 1944 of Furious with a Supermarine Seafire there seems to be a Woman on board in the left foreground with her back to us. Can any one confirm if this is the case and if so provide some information on who this might be? If this is the case it could be of some historical significant given the general reluctance in the military and Navy to have Woman working aboard ships. At the least I would assume this person must have had some unique and possible exceptional skills to be permitted to carry out any such work.

HMS FURIOUS,August 1944 Possible Woman on board in the left foreground of the frame with back to viewer.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcar101 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly an Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) delivery pilot who may have delivered the Seafire to the ship, although IIRC ATA pilots were not supposed to deliver aircraft onto carriers as it required lengthy and proper training to land-on safely without risking damage to the (new) aircraft.

As the person appears to be wearing similar clothing to the others it is possible she may be a female dockyard worker on-board for some purpose to do with the aircraft lifts.