Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 13 December 2009

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / Chinese / Russian & Soviet This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Russia This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia China This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Soviet Union Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Older Discussions

Parked at Dalian naval port, eh? Isn't it parked near TianJin and open for display? I remeber seeing it anchored and there were people there selling tickets, my grandma went to see it at an office reunion a while back. edit - oops, that's Kiev

• You are confusing the ex-Varyag second hull of the Kuznetsov class carriers with a Kiev class carrier sold to China to be converted into a tourist attraction.Fedoroff (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article needs to change as it is no longer the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag but is now the "former Soviet aricraft carrier Varyag, now PLAN vessel of unknown name" The beginning of the article should be current and reflect Chinese military ownership of the vessel. --Devin

Indeed an interesting story! Any reports in what has happened since the beginning of November? --Anders Törlind

I can't find any, which I find both surprising and frustrating. The hulk should be at the Suez canal by now, transit of which I would guess to be an operation almost as complex as the passage through Istanbul -- but I can't find anything!

One important fact that I didn't know where to put is that just because a tourist company is controlled by the PLAN doesn't mean that it isn't a real tourist company. The PLA ran a whole series of businesses in the 1990's. Most of those have been spun off.

This fact seems to have been incorporated.

Personally, I think that the people who bought the carrier really do want to turn it into a floating casino. If the PLAN gets to look at it while it gets turned into a casino, so much the better.

Where do you think they are they going to put it? (I'm not arguing, just wondering what you think.)

Something else that probably deserves mentioning is that in the late-1990's, a Chinese shipping company got a contract to salvage an Australian carrier, and reportedly, PLAN officers were all over the carrier as it was being disassembled.

Get the details, create another article, add links!

Why is this article called Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag instead of Varyag?

Because Varyag was to be a Kuznetsov-class multirole aircraft carrier. She was known as Riga when her keel was laid down at Nikolayev South (formerly Shipyard 444) on December 6, 1985, and she was launched on December 4, 1988, but she was renamed Varyag in late 1990.

... And because there are many Varyags.Mikkalai 07:16, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In keeping with Wiki' naming convention shouldn't this be Varyag (Soviet aircraft carrier)? -- stewacide 07:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No. See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Ship names. Mikkalai 07:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cost

The 20 million figure must be wrong it is most likely 200 million or 2 billion because 20 million is less then a rich mans yacht costs Deng 2005-1130 17.25 CET

No, the price tag is correct if strategycenter.net, defense.mil, and globalsecurity.org reported the price tag as $20 million. (Psychoneko 02:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

No way it's $2bil, Deng. That's much of the way to a brand new Nimitz. Even $200mil seems high. Keep in mind that we're mostly talking about a vehicle capable of doing nothing more but sailing to be scrapped. That rich man's yacht that you refer to would have functioning engines and radar. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For 20 mil, I think that's pretty darn cheap for a aircraft carrier. Yongke 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, $20 mil pretty much covered the costs of the Varyag's hull without any systems. The Varyag at the time of the sale was literally a floating piece of scrap metal. The other reason for the low price tag also has to do with the fact that the Varyag is considered to be a medium-weight carrier (roughly ~60,000 tons of displacement as opposed to the US Nimitz-class carriers of ~100,000 tons displacement). The tons of displacement refer to full-operational displacement. Fully outfitting the Varyag with propulsions and a full electronic and defensive suite would see an exponential increase on the price tag. (Psychoneko 08:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Its only scrap value. 35.000 tons of steel worth about 20 milions of dollars. Real value is intelectual property which can be obtained by studying this vessel. Lots of RnD went in this hull. Its like US Army decied to sold USS Nimitz hull for its scrap value. 213.137.115.235 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed operation statement

I left in the statement that the ship was painted grey but took out the statement about it confirming plans to make the ship operational by 2010.

Roadrunner 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Varyag being used by the PLAN

Here is a link from strategycenter.net regarding the confirmation of the Varyag sporting PLAN navy grey colours: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.97/pub_detail.asp (Psychoneko 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Here's another strategycenter.net link for citation purposes: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.87/pub_detail.asp (Psychoneko 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Shi Lang / 83

Added provisional name of Shi Lang and pennant number 83. The name has been floating around for months and Janes have added this to JFS in the Jan 2007 update. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koxinga CDF (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Weapons and Stats section

Assuming if the PLAN re-fit this ship for training or operation at sea, it's very unlikely that they'd import and install the same weapons suite as originally intended for this ship. I think the weapons section should probably be listed as "Currently none" or something similar. -- Adeptitus 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PLAN has been asking quotation from russian manufacturer on carriers parts like arresting cables. but it is questionable if they are going to arm the ship if it is intended only of training and evaluation. Akinkhoo 07:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I think that the title "Soviet aircraft Varyag" should be renamed to "Aircraft carrier Varyag". Although built by the Soviets it is now currently in the PRC apparently being rebuilt for the PLAN. It would be more appropriate to drop the expired national term.

If there are any objections or other suggestions, please put them down here. Otherwise I will rename the article next time I come across it. John Smith's (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Until there is Chinese official confirmation of the new name, it would be silly to move it, just to move it again. Let's wait until Shi Lang is confirmed, then maybe a new article can be started or this can be moved to 'Chinese aircraft carrier Shi Lang'. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend following the pattern of the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov page. That page covered all the history of the ship up until the Indian Navy actually purchased it. A new page was created when the IN assigned it a new name, INS Vikramaditya. I'd recommend following that pattern here, with some overlap on both pages covering its term as a floating hulk. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

She ?

Why the use of she for an object ??? 74.58.2.199 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a stylistic figure of speech. The article should probably be edited to use something more appropriate. Darthveda (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The use in English of feminine pronouns for ships is an old and continuing naval tradition. While not everyone agrees with the use of "she" for ships in formal writing (myself included), it is allowed per WP:MILMOS#Pronouns, and thus not inappropriate. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74#Military History Manual of Style amendment for the most recent duscussions on the issue. - BillCJ (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy of flight deck of Varyag built in Wuhan

Information is appearing on the Internet that the roof of a building at Wuhan’s Ship Research Center appears to be a scale mock up of the flight deck of Varyag.

The purpose of this is currently unclear.

http://shanghaiist.com/2009/10/19/wuhan_builds_a_cement_aircraft_carr.php http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/concrete-aircraft-carrier-building-wuhan/

86.4.186.90 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Style

Since when is every article hand-patched by spaces and whatnot? Please follow the normal style. --91.55.211.58 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The spaces are the normal style. Please don't remove the hidden note which asks not to be removed. Thanks for your cooperation. - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Read about styles on web pages, you do not even get the vocabulary right. If you want to increase distances, change the style sheet or at least give an explanation why this is a special case. Thank you for your understanding. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The only "style" that matters on WP is the Manual of Style. DOn't try to apply something from some other program or website to WP. When editing many articles for hours at a time, as I do, the test runs together. Line spaces help to break up the text, and make finding specific sections easier. This is not a "special case", but how Wiki markup works on all the pages on WP. Computers are here to help people, not the other way around. We're not in the world of Terminators just yet! - BilCat (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where this other web site comes in. Misplaced Pages has a style sheet which sets fonts and colors, but also distances. Style sheets are used to give pages a unified look (this is user friendly) and to ease maintenance (imagine the nightmare you'd have to do this on every wiki page). If you don't know it, read it up. If you don't like it, change it.

The Manual of Style is about content, not display. Please don't murk the water.

Well, maybe you edit too much or your eyes are bad. In either case, don't use this as a base assumption. It is very, very, very easy to discern between text and box in this case. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I know the MoS does not suggest extra blank lines before navboxen, and there is indeed a stylesheet element (a family of classes called "navbox foo"). From discussions I have seen this sets an amount of vertical space, among other things, before each box and before each group of boxes. Therefore, depending on the case I suggest:

• "The spaces are the normal style. " Go and get the site wide css changed.
• "When editing many articles for hours at a time, as I do, the test runs together." Find someone to help fix your css to give more space.

As BilCat says "Computers are here to help people" - so have the change in one place not every article with a navbox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

After a bit of looking, I can't find any policy or guideline that permits or denies the use of a line break in this manner. That said, I think it looks ridiculous, and I don't see any need for it. Though I must admit that I find it amusing to edit war over a single line break. bahamut0013_deeds 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a hidden note asking someone not to remove something, but they do it anyway, my natural assumption is it's vandalism, or they are doing it just because they've been asked not too. It's hard to assume good faith in such cases, especially when they jsut keep on removing it after I ask them not to. The best thing to do would have been to ask on the talk page and find out why someone felt it was needed in the first place, instead of just being a WP:DICK and continuing to remove it. Those are not the actions of someone operating in good faith, or they are just plain arrogant. Call it a "Lame edit war" if you must, but that's a bit unfair to what was actually going on here. I'm not the peron who added the note, but I do recognize that the AWB drones are a problem, and do remove line spaces that are useful when editing long sections in sby breaking up the text. In IE8, it usually does not affect the output to the main page at all. (I don't see how changing my CSS would affect that - were not talking about the article main screen, only the edit screen) If there is an issue with other browsers, then that should have been stated up front, or at least mentioned. That's why I've stated that people should come first - what the heck differnce does extra line spaces matter in the edit screens if it's not affecting the output? - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to put your lies in perspective: I started this discussion at 00:52, 12 December 2009, after which you reverted twice.

Your discussion of browsers tells me that you don't understand the underlying problem: That these things are to be solved at style sheet level, not by patching up every article. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks - some users have been known to go whining to ANI at every little slight - you wouldn't want that. While I don't have a clue what the style sheet problem is, no one has to this point showed me how that affects the edit screen in any way. If someone can, then plese do. TMI, style sheets are about the output. - BilCat (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You've mixed up personal attacks with calling a spade a spade. You lied, I called it.

Read this: Cascading Style Sheet --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Ships pages
• All WikiProject Ships pages
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Redirect-Class Russia pages
• NA-importance Russia pages
• NA-importance Redirect-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Redirect-Class China-related pages
• NA-importance China-related pages
• Redirect-Class China-related articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Redirect-Class Soviet Union pages
• Low-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles