Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:20, 3 October 2013

This is the user sandbox of Thewolfchild. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Misplaced Pages? Submit your draft for review!

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

QED. - Nick Thorne talk 05:12, 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)

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages to disrupt. - Nick Thorne talk 00:42, 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)

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)

"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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)DescriptionThe 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

So far no one has mentioned WWII escort carriers. They have to date been excluded from carrier totals in Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)