Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thewolfchild (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 22 October 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)