Talk:Yorktown-class aircraft carrier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Displacement[edit]

According to both Jane's and also Katz, M. et al., Our Fighting Ships, Harper & Bros. (New York 1943), the standard displacement of ships of this class was 19,900. Other sources, including the U.S. Naval Historical Center, give the displacement as 19,800. [[1]]. I chose the larger figure, which is listed in the older sources. Kablammo 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hangar deck catapults[edit]

Not certain that the Yorktowns (including Wasp) were the only American flattops with a hangar deck catapult. The book Flattops and Fledglings has a picture of a Hellcat launch from a hangar deck catapult. While Enterprise definitely flew Hellcats, I believe the picture is actually of an early Essex class, or so the caption indicates. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says that the Lexingtons also had a hangar deck catapult. This is incorrect. The Lexingtons had a fully enclosed hangar with nowhere it would even be possible to install a catapult. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USS Wasp CV 7[edit]

I have now for the second time edited this page. It originally said that the class of aircraft carrier succeeding the Yorktown class was the Wasp CV-7 Essex class. The Wasp CV 7 was not an Essex. It was a smaller version of the Yorktown class intended to fit the requirements of the Washington Naval Treaty. It was commissioned in between Yorktown class Enterprise CV6 and Yorktown class Hornet CV 8. The first Essex class was Essex CV9. Eventually after Wasp CV 7 was sunk Wasp CV 18 was built and was an Essex. However for the purpose of this article, it is accurate to say Wasp CV 7 wasp class, or Essex CV 9 Essex class depending on you definition of succeeding and weather or not you consider Wasp CV7 a modified Yorktown or wasp class. However it is inaccurate in any circumstance to say the Yorktown class was succeeded by "Wasp CV 7 Essex class"


(U.S. aircraft carriers: an illustrated design history By Norman Friedman )

I now have a Wiki account my ID is JFChandler95678 I wrote the above topic

Sorry, but you've missed understood the entries. It is listing 2 preceding classes, and 2 succeeding classes, each on separate lines. It was not claiming that the Ranger was a Lexington class ship, nor that the Wasp was an Essex class ship. I've added bullet oints to try to show that these are separate entires. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it said before I have edited it now three times, Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding Operators: United States Navy Preceded by: USS Ranger (CV-4) Lexington class class aircraft carrier Succeeded by: USS Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier

By Saying USS wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier you are implying that the USS Wasp CV-7 is an Essex class carrier.

If you said Proceeded by Lexington and ranger Class and Succeed by Wasp and Essex class then maybe you would be right but by adding the ship registration number only on wasp and not Essex and only on Ranger and not Lexington you are not being very clear. While your at it why don't you just say that Yorktown was preceded by;Langley Class - Langley(CV-1), Lexington classes - Lexington (CV-2), Saratoga (CV-3) and succeeded by Wasp (CV-7), Essex class's - Essex (CV-9), Yorktown (CV-10), Intrepid (CV-11), Hornet (CV-12), Franklin (CV-13), etc, Midway, Forestal, Kittyhawk, Enterprise, Nimitz, Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFChandler95678 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger and Wasp are single ship classes, and they are listed by the ship article. The others are listed by their class articles, so their hull numbers aren't included. That is how the WP:SHIPS project lists the ships and classes in these article. Just look at the other carreir class and ship articles for comparisons, and please stop reverting. - BilCat (talk)

Your ego is amazing. I t should have its own Wiki page. If a person who had no prior knowledge of the subject was doing a report on the Yorktown class carrier they would read this page and think by the way you have it written that it was proceeded by a Lexington class carrier called the Ranger and followed by a Essex class carrier called the Wasp. This is just flat wrong.

I am going to escalate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFChandler95678 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL, and comment on the contents, not the contributor, or esle you may find your editing privileges revoked. You misunderstood the entires, and I understand that. Adding the bullet points - the * marks - should help most readers to understand that there are two enstires in each field, not one. Beyond that, there's not much else than can be done and still follow the guidelines for the ship and class templates. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did check every other US Carrier class in WP:SHIPS articles not one of them has the two proceeding ship classes listed not one except this one. The only reason a person would write "Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier" would be to imply exactly that, and that is wrong. I am only interested in preserving the accuracy of the information available to people who want to know. I have checked your source and it contradicts your argument specifically the (Kitty Hawk class) article that says "Enterprise-Class" not (USS Enterprise CVN-65 * Nimitz class aircraft carrier) as you would suggest it should be written. Enterprise CVN 65 is a single ship class.

Also I would like to note that every aircraft carrier class is named for the lead ship in its class so the registry number would be erelivant if you were only talking about "Class's" of ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFChandler95678 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one wrote "Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier" - they are 2 separate entires on separate lines. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on the In Commission line it says "In commission: 30 September 1937–17 February 1947" February and 1947 are on separate lines are they separate entries? Please allow someone impartial and educated in the subject matter to review this debate and make a ruling. I have in the meantime sent an Email the the US Navy Bureau of Ships asking how they would suggest this be stated. I would kindly suggest that you read the examples you cited for they do not support your argument I am referring to the other WP:SHIPS articles as they relate to US carrier classes. JFChandler95678 (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing about the before and after classes why not expend some effort in getting this article some references since it has none at all? BTW, the best reference for ship class naming is the US Navy itself. Brad (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is actually about whether or not to list 2 classes as preceeding and following, as is sometimes done in other ship class articles, or to list just one. The reason I reverted his edits before was because his premise was false (as no one wrote "Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier"), and he was adding duplicate/incorrect links. Also, the names of the classes aren't under dispute here. As to sourcing the article, yes, that needs to be done. Why don't you start? - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for comments and I gave some but instead you want to argue with me now. You sure do love to argue rather than progress. Brad (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked for comments on how to address solve the issue being discussed. I know you meant well, and I appreciate that. I was tired, and I really didn't think the "move on" response was that helpful. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bil, I literally copied and pasted this from what it said before I changed it (Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding Operators: United States Navy Preceded by: USS Ranger (CV-4) Lexington class class aircraft carrier Succeeded by: USS Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier) Literally check the history. It did say USS Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier. I found so many other things wrong with your argument last night I couldn't even sleep. Including the order in which the class's are listed "Ranger CV-4, Lexington class, then Wasp CV 7, Essex class. If you were listing them in chronological order Lexington would come before ranger but you were not and it obvious to any one reading this. You cite contradicts you, there is plenty of readily available information proving mine and after checking the history of this several other peoples point of view. I have edited re edited ed then edited again proven my point checked your source debunked your argument argued my point again and then disproved your argument and you still will no conceded. I wasted to much on this already. I am done I feel bad for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFChandler95678 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of browser are you using, or are you using a text reader that doesn't include the links and line breaks? That would make difference in the output you see, as WP is designed for full internet browsers. Anyway, I've corrected the duplicate entries you gave, and have already moved on. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am using firefox, and what you meant to say is that you corrected the erroneous information that I had to correct three times because you are stubborn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFChandler95678 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I meant to say. WHat I meant to say is that =yYou still don't really understand the issues involved becauae you're operating under false assumptions, and have shown no ability to pay attention and understand things beyond your narrow perception and inability to understand links and other formatting styles. That that you still think that "USS Wasp (CV-7) Essex class aircraft carrier" was a single entry, despite my umpteen expalantions that you misread the links, shows your own stubborness and arrogance to a much high degree than you think I have! - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yorktown-class aircraft carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yorktown-class_aircraft_carrier&oldid=1212917687"