Talk:USS Wasp (CV-7)

message: Article could use a paragraph on information on the wreck if it's been located and dived.  Tempshill 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wreck? 

message: Okay writing for a third rate military rah-rah sight (lots or "roared down the runway," depicticions of being "undaunted", etc.)  Poor for an encyclopedia.  Please, just the facts, mam.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text here is a verbatim transcript from the entry in the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships .  It's a decent start, but I agree it needs work to become more encyclopedic in tone.  SkipSmith (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Dont know if its avalaible..but there is no info about how many casualties and injured were in the final struck and fires of Wasp.. not for morbid info.. but its a part of the history .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.184 (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: Wasp looks like a mini-Yorktown-class.--LandonJaeger (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in the article, Wasp was specifically designed to use United States available Washington Naval Treaty tonnage to get more than USS Langley (CV-1) offered with similar tonnage.  Langeley was simultaneously converted to a seaplane tender to remain within the total treaty tonnage limitation for aircraft carriers.  In comparison to Yorktown, Wasp retained aircraft capacity by sacrificing speed and protection.  When the Washington Naval Treaty was abandoned a few years later, Hornet was built to get what the navy had really wanted when Wasp represented all that was available.  Wasp vulnerabilities may be best appreciated by comparing the combat histories of USS Ranger (CV-4), HMS Ark Royal (91), Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū, and the escort carriers with Yorktown class aircraft carriers, Illustrious class carriers, and Shōkaku class aircraft carriers.Thewellman (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: Some parts of the article, mainly on the Early days section are exactly the same as the ones you can find at hazegray. 210.165.133.93 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are taken from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, which is in the public domain. - BilCat (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy & paste 

message: Some faulty conversion is being used that has 5" as 130mm. Should be 127mm. I didn't look at the other conversions (miles to km) but they may be suspect too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZid (talk • contribs) 05:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty Conversion 

message: I'm not military historian, but this ship is noted to be named after  without explanation. Why that ship? Why not the four preceding ships of the name? Is it something that was specifically noted for this ship when it was named? Every other ship that lists a namesake mentions the insect, which seems logical. If there isn't a specific reason, someone more informed than I am should change that.
Westrim (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on USS Wasp (CV-7). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405084644/http://hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified