Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

message: The coordinates need the following fixes:
The map seems to point out a location at 0E, 30S ... ?
Popoi (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinates are correct. There must be something wrong with this  GeoHack coz it displays the wrong position on the map: -30.333333, 179.283333 instead of the correct 30.333333, -179,283333. If you click on Google maps bellow it shows the correct position on the map. Loosmark (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: I saw this was recently passed.  It's a very nice little article; good work!  I think that if it's to be considered a GA, it should have it's WP:LEAD expanded to cover the whole article, and in more detail.  Probably 2 big, or 3 medium paragraphs worth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA?  Not quite 

message: I have some more photos of this ship that I'll try to get uploaded to Commons this week, including one showing the carrier operating during the China Incident. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've uploaded several more photos. Cla68 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please give me a few days to add some additional detail to the article from other sources before nominating for FAC. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem waiting; I've got to wait until Sovetsky Soyuz class BB gets voted up or down depending on the unreliability of navweaps.com before I can nominate another anyways. Heck, feel free to offer an opinion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1. Or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Princess Royal (1911) which also desperately needs some eyes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: The article is getting close.  I have a few other issues I want to take care of, including:
* Checking a few more sources for any pertinent information, especially on the ship's activities between Pearl Harbor and Midway.
* Scanning and uploading a few more images, particularly one to add to the "Reconstruction" section which currently has no images.
* Clearing up a discrepancy in the sources.  Maeda's account in Werneth states that Kaga damaged its hull in Staring Bay after the Darwin Raid, not before it at Palau.  I want to try to verify which account is correct.
* Starting stubs on the red-linked articles, primarily the aces.
* Adding information, probably in a footnote, of the fate of the ship's airborne CAP Zeros when Kaga was hit; several of them landed on Hiryū and assisted that carrier's airgroup in its subsequent strikes against Yorktown.
* The position and distance of the carrier from Oahu, Darwin, and Midway during those strikes would probably also be useful.  Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through and fixed a bunch of the small niggling MOS stuff on references, etc., but I only made few small changes in the text so I'm not really sure that another copyedit is necessary. A quick pass, though, might be useful. Conversions are done, so unless somebody objects, I'll start the FAC once the pictures have been uploaded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going through it now, and making a few cuts that I didn't make the first time around.  When you use terms I like, like "convergent evolution", but use them in a context where it would take longer to explain than it would to rephrase, I'm making a list of those ... hopefully we can find another article to insert, explain and illustrate the concept, and if we can, then that might provide an opportunity to use it in more articles and link to the article with the explanation. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I put it in there because it's the only image available depicting the carrier in operation after the Pearl Harbor attack.  I'll remove the image for now since it might cause unnecessary grief during the FAC review. Cla68 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Looking at Peattie's footnote for this bit about the carrier trials, I'm wondering if he's parroting the claim from Zero! So this makes me thing we'd best ignore it, or write up a note discussing the differences, although where and when the Zero had its carrier qualifications ultimately isn't particularly important.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted an inquiry at the aircraft article's talk page.  It seems from Horikoshi's book that he was not always informed, at least right away, of the IJN's activities, so it is not necessarily inconsistent with Peattie.  And JH never mentions carrier qualifications at all; presumably, it was tested aboard a carrier somewhere before actual combat operations.  Kablammo (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: The article is categorized within Unique aircraft carriers, yet it has the Tosa-class battleship template. Could someone clarify? Brandmeistertalk   17:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The other ship of the class was scrapped, not converted into an aircraft carrier like Kaga.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique? 

message: Hi, I have tagged what I deem to be excessive detail. In an article about an aircraft carrier, knowing the names of individual pilots and also having squadron photographs of them is excessive. I think it is enough that the type of "enemy" dive bombers (from the carrier's POV) used and the "enemy" units involved in the sinking is enough. If anyone is interested in the names of individual pilots or the exact names of the US carriers involved in the sinking, they can click the links to the units or the article about the Battle of Midway. When I read this article about a Japanese aircraft carrier, at times I felt it to be an article about US dive bomber squadrons and I expect it to be centered on its subject. AadaamS (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that the level of detail is excessive.  Since the "page rating" box at the bottom of the article is currently rating this article as a perfect 5.0 under "Well-written", it appears to me that the majority of readers who voted in the box agree that the article is fine.  Other opinions are, of course, welcome. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I also agree that the article as a whole is indeed good and my criticism pertains to the "Sinking" section. My opinion is that the minor details about the attacking squadron(s) in question would better belong in the articles about those squadrons. If anyone accuses me of nitpicking I would agree and say "yes, I'm nitpicking". AadaamS (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The links go to individuals notable in their own right, and there is no need to exclude them.  This article is not overly long.  Kablammo (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article's detail is suitable. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove the tags, given the weight of opinion here.  Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking - excessive detail tags 

message: Hello,
Wouldn't you think this article ought to mention the Kaga aircraft carrier has been impersonated into an anime girl in the Japanese game Kantai Collection ? As the game is WILDLY popular in Japan, I feel this would deserve a mention in the main article.
Well, just mentioning :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.142.190.50 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kantai Collection ? 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for location of IJN Kaga.
The coordinates listed are 28°38′34″N 176°29′16″W
That location is NE of Midway Island. Kaga was sunk (scuttled by IJN)
NW of Midway. I believe the 'West' in the Coordinates should be 'East'.
—23.116.5.207 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinates have been fixed. Thanks for bringing this up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: I am surprised that this article features a translation of the name Kaga, because Kaga does not in fact mean anything. As the disambiguation page makes clear, Kaga is the name of a province of Japan, and applying this to the ship reflects the Japanese Navy's practice when she was named of naming their capital ships for provinces. It is exactly analogous to the USN's practice of naming capitals for states of the USA. 
Japanese carriers were ordinarily named after mythical or proverbial flying creatures, but this rule was followed only if they were purpose-built ab initio as such. Thus Hosho of 1922 was named after the phoenix but Akagi and Kaga were laid down and named as gun-armed line of battle vessels, keeping those names when repurposed as carriers.  
To say that Kaga means "Increased joy" is thus misleading. While the name of the carrier Taiho does indeed mean "Great Phoenix", it was meant to. Kaga is just a place name and to say it means anything is inaccurate; that it does is just a coincidence. By analogy, it is as though a Japanese Wikipedia article discussing the US battleship Washington were to claim that its name translates as "the laundering of a ton", or that the USS New Jersey means "man's unworn upper body garment". 
I propose that this be removed from the article. Tirailleur (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate translation of ship's name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga. 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/20110305092121/http://www.nauticos.com/midway/IJNwreckanalysis-kaga.htm to http://www.nauticos.com/midway/IJNwreckanalysis-kaga.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215172540/http://www.nauticos.com/press/10-29-99.htm to http://www.nauticos.com/press/10-29-99.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817064225/http://www.nauticos.com/midway/IJNwreckanalysis-exec.htm to http://www.nauticos.com/midway/IJNwreckanalysis-exec.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) 11:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga. 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/20090525001721/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67910 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67910
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) 09:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the statement
The two twin turrets on the middle flight deck were removed and four new 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type No. 1 guns in casemates were added forward. 
suggests an addition at bow (at least for an italian as me). I suggest 'forward' -> 'immediately forward of the other six'.
I believe to remember that japan enlarged all its 200 mm guns to 203 mm ones.
pietro2001:760:2C00:8001:9C5B:C967:4753:814A (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 mm guns 

message: * Hey Nate and Jason we've here some little issues about this article. Some of them are really big for a FAC this one is almost 10 years old so I believe we should have a look into the article how to fix those issues or otherwise, they'd become bigger issues in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Issues 

message: The old translation of Kaga ("Increased Joy") has re-appeared. I suggest it removing it again for the reasons given five years ago (see above), and updating the discussion of the ship's name accordingly. Astro$01 (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate translation of ship's name - again. 

message: There used to be a photo in the "sinking" section of the dive bomber pilots who sank the carrier.  What happened to it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.2 (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the photo?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion