Talk:Air-cushioned landing craft

message: Looks like this is to be a general AC landing craft article.  Any idea on where to find more info?   -Fnlayson 22:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I don't know where to get more info right off, but we should be able to find something. - BillCJ 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting started 

message: I have added citation at your request. By the way, I request you to make edits or revert other edits only after getting proper knowledge and not by saying "It doesn't look like that to me".M.srihari (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I won't stop removing unsourced additions that appear to be incorrect, especially if added by you. What I actually said was, " the ICG hovercraft don't appear to be landing craft but SAR - please provide a verifiable reliable source for them being LCAC." While I understand Indian English may somewhat flexible in its use of words, Coast Guards generally don't have an amphibious landing role, which is what LCACs are used for. The link you gave was also bad. This correct link says absolutely nothing about its use by the Indian Coast Guard in a LCAC role. As such, I've removed it again. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm ignoring all the other flim-flam (on both sides - the fix for the link URL is obvious and claiming this makes it unsourced is itself unconstructive).  However I still can't see a source that says the Indian Coast Guard (which I don't see as having an obvious role in amphibious assault) have bought these vessels as landing craft. They have bought them, the type is usable for such – but does the Indian Coast Guard really plan to use them as landing craft specifically, not merely as general transport vessels? There's a hint on the (awful) Griffon US website, that they have a page specifically about the Indian craft, but I can't find it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The craft will undertake various tasks such as surveillance, interdiction, search and rescue and assisting small fishing boats at sea." – nothing about amphibious landings. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't believe the current content is adequately sourced. The claim is that landing craft "are used by" various nations. Now India might own them, but I see no indication that this is why they're owned. If this was reworded to tone it down to "India has bought craft that could be used in the amphibious landing role", that would be sourced and an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any hovercraft could be used in a landing role in an emergency, or on an ad-hoc basis, but if they aren't specifically fitted for such operations, i.e. armor, etc. they won't last long. We can't list every nation that has hovercraft as operators of LCAC-types just because they can be used in that role.  From the sources provided to this point, it's not clear that India has used or intends to use its Coast Guard hovercraft in such roles. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTHESIS, we can't make assumptions without specific sources that verify the claims being made here.  - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Unless we have a verifiable reliable source that says MARCOS uses ICG hovercraft as landing craft, we can't list it here. If they do, but it's classified, then we have to wait until it's declassified. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: :I have created a seperate operators list and added fact tags to them all, please provide reliable sources that each of these operators has or does operate Air-cushioned landing craft. This will give some time to provide reliable sources before the entries are removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Operators

message: I believe these are the same topic? Happy to be wrong about this. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Albeit a compelling argument, mind providing some context?  Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the articles - one is about a US class of LCACs, the other is about LCACs in general (including the US, Russian etc classes). It might be a bit clearer if the US one was renamed to something like "Textron LCAC" or "LCAC class" (or even "LCAC-class LCAC"!), but any rename would have to follow the rules of COMMONNAME, standard naming conventions etc. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, and oppose merge. There are even hatnotes at the top of each article to explain that there is a difference between the topics. - BilCat (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Landing Craft Air Cushion]]