Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

message: According to this, Hosho was commisiones in 1921 but according to Weapons Races the Hosho was commisiones in '22, which is correct? m w (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Was the Hosho commisioned in 1921 or 1922?

message: I need to rewrite the intro, and I have a couple more images to upload which might be used in the article, but other than that I think the article is close to completion.  It probably needs a thorough copyedit, which an A-class review would hopefully provide if an experienced copy-editor (as opposed to my amateurish attempts to copyedit articles) isn't available to do one.  Anyone have any other inputs to the article? Cla68 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Howarth and Jentschura were partially right as Hosho was ordered as one of 6 "Special Service" ships in the 8-6 program. The other five became tankers, but Hosho was not renamed from Hiryu, nor was it laid down as a tanker and converted on the stocks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you put that in the footnote with the citation if the text doesn't already say that somewhere that I missed? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'll let you decide when you're ready to nominate it for ACR, but I think that it's pretty much ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting close

message: *I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert as always, especially if the assumptions I'm mentioning in the edit summaries are wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick note

message: *"Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing carrier aircraft operations equipment, techniques, such as take-offs and landings, and carrier aircraft operational methods and tactics." The phrasing here is a bit redundant as it includes "carrier aircraft operation[s/al]" twice. How about this: "Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing carrier aircraft equipment, tactics, and techniques, such as take-offs and landings."
**I think that this has already been fixed.
*Footnote: "Howarth (p. 148) and Jentschura (p. 41) state that the ship was initially laid down as a tanker named Hiryu." It's not clear if "the ship" here refers to Hosho or Shokaku.
**Clarified.
*"Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots (46 km/h; 29 mph), based on British experiences during the war." Which war? 
**Good catch.
*"The installation initially proved unreliable as the Japanese technicians were badly trained by Sperry, but eventually the system proved its worth." Awkward foreshadowing. This leaves the reader wondering "how exactly did the system prove its worth?"
**How does it read now?
*"Hōshō's keel was laid down by the Asano Shipbuilding Company, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama," Perhaps I'm missing something here, but shouldn't there be an "in" between "Asano Shipbuilding Company" and "Tsurumi-ku"?
**I had the same initial reaction (I hadn't seen this note), but then I figured, if that's what the company was called, then that's what it was called.  Was it? - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw that timestamp is wanky; that comment was actually today at 17:57.  I hope we've addressed everything to your satisfaction. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that was from when I started the review. I just forgot to update the timestamp. Fixed! And yes, I'm a happy clam. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Cryptic C62 

message: I'm answering Sandy's questions here since the article has already been promoted to FA (thanks). - Dank (push to talk)
* ... was the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier, 
but in looking for supporting text in the article, I find:
*Shortly thereafter, however, based on observations of landing trials on Furious and HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier, 
What is the difference between the two, and was the Hosho the first in Japan or the first in the world?  I'm not getting the distinction with the Argus. Can the lead be clarified to first in Japan or first in the world?  Or if it was the first in the world, can the distinction with other aircraft carriers be made more clear for a boat dummy?
:I added "world's" and a note. - Dank (push to talk)
I had to click out to another article to discover what "Jill" and "Judy" were.
:Would a footnote work for you?  I've got a couple of arguments for keeping the text the way it is.  First, the wording was the outcome of a kerfuffle between Sturm and Cla68 at an A-class review many moons ago (for another article) over whether to use the nicknames for the airplanes typically used by American military at the time, or to use more "official" names.  Second, although some will have to click the footnote to figure out what's going on, I think the majority who are really interested in the subject will interpret the quote marks as "this is the nickname" ... if I'm right (and maybe I'm not), then I don't want to stick extra words in the text. - Dank (push to talk)
If the Sino-Japanese war was between China and Japan, why isn't it an endash instead of a hyphen?  Or is it exclusively used as a hyphenated prefix?  Unclear on this.
:Chicago 6.78 and 6.80, and I don't recall ever seeing an exception: since "Sino" isn't a word, it must be a prefix, so it requires a hyphen.  "Sino-" is an example in WP:MOS IIRC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for educating me on Sino, and clarifying the lead.  On the nicknames, you all know better than I, which is why I promoted anyway, but it is strange to have to look that up, and it would be helpful to non-MilHist readers if we had some kind of clue what those words are.  Anyway, I'm not worried about these-- thanks for getting back to me, and I trust you all to work it out.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A seaplane carrier and an aircraft carrier are two different beasts - a seaplane carrier (or tender) lacks the ability for aircraft to be recovered on board directly (they must be hoisted aboard). Seaplane carriers usually hoisted seaplanes over the side to launch and recover them and were really nothing more than a specialized type of freighter or fleet support vessel, and indeed many early examples fulfilled those other roles at various times. The claim that it was the first designed as an aircraft carrier is patently false - it was, as the article also says, designed as a seaplane tender.NiD.29 (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the seaplane tender version of her design was abandoned and she was redesigned as a aircraft carrier before any construction began.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When the claim is made for the first purpose built aircraft carrier, or ship laid down as a carrier, it is about being the first vessel built without compromises to other purposes - the Langley suffered in many respects from being based on a collier, as did the Argus for being based on a liner, and the claim for being laid as an aircraft carrier is about moving past those compromises toward a more ideal aviation vessel. The Hosho was not. Sure the actual design may have been amended before the first keel plate was laid (or not), but it is not relevant as it was still a modification of a vessel not intended for aviation use, and thus any claim is pointless and it cannot be compared in this manner against those vessels that were designed as aircraft carriers.NiD.29 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's statement is sourced, your opinion is not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-promotion notes 

message: According to jawp article (which has good citation), the ship's first planned name was Tappi竜飛, which is name of a cape in Aomori Prefecture. I strongly suspect some Western researcher had misread it as Hiryu飛竜.--116.80.239.114 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the early name "Hiryu" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō. 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/20050407203557/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-h/hosho2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-h/hosho2.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) 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I corrected inversed order of author names in a reference; Izawa[family name], Yasuho[personal name] is correct. This seems to be one of often quoted books. It should be referenced as "Hata and Izawa". Please correct if you find the book in other articles.220.209.5.189 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yasuho is the author's personal name 

message: Hello [Parsecboy While we are having a discussion, not yet resolved on the French battleship Bouvet you revert this edit as well for the same reason, I'd rather reach a consensus before reverting everything you or I don't agree with. If you read MOS:UNIT Units of measure: Unit choice and order: you will see that with the exception of the USA and the UK: "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI." This article on a Japanese battleship did not have SI units primary and it included a preference for US spelling. I don't think either one of these articles follows the intent of the Manual of Style, concerning ships from Japan and France. Many of these edits I made changed the primary unit to SI. The initial editor neglected to follow the MOS. As I said,the MOS is there for a worldwide audience, the unit of measure used round the world is the SI, I've been around the world a few times so I should know. The language option is in this article and it has no connection to the USA. It should default to no country by the removal of sp=us. Avi8tor (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus to achieve. If you want to disregard MOS:RETAIN, you need to change the MOS. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I will continue to revert your edits as they are patently disruptive.  Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units per MOS:UNIT