Talk:Yorktown-class aircraft carrier

message: 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.  []. I chose the larger figure, which is listed in the older sources. Kablammo 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Removed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hangar deck catapults 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  USS Wasp CV 7 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added  tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-31.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-31.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120928063930/http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/cv5.pdf to http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/cv5.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified