Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

message: Could probably afford some expansion, but as it stands, it's more than just a good start - picture, infobox, references... LordAmeth 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: Is it worth keeping such trivia on the page? --UrsusArctosL71 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have some relevance in showing that the memory of the ship or whatever still resonates. Peter Flass (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture References

message: This is a useful source:   Fuchida was aboard the carrier at Midway.  The book is co-authored by a historian, and the US edition analyzes and comments on some of the original text, so it is not a purely first-person account.
The unusual portside placement of the island was intended to avoid interference with aircraft when operating with Kaga, an unsuccessful experiment.  Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for this lack of success is turbulence over the flight deck caused by the interaction of air currents around the portside island and from exhaust gases from the starboard uptakes.  Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Fuchida isn't exactly the most reliable source.  Dr. Loosmark  17:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that may depend on the subject.  As mentioned above, the English translation of the book has commentary in footnotes, some of which discuss factual errors.  Like any source, it needs to be used with discretion, and compared with other literature.  Overreliance on a few sources can be dangerous; factual errors can be found in the work of the most reputable of professional historians. Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Was the Akagi equipted with catapults fpr launching her airplanes.
In documentaries it looks as the planes would just roll off and take off.
Not using a catapult.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catapults 

message: I notice that a lot of the information I added in the footnotes, especially details about the carrier's CAP operations at Midway, has been removed.  Was there a concern that the footnotes were too long or had too much detail? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the ACR reviewers felt that it was too much information, especially when names of non-notable pilots were given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I would like to link to the aces' names in the footnotes, like was done in Kaga, but I will try not to put as much information on CAP operations. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of information in footnotes

message: The text states that the original longitudinal arrestor wires were "unsatisfactory" but gives no supporting reference.  Longitudinal, rather than transverse, arrestor wires were developed at a time when aircraft were very light and had no difficulty stopping on deck.  However, as they were so light they WERE at risk of being blown over the side - and so longitudinal wires were entirely sensible.
Longitudinal wires were generally replaced by transverse wires in the early 1930s, when the weight of carrier aircraft began to increase.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.133.108 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longitundinal Arrestor Wires..? 

message: I don't know what it is. When I click on the hyperlink, I end up having gone in a circle: "The superstructure of an aircraft carrier." This amounts to the article saying that the aircraft carrier has the superstructure of an aircraft carrier. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See if the definition is better now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the information of the other editors of this article, "Beyondallmeaning" was a sockpuppet of an indefintely blocked user and has also been indefinitely blocked .They should not have been making any edits at all so all their comments may be disregarded.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Island superstructure 

message: Two tiny queries:
*is "matress" an accepted spelling in US English (caption of tenth picture)?
*"squadron's" at note 8 should be "squadrons".
This is a fine article. Have supported at TFA list. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos, I think 

message: The third sentence of the introduction begins with the phrase, "Following Japan's renunciation of the treaty in late 1934," which seems irrelevant.  The subject is not mentioned in the body of the article.  The ship was converted from cruiser to aircraft carrier to comply with the treaty, and then rebuilt, also as an aircraft carrier, after Japan renounced the treaty.  But what does the treaty have to do with the rebuild?  The article's introduction should not raise a seeming contradiction which is never resolved.  I recommend simply removing that phrase from the introduction.
If the treaty is important, the introduction could say ". . . Washington Naval Treaty, which [restricted cruisers?].  Following Japan's renunciation of the treaty in late 1934, which removed [whatever] restrictions, . . ."  However, the text should then explain the relationship between the treaty renunciation and the rebuild.
HowardMorland (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. HowardMorland (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Renunciation of treaty

message: Thank you I hold Wikipedia in high regard.
Please stop referring to inanimate objects as ships and airplanes in the gender specific.  These objects are not a 'her' nor 'she'.  They are things.  This continued practice oppresses females  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.108.141 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a carryover from our language's heritage as a gendered language, no. Maritime custom in English has always been to refer to ships as "she" and there is no reason to change that to suit someone's agenda. Can actually you read what you just wrote with a strait face? But perhaps I'm just a cynic in believing that people can persuade themselves of anything. I think that ships in Russian are gendered as he, but I don't believe that Russian males, or those of any other nationality, are oppressed by the practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Edit 

message: What was wrong with creating a link to the page on the Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun? It was the standard light AA gun of the Japanese Navy. It was used on ALL of their ships. I think it should be considered common sense that the "25mm AA guns" used on the Akagi were one and the same, and some people are curious to know more about these things. Without a link, they will have to go and search for "japanese navy 25mm AA gun" and see what they come up with (it will be the Type 96, as that is the only 25mm AA gun in the inventory).
And I don't see why putting the proper name for the 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun in the infobox was wrong either. You go onto a typical page about a British warship and the infobox will say 
"8 x BL 8-inch (203 mm L/50) Mk.VIII guns in twin mounts Mk.I
4 x QF 4-inch (102 mm) L/45 Mk.V guns in single mounts HA Mk.III
8 x QF 2 pdr (40 mm) L/39 Mk.VIII guns in quad mounts HA Mk.VII "
Why shouldn't the infobox here give the full title of the gun as well? .45Colt 18:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the infobox is a summary, the actual designations with links are given in the main body. I have no issues with links to the gun in the infobox, but not to the raw article titles. You wanted to change the abbreviated link that I used for the 20 cm gun to the full article title so I reverted your changes. We already get complaints that ship infoboxes are too long so I try to cut the information there to the minimum necessary and will eventually trim that excess information from those British ship infoboxes. If you feel that you really want to add the link in the infobox for the gun, please give the proper title, not the article titles as those don't usually conform to the real designations. Forex the 20 cm gun was formally designated "20 cm 3rd Year Type No. 1 gun", no caliber length or naval gun as used in the article title and that's pretty awkward to fit onto a single line of the infobox, which is the ideal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: One section states the cost of building the Akagi, then attributes this to Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword. This book, however, uses an unverifiable and possibly invented sources for the information (supposedly from Eric Lacrox, The Belgian Ship/over and Showa Zenshi, but no publisher information or date provided, not even the proper title for the second book provided, and "The Belgian Ship/over" does not even come up in a Worldcat or google books search). The reference to Shattered Sword should be discarded, and the section in this article about Akagi's cost should be removed or marked with  tag.
:I don't know who you are, but The Belgian Shiplover is a well-known, small-circulation, ship-history magazine/newsletter from the '60s and '70s. It is not the duty of any editor to validate the sources/citations used by a RS like Shattered Sword.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of building Akagi 

message: As with the entry for Kaga (now edited), we have here a translation of the name of Akagi as "Red Castle", when Akagi is in fact a prefecture. 'Aka' does mean 'red' and '-gi' does mean 'castle', but Akagi doesn't mean "a red castle". For the same reasons as the Kaga edit, I move this translation be removed. Tirailleur (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another spurious name translation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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/20100510065717/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/akagi2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/akagi2.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) 09:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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://archive.is/20121210201458/http://156.112.98.23/branches/mca-m.html to http://156.112.98.23/branches/mca-m.html
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) 10:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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/20110311022140/http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm to http://www.combinedfleet.com/akagi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022140/http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm to http://www.combinedfleet.com/akagi.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) 07:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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/20110311022140/http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm to http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.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) 07:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think the sections Completed: 1 and Lost: 1 should be in the article because Akagi was a singular aircraft carrier, not a class of aircraft carriers/ on top of that the imfobox is titled Class overview again Akagi want not a class of aircraft carriers this titles inaccurate  A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting that she did have a sister ship that destroyed in the Great Tokyo Earthquake before she was completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   are you referring to the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga? Or the Amagi-class battlecruiser because Kaga want a sister, and all the other 3 Amagi where canceled, plus this is a page for the Akagi not a class over veiw page A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm referring to Akagi's sister Amagi, the one that was scrapped after being damaged during the Great Tokyo Earthquake. The sisters had been ordered to be converted into carriers, although it's uncertain exactly how far along that had gotten by the time of the earthquake. The other two sisters were cancelled not long after they were laid down. Kaga was converted to replace Amagi, although she was slower than Akagi, since Japan had the tonnage available to convert two capital ships. Akagi is effectively a single-ship class and thus gets the class infobox as well as the individual ship infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ahh ok, thank you for the explanation and for teaching me something new :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed: 1 and Lost: 1 removal 

message: the date in the infobox is 22 april, but the photo dated 6 april shows the vessel already launchedSuppongoche (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption on the photo was in error, but she wasn't yet launched in the photo, there's just water in the bottom of the dock.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  launch  

message: The old translation of Akagi ("Red Castle") 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) 13:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the case, makes sense to me to remove it - although I can't vouch for the translation ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate translation of ship's name - again. 

message: Akagi has been revisited by an EV Nautilus scientific expedition on 11 September 2023, which was livestreamed on YouTube:
https://youtube.com/live/wUz1Vb7I2DU
https://nautiluslive.org/blog/2023/08/29/battle-midway-pivotal-wwii-engagement-papahanaumokuakea ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second survey visit