Talk:Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier

message: Formatting white space must necessarily be minimized, ie. there must be a justification in each case. Otherwise, one could legitimately double the size of every article with various white space formatings.
In this case, there is no reason to add formatting white space. - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitespace 

message: The article says the crew will be 2,600 approx. but it also says there'll be 3,789 enlisted crewmen. How can this be? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Complement" is being used to include the ship's air wing personnel, while "Crew" means only the actual crew required to run and operate the ship. - BilCat (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, makes sense, thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complement and crew don't match up 

message: Does anyone know if this ship and the rest of the class was built using metric or not? I'm aware that a lot of current and recent past projects, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22, have been. Flanker235 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric project? 

message: At least this following link in the article references Seapower Magazine. Seapower Magazine does not appear to use this domain any longer. If we navigate to the URLs using Seapower-Digital as a source, it appears these have the potential to be malicious or, at the very least, not the intended resources. Wherever this source is cited, we should likely replace. Putting this here for common knowledge/heads-up.
Code from ref: "cite web |title=Navy C4ISR and Unmanned Systems |url=http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/january_2016?pg=93#pg93 |work=Sea Power 2016 Almanac |publisher=Navy League of the U.S. |date=January 2016 |page=91 |access-date=9 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170128204404/http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/january_2016?pg=93#pg93 |archive-date=28 January 2017 |url-status=live"
--Marsbound2024 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seapower-Digital" reference URLs defunct and now taken over by another party 

message: with the first steel cut completed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taCfKLZ4pV8) ive changed the status of CVN-81 from "ordered" to "Under Construction"
75.89.43.149 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: USS Dorris Miller Under construction

message: I've read of some problems with rolling out this ship, but see no mention of that here. Do we not want to address that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.48.6 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the class article, in the article about the ship, , there are numerous issues noted. - wolf 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Any issues with roll-out?

message: Huntington Ingalls Industries said the length is 1106 feet  75.139.201.84 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.201.84 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the length may have changed since 2013, it's better to use the later Navy source. Also, Militaryfactory isn't considered a reliable source. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The Naval Vessel Register seems to think it's 1,092 (). --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd that there's a discrepancy of 14 feet, but perhaps something was removed after construction. In the past, the bridal catchers added something to the length, but they haven't been used in several decades, so wouldn't have been included in the Ford class's design. BilCat (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After hunting around a bit, it appears that both lengths are found in numerous sources, so I don't really see how we could go with just one or the other. I think we need to list both until either the discrepancy itself is addressed by some sources, or until one length starts to show up almost exclusively in the most recent, up-to-date coverage of the class. (JMHO) - wolf 21:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic (Airlant) says length is 1106 feet   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.201.84 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that has already been noted, both here and in your duplicate thread. - wolf 20:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The Navy also says it's 1,092 feet long (The Naval Vessel Register seems to think it's 1,092 (). So, you want to go with an assertion that the Navy is wrong because the Navy says it's wrong, when another part of the Navy asserts that it is right? Stop ignoring other sources in favor of the source you prefer. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship length