Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier

message: The recent text dump is a copyvio of , which clearly states Copyright © BHARAT RAKSHAK. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of BHARAT RAKSHAK is prohibited. Please stop adding this text. - TomKat222 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: India is not building 3 new carriers, India is building 2. Rademire2 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 new carriers?

message: http://www.livefist.blogspot.com/2011/12/hindu-reports-today-that-hull-of-indias.html
Courtsey:- The Hindu and Livefist.blogspot.com ( Mr. Shiv Aroor)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.47.151 (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  India launches/floats hull of its indigenous carrier 

message: This article now shares a lot of material with INS Vikrant (2013), especially the construction section. This article should be trimmed to avoid this duplication. --LukeSurl t c 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated material 

message: So if the first one is 40,000 and the second one is 60,000 tonnes and a different configuation,   the it isn't really a "class" of two ships, is it ?  It's really two different classes with one ship in each class.Eregli bob (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly how to tell when a class becomes two sub-classes or two classes but reliable, specialist sources refer to the two ships as a class. The difference in weight may be due to the first ship being conventionally powered and the second being nuclear powered which, AFAICT, is not enough to put them in different classes. Formerip (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

text: why the hurry? the second ship is not even off the drawing board yet. when it becomes more readily apparent what the changes are we can then decide whether it is two classes of ship or one class of two ships. Pvpoodle (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Shall we categorize her under a new class with a name of our own?  --JAaron95 (Talk)  19:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have been looking for a source that refers to her as part of that class.  What I have found puts her as part of the same project (Indigenous Aircraft carrier, or IAC) and refers to her design as IAC-II.  Just hoping for clarification. Scr★pIronIV 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A  class of ships 

message: The "See also" section is this place includes the British Queen Elizabeth class carriers. When you add the Vikrant Class Carriers in the Queen Elizaeth Class carrier "see also" section, it is removed almost immidiately. Where as , when the QE class "see also" section is removed from this page, it is always added back. Is there no control on what goes on here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.169.69 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsindian-navy-seeks-emals-system-second-vikrant-class-aircraft-carrier
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: In the ship class table, Is it a mistake to specify INS Vishal as 
                Nuclear-powered EMALS CATOBAR Supercarrier?
M.srihari (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "supercarrier" over and over for a ship that barely meets that qualification is unnecessary, especially in the table description. It's better to just leave it out. For the record, I personally oppose labeling the British QE class as supercarriers, but at least that has support from reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Note that "supercarrier" is not a proper noun, so it's not capitalized on English WP unless it starts a sentence. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How could you say that the ship barely meets the qualifiacation? Could you please explain that. We are discussing here about INS Vishal, so I request not give examples of other articles such as QE. Please see the description of INS Vishal and the requirements of a SUPERCARRIER. And to note , supercarrier is not an offical description at all. It is just to indicate how huge the aircraft carrier is compared to other conventional carriers.M.srihari (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Adding the word supercarrier is necessary in my view, as any reader would get maximum information about it when he just glances the table. The grammar mistake can be rectified by a simple edit "Supercarrier|supercarrier".M.srihari (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to me to prove Vishal is not a supercarrier, but you have to provide reliable published sources (not blogs) that consider it one. So far I haven't seen any. I mentioned the QEs to show you that I'm not just criticizing an Indian carrier. I also don't believe the Russian and Chinese carriers meet the threshold either, but that just probaly means I'm racist to you. And compared to the Nimitz class, neither the Vishal nor the QEs are "huge". - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Please see the Dfc Discussion in Supercarrier talk page and the answer for your question lies there. M.srihari (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All that's happening there is people giving their opinions. No consensus has been reached, and no reliable sources calling carriers at or under 65,000 tonnes displacement "supercarriers" has been cited. And, no, they don't have to be "official" sources, from reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  I requested you to see my latest reply in that dfc. not to bring that topic here. See the latest developments after the user Antichous the great had replied. And then express your views (probably there so that we don't need two separate discussions on one issue).M.srihari (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the discussion, and it the comments after Antiochus's question that I have called "unsourced opinion". Until someone provides such a source, what more is there to say that isn't original research? You haven't provided such a source there, so will my repeating a request for such a source there as opposed to here make a source suddenly appear? Probably not. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: sorry but I can't understand your point. And again please give your views there. We can't have two separate discussions for same issue. Your question and Antiochus's question are same. So post your views there. When the Issue of whether INS Vishal is a supercarrier is over there, then we can put the consensus here and end the discussion.M.srihari (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship Class

message: I have edited this article today and removed/edited the contents as follows: removed unsourced statement from lead - source provided does not support the claim, also this claim does not belong in the lead anyway since it is not made elsewhere in the article, the lead is supposed to be a summary; since the sources only say that Vishal may be nuclear powered and may be fitted with EMALS, I have edited the text to reflect that. - Nick Thorne talk 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely concur here.  Scr★pIronIV 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely oppose. AN unnecessary dispute on just lengthening the contents in the table unnecessarily. I doesn't make any sense. M.srihari (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to oppose;  has done valid research and his comments are perfectly valid.  These systems decisions have not been finalized, and can not be presented as factual representation. Scr★pIronIV 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So you wish to say that this edit made by User:Nick Thorne is actually his own research. Right??M.srihari (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The point you seem to fail to understand is that reading the sources to see what they actually say is not wp:or.  It is, in fact, what we are supposed to do. - Nick Thorne talk 23:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced or poorly sourced material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Vikrant-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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120217185025/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/NAVY/Ships/Future/185-Indian-Aircraft-Carrier.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Future/185-Indian-Aircraft-Carrier.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150518075115/http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/232477671 to http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/232477671
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121107013318/http://ibnlive.in.com:80/generalnewsfeed/news/first-indigenous-aircraft-carrier-to-be-completed-by-dec-govt/773900.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/first-indigenous-aircraft-carrier-to-be-completed-by-dec-govt/773900.html
*Added  tag to http://www.trishul-trident.blogspot.com/blog/Updates
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120217185025/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/NAVY/Ships/Future/185-Indian-Aircraft-Carrier.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Future/185-Indian-Aircraft-Carrier.html
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) 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vikrant-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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518081159/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150228000028&cid=1101 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150228000028&cid=1101
*Added  tag to http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20090085124
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) 22:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Gazoth: Your decision to merge this article was perfectly reasonable at the time, since the planned INS Vishal had hardly any commonality with the Vikrant. But recent statements by the Navy Chief suggest that INS Vishal might be built as simply another Vikrant-type carrier - in which case this article would have to be revived (with quite some editing) and the INS Vishal article would require a rather big revamp. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to revive the article? 

message: I had read in naval tech news sources over the years that this aircraft carrier was heavily influenced by Russian engineering as well as having Russian engineers assist in the overall design of this particular carrier. Is there any information available on this that can be included in the article? Would it be something that some state patrons wouldn't want publicized as to create the impression that this carrier was designed completely from scratch indigenously? And no, I am not confusing this carrier with the one India purchased upgrades for that actually came from Russia (INS Vikramaditya). Chronograph 1985 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information on its design teams?