Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:07, 20 July 2008 editNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,130 edits →Hyūga an aircraft carrier?: added text← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:35, 26 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,248 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] 
(141 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=b|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|National=y|Japanese=y|Maritime=y}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class= Start {{WikiProject Ships |class=C}}
{{WikiProject Japan |importance= mid|milhist=y}}
|Japanese-task-force= yes
{{WikiProject Anti-war |class=Start |importance=Mid }}
|Maritime-task-force= yes
}}
|nested=yes}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class=Start|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject Japan|class=Stub|importance=|nested=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== ESSM loadout ==
==Article name==
This article needs to be renamed. This is not a destroyer. It is the size of one but it is a carrier. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

While this ship is for all points and purposes a carrier, she is officially named a destroyer and the title should remain as such. That said, the meat of the article could explain it (along with comparisons to the British "through-deck cruisers" made famous in the Faklands War) ] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:Those same 'though-deck cruisers' now have an article at ]. I do not think your argument, er, holds water. This article should be at ]. ] 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:: The name ''helicopter destroyer'' is certainly misleading, as that would mean a ship designed to destroy helicopters. Its rather a ''helicopter-carrying destroyer''. ] (]) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

*For comparison the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was classified as "Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Cruisers" in order to circumvent a treaty that prohibits aircraft carriers from circumventing the Dardanelles or Bosporus strait between the Black sea and the Mediterranean. Despite this, its classification in the West is as an aircraft carrier, because that is what it really and explicitly is. The Hyuga is a helicopter carrier like the British Ocean class (it does not deploy fixed wing aircraft so it is not an aircraft carrier,) that was termed a helicopter destroyer so as to be politically aceptable to a nation prohibited to possess offensive weapons. As was done on the Kuznetsov article, the politically expedient name should be set aside for the name that reflects the true nature and role of the ship, Hyuga Class Helicopter Carrier. ] (]) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

::This ship is certainly not an "aircraft carrier", else the USN's LHAs and LHDs would not be called ]s but aircraft carriers. ] is a bit vague, while ] is probably closer to its mission. However, are the helicopters this ship's primary asset, or does it have most of the other equipment such as fitted to ASW destroyers, in addition to the large flight deck? The article doesn't answer this question, nor did the Global Security.org page. Until we answer that question adequately, with reliable sources, we really can't say what name is best, other than the one assigned to it, DDH (helicopter destroyer, or ''helicopter-carrying destroyer'' if your mind can't fill in the right info on its own.) - ] (]) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with ASW carrier, the term matches the design and purpose the best, assuming we can find adequate sources to justify parting with the politically expedient name. ] (]) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Concur. - ] (]) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

==No speculation please==

Don't flood the lead section about stuff military geeks have been chatting about on forums. Keep to what we know and what is relevant. If the Japanese government talks about changing its use, no problem. However rumours and gossip don't lead to good content. ] (]) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

==A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever==
<s>Aircraft carrier</s>A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever<br>
This article cites no specific sources, and yet it is entirely credible as written. One short sentence has been added -- one fact only; and this plausibly controversial assertion is supported by a citation from a undisputed source. In my view, this makes the edit somewhat resistant to easy deletion. --] (]) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
:Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, the edit summary which explained the restoration was this: '''''<font color="green">"in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"</font>''''' .... In my view, two issues are crucial:
:*1. In my view, neither well-informed POV nor reasonable consensus amongst a limited number of editors is plausibly sufficient to trump a credibly sourced sentence. If not, why not?
:*2. The exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why?
:Without more, ]'s empty gesture becomes a slender reed. --] (]) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not convinced that a website decribing a TV documentary is a reliable source on this topic either. Jane's . ] (]) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I concur, Nick, and that was my rationale behind removing the cited material. Calling the class "aircraft carriers" with no further qualifications, right after the text makes clear they aren't "aircraft carriers" in the usual sense, would be confusing to readers. Also, putting a analysis sentence like that in the Lead is not necessarily the best place for it either. Note: My non-WP life intervened, preventing me from addessing this earlier. Also, I should have place the removed info here on the talk page when I removed it, as per MOS, but didn't think of it at the time. Sorry for that lapse, but I stand by my removals. - ] (]) 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:'''Deleted summarily by ]:'''
:The following was posted on ]'s talk page. His seeming knee-jerk reaction was to delete my modest inquiry with a terse edit summary: "Clean-up - you are a liar, I left NO blank reverts, and I will not engage in a bad-faith confrontational discussion" ....
:The text which seemingly caused offense is this:
::] -- As you know, in ], you've reverted twice without engaging in any discussion. If an unwelcome "edit-war" were to be defined by three blank reverts like yours, then we would be facing a dilemma for which you alone are responsible. I would have thought that a less confrontational strategy would have seemed like a good idea? There are any number of plausible reasons for questioning this single sentence from this article, but you have articulated none save arguably some kind of '']'' fallacy. Why is that?
::In an article with no citation of sources, I wonder how you justify removing the sole sentence which is actually supported by a credible in-line citation? --] (]) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:::According to the article's edit history, Bill has reverted you twice, and explained his reason why each time in his edit summary so I don't understand why you're accusing him of "blank reverts" or referring to "three blank reverts like yours" - the first claim is not true and there's no need to warn him about hitting 3 reverts as he's only up to 2 (the same number as you). He's also apologised for not discussing the changes on this talk page, so why are you rehashing this here? (according to ] it's perfectly fine to remove stuff from your own talk page). I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. ] (]) 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::::These are straightforward, easily clarified matters:
::::1. ] -- always a good tactic
::::2. "Blank revert" = non-responsive & unsupported by any demonstrable effort to meet burdens of proof or persuasion which address issues as framed -- a confusing strategy
::::3. Apologia = non-responsive & also a gambit for re-framing issues so as moot further discussion -- an unhelpful tactic
::::4. '''''<font color="green">Exterior links ≠ reference source citation</font>'''''

::::Perhaps this note will have been perceived as too terse, but there you have it. Frankly, I've already invested too much time in pointless prose with nothing worthwhile to show for it.

::::In a dispute in which one side offers a specific, linked citation to support an edit, and an disconsolate, non-specific complainer merely asserts "bad faith" in lieu of actually citing any contradictory sources, it becomes difficult to divine a more constructive path forward. --] (]) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

<font color="green">'''TWO SIGNIFICANT POINTS'''</font><br>
In the barking prose above, I have highlighted only two segments with green-colored BOLD font emphasis:
* ... '''''<font color="green">"in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"</font>''''' ....

* ... '''''<font color="green">Exterior links ≠ reference source citation</font>''''' ....

This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate ''a priori'' concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Misplaced Pages has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- ] (]) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

===Controversial sentence===
This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above, but nevertheless suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content.

However, the exchange which has played out above never reached this high ground. Instead, I found that I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with ] -- that ] and ] seem to insist that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS ''Hyūga'' lies in maritime architecture.

Perhaps the following outline from ] can assist us in moving forward:
* 1 Focus on content
* 2 Stay cool
* 3 Discussing with the other party
* 4 '''Truce <========== Easily achievable?'''
* 5 Turn to others for help
** 5.1 Editor assistance
** 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
** 5.3 Ask about the subject
** 5.4 '''Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?'''
** 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
** 5.6 For incivility
** 5.7 Request a comment
** 5.8 Informal mediation
** 5.9 Formal mediation
** 5.10 Conduct a survey
* 6 '''<s>If the situation is urgent</s> <========== Not relevant?'''
* 7 Last resort: Arbitration

''A priori,'' I'm persuaded that the appropriate course for me to try now is to dig in my heels on what seems to me a matter of fundamental Misplaced Pages policy:
* A. '''''<font color="green">Exterior links are not the scholarly equivalent of in-line citations or reference source citations.</font>''''' .... Yes? No?
* I note that ] asserts: "I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. '''Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum.''' (emphasis added) I can't see how this position withstands casual scrutiny; but that having been said, I'm expressing myself in non-confrontational terms when I state modestly that '''''<font color="green">deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"</font>''''' .... Yes? No?

I'm not just looking for us to reach some kind of agreement here as a foundation from which to move forward. I'd really appreciate some suggestions about how this could have been handled differently?

To restate the issues as I parse them: We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what are, as articulated thus far, naught but the result of "]" or un-"]" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions. Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --] (]) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

:This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references.
::<font color="green">'''No''' -- <s>with all due respect</s>: wrong</font> --] (]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.
::<font color="green">'''No''' -- <s>with all due respect</s>: we're not here yet</font> --] (]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
: ''Jane's Fighting Ships'' is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships .
::<font color="green">'''No''' -- <s>with all due respect</s>: potentially valid, but unavailing</font> --] (]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:The very reliable Globalsecurity.org and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".
::<font color="green">'''No''' -- <s>with all due respect</s>: potentially valid, but unavailing</font> --] (]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of ""original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". ] (]) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
::<font color="green">'''No''' -- <s>with all due respect</s>: wrong</font> --] (]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:::*1. ''Please see'' ].
:::*2. ''Please see'' ].
:::*3. ''Please see'' ].
:::*4. ''Please see'' ]. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is ], not ] — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
::] -- <font color="green">No -- <s>with all due respect</s>: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied '''No''' ''ad nauseam'' to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again. Frankly, with this last bit of writing, you've dug yourself into a nearly impossible-to-imagine hole; and I just don't know how else I can more strongly encourage you to stop digging, please.</font> --] (]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider:
* ]. --] (]) 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
* ] --] (]) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Just to make sure based on the lengthy talk page posts and edit summaries, could someone clarify some issues here on what exactly is disputed
* Is it over whether the ship constitutes (a) "aircraft carrier", or (b) a "helicopter-carrying destroyer, similar in design to a small aircraft carrier"()?
* Is it over whether the ship (a)constitutes a true aircraft carrier, and (b) constitutes the "first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War"? Or just a?
* Is the dispute also over whether it is not called a helicopter destroyer versus aircraft carrier for political and not solely technical reasons? If it is simply a dispute as to whether Global Security and Jane's classification of the ship as a helicopter carrier come from a more reliable source, at least in terms of technical details than the PBS documentary, I tend to favor the global security and Jane's sources in this respect. But I didn't get through watching the full video on PBS site. -] (]) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:Tenmei wants to include text stating that the ship is an aircraft carrier, with a reference back to a PBS website. The diff in question is . Bill has reverted this twice as it's not correct and has been discussed before (see above). I've provided two references to highly reliable sources which state that these ships aren't aircraft carriers (] a gold standard for ship statistics and classifications). My one paragraph response to Tenmei's offer to discuss this was much shorter and easier to read when I posted it and before Tenmei dissected it... ] (]) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

::No. ] frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --] (]) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it? ] (]) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Aha, I see. In the context ] creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility.
::::The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on <u>this</u> page. --] (]) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Please note that I've sought comments at ] and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. ] (]) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. ] (]) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::] -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --] (]) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

===Turning lemons into lemonade===
Tenmei, please stop ]. There is no need to make allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor; if you disagree with his interpretation, simply ''give your own''. ] (]) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:] -- Your words will do nicely. Your words capture my thought precisely: "intentionally mischaracterizing the issues." Thanks. Not to put too fine a point on it, yes -- disingenuous is a polite word which implies more left unsaid in an effort to maintain a mild tone. --] (]) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

::] -- Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions <u>are</u> disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of ]'s credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --] (]) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
::*'''06:00''', 13 July 2008 -- ] at ]
::*'''06:32''', 13 July 2008 -- ] posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
::*'''06:56''', 13 July 2008 -- ] poses 1st ''"disingenuous"'' question
::*'''10:57''', 13 July 2008 -- ] points to ND's ''"diminished credibility"''
::*'''11:14''', 13 July 2008 -- ] poses 2nd ''"disingenuous"'' question
::*'''12:17''', 13 July 2008 -- ] crosses out ''"with all due respect"''
::*'''13:09''', 13 July 2008 -- ]'s negative spin on T's "allegations"

:::I don't read what Nick Dowling has stated anywhere on this page at all as disingenuous. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the contents of ]; not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so with ill-intent. It is wrong to assume as much, and doesn't do anything towards creating an amicable work environment on Wiki, which is the whole point of policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He made a legitimate comment on what appears to be a central issue of this debate: whether news media are acceptable sources for technical details like into what category does this class fall? ] (]) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

:Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. ] (]) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::'''Uncivil''' and '''offensive''' are here converted into badges of honor --] (]) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Tenmei, you are behaving in a manner that is exceedingly disappointing. If you disagree with something Nick Dowling or anyone else has said, please present a differing perspective, and/or a different proposal. As far as I can tell, you haven't actually said anything related to the discussion in the past day, since several outside editors (myself included) have arrived on the page. Instead, you have continually impugned the actions and motives of Nick, which isn't helpful in the slightest. Let me again stress the importance of ] and ].
:::There is currently a proposal at the bottom of the page that addresses the issue; why don't you participate in the discussion? Surely you have an opinion on the merits of the wording. ] (]) 16:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

=== Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute ===
Initially, I posted a single sentence addition to ]. I believed the edit would be seen as politically controversial in the context of an on-going debate within Japan about whether to amend the legally mandated anti-militarism in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The in-line citation accompanying this short sentence was and continued to be the only source cited in this article until a short while ago.<br>
: "‎The JDS ''Hyūga'' is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War."<ref>PBS/WNET, NYC: July 8, 2008.</ref>

I identify a NPOV controversy affecting any version of the article <u>without</u> this short sentence or something like it, but a quick review of ] reveals that I'm met a great deal of resistance which effectively barred my arriving at the threshold of the discussion I had intended to elicit.

For the purposes of this tentative analysis, please assume that the following excerpt from a ] summary has accurately interpreted the ambit of the Japanese Constitution as it relates to this subject:<b>

*"Japan is already one of the world's largest spenders on national defense, and the Japanese Self Defense Force (JSDF) is a robust force, though expenditures are narrowly targeted and essentially protective — they include no long-range bombers or missiles, no aircraft carriers''' or nuclear submarines."<ref name="cfr1">Teslik, Lee Hudson. ''Council on Foreign Relations.'' April 13, 2006.</ref>
*"The JSDF's naval forces are not allowed to have nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers, which are considered "offensive weaponry."<ref name="cfr1"></ref>

As many will know, the English Misplaced Pages generally follows the Japanese Misplaced Pages in matters of style and substance; however, this is one of the very rare instances in which we confront an odd exception. In the context established by what I've encountered in the talk page venue, I don't see how a nuanced discussion about POV will become possible without a foundation which encompasses agreement about ], ], ] and ].

Plainly, I've not started off well; but there you have it. It was the best I could do for now.

Questions I'm asking myself are these: What could I have done differently? How can I learn from my mistakes so that I'll have a better chance moving forward constructively as the more difficult aspects of this issue come to the fore? --] (]) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)<br>
<u>''Footnotes:''</u><br>
:<small><sup>1</sup> PBS/WNET, NYC: July 8, 2008.<br>
:<sup>2</sup> Teslik, Lee Hudson. ''Council on Foreign Relations.'' April 13, 2006.</small>

Forgive me for what may be an oversimplistic view of this content dispute, but the mediation committee posting drew my attention and as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason why a sentence couldn't be included which makes evident the clouded nature of this vessel's classification: could it not simply be said that "The Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has variously been described as an aircraft carrier (insert ref) and also a destroyer (insert ref)." I really fail to see the furore which this dispute seems to have garnered over something about which a compromise could be reached so easily. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">]</font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

::] -- It appears that my serial attempts to invite helpful intervention have produced zero effect.

::Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because ] persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic ] fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences below.

::In circumstances other than this one, a demand for Formal Mediation would have seemed odd. When I caused this dispute by merely adding one sentence only, I anticipated a controversy different than the one ] has engineered. --] (]) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I looked around through the sources and I do not see any statement that the 16 Mk41 cells carry only 16 ESSMs, 1 per cell. However, it is stated on the page for the ESSM that Mk41 VLS cells can quadpack ESSM, so if the ESSM loadout here is stated by how many Mk41 VLS cells there are, it should be 64 ESSM due to quadpacking. ] (]) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
==Amphibious warfare ship?==
I've just removed the class from the amphibious warfare ship class category as there's no evidence that they're anything other than ASW ships. The ships do not appear to have the ability to embark large numbers of troops and their equipment as is required for the amphibious role, and none of the references states that they do more than ressemble amphibious warfare ships. ] (]) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


== Tsunami/Nuclear Crisis ==
:Nick, perhaps someone confused this class with the ]. Btw, the second paragraph there is interesting:


It would probably be advisable to break out the two ships with their own articles since they will probably be participating in the post earthquake crisis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::''The class could well be described as helicopter carriers. Globalsecurity.org notes that "the program originated in a proposal for a small carrier for defensive and mine countermeasures (MCM) purposes, but this was deemed politically unacceptable, and the project was reworked as an amphibious ship". The Ōsumi class has a through-deck design to maximise potential space for launching and retrieving its helicopter complement. As a result it resembles a light aircraft carrier. However, The Japanese MSDF does not currently claim any plans to fit them with a ski-jump or other equipment necessary to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Even if so equipped it would be the smallest fixed wing capable aircraft carrier in the world lighter than even the Thai Chakri Naruebet which weighs in at 10,000 tonnes.''


== Box cover for scale model ==
:So, referring to the discussion above about the ''Hyūga'', if one calls that ship an "aircraft carrier" without any qualifications, one would also have to call the ''Osumi'' class aircraft carriers, and thus the ''Hyūga'' is not "the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War." Interesting, huh? I don't know where that fis in the proverbial "box", though! - ] (]) 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Are box covers for scale models of ships notable?


http://nation.time.com/2013/07/21/even-toy-ships-cant-escape-islands-dispute/
== ''Hyūga'' an aircraft carrier? ==


] (]) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Not wishing to interject myself into the lengthy discussion above, I will list—without commenting—sources that refer to the ''Hyūga'' an "aircraft carrier":


== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==
* {{cite news | last = Herman | first = Arthur | authorlink = Arthur L. Herman | url = http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/pacific_armadas.htm?page=0 | title = Pacific armadas: growing Far East navies mean new challenges for U.S. | work = ] | date = 2007-09-09 | accessdate = 2008-07-13 }}
* {{cite news | last = Shaplen | first = Jason T. | coauthors = James Laney | url = http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/20071101faessay_v86n6_shaplenlaney.html | title = Washington's Eastern Sunset | work = ] | date = 2007-12-31 | accessdate = 2008-07-13 }}
* {{cite episode | title = Japan's About-Face | url = http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/japans-about-face/full-episode/1641/ | series = Wide Angle | serieslink = Wide Angle (TV series) | network = ] | airdate = 2008-07-08 | season = 7 | number = 2 | minutes = 40:04 }}


Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
— ] (]) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages.
::On the whole, news media are not very good sources for establishing ship classifications. They tend to stick to categories they think their readers understand, and are prone to exaggeration. ] (]) 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
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 ].
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 ].
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 ].
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:'''
:::I would agree, but it is ''notable'', certainly, that three different news organizations have called it flat out an aircraft carrier. At the least, it bears mentioning in a section about the purpose of the class. On the other hand, don't we as Misplaced Pages, try to cater to readers as well? I don't honestly believe that the article should be named {{sclass|Hyūga|aircraft carrier|1}}, but it warrants mention, as well as perhaps a redirect from that name. — ] (]) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Also, I want to add that the policy is ], not necessarily ]. All three sources meet the ] standard. — ] (]) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


*<nowiki>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hyuga-class/</nowiki>
::::Yeah, I agree that some text about the ships sometimes being called aircraft carriers would be appropriate. It's also important to note that they are ''not'' aircraft carriers as they are (at least currently) incapable of safely operating fixed-wing aircraft and are not labeled as such by the relevant experts - the Globalsecurity and Chosun Ilbo discuss this and ''Jane's Fighting Ships'' calls them helicopter destroyers and states that they can't operate VSTOL aircraft. I'll draft a para and post it here for comments. ] (]) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
*:''Triggered by <code>\bnaval-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news70595.html</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bnaval-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''


If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.


From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:OK, here's some wording which seeks to cover all the different sources:
::The Japanese Government's classification of this class as destroyers has been met with some criticism. As the ships are larger than any previous destroyers and have a full-length flight deck and relatively large ], they have been compared to light aircraft carriers.<ref name="Globalsecurity">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x.htm|title=16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class|publisher=Globalsecurity.org|accessdate=2008-07-13}}</ref> Some media reports have labeled the ships aircraft carriers and it has been suggested that they represent an attempt by Japan to revive its ] capabilities.<ref>{{cite news | last = Herman | first = Arthur | authorlink = Arthur L. Herman | url = http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/pacific_armadas.htm?page=0 | title = Pacific armadas: growing Far East navies mean new challenges for U.S. | work = Opinion | publisher = ] | date = 2007-09-09 | accessdate = 2008-07-13 }}</ref><ref>{{cite episode | title = Japan's About-Face | url = http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/japans-about-face/full-episode/1641/ | series = Wide Angle | serieslink = Wide Angle (TV series) | network = ] | airdate = 2008-07-08 | season = 7 | number = 2 | minutes = 40:04 }}</ref> The ships are not currently capable of operating ], however, as they are not fitted with a ] and other equipment needed to operate aircraft other than helicopters.<ref name="Chosun_Ilbo">{{cite news|url=http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708270007.html|title=After 40 Years, Japan Achieves Warship Dream |last=Yong-weon|first=Yu|date=2007-08-27|work=Columns|publisher=Chosun Ilbo|accessdate=2008-07-13}}</ref><ref name="JFS07-08">{{cite book |last=Saunders |first=Stephen (editor) |title=] |date=2007 |publisher=Jane’s Information Group |location=Coulsdon ||pages=p.401}}</ref> '']'' has classified the ''Hyūga'' class as ]s<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jfs/jfs_5730.html|title=Hyuga class (CVHG) (Japan), Helicopter Destroyers|date=2008-03-14|work=Jane's Fighting Ships (online extract)|publisher=Jane's Information Group|accessdate=2008-07-13}}</ref> and ] states that they are helicopter destroyers.<ref name="Globalsecurity" />
::{{reflist}}


{{done|Resolved}} This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thoughts? ] (]) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
::Looks sensible to me. ] (]) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Endorse, though no doubt minor tweaks could be made. I'm not sure whether you're aiming for understatement Nick but these Japanese type designations - 'Landing Ship Tank' for the Osumis and 'Destroyer, Helicopter' for the Hyugas are really polite no-more-than euphemisms. I think we'd be more accurate in saying 'has been met with some criticism,' rather than 'not been universally accepted.' Disagreement welcome. ](]) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::Endorse also, as it covers all bases. I think we could add the PBS ref in with the NY Post cite, and perhaps 1 or 2 others, to provide a range of sources that call the class carriers. I'd also support the "criticism" statement by Buck. - ] (]) 10:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::I agree with Buckshot's post - my wording was too weak. ] (]) 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:: '''Endorse''' also, although I'd prefer the opening sentence to read "While the Japanese government has classed this vessel as a destroyer (refs) it has also been described as a light aircraft carrier etc. etc. etc. (refs)."
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910201713/http://www.asagumo-news.com/news/200908/090827/09082703.htm to http://www.asagumo-news.com/news/200908/090827/09082703.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320060305/http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/845c374a-6615-4872-9c65-8dcf522739ee/A-New-Carrier-Race--Strategy,-Force-Planning,-and- to http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/845c374a-6615-4872-9c65-8dcf522739ee/A-New-Carrier-Race--Strategy,-Force-Planning,-and-


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Seems fine to me. I also agree with Buckshot's comment about wording. ] (]) 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:Great compromise wording. — ] (]) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
::Amended the wording above as per the discussion - further thoughts welcome. ](]) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:As there seems to be a consensus I've added the text to the article. ] (]) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:35, 26 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / National / Asian / Japanese
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
National militaries task force
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Japanese military history task force
WikiProject iconShips C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShipsWikiProject icon
CThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
WikiProject iconJapan: Military history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:44, December 25, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconAnti-war Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
StartThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

ESSM loadout

I looked around through the sources and I do not see any statement that the 16 Mk41 cells carry only 16 ESSMs, 1 per cell. However, it is stated on the page for the ESSM that Mk41 VLS cells can quadpack ESSM, so if the ESSM loadout here is stated by how many Mk41 VLS cells there are, it should be 64 ESSM due to quadpacking. Belkaland (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami/Nuclear Crisis

It would probably be advisable to break out the two ships with their own articles since they will probably be participating in the post earthquake crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.204.217 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Box cover for scale model

Are box covers for scale models of ships notable?

http://nation.time.com/2013/07/21/even-toy-ships-cant-escape-islands-dispute/

Hcobb (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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 Misplaced Pages. 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/projects/hyuga-class/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/news/news70595.html
    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 Online 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II Online 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Categories: