Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:39, 4 October 2024 editJohn Smith's (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 editsm →Program criticism ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:40, 4 October 2024 edit undoJohn Smith's (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 editsm →Program criticism Next edit →
Line 54:		Line 54:

	I'm late to the discussion, but I agree. It seems to be to have been included for the sake of it, not least because it lists examples without specifying who made the criticism or why it was notable.		I'm late to the discussion, but I agree. It seems to be to have been included for the sake of it, not least because it lists examples without specifying who made the criticism or why it was notable.

	:''For example'', I'm sure that Greenpeace or the Global Peace Foundation would object to any and all military projects. But it would be rather tiresome if every page on a military project had "and the GPF condemned it because war is bad".		''For example'', I'm sure that Greenpeace or the Global Peace Foundation would object to any and all military projects. But it would be rather tiresome if every page on a military project had "and the GPF condemned it because war is bad".
⚫	:The first point might be relevant to one of the pages about the Royal Navy or its future. But given the carriers have already been constructed and paid for, on this page the arguments are academic.

⚫	:The second point has two sources. The first seems to be a generic defence website that is non-notable. The second is a generic argument against aircraft carriers, which would be better served on the page about aircraft carriers.
		⚫	The first point might be relevant to one of the pages about the Royal Navy or its future. But given the carriers have already been constructed and paid for, on this page the arguments are academic.
⚫	:The third point is a generic criticism of defence spending, again not the carriers. The first citation argues against increased defence spending not the carriers. The second citation is regarding difficult choices in how defence money is spent. The third citation seems to carry no criticism at all.

⚫	:In short, I plan to remove the section - I will start by removing citations that do not support what is said. If someone wants to add criticism of the project, it should be from a notable person or organisation in the Background or Construction sectionm, depending on what the points were. ] (]) 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
		⚫	The second point has two sources. The first seems to be a generic defence website that is non-notable. The second is a generic argument against aircraft carriers, which would be better served on the page about aircraft carriers.

		⚫	The third point is a generic criticism of defence spending, again not the carriers. The first citation argues against increased defence spending not the carriers. The second citation is regarding difficult choices in how defence money is spent. The third citation seems to carry no criticism at all.

		⚫	In short, I plan to remove the section - I will start by removing citations that do not support what is said. If someone wants to add criticism of the project, it should be from a notable person or organisation in the Background or Construction sectionm, depending on what the points were. ] (]) 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:40, 4 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / British / European

This 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This 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 ShipsShips

Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

New section needed on service availability since commissioning

A new section is needed on service availability since commissioning. This is particularly important with only two ships in this rôle. S C Cheese (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Somewhere, and I can see that from Australia, there is a bungle and the ship is being cannibalised as it says elsewhere. She will be out of action for long - if that is to be believed. Failures must not be swept under the carpet; in this sector that amounts to deceiving the population. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:50B8:CF93:1AD8:9D7C (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I just thought maybe the propellers are made of titanium, or partly. Russia and China have an edge in titanium processes so as the ship is part of the war planning against these, there could be a supply issue. At the time of commissioning the enmity between the West and Russia/China was not as active as today. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:50B8:CF93:1AD8:9D7C (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Both out of action again. 213.31.166.19 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

GA status

It's been 11 years since the last review, perhaps time for a reasessment? Figured I'd bring it up here first before going to GAR, so... thoughts? - wolf 23:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Out of service in 2069

A parliamentary written response confirmed that the carriers are expected to serve until 2069. This should be added to the article.

Source (I don’t know if UKDJ is considered reliable): https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/out-of-service-date-confirmed-for-aircraft-carriers/ 2A00:23C4:E851:C701:25B4:6A8D:676F:9214 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Program criticism

this section should be removed. It does not make any valid point Ncox001 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. A major public procurement of this type will always have opposing arguments. And this one wasn't run particularly well, increasing the critcism. What is there is valid in my opinion, and probably should be expanded on, for example the struggle of the RN to fully crew all of its fleet and the related slow procurement of F-35s. Mark83 (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I agree. It seems to be to have been included for the sake of it, not least because it lists examples without specifying who made the criticism or why it was notable.

For example, I'm sure that Greenpeace or the Global Peace Foundation would object to any and all military projects. But it would be rather tiresome if every page on a military project had "and the GPF condemned it because war is bad".

The first point might be relevant to one of the pages about the Royal Navy or its future. But given the carriers have already been constructed and paid for, on this page the arguments are academic.

The second point has two sources. The first seems to be a generic defence website that is non-notable. The second is a generic argument against aircraft carriers, which would be better served on the page about aircraft carriers.

The third point is a generic criticism of defence spending, again not the carriers. The first citation argues against increased defence spending not the carriers. The second citation is regarding difficult choices in how defence money is spent. The third citation seems to carry no criticism at all.

In short, I plan to remove the section - I will start by removing citations that do not support what is said. If someone wants to add criticism of the project, it should be from a notable person or organisation in the Background or Construction sectionm, depending on what the points were. John Smith's (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: