Talk:Amphibious assault ship

List of types
Why do this as a revert? You could've just removed the types from the bottom, like you did at the lead. Instead you've also undone the improvements and fixes I made to the remaining list. Are you going revert them back? Or fix them all manually yourself? - the WOLF  child  11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't think they were improvements, especially the hyphens, which should be used in cases such as "America class". Feel free to add them back, but if you do, be sure to include the number of Essex conversions, as there were only 3. I like the bolding, so I did add that back. - BilCat (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added back a few more of your improvements. I also added the Dokdo-class amphibious assault ships under LPH. I'm not sure how we missed them all this time, as they are listed at Landing Platform Helicopter. - BilCat (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If by "they" you mean the LPDs, LSDs & LSLs, that is fine with me. I only added then for consistency as they were noted in lead for the last 3 years. But since they weren't cited, I wouldn't oppose their removal. The other changes I made were the bolding and alphabetizing, and using the proper template parameter instead of manually adding "class". I don't care if they're hyphenated or not. You want the hypens gone? No problem, there is a parameter for that too; I've fixed that, (including removing the hyphen from the Essex class) and re-added the Galicia class. Cheers - the WOLF  child  15:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. And no, "they" referred to the Dokdo LPHs. Also, the LPDs, LSDs & LSLs were only added in Oct 2017 by an IP edit warrior, and were disputed and tagged as needing citations then. I think 5 months is long enough to wait for citations. - BilCat (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You've confused me. You said I didn't think they were improvements, I figured by "they", you meant the LPDs, LSDs & LSLs you removed. But now you say "they" referred to the Dokdo LPHs, which you added. I don't follow. As for the dates, that's my bad, I thought it was 2015. Anyway, I did't know about this dispute, but basically I take it consensus was in favour of having this article focus solely on the full deck amphibs? And others, such as LPD & LSD, should not be included? But some IP user kept adding them anyway, is that the gist of it? It doesn't really matter to me either way, but is there to be no mention at all of these other types of amphibs, even if just to distinguish them from the full-deck types? - the WOLF  child  19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah! No, I meant that I didn't think your improvements were improvements, but in the end, we got the bugs worked out. At one time, we actually did have a statement about what isn't an "Amphibious assault ship" in the Lead, as shown here in the last paragraph of the lead in 2015, but it got lost somewhere along the way. - BilCat (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the old wording is somewhat clearer. Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

About the image at the beginning
Juan Carlos is the ship that affected Anadolu and Canberra, because USS Iwo Jima should be replaced with Juan Carlos. Nimitz0vikrant (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "affected", but there is already an image of Juan Carlos I there. Perhaps you missed it? - w o lf  10:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Images... again
you keep making changes to images on this and other naval ship related pages, changes that are often not needed, not improvements, full of errors, and require the time and attention of other editors to fix. This is not the first time this issue has been raised with you, nor am I the only editor to do so. Going forward, I would suggest you propose your changes on the talk page first, so that other editors can assist you. This will help reduce the disruption caused by your edits, while you learn how and when to make such changes. Thank you - w o lf  08:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)