Talk:Chinese aircraft carrier programme

Merge Chinese aircraft carrier to People's Liberation Army or People's Liberation Army Navy

 * I think this page should be merged with People's Liberation Army or People's Liberation Army Navy. The title of this article is too vague. --Jiang 21:39 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree, PLAN would be the right place. Stan 22:14 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to choose People's Liberation Army since only that article discusses military hardware/technology. PLAN article is just a clarification of the organizational structure of the PLA. --Jiang 22:10, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Went w/ original suggestion and merged with People's Liberation Army Navy. --Jiang 02:01, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Chinese carrier aircraft

 * Ok, I thought I'd start this up because I've been editing that the J-13/Chinese naval flanker as a possible candidate for a chinese naval fighter. People, let's discuss. Blitzoace (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They built two type 003's. The 2nd is almost ready for launch:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.103.147.25 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

News

 * http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Taiwan_says_China_starts_building_first_aircraft_carrier_999.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk • contribs) 07:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming

 * shouldn't this be renamed "Type 089 aircraft carrier" ? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a couple sources or news articles calling it the Type 089 then I'd be in favor of changing it. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Article-ize

 * It's time to make this an article again, with a list of aircraft carriers obtained by China, and the new Varyag renamed into Chinese prominent on the list, with Type 089 examples 1 and 2 displayed. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Program or programme
Is there a compelling reason for this spelling? Doyna Yar (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Acquisition of retired aircraft carriers sections needs rationalisation and improvement of language
The first part of the Acquisition of retired aircraft carriers section appears to be largely duplicated in the Liaoning subsection. Also the language is pretty poor in some places e.g. Turkey's government to be hindered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.247.220 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Su-33/J-15
At this point, anyone following Chinese and other BBS online knows there is no way China will be operating the Su-33. Reports that China is to acquire Su-33s are to be dismissed at this point. I strongly urge the article to be amended accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chinese aircraft carrier programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120117063100/http://aircraft.zurf.info:80/article/return-zheng-he to http://aircraft.zurf.info/article/return-zheng-he

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbering
Does anyone have information on why it's CV-16, -17, etc, and not CV-1/-2/-3 etc? -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese aircraft carrier programme. 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/20150418171253/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20131211000053&cid=1101 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20131211000053&cid=1101

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) 07:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chinese aircraft carrier programme
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chinese aircraft carrier programme's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto": From Ballistic missile submarine: Gardiner and Chumbley, pp. 355–357 From People's Liberation Army:  From Type 003 aircraft carrier:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to Split Article for Type 003 Aircraft Carrier
Earlier in June, there was was a previous discussion which concluded to merge Type 003 aircraft carrier into this page. The decision was to merge, and it was based upon this diff which was very short. I was not part of this discussion as it concluded before I started contributing to the article.

However, after the discussion closed, but before the merger was enacted, there has been significantly more information added into the article which illustrates the notability of the subject. This is the last diff of the page prior to merger being executed, which is considerably more volumnous. As can be seen, the volume of all the information that is now currently available is considerable, and cannot all be solely contained in a short section in this article.

Hence, I hereby propose that the merger of Type 003 aircraft carrier be reversed and the article split off into its own article again, as circumstances have changed and there is now a significant load of information on the subject that now merits its own article. --—Madrenergictalk 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support spilt - Final version of article was sufficient for its own article. This may need to go to Deletion Review, however. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice! I'll try that. —Madrenergictalk 16:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear all, please note that I have initiated the deletion review discussion here. —Madrenergictalk 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There being no further input, I shall proceed to split the article. —Madrenergictalk 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

All info from reference 37 needs to be removed
Reference 37 was referring to the type 002 carrier not the type 003 carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucinator (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Shandong is 002 and not 001A
As per CCTV and the PLAN: http://news.cctv.com/2019/12/17/ARTIQwxfxdh6Wi4o7Tt8aNzV191217.shtml?spm=C96370.PsikHJQ1ICOX.Em32AuyOHUeL.11 Watch the video at 0:43. Says "002 Aircraft carrier commissioning ceremony".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQjgwBG3O-A ->same video, easier access. Nebakin (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Shandong#Shandong_is_Type_002_not_001 Nebakin (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chinese aircraft carrier programme
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chinese aircraft carrier programme's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "crs_orourke_2021": From Type 075 landing helicopter dock:  From Type 055 destroyer:  From Chinese aircraft carrier Fujian: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)