Talk:List of aircraft carriers in service

"Planned" carrier for France
According to a (very brief} article in Le Figaro;

An editor added an entry for France to the "Planned carriers" table based on this cite, with a "commission date" of "2040". I have since removed that entry. This fails WP:CRYSTAL. This is way too tenuous and speculative to support an entry to the table. Just because they announced a "study" to look into replacing Charles de Gaulle when she is possibly decommissioned 22 years from now, "and reserve the right to do so", is a far cry from actually planning a carrier, with the legislation, budgeting, contract tendering, etc. that goes into that process. - the WOLF  child  16:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we need something more substantial before we can update the planned entry table. Something on the lines of an announcement in a WP:RS that the country indeed plans to build one, as is the case with Brazil should be a minimal requirement. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations
I believe that all tbd abbreviations in the article should be capitalised to TBD. JackintheBox (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC) From our MOS, "...since acronym by itself is also frequently inclusive of initialisms. Herein, the term acronym applies collectively to initialisms." Also, "Acronyms whose letters are pronounced individually are written in capitals." Primergrey (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? This and other articles have used "tbd" for years with no issues. That's years of stability and consensus. Why change now? - the WOLF  child  22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thewoldchild. TBA implies that the abbreviation is an acronym for a proper noun, which this is not. - Nick Thorne talk 23:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All other articles and all dictionaries that I have seen use the abbreviation of TBD in uppercase, such as when referring to a yet-to-be-determined date or value etc. For instance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I suggest doing that to this article as well for consistency. Moreover, TBD is an initialism, which should be capitalised. JackintheBox  • User_talk:JackintheBox 13:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well other things exist, but that is not a persuasive argument. - Nick Thorne talk 02:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * TBD is not an acronym, as an acronym is "an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word", while TBD is an initialism, which consists of "initial letters pronounced separately", and is always capitalised, as can be seen at List of acronyms: T. Expressing TBD in lowercase would not be a correct format, just as it would be incorrect to show P.S., HIV, LCD or DIY in lowercase (all of which are initialisms for common nouns, not proper nouns). — JackintheBox • User_talk:JackintheBox 12:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As if yet, there has been no policy cited here, so it falls to consensus. So far, there is no consensus supporting change. Also, I'm not sure why this is so important to you, but no one else seems to have a problem with it. - the WOLF  child  14:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Much of what I do on Wikipedia is to improve the grammar, punctuation and/or formatting of articles (which is important to me), despite whether there is any established consensus to do so. But since no-one seems to be supporting my proposed change on this article, I will just leave it as it is. Thanks— JackintheBox • User_talk:JackintheBox 05:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of differences of opinion on this when I changed tbd to TBD in the article, and I must say that technical distinctions between acronyms, initialisms and such didn't and don't particularly concern me in this case. I merely googled on, noticed that TBD in capitals was universal (I saw one Tbd, but not a single instance of tbd), and acted accordingly. A general consensus would be, I think, around the normally used form. Roy McCoy (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia's purposes, there is no distinction between acronyms and initialisms. The guidance is clearly to use all caps. Primergrey (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Naval flag
In the first table, under "Summary", the 2nd column lists the country's Naval ensign, not their Naval jack, (along with a link to the name of the national navy). That is how the template is set up. FYI - the WOLF  child  17:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with ton displacement
Is there a problem with metric ton / imperial ton for displacement of US carrier? Isnt Gerald Ford supposed to be larger than Nimitz class?

07:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:8AC1:F000:21E:65FF:FE50:CE56 (talk)
 * Hmmm... I also thought they were heavier. I thought their page said they were 110,000 (of whichever of the numerous variations of tons we use). I found one source that says their displacement is 112,000 tons I suppose some researching and confirming is needed. - wolf  09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Page Title Is Misleading
Should be "List of aircraft carriers out of service" or "List of aircraft carriers being serviced". "In Service" implies working just fine. We thank soldiers for their service, their deployment, not for their time out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqgl (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't say "List of aircraft carriers out of service" several on the list are still in service Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How can we merge this sentence "currently in service, being serviced, in reserve, under construction, or being rebuilt" Mitchellhobbs (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In civilian life a lift/elevator is "out of service" if it is being serviced/repaired. Maybe the military uses the word in a different way? You give an example of one of the the carriers in the list: "USS Abraham Lincoln just left for the middle east". Then surely it is no longer being repaired/serviced and shouldn't be on this wiki page!? I am not military person so please help me and others understand. Isn't this page supposed to be a listing of carriers which are temporarily not being used due to repair? Sqgl (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll be glad to help ~ I don't think this page is talking about being serviced. In military terms in service means active duty ~ I'll  read the whole page and see what general term we can figure out so you don't have to be ex military to understand, It's a lot of reading give me a couple of days ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sqgl, Maybe this might help ~ when you search Wikipedia in service it leads to here Domestic worker. Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So we agree on what "in service" means. Therefore the title is indeed misleading because there are only two US carriers listed here. There are only two US carriers listed here yet we both know there are more than two in "active duty" therefore the intent of the page is to show which ones are "being serviced" aka "out of service". This page is not intended for ships "in service"/"active duty" so it should not mention "in service".Sqgl (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sqgl, Thanks for your answer ~ but there is alot more than two currently on active duty ~ if you look at the commissioned table most of those are "In service" in military talk and this a military type page ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between the military definition of "in service" and the civillian defnition. We have established this. The table only shows two "in service" which you agree is synonymous with "on active duty". However there are, as you note, "more than two currently on active duty" so (my point all along) the table is not showing "in service" (aka "active duty") carriers as it purports, it is in reality showing "out of service" carriers and it should be labelled as such.Sqgl (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have spotted the misunderstanding! I only ever noticed the page had the illustrated table at the very start. What the hell does that table represent? This is what I have been commenting on. I neer scrolled further. Now I see there are numerical tables which include the entire fleet and that is what you are commenting on. We were commenting on completely different tables. Sorry. But now we know that first (illustrated) table needs to have a caption/explanation. Sqgl (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like the problem is that the Summary Table for "List of aircraft carriers in service" should have a column for aircraft carriers that are currently in service, I'll add a missing information template. AdditionIV (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Images
Would it be better if the table has a photo for each aircraft carrier?--78.172.239.98 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Amphibious Assault Ships Are NOT ‘aircraft carriers’
Amphibious assault ships a.k.a. “helicopter carriers” are not aircraft carriers. For some reason, the Mistral class amphibious landing ship has been added as a ‘aircraft carrier’ which is ludicrous. Here is the designation and description of the amphibious assault ship. I don’t know why I was reverted but I’m quite happy to talk about why my edits were undone.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus to include large amphibs, especially those that can carry fixed-wing aircraft, in with with aircraft carrier-related articles. - wolf  15:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Table is incomplete
Summary Table for "List of aircraft carriers in service" should have a column for aircraft carriers that are currently in service, this column is currently missing. AdditionIV (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)