Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

Older Discussions
Parked at Dalian naval port, eh? Isn't it parked near TianJin and open for display? I remeber seeing it anchored and there were people there selling tickets, my grandma went to see it at an office reunion a while back. edit - oops, that's Kiev


 * You are confusing the ex-Varyag second hull of the Kuznetsov class carriers with a Kiev class carrier sold to China to be converted into a tourist attraction.Fedoroff (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article needs to change as it is no longer the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag but is now the "former Soviet aricraft carrier Varyag, now PLAN vessel of unknown name" The beginning of the article should be current and reflect Chinese military ownership of the vessel. --Devin

Indeed an interesting story! Any reports in what has happened since the beginning of November? --Anders Törlind


 * I can't find any, which I find both surprising and frustrating. The hulk should be at the Suez canal by now, transit of which I would guess to be an operation almost as complex as the passage through Istanbul -- but I can't find anything!

One important fact that I didn't know where to put is that just because a tourist company is controlled by the PLAN doesn't mean that it isn't a real tourist company. The PLA ran a whole series of businesses in the 1990's. Most of those have been spun off.


 * This fact seems to have been incorporated.

Personally, I think that the people who bought the carrier really do want to turn it into a floating casino. If the PLAN gets to look at it while it gets turned into a casino, so much the better.


 * Where do you think they are they going to put it? (I'm not arguing, just wondering what you think.)

Something else that probably deserves mentioning is that in the late-1990's, a Chinese shipping company got a contract to salvage an Australian carrier, and reportedly, PLAN officers were all over the carrier as it was being disassembled.


 * Get the details, create another article, add links!

Why is this article called Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag instead of Varyag?


 * Because Varyag was to be a Kuznetsov-class multirole aircraft carrier. She was known as Riga when her keel was laid down at Nikolayev South (formerly Shipyard 444) on December 6, 1985, and she was launched on December 4, 1988, but she was renamed Varyag in late 1990.
 * ... And because there are many Varyags.Mikkalai 07:16, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In keeping with Wiki' naming convention shouldn't this be Varyag (Soviet aircraft carrier)? -- stewacide 07:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * No. See Naming conventions. Mikkalai 07:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cost
The 20 million figure must be wrong it is most likely 200 million or 2 billion because 20 million is less then a rich mans yacht costs Deng 2005-1130 17.25 CET

No, the price tag is correct if strategycenter.net, defense.mil, and globalsecurity.org reported the price tag as $20 million. (Psychoneko 02:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
 * No way it's $2bil, Deng. That's much of the way to a brand new Nimitz. Even $200mil seems high. Keep in mind that we're mostly talking about a vehicle capable of doing nothing more but sailing to be scrapped. That rich man's yacht that you refer to would have functioning engines and radar. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 08:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For 20 mil, I think that's pretty darn cheap for a aircraft carrier. Yongke 14:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, $20 mil pretty much covered the costs of the Varyag's hull without any systems. The Varyag at the time of the sale was literally a floating piece of scrap metal.  The other reason for the low price tag also has to do with the fact that the Varyag is considered to be a medium-weight carrier (roughly ~60,000 tons of displacement as opposed to the US Nimitz-class carriers of ~100,000 tons displacement).  The tons of displacement refer to full-operational displacement.  Fully outfitting the Varyag with propulsions and a full electronic and defensive suite would see an exponential increase on the price tag.  (Psychoneko 08:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Its only scrap value. 35.000 tons of steel worth about 20 milions of dollars. Real value is intelectual property which can be obtained by studying this vessel. Lots of RnD went in this hull. Its like US Army decied to sold USS Nimitz hull for its scrap value. 213.137.115.235 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed operation statement
I left in the statement that the ship was painted grey but took out the statement about it confirming plans to make the ship operational by 2010.

Roadrunner 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Varyag being used by the PLAN
Here is a link from strategycenter.net regarding the confirmation of the Varyag sporting PLAN navy grey colours: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.97/pub_detail.asp (Psychoneko 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Here's another strategycenter.net link for citation purposes: http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.87/pub_detail.asp (Psychoneko 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Shi Lang / 83
Added provisional name of Shi Lang and pennant number 83. The name has been floating around for months and Janes have added this to JFS in the Jan 2007 update. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koxinga CDF (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Weapons and Stats section
Assuming if the PLAN re-fit this ship for training or operation at sea, it's very unlikely that they'd import and install the same weapons suite as originally intended for this ship. I think the weapons section should probably be listed as "Currently none" or something similar. -- Adeptitus 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PLAN has been asking quotation from russian manufacturer on carriers parts like arresting cables. but it is questionable if they are going to arm the ship if it is intended only of training and evaluation. Akinkhoo 07:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move
I think that the title "Soviet aircraft Varyag" should be renamed to "Aircraft carrier Varyag". Although built by the Soviets it is now currently in the PRC apparently being rebuilt for the PLAN. It would be more appropriate to drop the expired national term.

If there are any objections or other suggestions, please put them down here. Otherwise I will rename the article next time I come across it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Until there is Chinese official confirmation of the new name, it would be silly to move it, just to move it again. Let's wait until Shi Lang is confirmed, then maybe a new article can be started or this can be moved to 'Chinese aircraft carrier Shi Lang'. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend following the pattern of the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov page. That page covered all the history of the ship up until the Indian Navy actually purchased it. A new page was created when the IN assigned it a new name, INS Vikramaditya. I'd recommend following that pattern here, with some overlap on both pages covering its term as a floating hulk. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

She ?
Why the use of she for an object ??? 74.58.2.199 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a stylistic figure of speech. The article should probably be edited to use something more appropriate. Darthveda (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The use in English of feminine pronouns for ships is an old and continuing naval tradition. While not everyone agrees with the use of "she" for ships in formal writing (myself included), it is allowed per WP:MILMOS, and thus not inappropriate. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74 for the most recent duscussions on the issue. - BillCJ (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy of flight deck of Varyag built in Wuhan
Information is appearing on the Internet that the roof of a building at Wuhan’s Ship Research Center appears to be a scale mock up of the flight deck of Varyag.

The purpose of this is currently unclear.

http://shanghaiist.com/2009/10/19/wuhan_builds_a_cement_aircraft_carr.php http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/concrete-aircraft-carrier-building-wuhan/

86.4.186.90 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Style
Since when is every article hand-patched by spaces and whatnot? Please follow the normal style. --91.55.211.58 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The spaces are the normal style. Please don't remove the hidden note which asks not to be removed. Thanks for your cooperation. - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Read about styles on web pages, you do not even get the vocabulary right. If you want to increase distances, change the style sheet or at least give an explanation why this is a special case. Thank you for your understanding. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only "style" that matters on WP is the Manual of Style. DOn't try to apply something from some other program or website to WP. When editing many articles for hours at a time, as I do, the test runs together. Line spaces help to break up the text, and make finding specific sections easier. This is not a "special case", but how Wiki markup works on all the pages on WP. Computers are here to help people, not the other way around. We're not in the world of Terminators just yet! - BilCat (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know where this other web site comes in. Wikipedia has a style sheet which sets fonts and colors, but also distances. Style sheets are used to give pages a unified look (this is user friendly) and to ease maintenance (imagine the nightmare you'd have to do this on every wiki page). If you don't know it, read it up. If you don't like it, change it.
 * The Manual of Style is about content, not display. Please don't murk the water.
 * Well, maybe you edit too much or your eyes are bad. In either case, don't use this as a base assumption. It is very, very, very easy to discern between text and box in this case. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I know the MoS does not suggest extra blank lines before navboxen, and there is indeed a stylesheet element (a family of classes called "navbox foo"). From discussions I have seen this sets an amount of vertical space, among other things, before each box and before each group of boxes. Therefore, depending on the case I suggest: As BilCat says "Computers are here to help people" - so have the change in one place not every article with a navbox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
 * "The spaces are the normal style. " Go and get the site wide css changed.
 * "When editing many articles for hours at a time, as I do, the test runs together." Find someone to help fix your css to give more space.


 * After a bit of looking, I can't find any policy or guideline that permits or denies the use of a line break in this manner. That said, I think it looks ridiculous, and I don't see any need for it. Though I must admit that I find it amusing to edit war over a single line break.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a hidden note asking someone not to remove something, but they do it anyway, my natural assumption is it's vandalism, or they are doing it just because they've been asked not too. It's hard to assume good faith in such cases, especially when they jsut keep on removing it after I ask them not to. The best thing to do would have been to ask on the talk page and find out why someone felt it was needed in the first place, instead of just being a WP:DICK and continuing to remove it. Those are not the actions of someone operating in good faith, or they are just plain arrogant. Call it a "Lame edit war" if you must, but that's a bit unfair to what was actually going on here. I'm not the peron who added the note, but I do recognize that the AWB drones are a problem, and do remove line spaces that are useful when editing long sections in sby breaking up the text. In IE8, it usually does not affect the output to the main page at all. (I don't see how changing my CSS would affect that - were not talking about the article main screen, only the edit screen) If there is an issue with other browsers, then that should have been stated up front, or at least mentioned. That's why I've stated that people should come first - what the heck differnce does extra line spaces matter in the edit screens if it's not affecting the output? - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to put your lies in perspective: I started this discussion at 00:52, 12 December 2009, after which you reverted twice.
 * Your discussion of browsers tells me that you don't understand the underlying problem: That these things are to be solved at style sheet level, not by patching up every article. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop the personal attacks - some users have been known to go whining to ANI at every little slight - you wouldn't want that. While I don't have a clue what the style sheet problem is, no one has to this point showed me how that affects the edit screen in any way. If someone can, then plese do. TMI, style sheets are about the output. - BilCat (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You've mixed up personal attacks with calling a spade a spade. You lied, I called it.
 * Read this: Cascading Style Sheet --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm done discussing this with you, per WP:DNFT. - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:LAYOUT: "Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." And, yes, the navbox section counts as a section. --  Wasell ( T ) 09:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasell, can you direct me to where it says that navboxes are considered a "section"? Incidentally, I find it intriguing that on the Layout page itself that there are several extra lines before the first navbox. If this were indeed such an ironclad no-no (I'm not convinced that it is, myself), wouldn't one expect that the editors working on that page—whom one might expect to be among the most familiar with these guidelines themselves—would ensure that such a "mistake" wouldn't appear there? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasell, the problem I've seen is that AWB often removes the single blank lines. Apparently, that was the case here too. I've asked to person who added it to expalin his reasonings here. - BilCat (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see! Well, I didn't know that AWB "often removes the single blank lines". But since that is apparently a common occurrence, I have no doubt that you can (purely for my edification, of course) give me a small list of diffs where AWB breaks WP:LAYOUT in this particular way. I'd be very thankful if you would provide me with such a list! --  Wasell ( T ) 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I can't provide you with diffs - I made it up! :P I'll check around, and see what I can find by tommorrow - I have to be away from the comp for awhile today, and I'm installing a new hardrive on my comp, so this won't be a top priority. I can show you hundreds of diffs where AWB bots removed single vertical spaces from within templates, thus makeing it harder for people with aging or defective Mk.1 Eyeballs to find the sections in long templates, but that;s not the primary issue here. I'm sure there is guideline mandating the removal of all blank lines within templates, as AWB would never do anything agianst the MOS or LAYOUT! I just haven't found the guideline yet. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Feeding time is over. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While the diffs might come useful trying to pin down the problem, it does not really affect the matter at hand: If the AWB is broken, it should be fixed. If it follows WP:LAYOUT but that is broken, that should be fixed. Adding a crutch to every article with a box is really no solution at all. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was the one who added the extra space and the note to this article. In my opinion, not having an extra space before a navbox is aesthetically unpleasing because without it—in my viewing experience, at least—the navbox "crashes" (i.e. follows much too closely) with the preceding text. If one looks at this version of the article (and forgives my error of including the navbox twice) one can compare the default spacing of the first box (under the "See also" header) and the spacing of the second box (under the "External links" header), which has the extra space added.
 * One solution that resolves this "crash" is to add an extra line, so that the navbox is given room to breathe. Regrettably, this solution is viewed as an editing mistake (as it typically is elsewhere in an article) and "corrected" as part of the "general fixes" by the AutoWikiBrowser (AWB). A discussion on making a change to AWB's general fixes for this purpose went nowhere, but the "solution" of adding a non-breaking space was proffered. To prevent human editors from unknowingly removing an intentional non-breaking space (which, of course, looks identical to a regular space in an edit window), I added the html note of explanation. And to be fair, the note does not explicitly state that it is not to be removed.
 * In the specific case of this article, if the consensus is to remove the extra space, I have no problem with it. But the decision should be based on a discussion of the merits of having or not having the space in this article, rather than on blindly following the Manual of Style or resorting to personal attacks. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I might even agree with you; I haven't made up my mind. I wouldn't agree however if you'd say that the missing extra space is aesthetically unpleasing in some cases but not in others. So bring it up to whatever forum is responsible for the style sheet.
 * Don't fix AWB if it follows WP:LAYOUT, fix WP:LAYOUT instead. (Then adjust AWB.)
 * Don't add instructions to editors in comments. Without thinking for a second, you can think of dozens of cases in which you would ignore such instruction. Let the change stand for itself, or let it fall. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to your points:
 * Agree with what? I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain?
 * I'm not trying to "fix" AWB; what I did prevents users with AWB from unintentionally altering the space as a part of the "general fixes" applied by AWB
 * Frankly, no, I can't "think of dozens of cases". If I were editing a page of which I am not a regular contributor, I would not be so arrogant as to think that other editors hidden notes are automatically wrong just because they were not written by me. And why not add instructions to other editors? I can think of many instances where a notes to future editors on references, on sorting keys, etc., would be extremely useful. Besides, they don't show up for readers, and they—not editors, not style-sheet advocates, not MOS gurus, not AWBers, and not wiki-aestheticians—are the ones that we are writing the encyclopedia for. If a hidden note in the text helps us to have a better product for our readers, then I'm all for it. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I might agree that the distance between text and box is too small.
 * That's worse. Fixing AWB would be better; fixing WP:LAYOUT better still. Fixing individual web pages is truly 20th century tech; we can do better now. (This is assuming that there is indeed something wrong with the distance.)
 * What about this: (I can think of some ruder examples if you want.)
 * That's just to show that these directives have no value. Whatever they describe might very well have. For example, I wouldn't remove the common comment, even though they usually don't contain a directive.  --91.55.208.131 (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB drones
Can someone please explain what the remark about "AWB drones" is referring to? Thanks! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AWB—AutoWikiBrowser. It's poor man's bot. Among other things, it (quite correctly) removes unnecessary vertical white-space, so that the Wiki style sheets work properly. For some strange reason, some people think it's a good idea to break this functionality by adding pointless HTML comments in the page source. HTH. --  Wasell ( T ) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Navboxes are typically added below the last section in an article, which is often a "References" (or "Bibliography", "Notes", etc. depending on the citation style) or an "External links" section. Since a navbox is neither a citation nor an external link, editors often add extra spaces to help convey to our readers that the navbox is, indeed, a different animal than what otherwise appears under those headings, which hardly constitutes a "pointless" reason in my book. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that navboxes have a colored background to achieve that. I don't think another seperation device is necessary. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because some readers have impaired or limited vision that prevents or makes difficult the perception of color on screen, the Manual of Style cautions against using only color as a cue or means of presenting information. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Thinking of the impaired, one should also consider confusing WP:ACCESS hard-/software by non-content comments. I don't know much about them though. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra Line Spaces

 * Here's a bot edit where an exrta line space was added between the cats and stub tempaltes. - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * These aren't meant for you - Wasell asked for some examples of line space edits by bots, this was what I found in my first search. - BilCat (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, he asked for edits removing a single line, which is what the comment in review is supposed to protect against. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have pointed out ad nauseum, there is only suppoed to be one line between section. The bot added an extra line in violation of the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do your homework: It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it. This just proves that AWB works fine.
 * Also, be civil and stop the provocations. --91.55.217.234 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pot. Kettle. Black. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest Updates
China Defense Blog announced that a new radar mast has been installed on aircraft carrier Varyag. Can the wiki page be updated to reflect on the change?? thx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Yiin (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

startegypage has also reported the same news Joseph Yiin (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cost: 20 million?
Could this be right? That's the price of a single F-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.120.51 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes... there are plenty of sources that confirm that the ship was sold for $20 million to a Hong Kong based travel agency to be used as a floating hotel. This is comparable to the £5 million bid for HMS Invincible by a Chinese businessman who wanted to convert her into a floating college. Pre-owned aircraft carriers seem to be going pretty cheap... 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Shi Lang
If the carrier is entering service in the Chinese navy as the "Shi Lang" then the article's name should also be the "Shi Lang" instead of "Soviet Aircraft Carrier Varyag"

--Tovojolo (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The convention seems to be to have separate articles. For example, the American ship USS Phoenix (CL-46) became the ARA General Belgrano. However, currently I don't think it is entirely certain that it's named the Shi Lang, and there doesn't seem to be enough content to support two articles. Once the new name is certain, perhaps a rename with a redirect from the old one? ( Hohum  @ ) 01:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We have at least two independent third parties in the US and China who have both confirmed the name now. I think it's likely time to start a Shi Lang article. If they choose to rename it on commissioning we can always move that article then. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The most authoritative source, Janes, only says it may have been named that - the other sources are; a potentially self published site (anyone know what makes jeffhead a WP:reliable source?) - nice bunch of pictures though; the other source is subscription only. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the latest photos showing construction gear being removed, suggesting possibly an upcoming sea trial? Ebrockway (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * sea trial pretty much going to happen in the week ahead. crew boarded this week and no fly zone is in effect at bohai, likely where the trial would begin... keep in mind however that during the J-20 test flight there was a few no show! nothing happens until it actually happens ;) Akinkhoo (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Shi Lang and other names conjectured is never confirmed by official.--刻意(Kèyì) 03:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. I'd suggest creating a new article at Chinese aircraft carrier, or something similar, and it can be moved once the official name is known. I'll work on that in the next day or 2 if there ano objections. This will be similar to the split of Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov and INS Vikramaditya. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the edit history of be merged with  ? The old article covered the same topic as the newer Future article. (no overlapping edit history either) 70.24.246.151 (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've completed the split to Chinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag. There is still some work to be done on the text of both articles to limit the amount of overlap, so any help with that task would be greatly appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"after refit"
As we have a separate article for Chinese aircraft carrier ex-Varyag, the after refit information should be removed from the infobox, since it goes in the scope Chinese article, while this one is about the pre-refit ship. 70.24.246.151 (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)