Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Soviet Nimitz?

I'm moving this content here until Mathieu121 can back this up:

A new design based on the Ulyanovsk and the americain Nimitz-class super carriers is being researched and constructed for the Russian Navy[citation needed].

[edit] Uncited material

The following has been removed from the article:

As new aircraft-carriers come into production today, they are seen as a leading symbol of a nation, not of power[citation needed], therefore it is higly probable that a new aircraft-carrier design will be in production.[citation needed] In 2005, unconfirmed sources indicated that the People's Republic of China Navy (PLAN) may purchase the blueprints of Ulyanovsk as part of its ambition to achieve "blue-water" capability.[citation needed]

Per the verifiability policy, please provide reliable sources for these assertions before adding them to the article. Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specs added by anonyomous user and reverted by Aerobird

I think the specs that the anonymous user entered were from GlobalSecurity/John Pike, where as the table specs are from Andrew Toppan. I am more inclined to believe John Pike's figures, but it'd be nice to have a more definitive source on this. Since the carrier was partially constructed, there must be some hard information somewhere. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk)

One reason I reverted them was because they introduced contridictory data - in the infobox, the displacement was changed from 80,000 tons to 65,000 tons, while in the article the same original number was changed to 85,000 tons. I checked the HazeGray listing (link in article) and found it agreed with the 'original' data, so I changed it back.
People (nearly always anons) changing specifications w/out citing a source is rapidly becoming a pet peeve of mine... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)