Talk:USS Gerald R. Ford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USS Gerald R. Ford. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production problems[edit]

Worth adding in that she was commissioned without working weapon elevators and along with other problems is not now expected to see a patrol until 2022/23, 6 years after commissioning. And that failing to fix her cost the defense secretary his job. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/09/for-the-us-navy-its-all-hands-on-deck-to-fix-the-ford/ --WatcherZero (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of December 2020, this ship is still not operational. The status "In Service" - should be corrected since this ship is NOT in active service. That is a false statement. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the Navy. They say she is active. - wolf 02:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ship's crest[edit]

I'm reluctant to touch this as an IP, but could some of the guff about the ship's crest be compressed? The language is not remotely neutral. 131.111.184.3 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Davemck (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ship length[edit]

There is a duplicate discussion at Talk:Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier#Ship length. It is not practical to continue this thread as well. - wolf 20:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Huntington Ingalls Industries said the length is 1106 feet [1] 75.139.201.84 (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length may have changed since 2013, it's better to use the later Navy source. BilCat (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The above ref cited by the ip user is from 2013 while the ref currently attached to the length in the infobox is from 2020. - wolf 02:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the second ref with longer length. It's not dated, but still a Navy ref. I'll hunt around and see if I can find a reason why different sources have differing lengths. - wolf 17:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic (Airlant) says length is 1106 feet [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.201.84 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already noted above, and you already noted in the duplicate thread you created (linked below). - wolf 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note
there is a duplicate of this OP at Talk:Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier#Ship length. - fyi - wolf 17:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heaviest?[edit]

How can Ford, at 100,000 tons, be heavier than Nimitz, at 100–105,000 tons? GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 deployment[edit]

@Thewolfchild: What exactly are you requesting sources for? The 2023 deployment? It's right there in the cited source: "The training cruise will partner the strike group with allied ships and will inform a traditional deployment in 2023, USNI News has learned." Are you objecting because USNI attributes this to anonymous sources? Why did you revert the typo fix and the quote fix? The qoute "having met initial operating capability" is wrong, it does not appear in the cited source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear in your summary why you were adding/changing content. It appearred to be new content with same/old source. - wolf 21:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is new content from the same source. Is that a problem? GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, like I said, that wasn't clear at the time, it appearred to be unsourced. Carry on. - wolf 23:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Propulsion[edit]

"Four shafts", what exactly is/are "four shafts"?, turbines perhaps? 107.190.98.138 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The shafts are what the propellors are attached to, (see: [3][4]). - wolf 20:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it deserves some clarification and have linked it to shafts. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of images[edit]

@Thewolfchild: MOS:IMAGELOC notes that the default location is on the right. But it discourages left-hand placing only if there is an outline because this sort of arrangement would mess with the placement of the bullet points. If you have an article with many images, it might be a good idea to place them both left and right, not just for aesthetic reasons but also to avoid them clumping up and colliding with the References section, creating an entire column of white space. Nerd271 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that isn't an issue on this page. The images were well placed for, and according to, each block. The clumping of them altogether in a single box took away from that, and wasn't a particular improvement visually, either. imo - wolf 02:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Wrong word) (I hope you're not confusing this with Virginia-class.) We don't have outlines where the images are located, so left-handed placement seems fine. If your screen is a lot narrower than mine, there is no problem with the current placement, except that all images are on the right in what is almost a continuous column. If your screen is the same as or wider than mine, you will see the pictures bumping into each other, and plunging down into the References section, creating an empty column. That's what I try to avoid. Another solution is to remove some images. We can add more images as the article expands. Nerd271 (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, yes different page, but same issue at the same time. As for this page, it doesn't seem image-heavy to me, but we could always let this sit for say... 24 hrs, to see if anyone else weighs in with an opinion. Seem reasonable? - wolf 03:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for 24 hours is alright. Nerd271 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Annnd 24 hours later, you revert again without a word here? You made an edit and it was reverted, we came to the talk page and discussed, it seems we don't agree on placement or the definition of "excessive". You've given no justification to ignore MOS:IMG in regards to placement nor explained how you feel there is too many images. There was no support for your edit and the article was basically stable before your changes. The article should remain at QUO unless and until there is further development here. - wolf 02:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I waited for 24 hours, but no one else came to share an opinion. So I decided to be bold. I have already explained my views above and on my talk page. For the record, I have consulted MOS:ACCESS, which links to MOS:ACCIM, MOS:IM, and WP:IMGDD. None of them advise against what I tried to do. I'm asking for a third opinion. Nerd271 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about necessity of images and their locations):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on USS Gerald R. Ford and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think that Nerd271's version best comports with the MOS. Per MOS:IMAGE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.. The current version of the article has four separate images of just the ship—not including the image box—which seems a bit excessive. Images should also, according to MOS:IMAGELOC, generally be placed in the most relevant article section. Placing all images on the right side of the page does not accomplish that. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.

@Voorts: I have no comment regarding the number of images, but wrt to image placement, the MOS does note that staggering the images is an option. I see no reason why they can't be staggered now, (starting on the right in each section). As per MOS:IMGLOC: "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward.", and per MOS:ACCIM: "Avoid placing images on the left hand side as a consistent left margin makes reading easier.". - wolf 05:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild and Voorts: There are no bulleted lists in the pertinent sections. Furthermore, images should be belong in their sections. Nerd271 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think that left-side images opposite the infobox should be avoided; it is akin to the sandwiching demonstrated at MOS:SANDWICH. Why have none of you suggested creating a gallery using {{Gallery}} as a way out of your squabble?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Thewolfchild, Voorts, and Trappist the monk: There are no bulleted lists in the pertinent sections. Furthermore, images should be belong in their sections. For example, makes no sense for a photograph of President Ford, the namesake of the ship, to appear anywhere other than the Naming section. I suppose one could remove it, but it is an image of him in his naval uniform, making it especially relevant. The infobox is necessarily long, and that makes the right-handed placement of his picture particularly jarring because it appears down in the paragraphs on the testing and commissioning of the ship, depending on the width and zoom settings of your screen. In addition to removing some of the images and placing a few of the remaining ones leftward, one could consider using the template for multiple images with the vertical alignment. This saves some space and creates a continuous column. This could be used to visually tell the story of the ship. Nerd271 (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stacking horizontally is another option. See this example. Nerd271 (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a gallery with the multiple pictures of the ships is fine, but I think that the other images (e.g., the photo of Gerald Ford) should go with the section that they're related to, which means aligning some of them to the left. I don't think there's a sandwiching concern with the infobox given that the image of Ford is so small. Having everything aligned right and running down below the infobox is just straight up ugly. To the extent the style guidelines might suggest otherwise (I don't believe that they do), then we should IAR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is something you should perhaps take up on the MOS talk page, and/or any other related guidance pages, that address these issues generally, instead of on a single, specific article talk page. That said, I still don't see any compelling reason, especially supported by P&G/MOS and/or consensus, to change the layout of this page, as it currently stands, wrt images. Thanks to all for your feedback. - wolf 03:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS does not say that images must run down the right side of the page.[1] The MOS is a guideline, and in the area of images in particular, there are apparently conflicting policies that need to be weighed against one another. IMAGELOC says Most [not All] images should be on the right side of the page. Likewise, ACCIM, uses the word avoid; it does not say "do not". Both policies give room for deviation; they are not absolutes. Otherwise, it would sometimes be impossible to follow IMAGELOC's guidance, which as I quoted above, says that images should be placed in the relevant section of the article.
The primary consideration should be capturing the spirit of the MOS:IMAGE, which is that images should be relevant and illustrative, not purely decorative. The article as it is currently laid out fails that test. First, aligning all images on the right means that they do not stay with the section of the article that they're relevant to, which as I noted above, is a primary consideration in MOS:SECTIONLOC. Second, including four very similar images of the same ship is purely decorative, amounting to FANCRUFT.

References

  1. ^ If that were the rule, today's featured article would have failed FAC review because it has an image on the left side of the page.
voorts (talk/contributions) 04:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that aligning all images to the right so that they're in a straight line, with no gaps in between—like the current version of this article—negatively affects the "readability" of the images themselves. It's hard to look at a bunch of images that are all pushed up together and get anything out of them. Instead of a wall of text, it's a wall of images. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thewolfchild, Voorts, and Trappist the monk I suppose I could remove some images to make sure those that remain are located in the appropriate sections, regardless of screen size. I think that's the best one can do without significantly changing the layout of this article. I shall be bold and make that edit. Nerd271 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. This discussion started because you already made a bold edit and it was reverted. We are past the bold-edits-stage and in the proposing-edits-in-the-discussion-and-awaiting-support-for-them-beforehand-stage. - wolf 20:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we come to some sort of consensus? I understand your concerns about the rules saying images should be right-aligned, but at the same time, everyone else in this conversation has cited MOS guidelines that allow for the contrary. There's got to be some sort of middle ground. It would be kind of silly to do an RfC on the placement of photographs. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of trimming the images, especially if it helps with layout. My suggestions would be:
  • Remove island photo as uninformative (can't even tell that it's being lowered down)
  • Keep dry dock photo as informative— we don't get to see a lot of bows below the waterline
  • Remove christening photo as trivial
  • Remove sea trials photo as redundant
  • Keep group photo with Truman as informative— size comparison.
  • Keep Maybe remove shock trial photo as adding variety not adding any specific value. But it is a very cool photo.
  • Remove return-from-deployment photo as redundant
Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree except:
  1. I'm on the fence about the christening photo; per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Strive for variety.
  2. I would keep the shock trial photo for the same reason.
Thank you for taking the time to review. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Re: christening, I think the spirit of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is to allow for variety in photos that depict the subject of the article, and the christening photo doesn't really show anything relevant at all— but I don't feel that strongly about it either way. On the other hand, I can easily see how that applies to the shock trial photo so I've adjusted my suggestion above. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the christening captures the ship from a different perspective: its political function. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the discussion centering on number of images instead of placememt, (I agree, it would be silly to have to go to an RfC, just to change alignmemt, as they are fine where they are, and not causing any of the issues that the MOS bits are being cited as a basis for change). Moving on to the number of images, I don't really see how these 8 images are somehow over-whelming the page, which is currently 60kB in size and as of now the lead and only active ship of the class. The article is quite stable with these images, and has been for some time. (jmho) - wolf 07:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild Are you willing to compromise given that several of us have a different view? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: This is a great point by Voorts. Nerd271 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

I just want to add that in addition to using image stacking as mentioned above (and that was used at USS Enterprise (CVN-80) to seemingly resolve the problems there), I haven't noticed any consideration of how this looks on mobile devices (which, in my understanding, is how the majority of readers consume Wikipedia content). On a mobile device, these images are all perfectly fine, as they're grouped with their section as expected. It's only on desktop devices that you get bunching/layout issues, which could likely be mitigated with image stacking. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole I'd be willing to try stacking, but I still think some of the images should be removed per Orange Suede Sofa. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is a need to remove any images, and doing so should only be done if there is a consensus to do so. Either way, the images should remain aligned to the right, (or alternating, beginning on the right of each section). The page looks fine on mobile, but if someone wants to stack or altenate the images for the article's appearence on a pc screen, give a try and let's see how it looks. Otherwise, creating a gallery is another option. (imho) - wolf 23:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: Towards the beginning, you wrote, I have no comment regarding the number of images. I see that have changed your mind. Nerd271 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have a comment at that time, but then I was asked for one. nbd. - wolf 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Suede Sofa and I have provided policy reasons (namely, that images should be informative, not purely decorative) for removing some of them. Do you have reasons for keeping the images we've proposed removing in the article? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to come back and see if I can tweak it, I think ultimately it'll be image stacking and a gallery with captions that will work best here. As to the number of images, while I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the best argument, one need only look at USS Enterprise (CVN-65) to see this article is actually on the lighter side of image counts. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is 2069 words according to Prosesize; the Enterprise article is over double that, at 5979 words. This article has 8 images (excluding the infobox). Enterprise has a whopping 27, with lots of sandwiching. That said, unlike this article, most of them are unique or add something compelling (but, and this is why other stuff exist is a bad argument, some of those images should probably be deleted). Here, we have several boring wide shots of the same ship that look the same. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a better example might have been USS Iowa (BB-61) (which is also a featured article), and might paint a way for us to stagger the images to avoid the current formatting and layout issues. With that being said, you're also raising concerns over the images themselves. To make this discussion simpler, let's see them here:
The only image I see potentially being redundant (or "decorative") is File:USS Gerald R. Ford returns after completing its inaugural deployment to the Atlantic Ocean, 26 November 2022 (221126-N-QI061-2036R).jpg, as that image is simply a ground level view of the same angle as the infobox image. The side by side with the Truman helps show scale. The shock trial image is clearly unique in what it shows as far as testing goes. The island installation and drydock images are critical parts of the construction of a ship that will likely be in service for decades. Christening events (and an image of the event) are very important steps in a ships history. The photo of the namesake, in military uniform, I think is clearly relevant (I don't think anyone above has indicated otherwise, but just for the sake of completeness). I think the last image is the only one potentially guilty of being "decorative". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole I'm fine nixing the last one and keeping the rest. Should we make a sandbox page to mess around with layout? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: the USS Iowa infobox picture is badass. Can we change the infobox here to the shock trial? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please! Action shots make the page come alive. This is a warship after all. Nerd271 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So visual story telling it is. I support removing some of the images, too. I think the third and last ones should go. Nerd271 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Gerald_R._Ford&oldid=1213174694"