Talk:Project Flat Top

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Edits per discussion on WikiProject Military history talk[edit]

User:Btphelps on 3 June 2022 you asked for comments on this page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history under the heading New Vietnam-era article about Army ship which is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 167#New Vietnam-era article about Army ship. I gave my comments on 6 June to which you did not reply. My comments were endorsed by User:Intothatdarkness on 9 June. You still gave no response and so on 13 July I made the changes that I outlined. You have now reverted those changes which goes against the consensus. So as you know, you can either restore my changes in line with that consensus or you can seek a new consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Mztourist's changes, and would have made some of them myself had time allowed. This article isn't the place to rehash the Howze Board or the development of airmobility doctrine. The Howze Board article is very solid in this regard, so an internal link is really all that's needed. The fixation on the 1st Cavalry Division also isn't appropriate: to give one example, the 1st Aviation Brigade controlled far more aircraft (ten times as many at its peak strength) and would have made heavy use of the ship's facilities. Intothat darkness 15:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that having that much padding actually detracts from the significance of the article's subject. This is the approach I took when I worked on the Howze Board article and opted for links to the appropriate sections of articles detailing the test units rather than duplicating that information in the Board article. Intothat darkness 23:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear what others have to say. Seeking input from others with an interest in the military history / Vietnam War: User:Binksternet, User:CommanderBond_007, User:Cuprum17, User:Rjensen, User:Seanbarnett, User:ItemCo16527, User:JohnKent, User:Cinderella157, User:Trappist_the_monk. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 02:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked on this article, so I don't have the experience with it that all of you do but I would be inclined to agree with Mztourist and Intothatdarkness. There is a lot of background material in the article now and sometimes when that happens it can actually detract from its focus on and impact regarding the principal subject matter. Sean Barnett (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping. My take is: theatre conditions and changes in doctrine created a greater reliance on helicopters and a greater exposure to combat damage. In turn, this created a logistical gap because of the distance between the forward area and base area repair in the US. The solution was a forward-base repair facility. I would tend to agree with the cull by Mztourist, in that there was too much intricate detail. However, I do think this was a tad too excessive. The present version of the background "jumps in boots and all". I think it needs to take a small step back (about a paragraph) that sets the scene - much like I have done in this post (I hope). I also observe that the lead is now out of step with the body of the article and also needs to be trimmed so that the weight of the lead matches the weight in the body. Hope that helps. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think many of these points may be addressed by judicious use of links to other articles. Why have a full discussion of the Howze Board, for example, when a solid article exists about it and its implications for Vietnam? The same may be said for the First Cavalry Division (although I still consider the fixation on it undue weight). The full focus of the article in my view should be on the ship itself, not every other issue surrounding it. One area for expansion might be the impact of the formation of a second airmobile division (the 101st) on the ship's operations and workload. Intothat darkness 16:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, User:Btphelps the consensus is clear, please reinstate the changes that I made or I will do so. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

A bunch of images of the ship can be found around here: [1]. I've uploaded a few to Commons. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]