This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
USS Ranger (CV-4) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 25, 2013, February 25, 2017, and February 25, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After discussions, the advice is to use naval ensigns, not jacks - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Tables. The correct US flag has been selected by a template - see the US entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Ensigns. Folks at 137 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to request a review of this page by editors as a candidate to be moved from a stub article to a full article based on the fact that it has now been extensively inline referenced and verifiably sourced with citations applied.
Ussrangercv4 ( talk) 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Friedman in his book US Aircraft Carriers says that the Ranger was unprotected and on page 391 lists "none" as the belt, bulkhead and deck armor. Do we know for sure the armor cited in the article is correct? Ski206 ( talk) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
NavsourceLists her having 2" sides and bulkheads. I've read she did not have a belt and looking at all of the pictures and models found around the Internet I'd have to agree. They didn't make internal belts in those days. I think labeling it a belt is inaccurate. -- Traumatic ( talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The introduction includes a sentence regarding the number of carriers lost during World War II. The proper reference point is to say that the U.S. began the war with seven carriers and only three survived, Ranger being one. To include Langley is improper, as it had been converted to a seaplane tender before the war. Yes, Langley was lost during the war, but this sentence discusses carrier losses, not seaplane tender losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:9680:36:4891:26C6:FCF4:D605 ( talk) 03:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've received an email circular containing amongst other things what looks like a good quality official photo of Ranger in the Atlantic in 1941. It shows the stern, 50 biplanes + the island and funnels. Would anyone be willing to add it if I sent it -or has this been discussed and rejected before? Regards JRPG ( talk) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
At http://www.armouredcarriers.com I read (don't remember the exact page) that the reason for Ranger's absence from Pacific was her lacking underwater protection. Does anyone have other sources (books etc.) to verify that? 93.142.165.145 ( talk) 20:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I find this a little confusing:
To save money, Ranger was initially designed and commissioned without torpedo stowage or a torpedo bomber squadron. Wasp was designed and commissioned to match.
I'm not sure what this passage is trying to say about the Wasp. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)