text:
Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

Akagi (Japanese: 赤城, "red castle") was an aircraft carrier built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), named after Mount Akagi in present-day Gunma Prefecture. Though she was laid down as an Amagi-class battlecruiser, Akagi was converted to an aircraft carrier while still under construction to comply with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. The ship was rebuilt from 1935 to 1938 with her original three flight decks consolidated into a single enlarged flight deck and an island superstructure. The second Japanese aircraft carrier to enter service, and the first large or "fleet" carrier, Akagi and the related Kaga figured prominently in the development of the IJN's new carrier striking force doctrine that grouped carriers together, concentrating their air power. This doctrine enabled Japan to attain its strategic goals during the early stages of the Pacific War from December 1941 until mid-1942.

Akagi's aircraft served in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. Upon the formation of the First Air Fleet or Kido Butai (Striking Force) in early 1941, she became its flagship, and remained so for the duration of her service. With other fleet carriers, she took part in the Attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942. The following month, her aircraft bombed Darwin, Australia, and assisted in the conquest of the Dutch East Indies. In March and April 1942, Akagi aircraft helped sink a British heavy cruiser and an Australian destroyer in the Indian Ocean Raid.

After a brief refit, Akagi and three other fleet carriers of the Kido Butai participated in the Battle of Midway in June 1942. After bombarding American forces on the atoll, Akagi and the other carriers were attacked by aircraft from Midway and the carriers USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Hornet (CV-8), and USS Yorktown (CV-5). A single dive bomber from Enterprise severely damaged Akagi. When it became obvious she could not be saved, she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. The loss of Akagi and three other IJN carriers at Midway was a crucial strategic defeat for Japan and contributed significantly to the Allies' ultimate victory in the Pacific. Her wreck was located in 2019 by the Research Vessel Petrel.

Construction and launch
Akagi was laid down as an Amagi-class battlecruiser at Kure, Japan, on 6 December 1920. Construction was halted, however, when Japan signed the Washington Naval Treaty on 6 February 1922. The treaty placed restrictions on the construction of battleships and battlecruisers although it authorized conversion of two battleship or battlecruiser hulls under construction into aircraft carriers of up to 33000 LT displacement. The IJN had decided, following the launch of its first aircraft carrier, JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Hōshō, to construct two larger, faster carriers for operations with major fleet units. The incomplete hulls of JAPANESE BATTLECRUISER Amagi and Akagi were thus selected for completion as the two large carriers under the 1924 fleet construction program. ¥24.7 million was originally budgeted to complete Akagi as a battlecruiser and an estimated ¥8 million had been expended when construction stopped in February 1922. Shortly thereafter, the Diet approved an additional ¥90 million to complete Akagi and Amagi as carriers. Her guns were turned over to the Imperial Japanese Army for use as coastal artillery; one of her main-gun turrets was installed on Iki Island in the Strait of Tsushima in 1932. The rest of her guns were placed in reserve and scrapped in 1943.

Construction of Akagi as an aircraft carrier began on 19 November 1923. Amagi's hull was damaged beyond economically feasible repair in the Great Kantō earthquake of 1 September 1923 and was broken up and scrapped. Akagi, the only remaining member of her class, was launched as a carrier on 22 April 1925 and commissioned at Kure Naval Arsenal on 25 March 1927, although trials continued through November 1927. She was the second carrier to enter service with the IJN, after Hōshō and before JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Kaga (which replaced Amagi).

Since Akagi was initially conceived as a battlecruiser, the prevailing ship naming conventions dictated that she (like her sister ships) be named after a mountain. Akagi came from Mount Akagi, a dormant volcano in the Kantō region (the name literally means "red castle"). After she was redesignated as an aircraft carrier, her mountain name remained, in contrast to ships like JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Sōryū that were originally built as aircraft carriers, which were named after flying creatures. Her name was previously given to the Maya-class gunboat Akagi.

Akagi was completed at a length of 261.21 m overall. She had a beam of 31 m and, at deep load, a draft of 8.08 m. She displaced 26900 LT at (standard) load, and 34364 LT at full load, nearly 7000 LT less than her designed displacement as a battlecruiser. Her complement totaled 1,600 crewmembers.

Flight deck arrangements
Akagi and Kaga were completed with three superimposed flight decks, the only carriers ever to be designed so. The British carriers converted from "large light cruisers", HMS Glorious, HMS Courageous (50), and HMS Furious (47), each had two flight decks, but there is no evidence that the Japanese copied the British model. It is more likely that it was a case of convergent evolution to improve launch and recovery cycle flexibility by allowing simultaneous launch and recovery of aircraft. Akagi's main flight deck was 190.2 m long and 100 ft wide, her middle flight deck (beginning right in front of the bridge) was only 15 m long and her lower flight deck was 55.02 m long. The utility of her middle flight deck was questionable as it was so short that only some lightly loaded aircraft could use it, even in an era when the aircraft were much lighter and smaller than during World War II. The upper flight deck sloped slightly from amidships toward the bow and toward the stern to assist landings and takeoffs for the underpowered aircraft of that time.

As completed, the ship had two main hangar decks and a third auxiliary hangar, giving a total capacity of 60 aircraft. The third and lowest hangar deck was used only for storing disassembled aircraft. The two main hangars opened onto the middle and lower flight decks to allow aircraft to take off directly from the hangars while landing operations were in progress on the main flight deck above. The upper and middle hangar areas totaled about 80375 sqft, the lower hangar about 8515 sqft. No catapults were fitted. Her forward aircraft lift was offset to starboard and 11.8 x in size. Her aft lift was on the centerline and 12.8 x. The aft elevator serviced the upper flight deck and all three hangar decks. Her arresting gear was an unsatisfactory British longitudinal system used on the carrier Furious that relied on friction between the arrester hook and the cables. The Japanese were well aware of this system's flaws, as it was already in use on their first carrier, Hōshō, but had no alternatives available when Akagi was completed. It was replaced during the ship's refit in 1931 with a Japanese-designed transverse cable system with six wires and that was replaced in turn before Akagi began her modernization in 1935 by the Kure Model 4 type (Kure shiki 4 gata). There was no island superstructure when the carrier was completed; the carrier was commanded from a space below the forward end of the upper flight deck. The ship carried approximately 150000 USgal of aviation fuel for her embarked aircraft.

As originally completed, Akagi carried an air group of 28 Mitsubishi B1M3 torpedo bombers, 16 Nakajima A1N fighters and 16 Mitsubishi 2MR reconnaissance aircraft.

Armament and armor
Akagi was armed with ten 50-caliber 20 cm 3rd Year Type No. 1 guns, six in casemates aft and the rest in two twin-gun turrets, one on each side of the middle flight deck. They fired 110 kg projectiles at a rate of 3–6 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 870 m/s; at 25°, this provided a maximum range between 22600 and 24000 m. The turrets were nominally capable of 70° elevation to provide additional anti-aircraft fire, but in practice the maximum elevation was only 55°. The slow rate of fire and the fixed 5° loading angle minimized any real anti-aircraft capability. This heavy gun armament was provided in case she was surprised by enemy cruisers and forced to give battle, but her large and vulnerable flight deck, hangars, and superstructure made her more of a target in any surface action than a fighting warship. Carrier doctrine was still evolving at this time and the impracticality of carriers engaging in gun duels had not yet been realized.

The ship carried dedicated anti-aircraft armament of six twin 45-caliber 12 cm 10th Year Type gun mounts fitted on sponsons below the level of the funnels, where they could not fire across the flight deck, three mounts per side. These guns fired 20.3 kg projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 825 - 830 m/s; at 45°, this provided a maximum range of 16000 m, and they had a maximum ceiling of 10000 m at 75° elevation. Their effective rate of fire was 6–8 rounds per minute.

Akagi's waterline armored belt was reduced from 254 to 152 mm and placed lower on the ship than originally designed. The upper part of her torpedo bulge was given 102 mm of armor. Her deck armor was also reduced from 96 to 79 mm. The modifications improved the ship's stability by helping compensate for the increased topside weight of the double hangar deck.

Propulsion
In Akagi predecessor, Hōshō, the hot exhaust gases vented by swivelling funnels posed a danger to the ship, and wind-tunnel testing had not suggested any solutions. Akagi and Kaga were given different solutions to evaluate in real-world conditions. Akagi was given two funnels on the starboard side. The larger, forward funnel was angled 30° below horizontal with its mouth facing the sea, and the smaller one exhausted vertically a little past the edge of the flight deck. The forward funnel was fitted with a water-cooling system to reduce the turbulence caused by hot exhaust gases and a cover that could be raised to allow the exhaust gases to escape if the ship developed a severe list and the mouth of the funnel touched the sea. Kaga adopted a version of this configuration when she was modernized during the mid-1930s.

Akagi was completed with four Gihon geared steam turbine sets, each driving one propeller shaft, that produced a total of 131000 shp. Steam for these turbines was provided by nineteen Type B Kampon boilers with a working pressure of 20 kg/cm2. Some boilers were oil-fired, and the others used a mix of fuel oil and coal. As a battlecruiser, she was expected to achieve 28.5 kn, but the reduction in displacement from 41200 to 34000 LT increased her maximum speed to 32.5 kn, which was reached during her sea trials on 17 June 1927. She carried 3900 LT of fuel oil and 2100 LT of coal that gave her a range of 8000 nmi at 14 kn.

Early service
Akagi joined the Combined Fleet in August 1927 and was assigned to the First Carrier Division upon its formation on 1 April 1928, serving as the division's flagship under Rear Admiral Sankichi Takahashi. The carrier's early career was uneventful, consisting of various training exercises. From 10 December 1928 to 1 November 1929, the ship was captained by Isoroku Yamamoto, future commander of the Combined Fleet.

Akagi was reduced to second-class reserve status on 1 December 1931 in preparation for a short refit in which her arresting gear was replaced and her radio and ventilation systems were overhauled and improved. After completion of the refit, Akagi became a first-class reserve ship in December 1932. On 25 April 1933, she resumed active service and joined the Second Carrier Division and participated in that year's Special Fleet Maneuvers.

At this time, the IJN's carrier doctrine was still in its early stages. Akagi and the IJN's other carriers were initially given roles as tactical force multipliers supporting the fleet's battleships in the IJN's "decisive battle" doctrine. In this role, Akagi's aircraft were to attack enemy battleships with bombs and torpedoes. Aerial strikes against enemy carriers were later (beginning around 1932–1933) deemed of equal importance, with the goal of establishing air superiority during the initial stages of battle. The essential component in this strategy was that the Japanese carrier aircraft must be able to strike first with a massed, preemptive aerial attack. In fleet training exercises, the carriers began to operate together in front of or with the main battle line. The new strategy emphasized maximum speed from both the carriers and the aircraft they carried as well as larger aircraft with greater range. Thus, longer flight decks on the carriers were required in order to handle the newer, heavier aircraft which were entering service. As a result, on 15 November 1935 Akagi was placed in third-class reserve to begin an extensive modernization at Sasebo Naval Arsenal.

Reconstruction
Akagi's modernization involved far less work than that of Kaga, but took three times as long due to financial difficulties related to the Great Depression. The ship's three flight decks were judged too small to handle the larger and heavier aircraft then coming into service. As a result, the middle and lower flight decks were eliminated in favor of two enclosed hangar decks that extended almost the full length of the ship. The upper and middle hangar areas' total space increased to about 93000 sqft; the lower hangar remained the same size. The upper flight deck was extended to the bow, increasing its length to 249.17 m and raising aircraft capacity to 86 (61 operational and 25 in storage). A third elevator midships, 11.8 × in size, was added. Her arrester gear was replaced by a Japanese-designed, hydraulic Type 1 system with 9 wires. The modernization added an island superstructure on the port side of the ship, which was an unusual arrangement; the only other carrier to share this feature was a contemporary, the JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Hiryū. The port side was chosen as an experiment to see if that side was better for flight operations by moving the island away from the ship's exhaust outlets. The new flight deck inclined slightly fore and aft from a point about three-eighths of the way aft.

Akagi's speed was already satisfactory and the only changes to her machinery were the replacement of the mixed coal/oil-fired boilers with modern oil-fired units and the improvement of the ventilation arrangements. Although the engine horsepower increased from 131,200 to 133,000, her speed declined slightly from 32.5 to 31.2 kn on trials because of the increase in her displacement to 41300 LT. Her bunkerage was increased to 7500 LT of fuel oil which increased her endurance to 10000 nmi at 16 kn. The rear vertical funnel was changed to match the forward funnel and incorporated into the same casing.

The two gun turrets on the middle flight deck were removed and 14 twin 25 mm Type 96 gun mounts were added on sponsons. They fired .25 kg projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s; at 50°, this provided a maximum range of 7500 m, and an effective ceiling of 5500 m. The maximum effective rate of fire was only between 110 and 120 rounds per minute due to the frequent need to change the 15-round magazines. Six Type 95 directors were fitted to control the new 25 mm guns and two new Type 94 anti-aircraft directors replaced the outdated Type 91s. After the modernization, Akagi carried one Type 89 director for the 20 cm guns; it is uncertain how many were carried before then. The ship's crew increased to 2,000 after the reconstruction.

The ship's anti-aircraft guns were grouped amidships and placed relatively low on the hull. Thus, the guns could not be brought to bear directly forward or aft. Also, the island blocked the forward arcs of the port battery. As a result, the ship was vulnerable to attack by dive bombers. The ship's 12 cm 10th Year Type guns were scheduled to be replaced by more modern 12.7 cm Type 89 mounts in 1942. The anti-aircraft sponsons were to be raised one deck to allow them some measure of cross-deck fire as was done during Kaga's modernization. However, the ship was lost in combat before the upgrade could take place.

Several major weaknesses in Akagi's design were not rectified. Akagi's aviation fuel tanks were incorporated directly into the structure of the carrier, meaning that shocks to the ship, such as those caused by bomb or shell hits, would be transmitted directly to the tanks, resulting in cracks or leaks. Also, the fully enclosed structure of the new hangar decks made firefighting difficult, at least in part because fuel vapors could accumulate in the hangars. Adding to the danger was the requirement of the Japanese carrier doctrine that aircraft be serviced, fueled, and armed whenever possible on the hangar decks rather than on the flight deck. Furthermore, the carrier's hangar and flight decks carried little armor protection, and there was no redundancy in the ship's fire-extinguishing systems. These weaknesses would later be crucial factors in the loss of the ship.

Lead-up to World War II
Akagi's modernization was completed on 31 August 1938. She was reclassified as a first reserve ship on 15 November, but did not rejoin the First Carrier Division until the following month. In her new configuration, the carrier embarked 12 Mitsubishi A5M Type 96 "Claude" fighters with four disassembled spares, 19 Aichi D1A "Susie" dive bombers with five spares, and 35 Yokosuka B4Y "Jean" horizontal/torpedo bombers with 16 spares. She sailed for southern Chinese waters on 30 January 1939 and supported ground operations there, including attacks on Guilin and Liuzhou, until 19 February, when she returned to Japan. Akagi supported operations in central China between 27 March and 2 April 1940. She was reclassified as a special purpose ship (Tokubetse Ilomokan) on 15 November 1940, while she was being overhauled.

The Japanese experiences off China had helped further develop the IJN's carrier doctrine. One lesson learned in China was the importance of concentration and mass in projecting naval air power ashore. Therefore, in April 1941, the IJN formed the First Air Fleet, or Kido Butai, to combine all of its fleet carriers under a single command. On 10 April, Akagi and Kaga were assigned to the First Carrier Division as part of the new carrier fleet, which also included the Second (with carriers Hiryū and Sōryū), and Fifth (with Shōkaku and Zuikaku) carrier divisions. The IJN centered its doctrine on air strikes that combined the air groups of entire carrier divisions, rather than individual carriers. When multiple carrier divisions were operating together, the divisions' air groups were combined. This doctrine of combined, massed, carrier-based air attack groups was the most advanced of its kind in the world. The IJN, however, remained concerned that concentrating all of its carriers together would render them vulnerable to being wiped out all at once by a massive enemy air or surface strike. Thus, the IJN developed a compromise solution in which the fleet carriers would operate closely together within their carrier divisions but the divisions themselves would operate in loose rectangular formations, with approximately 7000 m separating each carrier.

The Japanese doctrine held that entire carrier air groups should not be launched in a single massed attack. Instead, each carrier would launch a "deckload strike" of all its aircraft that could be spotted at one time on each flight deck. Subsequent attack waves consisted of the next deckload of aircraft. Thus, First Air Fleet air attacks would often consist of at least two massed waves of aircraft. The First Air Fleet was not considered to be the IJN's primary strategic striking force. The IJN still considered the First Air Fleet an integral component in the Combined Fleet's Kantai Kessen or "decisive battle" task force centered on battleships. Akagi was designated as the flagship for the First Air Fleet, a role the ship retained until her sinking 14 months later.

Although the concentration of so many fleet carriers into a single unit was a new and revolutionary offensive strategic concept, the First Air Fleet suffered from several defensive deficiencies that gave it, in Mark Peattie's words, a glass jaw': it could throw a punch but couldn't take one." Japanese carrier anti-aircraft guns and associated fire-control systems had several design and configuration deficiencies that limited their effectiveness. Also, the IJN's fleet combat air patrol (CAP) consisted of too few fighter aircraft and was hampered by an inadequate early warning system, including lack of radar. In addition, poor radio communications with the fighter aircraft inhibited effective command and control of the CAP. Furthermore, the carriers' escorting warships were not trained or deployed to provide close anti-aircraft support. These deficiencies, combined with the shipboard weaknesses previously detailed, would eventually doom Akagi and other First Air Fleet carriers.

Pearl Harbor and subsequent operations
In preparation for the attack, the ship was anchored at Ariake Bay, Kyushu beginning in September 1941 while her aircraft were based at Kagoshima to train with the other 1st Air Fleet air units for the Pearl Harbor operation. Once preparations and training were completed, Akagi assembled with the rest of the First Air Fleet at Hitokappu Bay in the Kuril Islands on 22 November 1941. The ships departed on 26 November 1941 for Hawaii.

Commanded by Captain Kiichi Hasegawa, Akagi was Vice Admiral Chūichi Nagumo's flagship for the striking force for the attack on Pearl Harbor that attempted to cripple the United States Pacific Fleet. Akagi and the other five carriers, from a position 230 nmi north of Oahu, launched two waves of aircraft on the morning of 7 December 1941. In the first wave, 27 Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bombers from Akagi torpedoed the battleships USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS West Virginia (BB-48), and USS California (BB-44) while 9 of the ship's Mitsubishi A6M Zeros attacked the air base at Hickam Field. In the second wave, 18 Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers from the carrier targeted the battleships USS Maryland (BB-46) and USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), the light cruiser USS Raleigh (CL-7), the destroyer USS Shaw (DD-373), and the fleet oiler USS Neosho (AO-23) while nine "Zeros" attacked various American airfields. One of the carrier's Zeros was shot down by American anti-aircraft guns during the first wave attack, killing its pilot. In addition to the aircraft which participated in the raid, three of the carrier's fighters were assigned to the CAP. One of the carrier's Zero fighters attacked a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bomber that had just arrived from the mainland, setting it on fire as it landed at Hickam, killing one of its crew.

In January 1942, together with the rest of the First and Fifth Carrier Divisions, Akagi supported the invasion of Rabaul in the Bismarck Archipelago, as the Japanese moved to secure their southern defensive perimeter against attacks from Australia. She provided 20 B5Ns and 9 Zeros for the initial airstrike on Rabaul on 20 January 1942. The First Carrier Division attacked Allied positions at nearby Kavieng the following day, of which Akagi contributed 9 A6M Zeros and 18 D3As. On the 22nd, Akagi's D3As and Zeros again attacked Rabaul before returning to Truk on 27 January. The Second Carrier Division, with Sōryū and Hiryū, had been detached to support the invasion of Wake Island on 23 December 1941 and did not reunite with the rest of the carrier mobile striking force until February 1942.

Akagi, along with Kaga and the carrier JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER Zuikaku, sortied in search of American naval forces raiding the Marshall Islands on 1 February 1942, before being recalled. On 7 February Akagi and the carriers of the First and Second Carrier Divisions were ordered south to the Timor Sea where, on 19 February, from a point 100 nmi southeast of the easternmost tip of Timor, they launched air strikes against Darwin, Australia, in an attempt to destroy its port and airfield facilities to prevent any interference with the invasion of Java. Akagi contributed 18 B5Ns, 18 D3As, and 9 Zeros to the attack, which caught the defenders by surprise. Eight ships were sunk, including the American destroyer USS Peary (DD-226), and fourteen more were damaged. None of the carrier's aircraft were lost in the attack and the attack was effective in preventing Darwin from contributing to the Allied defense of Java. On 1 March, the American oiler USS Pecos (AO-6) was sunk by D3As from Sōryū and Akagi. Later that same day the American destroyer USS Edsall (DD-219) was attacked and sunk by D3As from Akagi and Sōryū, in combination with gunfire from two battleships and two heavy cruisers of the escort force. Akagi and her consorts covered the invasion of Java, although her main contribution appears to have been providing 18 B5Ns and 9 Zeros for the 5 March air strike on Tjilatjap. This group was very successful, sinking eight ships in the harbor there and none of Akagi's aircraft were lost. Most of the Allied forces in the Dutch East Indies surrendered to the Japanese later in March. The Kido Butai then sailed for Staring Bay on Celebes Island to refuel and recuperate.

Indian Ocean raid
On 26 March, Akagi set sail for the Indian Ocean raid with the rest of the Kido Butai. The Japanese intent was to defeat the British Eastern Fleet and destroy British airpower in the region in order to secure the flank of their operations in Burma. On 5 April 1942, Akagi launched 17 B5Ns and 9 Zeros in an air strike against Colombo, Ceylon, which damaged the port facilities. None of the aircraft were lost and the Zero pilots claimed to have shot down a dozen of the defending British fighters. Later that day, 17 D3As from Akagi helped to sink the British heavy cruisers HMS Cornwall (56) and HMS Dorsetshire (40). On 9 April, she attacked Trincomalee with 18 B5Ns, escorted by 6 Zeros which claimed to have shot down 5 Hawker Hurricane fighters (only two of which can be confirmed from Allied records) without loss to themselves. Meanwhile, a floatplane from the battleship JAPANESE BATTLESHIP Haruna spotted the small aircraft carrier HMS Hermes (95), escorted by the Australian destroyer HMAS Vampire (D68), and every available D3A was launched to attack the ships. Akagi contributed 17 dive bombers and they helped to sink both ships; they also spotted the oil tanker RFA Athelstone, escorted by the corvette HMS Hollyhock (K64), and sank both without loss. During the day's actions, the carrier narrowly escaped damage when nine British Bristol Blenheim bombers from Ceylon penetrated the CAP and dropped their bombs from 11000 ft, just missing the carrier and the heavy cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Tone. Four of the Blenheims were subsequently shot down by CAP fighters and one was shot down by aircraft from the carriers' returning air strike. After the raid, the carrier mobile striking force returned to Japan to refit and replenish.

On 19 April 1942, while near Taiwan during the transit to Japan, Akagi, Sōryū, and Hiryū were sent in pursuit of the American carriers USS Hornet (CV-8) and USS Enterprise (CV-6), which had launched the Doolittle Raid. They found only empty ocean, however, for the American carriers had immediately departed the area to return to Hawaii. Akagi and the other carriers shortly abandoned the chase and dropped anchor at Hashirajima anchorage on 22 April. On 25 April, Captain Taijiro Aoki relieved Hasegawa as skipper of the carrier. Having been engaged in constant operations for four and a half months, the ship, along with the other three carriers of the First and Second Carrier Divisions, was hurriedly refitted and replenished in preparation for the Combined Fleet's next major operation, scheduled to begin one month hence. The Fifth Carrier Division, with Shōkaku and Zuikaku, had been detached in mid-April to support Operation Mo, resulting in the Battle of the Coral Sea. While at Hashirajima, Akagi's air group was based ashore in Kagoshima and conducted flight and weapons training with the other First Air Fleet carrier units.

Midway
Concerned by the US carrier strikes in the Marshall Islands, Lae-Salamaua, and the Doolittle raids, Yamamoto determined to force the US Navy into a showdown to eliminate the American carrier threat. He decided to invade and occupy Midway Island, which he was sure would draw out the American carrier forces to battle. The Japanese codenamed the Midway invasion Operation MI.

On 25 May 1942, Akagi set out with the Combined Fleet's carrier striking force in the company of carriers Kaga, Hiryū, and Sōryū, which constituted the First and Second Carrier Divisions, for the attack on Midway Island. Once again, Nagumo flew his flag on Akagi. Because of damage and losses suffered during the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Fifth Carrier Division with carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku were absent from the operation. Akagi's aircraft complement consisted of 24 Zeros, 18 D3As, and 18 B5Ns.

With the fleet positioned 250 nmi northwest of Midway Island at dawn (04:45 local time) on 4 June 1942, Akagi's portion of the 108-plane combined air raid was a strike on the airfield on Eastern Island with 18 dive bombers escorted by nine Zeros. The carrier's B5Ns were armed with torpedoes and kept ready in case enemy ships were discovered during the Midway operation. The only loss during the raid from Akagi's air group was one Zero shot down by AA fire and three damaged; four dive bombers were damaged, of which one could not be repaired. Unbeknownst to the Japanese, the US Navy had discovered the Japanese MI plan by breaking the Japanese cipher and had prepared an ambush using its three available carriers, positioned northeast of Midway.

One of Akagi's torpedo bombers was launched to augment the search for any American ships that might be in the area. The carrier contributed three Zeros to the total of 11 assigned to the initial combat air patrol over the four carriers. By 07:00, the carrier had 11 fighters with the CAP which helped to defend the Kido Butai from the first US attackers from Midway Island at 07:10.

At this time, Nagumo's carriers were attacked by six US Navy Grumman TBF Avengers from Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8) and four United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) B-26 Marauders, all carrying torpedoes. The Avengers went after Hiryū while the Marauders attacked Akagi. The 30 CAP Zeroes in the air at this time, including the 11 from Akagi, immediately attacked the American aircraft, shooting down five of the Avengers and two of the B-26s. One of Akagi's Zeroes, however, was shot down by defensive fire from the B-26s. Several of the Marauders dropped their torpedoes, but all either missed or failed to detonate. One B-26, piloted by Lieutenant James Muri, strafed Akagi after dropping its torpedo, killing two men. Another, seriously damaged by anti-aircraft fire, did not pull out of its run, and instead flew directly at Akagi's bridge. The aircraft, either attempting a suicide ramming, or out of control, narrowly missed striking the carrier's bridge, which could have killed Nagumo and his staff, and crashed into the ocean. This experience may well have contributed to Nagumo's determination to launch another attack on Midway, in direct violation of Yamamoto's order to keep the reserve strike force armed for anti-ship operations.

At 07:15, Nagumo ordered the B5Ns on Kaga and Akagi rearmed with bombs for another attack on Midway itself. This process was limited by the number of ordnance carts (used to handle the bombs and torpedoes) and ordnance elevators, preventing torpedoes from being struck below until after all the bombs were moved up from their magazine, assembled, and mounted on the aircraft. This process normally took about an hour and a half; more time would be required to bring the aircraft up to the flight deck, warm up and launch the strike group. Around 07:40, Nagumo reversed his order when he received a message from one of his scout aircraft that American warships had been spotted. Three of Akagi's CAP Zeroes landed aboard the carrier at 07:36. At 07:40, her lone scout returned, having sighted nothing.

Sinking
At 07:55, the next American strike from Midway arrived in the form of 16 Marine SBD-2 Dauntless dive bombers of VMSB-241 under Major Lofton R. Henderson. Akagi's three remaining CAP fighters were among the nine still aloft that attacked Henderson's planes, shooting down six of them as they executed a fruitless glide bombing attack on Hiryū. At roughly the same time, the Japanese carriers were attacked by 12 USAAF B-17 Flying Fortresses, bombing from 20000 ft. The high altitude of the bombers gave the Japanese captains enough time to anticipate where the bombs would land and successfully maneuver their ships out of the impact area. Four B-17s attacked Akagi, but missed with all their bombs.

Akagi reinforced the CAP with launches of three Zeros at 08:08 and four at 08:32. These fresh Zeros helped defeat the next American air strike from Midway, 11 Vought SB2U Vindicators from VMSB-241, which attacked the battleship Haruna starting around 08:30. Three of the Vindicators were shot down, and Haruna escaped damage. Although all the American air strikes had thus far caused negligible damage, they kept the Japanese carrier forces off-balance as Nagumo endeavored to prepare a response to news, received at 08:20, of the sighting of American carrier forces to his northeast.

Akagi began recovering her Midway strike force at 08:37 and finished shortly after 09:00. The landed aircraft were quickly struck below, while the carriers' crews began preparations to spot aircraft for the strike against the American carrier forces. The preparations, however, were interrupted at 09:18 when the first American carrier aircraft to attack were sighted. These consisted of 15 Douglas TBD Devastator torpedo bombers of VT-8, led by John C. Waldron from the carrier Hornet. The six airborne Akagi CAP Zeroes joined the other 15 CAP fighters currently aloft in destroying Waldron's planes. All 15 of the American planes were shot down as they attempted a torpedo attack on Soryū, leaving one surviving aviator treading water.

Shortly afterwards 14 Devastators from VT-6 from the carrier Enterprise, led by Eugene E. Lindsey, attacked. Lindsey's aircraft tried to sandwich Kaga, but the CAP, reinforced by an additional eight Zeros launched by Akagi at 09:33 and 09:40, shot down all but four of the Devastators, and Kaga dodged the torpedoes. Defensive fire from the Devastators shot down one of Akagi's Zeros.

Minutes after the torpedo plane attacks, American carrier-based dive bombers arrived over the Japanese carriers almost undetected and began their dives. It was at this time, around 10:20, that in the words of Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, the "Japanese air defenses would finally and catastrophically fail." Twenty-eight dive bombers from Enterprise, led by C. Wade McClusky, began an attack on Kaga, hitting her with at least four bombs. At the last minute, one of McClusky's elements of three bombers from VB-6, led by squadron commander Richard Best who deduced Kaga to be fatally damaged, broke off and dove simultaneously on Akagi. At approximately 10:26, the three bombers hit her with one 1000 lb bomb and just missed with two others. The first near-miss landed 5 - 10 m to port, near her island. The third bomb just missed the flight deck and plunged into the water next to the stern. The second bomb, likely dropped by Best, landed at the aft edge of the middle elevator and detonated in the upper hangar. This hit set off explosions among the fully armed and fueled B5N torpedo bombers that were being prepared for an air strike against the American carriers, resulting in an uncontrollable fire.

At 10:29, Aoki ordered the ship's magazines flooded. The forward magazines were promptly flooded, but the aft magazines were not due to valve damage, likely caused by the near miss aft. The ship's main water pump also appears to have been damaged, greatly hindering fire fighting efforts. On the upper hangar deck, at 10:32 damage control teams attempted to control the spreading fires by employing the one-shot fire-suppression system. Whether the system functioned or not is unclear, but the burning aviation fuel proved impossible to control, and serious fires began to advance deeper into the interior of the ship. At 10:40, additional damage caused by the near-miss aft made itself known when the ship's rudder jammed 30 degrees to starboard during an evasive maneuver.

Shortly thereafter, the fires broke through the flight deck and heat and smoke made the ship's bridge unusable. At 10:46, Nagumo transferred his flag to the light cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Nagara. Akagi stopped dead in the water at 13:50 and her crew, except for Aoki and damage-control personnel, was evacuated. She continued to burn as her crew fought a losing battle against the spreading fires. The damage-control teams and Aoki were evacuated from the still floating ship later that night.

At 04:50 on 5 June, Yamamoto ordered Akagi scuttled, saying to his staff, "I was once the captain of Akagi, and it is with heartfelt regret that I must now order that she be sunk." Destroyers Arashi, Hagikaze, Maikaze, and Nowaki each fired one torpedo into the carrier and she sank, bow first, at 05:20 at 30.5°N, -178.66667°W. Two hundred and sixty-seven men of the ship's crew were lost, the fewest of any of the Japanese fleet carriers lost in the battle. The loss of Akagi and the three other IJN carriers at Midway, comprising two thirds of Japan's total number of fleet carriers and the experienced core of the First Air Fleet, was a crucial strategic defeat for Japan and contributed significantly to Japan's ultimate defeat in the war. In an effort to conceal the defeat, Akagi was not immediately removed from the Navy's registry of ships, instead being listed as "unmanned" before finally being struck from the registry on 25 September 1942.

Wreck survey
On 20 October 2019, the Director of Undersea Operations for Vulcan Inc. Rob Kraft and Naval History and Heritage Command historian Frank Thompson aboard RV Petrel identified the wreck of Akagi using high-frequency sonar. Located 1,300 mi north west of Pearl Harbor, Akagi was found at a depth of 18,011 ft. It is reported that the wreck is upright, on its keel and is largely intact. Two days before the discovery of Akagi, Petrel had discovered the wreck of Kaga.

The wreck of Akagi was visited and photographed by the research vessel EV Nautilus in September 2023. The survey confirmed that the ship was largely intact despite large amounts of damage to the hull, superstructure and flight deck.

title: Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi


text:
Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

WP:MILHIST Assessment
Could probably afford some expansion, but as it stands, it's more than just a good start - picture, infobox, references... LordAmeth 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture References
Is it worth keeping such trivia on the page? --UrsusArctosL71 (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

yes. Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Popular Culture References" are nothing more than trivia sections renamed. They should be eliminated on ALL pages. While "which academic papers have referenced this academic paper" compilations are useful in the world of academic research, there is absolutely no significance to the fact that some work of fiction or another (such as an anime cartoon) uses the name as a character, or even a representation of a ship as part of the plot, because none of that has any actual influence on the actual ship being discussed. It is one thing to say that "many historical documentaries cover the ship's history" and quite another (and a pointless one at that) to say "a cartoon writer used the name of this ship". 76.243.106.37 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It may have some relevance in showing that the memory of the ship or whatever still resonates. Peter Flass (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
This is a useful source:  Fuchida was aboard the carrier at Midway. The book is co-authored by a historian, and the US edition analyzes and comments on some of the original text, so it is not a purely first-person account.

The unusual portside placement of the island was intended to avoid interference with aircraft when operating with Kaga, an unsuccessful experiment. Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for this lack of success is turbulence over the flight deck caused by the interaction of air currents around the portside island and from exhaust gases from the starboard uptakes. Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Fuchida isn't exactly the most reliable source. Dr. Loosmark  17:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that may depend on the subject. As mentioned above, the English translation of the book has commentary in footnotes, some of which discuss factual errors.  Like any source, it needs to be used with discretion, and compared with other literature.  Overreliance on a few sources can be dangerous; factual errors can be found in the work of the most reputable of professional historians. Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen another reference (I think Chapman but couldn't swear to it) who also states that the port-side islands on Akagi and Hiryu was that they were intended to work as pairs with Kaga and Soryu respectively. As aircraft waiting to land circle the island, the idea was that the circles would counter-rotate so that planes flying between a pair of carriers would always be flying in the same direction, rather than on head-on approach. It was a good theory that just didn't work in practice. The port side island was nothing to do with the exhaust arrangements. 213.143.133.108 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Catapults
Was the Akagi equipted with catapults fpr launching her airplanes. In documentaries it looks as the planes would just roll off and take off. Not using a catapult.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there were no catapults on Akagi. During the launch procedure the carrier sailed at full speed and was turned toward the wind. The carrier's velocity (over 50km/h) meant that the aircraft had the same initial velocity or in other words the aircraft had an airflow through its wing which transforms into lift. Then the wind blowing toward the wing added additional airflow and therefor additional initial lift. So even when the aircraft was stationary relative to the carrier it already had a considerable lift. The aircraft could then take off without any assistance. Path-x21 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information in footnotes
I notice that a lot of the information I added in the footnotes, especially details about the carrier's CAP operations at Midway, has been removed. Was there a concern that the footnotes were too long or had too much detail? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ACR reviewers felt that it was too much information, especially when names of non-notable pilots were given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I would like to link to the aces' names in the footnotes, like was done in Kaga, but I will try not to put as much information on CAP operations. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Longitundinal Arrestor Wires..?
The text states that the original longitudinal arrestor wires were "unsatisfactory" but gives no supporting reference. Longitudinal, rather than transverse, arrestor wires were developed at a time when aircraft were very light and had no difficulty stopping on deck. However, as they were so light they WERE at risk of being blown over the side - and so longitudinal wires were entirely sensible.

Longitudinal wires were generally replaced by transverse wires in the early 1930s, when the weight of carrier aircraft began to increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.133.108 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Island superstructure
I don't know what it is. When I click on the hyperlink, I end up having gone in a circle: "The superstructure of an aircraft carrier." This amounts to the article saying that the aircraft carrier has the superstructure of an aircraft carrier. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See if the definition is better now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the information of the other editors of this article, "Beyondallmeaning" was a sockpuppet of an indefintely blocked user and has also been indefinitely blocked .They should not have been making any edits at all so all their comments may be disregarded.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Typos, I think
Two tiny queries: This is a fine article. Have supported at TFA list. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * is "matress" an accepted spelling in US English (caption of tenth picture)?
 * "squadron's" at note 8 should be "squadrons".
 * Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Renunciation of treaty
The third sentence of the introduction begins with the phrase, "Following Japan's renunciation of the treaty in late 1934," which seems irrelevant. The subject is not mentioned in the body of the article. The ship was converted from cruiser to aircraft carrier to comply with the treaty, and then rebuilt, also as an aircraft carrier, after Japan renounced the treaty. But what does the treaty have to do with the rebuild? The article's introduction should not raise a seeming contradiction which is never resolved. I recommend simply removing that phrase from the introduction.

If the treaty is important, the introduction could say ". . . Washington Naval Treaty, which [restricted cruisers?]. Following Japan's renunciation of the treaty in late 1934, which removed [whatever] restrictions, . . ." However, the text should then explain the relationship between the treaty renunciation and the rebuild.

HowardMorland (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Good idea, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. HowardMorland (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit
Thank you I hold Wikipedia in high regard.

Please stop referring to inanimate objects as ships and airplanes in the gender specific. These objects are not a 'her' nor 'she'. They are things. This continued practice oppresses females — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.108.141 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a carryover from our language's heritage as a gendered language, no. Maritime custom in English has always been to refer to ships as "she" and there is no reason to change that to suit someone's agenda. Can actually you read what you just wrote with a strait face? But perhaps I'm just a cynic in believing that people can persuade themselves of anything. I think that ships in Russian are gendered as he, but I don't believe that Russian males, or those of any other nationality, are oppressed by the practice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pol098's changes
This editor made a thorough review of this article upon its Main Page appearance and some if his rephrasings were genuinely an improvement, but others were not and were reverted. Now this editor is reverting back to his preferred text and we may have an edit war on our hands. To make matters worse, Pol08 has either failed to notice or simply doesn't care that he's incorporating additions by another editor that are clearly in error regarding aircraft names and the conversion template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I (pol098) have been asked to explain some rather minor changes I made which have been challenged. What follows is pretty trivial, but here it is. Here are the detailed differences, with my version on the left replaced by Sturmvogel 66's on the right.

1. Conversion from knots to km/h in addition to mi/h is clearly appropriate. Display to 1 decimal place is suitable.
 * Not your change, Magus732 still fails to understand that nmi in the conversion template automatically converts to both mi and km. There was also no need to abbreviate a five letter word "knots". He and I have been going at it over this for a while now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we agree that km/h and mi/h are both shown (exactly how doesn't matter). 1, rather than 2, decimal places is, I think, clearly better; when I was testing it always seemed to show 2. "kn" or "knots"? I don't care. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally, the template converts an equal number of significant digits, but the range of measurements seems to confuse it. You can control it by specifying the number of digits after the decimal point which I've now done as I agree with your that one decimal place generally suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

2. To say that listed deficiencies "would eventually doom" ships is a bit overplayed; it is perfectly conceivable that they would have been lost even without them. Saying the factors "contributed significantly" is less definitive about what might have been.
 * Perhaps "doomed" is a bit dramatic, but, I feel, is clearly appropriate in any situation where the ship would have been attacked by enemy aircraft.
 * OK, I prefer the less dramatic wording, but the difference in meaning isn't great. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

3. To say that the US Navy had divined the Japanese MI plan is not good wording; it implies something coming in a dream or the like. It was discovered (revealed?) by effective military intelligence techniques. Also, the critical point was not that signals were intercepted, but that the Japanese code had been broken, unknown to them; everybody expects radio signals to be intercepted.
 * I think that this got changed in response to comments in an earlier review, but, in retrospect, it was a mistake. I can accept your wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed back to your wording.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

4. A hidden comment on the Grumman Avenger wasn't actually originated by me, though I reinstated it; I don't actually support it. As far as I can see, the only "addition by another editor" that I incorporated to the visible text was changing "from VT-8 squadron" to "from Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8)", which I did notice and decided was appropriate. I noticed that the country entry in th4 template had been changed by others from "Japan" to "Empire of Japan" (or viceversa? I'm not sure); they both seem acceptable, but maybe I'm wrong.
 * The erroneous comment on the TBM and the first version of the squadron name were changes by Magus732 that I repaired. I prefer Empire of Japan for IJN ships as it clearly separates the Empire from the modern republic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that "Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8)" is wrong (it's how the article starts), but this isn't something I initiated, and I don't have any strong opinion on these points. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

5. [B-26s shot down] "for the loss of a Zero" says essentially the same as the wordy "One of Akagi's Zeroes, however, was shot down by defensive fire from the B-26s.
 * I could go either way on this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They say the same, I'd choose the shorter. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

6. I would say that "One of the B-26s, piloted by Lieutenant James Muri, strafed Akagi after dropping its torpedo, killing two men." is relatively unimportant detail and nn in the context of the loss of the ship in a major battle. My edit summary said "drop sentence on strafing as unimportant in context", and this has not been challenged.
 * Actually I would challenge it. I believe that it is important as incidents of medium bombers penetrating the CAP and strafing a carrier of any nation are very rare.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, the fact of the challenge is enough for it to be included. Maybe a word or two on that this is uncommon, with a suitable source, could be added? Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any source that actually comments how often this happened during the war, so I can't source it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

7. "Depleted of ammunition, three of Akagi's CAP Zeroes landed aboard the carrier" seems a bit wordy, and it is unlikely that they would have landed merely due to depleted ammunition, but only if it was exhausted. "Three of Akagi's CAP Zeroes, out of ammunition, landed" is less wordy and better. I don't think omitting "on the carrier" will confuse any reader. [Deplete: to reduce something in size or amount; Cambridge Dictionaries Online]
 * My source says depleted, not exhausted, so you're making an unwarranted assumption. It's perfectly logical to land with depleted ammo if you've fired your weapons and are unsure how much remains. Very few things worse than to run out of ammo during an engagement with enemy fighters.
 * Note 19 on p375 of this suggests (if I read the reference right, and it refers to the same part of the battle) that the Zeroes had exhausted (sic) their 20mm cannon ammunition. I don't know whether it was in practice common to leave an active battle before actually running out of ammunition. Things I've read about other WWII air combat generally refer to breaking off when out of ammunition. Pol098 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Read my source more closely. The depleted ammo remark is associated with a Zero that landed at 07:20, coupled with a general remark that many fighters landed shortly after an engagement to reload ammunition. The actual status of the 07:36 aircraft isn't given so I've deleted it entirely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

8. "dive bombers arrived over the Japanese carriers almost undetected" is rather meaningless; you either detect bombers (and act) or you don't. "Undetected until too late" is clearer.
 * IIRC, they were detected by one of the ship's escorts, but word was not passed on to the carrier, so "until too late" is factually incorrect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "until too late" is perhaps wrongish (detected by the escort, but not in time to get word to the carrier?), but "almost undetected", if you're reading closely, is very odd. Maybe "dive bombers were detected by he carrier's escorts, but were over the carrier before she was notified"? Longer, but informative. Or something else? Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pol098 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

9. An additional very minor and rather pedantic point: the text originally read "This process was limited by the number of ordnance carts (used to handle the bombs and torpedoes) and ordnance elevators, that prevented the torpedoes from being struck below...". It could be said that "the number of ordnance carts" didn't "prevent the torpedoes..." (the limit did, not the number), although this is at worst a minor grammatical point that doesn't obscure the meaning. I modified this wording very slightly, but it would be better to change it more, to something like "The limited number of ordnance carts available to handle the bombs and torpedoes, and of ordnance elevators, did not allow the torpedoes to be struck below...". Not only better, but shorter. Pol098 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that needs to be “The limited numbers …”, for the carts and elevators severally.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this one, I like the existing wording, which incorporated some elements of Pol098's change.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd changed one word, I think. As it happens, I think the current version doesn't actually include that change. I prefer the slightly shorter, I think more straightforward, and parenthesis-free version I proposed above, but don't have any real objection even to the original version, apart from it not actually being true if read pedantically. Pol098 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Trekphiler just changed it to "preventing", but that's a nominalization that I was taught to avoid. I'm coming to prefer your text given in your original note, but perhaps somebody else wants to chime in as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see arguments on both sides, and I agree with some of Pol's edits. Would it be too boring to argue the various points out here, rather than edit-war to the death over it? --John (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments would be welcome; I don't privilege my own writing over anyone else's. I do, however, have to be persuaded that alternate formulations are superior.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I (pol098 again) have added numbers to the various points in my previous posts, to make it easier to refer to them. I've also made some minor edits to my detailed comments (7 definition of "depleted", minor wording of 3, minor clarification to 4). There is a tendency when people perceive a conflict to try to mediate by seeking an intermediate solution. This is often inappropriate, in Wikipedia and in life in general. I suggest that this shouldn't be seen as a conflict, but as a debate on a number of specific points, each to be judged on its own merits, the purpose being to improve the encyclopaedia, not to mollify a couple of editors. For example, if even all of my changes are deemed to make the article worse, they should all be rejected, and viceversa. One criterion I apply which others may disagree on: wherever two forms of wording are equally acceptable as to content, the shortest should always be used; such wording cumulatively keeps the article shorter, and saves readers time, with the same information acquired through reading fewer words. Comments from others on each of the points, please. (Later: this is happening, after each numbered point.) Pol098 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

What?
What was wrong with creating a link to the page on the Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun? It was the standard light AA gun of the Japanese Navy. It was used on ALL of their ships. I think it should be considered common sense that the "25mm AA guns" used on the Akagi were one and the same, and some people are curious to know more about these things. Without a link, they will have to go and search for "japanese navy 25mm AA gun" and see what they come up with (it will be the Type 96, as that is the only 25mm AA gun in the inventory). And I don't see why putting the proper name for the 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun in the infobox was wrong either. You go onto a typical page about a British warship and the infobox will say

"8 x BL 8-inch (203 mm L/50) Mk.VIII guns in twin mounts Mk.I 4 x QF 4-inch (102 mm) L/45 Mk.V guns in single mounts HA Mk.III 8 x QF 2 pdr (40 mm) L/39 Mk.VIII guns in quad mounts HA Mk.VII "

Why shouldn't the infobox here give the full title of the gun as well? .45Colt 18:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)
 * Because the infobox is a summary, the actual designations with links are given in the main body. I have no issues with links to the gun in the infobox, but not to the raw article titles. You wanted to change the abbreviated link that I used for the 20 cm gun to the full article title so I reverted your changes. We already get complaints that ship infoboxes are too long so I try to cut the information there to the minimum necessary and will eventually trim that excess information from those British ship infoboxes. If you feel that you really want to add the link in the infobox for the gun, please give the proper title, not the article titles as those don't usually conform to the real designations. Forex the 20 cm gun was formally designated "20 cm 3rd Year Type No. 1 gun", no caliber length or naval gun as used in the article title and that's pretty awkward to fit onto a single line of the infobox, which is the ideal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cost of building Akagi
One section states the cost of building the Akagi, then attributes this to Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword. This book, however, uses an unverifiable and possibly invented sources for the information (supposedly from Eric Lacrox, The Belgian Ship/over and Showa Zenshi, but no publisher information or date provided, not even the proper title for the second book provided, and "The Belgian Ship/over" does not even come up in a Worldcat or google books search). The reference to Shattered Sword should be discarded, and the section in this article about Akagi's cost should be removed or marked with tag.
 * I don't know who you are, but The Belgian Shiplover is a well-known, small-circulation, ship-history magazine/newsletter from the '60s and '70s. It is not the duty of any editor to validate the sources/citations used by a RS like Shattered Sword.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Another spurious name translation?
As with the entry for Kaga (now edited), we have here a translation of the name of Akagi as "Red Castle", when Akagi is in fact a prefecture. 'Aka' does mean 'red' and '-gi' does mean 'castle', but Akagi doesn't mean "a red castle". For the same reasons as the Kaga edit, I move this translation be removed. Tirailleur (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510065717/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/akagi2.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-a/akagi2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121210201458/http://156.112.98.23/branches/mca-m.html to http://156.112.98.23/branches/mca-m.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022140/http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm to http://www.combinedfleet.com/akagi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022140/http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm to http://www.combinedfleet.com/akagi.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311022140/http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm to http://www.combinedfleet.com/Akagi.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Completed: 1 and Lost: 1 removal
I don't think the sections Completed: 1 and Lost: 1 should be in the article because Akagi was a singular aircraft carrier, not a class of aircraft carriers/ on top of that the imfobox is titled Class overview again Akagi want not a class of aircraft carriers this titles inaccurate A 10 fireplane (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that she did have a sister ship that destroyed in the Great Tokyo Earthquake before she was completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * are you referring to the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga? Or the Amagi-class battlecruiser because Kaga want a sister, and all the other 3 Amagi where canceled, plus this is a page for the Akagi not a class over veiw page A 10 fireplane (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to Akagi's sister Amagi, the one that was scrapped after being damaged during the Great Tokyo Earthquake. The sisters had been ordered to be converted into carriers, although it's uncertain exactly how far along that had gotten by the time of the earthquake. The other two sisters were cancelled not long after they were laid down. Kaga was converted to replace Amagi, although she was slower than Akagi, since Japan had the tonnage available to convert two capital ships. Akagi is effectively a single-ship class and thus gets the class infobox as well as the individual ship infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh ok, thank you for the explanation and for teaching me something new :) A 10 fireplane (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

launch
the date in the infobox is 22 april, but the photo dated 6 april shows the vessel already launchedSuppongoche (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC) (former pietro)
 * The caption on the photo was in error, but she wasn't yet launched in the photo, there's just water in the bottom of the dock.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate translation of ship's name - again.
The old translation of Akagi ("Red Castle") has re-appeared. I suggest it removing it again for the reasons given five years ago (see above), and updating the discussion of the ship's name accordingly. Astro$01 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Still the case, makes sense to me to remove it - although I can't vouch for the translation ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Second survey visit
Akagi has been revisited by an EV Nautilus scientific expedition on 11 September 2023, which was livestreamed on YouTube:

https://youtube.com/live/wUz1Vb7I2DU

https://nautiluslive.org/blog/2023/08/29/battle-midway-pivotal-wwii-engagement-papahanaumokuakea ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi


text:
Talk:Spice World (video game)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spiceplaystation.JPG
Image:Spiceplaystation.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SpiceWorldPlaystation.jpg
Image:SpiceWorldPlaystation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spice World (video game)


text:
User talk:Grizzly

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

I don't know what your beef with Randi or the challenge is, but don't put up links about him or the challenge that contain obviously untrue information. It is obvious that the authors of the link you added either had an agenda against him or didn't understand that challenge-- either way most of what was written was largely inaccurate. As such, I have removed the link until you can find one that adequately addresses the challenge and what it is without lying or exaggerations. Lord Kenneth

From all that I can tell from reading his screeds and what has been written about him, Jame$ Randi seems to be nothing more than a windbag who has made himself a nice little living selling alarmist books about pseudoscience and soliciting contributions for his supposedly "educational" foundation. There are plenty of people who are concerned about pseudoscience, providing no shortage of sheep for him to shear. To his credit, he does not claim to be scientist. Good thing, since anyone has yet to see a shred of scientific work from him. I doubt he really understands anything about science, though he obviously knows a lot about deception, being a magician and all. I'm sure that like any accomplished escape artist, he'll see to it that he never has to put his investor's money at risk in his "challenge". As he himself has said, he always has an out. It's showmanship in the best (or worst) tradition of P.T. Barnum.

Now I appreciate an honest skeptic. I have far more respect for, say, Ray Hyman (though he has a few foibles). Dr. Hyman has actually provided specific scientific criticisms of those things he criticizes, at least in the area of parapsychology, and has even been willing to work with parapsychologists upon occasion in helping to design experiments. Similarly, I have more respect for Richard Wiseman or Chris French. These guys act and talk like scientists. Unlike Randi, they don't try to build their case on vitriol, ad hominem, and grandstanding.

Since you seem to be brainwashed into believing in Randi and his holy mission, I suspect you would see any criticism of him as "lies and exaggeration". Well, I don't feel like battling this one, so I will leave out the link. Your point that leaving in the link to his JREF site is reasonable just as a link to the KKK website (if they have one) in an article on the KKK would be reasonable is well taken. And most apropos. Grizzly 08:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Coin toss probability
I just read your comments on Talk:Telepathy about the coin toss and I'm a little confused. I haven't studied probability much since high school but from what I remember (and what makes perfect sense to me) the outcome of an experiment have nothing whatsoever to do with earlier identical experiments (read; toosses) so each toss is independent of the previous ones. That said, why would a coin not be as likely to land on heads every time as it is to land 50-50?  B. Mearns * , KSC 18:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grizzly


text:
User talk:DariusMazeika

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello Darius, welcome here. I just noticed, that your article Trakai is identical with the stuff on http://www.trakai.lt. Do you have permission to use this stuff? Please read Copyrights for further information. -- Cordyph 12:40 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Hi again. I am sorry for overwriting your contents with a copyright infringement notice, but I will restore the articles (Trakai and Kernave). This is an excerpt from the copyright policy: "In the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, you need to acknowledge the authorship on the history page or talk page and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy." So, just leave the message on the Trakai talk page as is, and place the resembling message onto the Kernave talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience, but reading a sentence like "After visiting Kernave once, there is an urge to visit it again and again" made me suspicious. You should change these sections in order to become encyclopedic content. Now I am going to restore your articles. Have a lot of fun on Wikipedia. -- Cordyph 14:23 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Hello! Great work on Watercolour, however, I just noticed that there is already an article called Watercolor painting. These two articles should probably be merged, to include information from both of them, and the other redirected. I will go ahead and merge them at Watercolor painting; hopefully you can assist in the process of integrating them. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 12:17 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The merging was pretty easy. Your article focused mostly on the history of watercolor, and the other article was about technique and watercolor paints, so the two complemented each other well. Great work! -- Wapcaplet 12:50 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * p.s. - you're probably right that we should use both spellings for redirect pages. I changed to the American English spelling for the merge, since the existing article is spelt as such. -- Wapcaplet

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:DariusMazeika


text:
User talk:Statkit1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

-

Hi Statkit1, I like the material you're adding, it's a real breadth of knowledge! Just a quick word of advice, part of the style that has developed on the Wikipedia is to put the article title in bold near the start of the article, see for example Tracheomalacia. Anyway, I must sleep soon, it's 4am here! Ams80
 * Hi, there's a reply on my talk page. -- Ams80

Hello. I've been editing your medical posts, which are quite informative, for cohesion and adding wiki markup (as opposed to html markup as many tags have been made easier to use) to them. If I make a mistake in editing, as my medical knowledge is extremely limited, feel free to either let me know or change it for accuracy. Thanks, keep writing informative articles! -- Notheruser 22:28 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

About Front derailleur you write, "What do you think I should do? Summarize it? Read more sources and write my own version?"

I think either of those courses of action would be good, though the second would be preferable - it's up to you how much work you're prepared to put in. That article is obviously a good and thorough explanation, and it's a pity that it can't stay. Good luck with it. --rbrwr -- Brachialplexusdiagram.gif is a nice diagram. Did you make that yourself? If not then we need to know where you got it from and whether or not it is OK for us to use it. The image's page is where this info goes. Cheers! --mav

I just placed the URL of the image source at Image:Brachialplexusdiagram.gif. Attributing the source should be enough for us to use the image under the fair use doctrine but many universities have IP lawyers whose job is to protect the uni's IP and any fair use claim is something we would have to prove (even though that IP is very often paid for by tax dollars). We are a not-for-profit and are using the image to further an educational purpose but since IANAL I can't say if this particular use is in fact "fair" (under the DMCA the worse thing they could do is send us a nasty-gram telling us to remove the image or face legal action - we of course would remove the image right away). If you do know of a public domain source that would be great. You also may be surprised how easy it often is to get permission once you ask the right person (most people simply want recognition for their work so when you provide that and ask them nicely most people give permission). I know this is all complicated and ain't much fun but the freer our images are the better. --mav

Hi Statkit1,

I saw form your page that you know something about Carpal tunnel syndrome. Maybe you can help me with my question on the Talk:Hysteria page? Thanks, Fantasy 13:32 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Your pages on bicicle repair has now become a booklet of its own. and has been moved to Wikibooks. Simply go to Bicycle Repair. Hope you like it. -- Egil 22:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

its better to provide completely descriptive image names. chlorofl could be mistaken for chlorophil/form for example.

WikiDoc
Hello Statkit1— A number of doctors has joined efforts to bring new élan to the medicine side of Wikipedia. Please see a preliminary page on WikiDoc. Given your substantial contributions to medical stuff on wikipedia until now, we'd be honoured to have you! JFW | T@lk  20:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aortic valve stenosis image
I'm not sure about the image on aortic valve stenosis page. I'm reading a book right now that has the identical image of the valve open, with the attribution:
 * ''Reproduced with permission from Grunkemeier GL, Rahimtoola SH, Starr A. Prosthetic heart valves. In: Rahimtoola SH, ed. Atlas of Heart Disease. Valvular Heart Disease. Vol. 11. Philadelphia: Current Medicine, 1977:13.1-13.27.

Is your image in the public domain, now? Ksheka 21:12, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Please consider joining the Wikidocs WikiProject Clinical medicine Kd4ttc 03:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

welcome (back)
I was going to write you a welcome note and discovered you've been here longer than I have. Good to have another wikidoc. Alteripse 23:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I am looking for articles to amend. statkit113:16, 26 Jul 2004 GMT +5

Copyrights
Indeed, welcome back. Since you deleted all of the comments on copyright without a response, I was wondering what you are planning on doing about your many past articles and uploaded images. I think your previous confusion came from the fact that text and images without a specific copyright statement are still copyrighted under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works by default:

 * Copyright under the Berne Convention is automatic: no registration is required, nor is the inclusion of a copyright notice.

This isn't obvious to those not already familiar with copyright and authorship. Your past uploads and articles need an audit, to make sure that sources are cited and that all are ok to include.

Some examples of contributions that concern me:

 * Image:Lates-niloticus.JPG
 * Image:Fennel.jpg
 * Image:Treecreeper.jpg
 * Image:Hydraviridis.jpg
 * Image:Cperfringens.jpg
 * Image:Clostridiumtetani.jpg
 * Image:Streptococcus.gif
 * Image:Enterococcus.jpg
 * Image:Chlorobium.GIF
 * Image:Papilledema.jpg
 * Image:Stomach.jpg
 * Image:Brachialplexusdiagram.gif

Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 00:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answer to copyright violation questions
I am embarrassed about "being caught" in a copyright violation. When I posted these images, I was new to wikipedia. I have now made every effort to list the source of the images, and to look for a copyright statement. I have deleted the images where there is a clear violation.

 * Source information is available for

 * Image:Lates-niloticus.JPG
 * Image:Fennel.jpg
 * Image:Hydraviridis.jpg
 * Image:Cperfringens.jpg
 * Image:Chlorobium.GIF
 * Image:Brachialplexusdiagram.gif

 * I could not find the source for

 * Image:Streptococcus.gif
 * Image:Papilledema.jpg
 * Image:Stomach.jpg

 * There is a copyright violation for

 * Image:Treecreeper.jpg REMOVED LINKS
 * Image:Clostridiumtetani.jpg REMOVED LINKS
 * Image:Enterococcus.jpg REMOVED LINKS

Now I would appreciate not being watched like I am a criminal. I don't have to contribute to wikipedia, but, at present, I enjoy it. user:statkit1 0723 GMT+5 07-27-2003

 * I don't think you understand. Copyright violation is a federal problem.  Willful infringement provides penalties up to $150,000 per violation.  You expose yourself and Wikipedia to this liability by not auditing your contributions.  Your older contributions not listed here need to be checked.  I stopped looking through your older uploads after a certain point.

 * In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. U.S.C. Title 17 § 504(c)(2)

 * I still think you are missing the fact that images that don't have a copyright statement are still copyrighted. All of your links above under "source information available" are copyright violations.  Those with no source information should also be treated as copyright violations since we have no clue where they came from.

 * I am listing the above on Copyright Problems. --ChrisRuvolo 16:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unverified image
Thanks for uploading the image I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 03:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Image:Chain tool.jpg

WikiProject Cycling
Hi, I've created WikiProject on Cycling. Please come and join us in building up Wikipedia's articles relating to cycling! --Christopherlin 05:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cone snail
Long ago, on 9 March 2003, you started this article. A number of editors, including me, have been working on this article. You stated "Cone snails are the only known animals that produce D-isomer amino acids". Very interesting, but probably no one of us ever checked this out. Now, on the discussion page of Cone Snail, User:Taw wants to know the source. I googled a bit trying to find a connection between cone snails and D-isomer amino acids, but I couldn't find the actual link. I suppose this assertion must come from a scientific paper not published on the internet. Maybe you can remember the source. BTW this assertion has already been repeated on several other websites, stating Wikipedia as source. We better be sure if we want to maintain this statement. Can you check it out ? JoJan 13:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category
Placed category physician on your userpage.--Nomen Nescio 09:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Paid Editing Project
Hi: My name is Tess and I work for a global independent research firm in New York. I am interested in hiring you for a Wikipedia editing project, based on your technology and medical experience and expertise. I attempted to email you through your user page. If you received it, please read it over and contact me with any questions. If you did not receive this email, please let me know and I would be more than happy to tell you more about this project. (You can call 512-651-1797). Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon! Tess - Gerson Lehrman Group 20:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Listeria.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Listeria.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

February 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. RogueNinja talk  22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit | c 20:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 15:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

title: User talk:Statkit1


text:
User talk:Abaddon~enwiki

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Article 5 missing?
The article implies that the complete text of the Enabling Act is given in German and English, but that text consists of only 4 Articles, none of which includes the 4-year 'sunset' provision that is mentioned in the article. In the photograph below the in-line text, it seems obvious that there is also an Article 5, and this presumably is or contains the 'sunset' provision. Could somebody competent to do so (as I am not) please fix this? (Note that I am distinguishing between 'article' with lower-case 'a' meaning the Wikipedia article, and 'Article' with upper-case 'a' meaning the section of the Enabling Act.) Abaddon (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Abaddon. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Abaddon~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abaddon~enwiki


text:
User talk:Sirius~enwiki

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sirius. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sirius~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sirius~enwiki


text:
User talk:LearnSkills

User:LearnSkills
I've added the "" template to your user page (User:LearnSkills), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).

Please note that the purpose of a user page is not as personal homepage or used as a general webhosting service, but as way for active editors of Wikipedia to introduce themselves to other editors. If you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues here or on my user talk page. You may remove the deletion notice, and the page will not be deleted for the moment, but note that it may still be sent to Miscellany for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 06:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparative studies of human rights record of countries listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Comparative studies of human rights record of countries. Since you had some involvement with the Comparative studies of human rights record of countries redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LearnSkills