This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To disentangle rather than to merge.
Klbrain (
talk) 02:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No different engines, different class. Close, so I understand your logic. But would be too confusing, other ways to fix the problem.
Telecine Guy (
talk) 04:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge or disentangle. I believe through very cursory research that these are the same exact class, though perhaps separate as subclasses. In any case, the two pages right now claim a substantially overlapping number of ships, so we should attempt to clarify if one is a subclass of the other or if they are simply two names for the same class, and sort the ships within it accordingly, on the principle that each ship can only belong to one class of ships. I also think that we should try wherever possible to take the lead from sources--if different sources conflict (and I suspect they do), then that would be a good argument that there is confusion over the relation of the two classes and they should be merged to a single article IMO. - - mathmitch7(
talk/
contribs) 12:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Definitely some issues. The lists of ships in each article have some overlaps but sources place them in one or the other, eg Bulwark (AMC-425) listed in both articles is "Aggressive [class]" according to Navy Historical Branch (DANFS)
[1] but another listed in both is Fearless which is recorded as Agile-class
[2].
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 14:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Improve, but don't merge. The key problem seems to be that some of the pages don't follow the sources, and hence that this should be fixed rather than embedding the confusion through the process of a merge.
Klbrain (
talk) 12:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To disentangle rather than to merge.
Klbrain (
talk) 02:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No different engines, different class. Close, so I understand your logic. But would be too confusing, other ways to fix the problem.
Telecine Guy (
talk) 04:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge or disentangle. I believe through very cursory research that these are the same exact class, though perhaps separate as subclasses. In any case, the two pages right now claim a substantially overlapping number of ships, so we should attempt to clarify if one is a subclass of the other or if they are simply two names for the same class, and sort the ships within it accordingly, on the principle that each ship can only belong to one class of ships. I also think that we should try wherever possible to take the lead from sources--if different sources conflict (and I suspect they do), then that would be a good argument that there is confusion over the relation of the two classes and they should be merged to a single article IMO. - - mathmitch7(
talk/
contribs) 12:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Definitely some issues. The lists of ships in each article have some overlaps but sources place them in one or the other, eg Bulwark (AMC-425) listed in both articles is "Aggressive [class]" according to Navy Historical Branch (DANFS)
[1] but another listed in both is Fearless which is recorded as Agile-class
[2].
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 14:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Improve, but don't merge. The key problem seems to be that some of the pages don't follow the sources, and hence that this should be fixed rather than embedding the confusion through the process of a merge.
Klbrain (
talk) 12:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.