Jump to content

Talk:USS Bainbridge (CGN-25): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Xenobot Mk V (talk | contribs)
m Bot) Tagging for WP:VIET: Inherit class from other projects, (Plugin++)
m clean up using AWB (7619)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Ships|class=Start|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes/no|B5=yes|Maritime=yes|US=yes|nested=yes}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes/no|B5=yes|Maritime=yes|US=yes}}
{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=Start|auto=inherit|importance=|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=Start|auto=inherit|importance=}}
}}
}}


{{oldafdfull|result='''keep'''|date=17 August 2006}}
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->

==Untitled==
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {|}. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
{|}
'''keep'''
On [[17 August]] [[2006]] | removed the merge tags noting:
:''removed merge template per discussion''
At that time, 64 days into the poll, it was one in support of the merge and three against. I am now formerly archiving the poll. --[[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


== Merge [[Bainbridge class cruiser]] → [[USS Bainbridge (CGN-25)]] ==
== Merge [[Bainbridge class cruiser]] → [[USS Bainbridge (CGN-25)]] ==

Revision as of 09:53, 1 March 2011

It has been proposed that Bainbridge class cruiser be merged into USS Bainbridge (CGN-25).

  • Weak oppose - While the ship is the only one of her class, I enjoy the consistency of having separate articles on individual ships (with information on each ship's history and service career) and their classes (with info on the design and construction of the class itself). From a navigation standpoint, it may be confusing to have a combined ship/class article when people are specifically looking for classes (such as via the guided missile cruiser navigation box, or the Cruiser classes category. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am the nominator for both this merge and the Long Beach class cruiserUSS Long Beach (CGN-9) merge, and I think it would be a good idea to have one discussion for both ships (though if anyone disagrees I'd be glad to dicuss them separately). I believe that the two articles should be merged. The class articles contain very little information. The predecessor/successor table could be merged into the ship article, so that someone who is surfing through the timeline of cruiser classes wouldn't miss one. These ships can be found under Category:Unique cruisers under the Cruiser classes category, much like Dreadnought can be found under Category:Unique battleships and Enterprise (CVN-65) can be found under Category:Unique aircraft carriers. I'm not familiar with the guided missile cruiser nav box, and I'd appreciate it if you'd show me, Kralizec!, but I imagine that the box could be made to redirect to the ship article instead of the class article without much trouble. TomTheHand 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - ship class articles with only one ship are not very efficient but there seems to be enough of them (USS Truxtun (DLGN-35), USS Long Beach (CGN-9), USS Enterprise (CVN-65), etc.) that we should be careful to not make things inconsistent. I think people will just put the 'ship class' articles back since inconsistency bugs people more then inefficiency. --MarsRover 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the consistent thing to do is to merge them; Enterprise and Truxton do not have class articles. Neither does, for example, Dreadnought. Bainbridge and Long Beach are the only unique ships I've found that have both a class article and a ship article. That's two out of several dozen. TomTheHand 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this; there's no need to amalgamate related but different subjects on the same page. For general usability, different topics deserve different articles. Even if there's only one ship in a class, that doesn't mean they need to be discussed on the same page. Existing instances of such compression should be split up rather than serve as standards for other articles. --Thunderhead 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

AAW Engagement Performance Information is suspect, I believe.

It reads in the article that the Bainbridge can engage 16 targets simultaneously. This ship was never fitted with Aegis so how is that possible? NiceDoggie 13:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a CGN-25

Apparently the term CGN-25 is important enough to include in the article name, and yet it is never explained. Huh? This is clearly some kind of technical detail, and yet it is not listed in the infobox in a clear way, and it just muddies the clarity of the article. Please fix this. 70.250.239.90 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]