Talk:Barracks ship

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

Military history: Maritime

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Proposed merge of Yard Repair Berthing and Messing into Barracks ship

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.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Gusfriend (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Yard Repair Berthing and Messing page is talking about the same ships. Merging the pages will give extra information and citations to this page. Happy to combine if there is some consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Go for it. - wolf 22:19, 4 February 2022 (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.

Proposed merge of Benewah-class barracks ship into Barracks ship

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.

The result of this discussion was to leave things how they are. Gusfriend (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combine into a more thorough and complete article. Gusfriend (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see a need or benefit here. One is a general information page, the other about a specific class. (imo) - wolf 20:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are probably right, I am just not happy with this page and was wondering if combining the pages would help with the focus. Gusfriend (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it's a distinct class Lyndaship (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2022 (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.