Talk:Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Articles merged
As per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Two articles that should be one?, both versions of this ship (Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1936) and Italian cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi (1961)) were merged together. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we can separate the ships because there are too many differences. Light cruise didn't have pennant and guided cruise had pennant. All the gun were changed completely.....In it:wiki were separated, but in en: wiki i don't know....--Gaetano56 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The established precedent in this case is to use one article, even in the case of radical rebuilds and refits. The articles should remain merged. Benea (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- To expand my reasoning a little bit more. Many Royal Navy ships of the twentieth century started out with no pennant number, and then received one. Some even went on to add a pennant superior to that. No problem, we pick one and have redirects from the rest. No need for three articles for one ship. Secondly, the Garibaldi is not alone in having major refits, the American Iowa battleships, and numerous cruisers were refitted extensively to carry missiles. In the Royal Navy, dozens of old World War II destroyers were refitted and redesigned as anti-submarine frigates. Again, all this is listed clearly and completely at the appropriate page. If she had been sold or transferred to another navy, then there might be justification for a split, but I don't see any need to break with our convention on this matter, as the article is far better at the moment listing that ship's entire history with the Italian navy. Benea (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Expanding on what Benea said above, existing precedent is to keep multiple rebuilds and commissionings of the same ship in the same Wikipedia article. As an example, USS Canberra (CA-70) was a World War II Baltimore-class heavy cruiser that was decommissioned in 1947. After a four-year rebuild that transformed her into a Boston-class guided missile heavy cruiser, she was recommissioned as USS Canberra (CAG-2). However despite the radical differences between the ship's two "lives" and the extended decommissioning that separated them, both versions are in the USS Canberra (CA-70) article, with a redirect at USS Canberra (CAG-2). All of the ships of the Boston, Galveston, and Providence classes of cruiser are the same way. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- To expand my reasoning a little bit more. Many Royal Navy ships of the twentieth century started out with no pennant number, and then received one. Some even went on to add a pennant superior to that. No problem, we pick one and have redirects from the rest. No need for three articles for one ship. Secondly, the Garibaldi is not alone in having major refits, the American Iowa battleships, and numerous cruisers were refitted extensively to carry missiles. In the Royal Navy, dozens of old World War II destroyers were refitted and redesigned as anti-submarine frigates. Again, all this is listed clearly and completely at the appropriate page. If she had been sold or transferred to another navy, then there might be justification for a split, but I don't see any need to break with our convention on this matter, as the article is far better at the moment listing that ship's entire history with the Italian navy. Benea (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)