Jump to content

Talk:PacifiCat-class ferry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fine to have what they were sold for, but without how much they cost?

[edit]

I've just been looking over Fast Ferry Scandal and though a $460 million figure is given, not clear which cite will have that figure; I've seen 477 million somewhere recently.... this in ref to this edit.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
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 not merge. Klbrain (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Fast Ferry Scandal be merged into PacifiCat-class ferry. I feel it is impossible to adequately explain the scandal without explaining the ships themselves and vice versa. Gwsk55970 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The scandal has to do with the development of the ferries anyway, so it would only make sense to combine both articles. —Compdude123 06:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, I thought it odd that there's two articles, since PacifiCat Class Ferries are only this one design/project. There are two categories, also, I think; I'll check when I get a chance unless someone else would oblige (I'm working on an upgrade to be website right now).Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there's enough material to support separate class and scandal articles. I see no reason for a merger. If it were merged, then it would merge the other way around, with the ship-class article into the scandal article, as the political scandal would seem more significant than the ships themselves. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There do not seem to have been any additional comments for almost two months here, so I think it might be fine to go ahead and merge the two pages. —Compdude123 19:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see you actually haven't done the merge yet; I'd hold off; the "scandal" article should focus on the political/media information, the ferry article should remain as a ship article with all the technical data; they are different subjects...so my vote is waffle and hold out; as I can see the reason now for the two separate articles, given the separation of ship titles from associated matters being somewhat the norm in WP:SHIPSSkookum1 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politics and Ship Building do not mix: Keep them separate with links to each other. Political analysts do not want engineering information and ship builders do not want politics.

Thanks, TW Burger (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (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.