Talk:SS City of Paris (1888)

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 / North America / United States / World War I

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

How was City of Paris able to generate 1500 more HP?

If City of New York and City of Paris had the same engines, why was Paris able to generate an additional 1500 HP? --Badger151 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Yale

This article should be combined with that on the USS Yale (1888). A redirect would be enough to direct anyone looking for the USS Yale to this article. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I added the merge-proposal template to both pages, and created a new section below to discuss it. TypoBoy (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this ship's two pages

USS Yale (1888) and SS City of Paris (1888) each have Wikipedia articles, despite the fact that they're the same ship. Each article tells the ship's whole history, with some parts covered better in one and some in the other. This is silly. The ship should have one article. Its alternate names can be redirects.TypoBoy (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Separate articles are called for when the combined content would make a single article unwieldy. This is not the case here. It's the same ship, and neither article is very long. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I prefer to see a vessel's whole history combined when that is reasonable, as it is in this case. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]