This redirect 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
This redirect 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 redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose -- The effect will be to overwrite a complete (but less well formatted) article with an incomplete one. The ships of the line article has much fuller information, but is not formatted as a table, which looks better. The best answer is to Close RM and Merge. After merger one article should be converted to a redirect to the other. Which this should be will depend on the precedents for similar lists for otehr nations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice that the other article existed. The situation is patently ridiculous, but I also support a merge, if it's possible and a mere redirect otherwise. Srnec (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that "capital ships" is not a contemporary term either. My main view of the name was based on the WP precedent for cognate articles on other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
The problem is a number of the entries predate the adoption of line-ahead tactics by several decades (and in some cases by a century or so), so "line of battle ship" isn't strictly correct for them. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]