Talk:MS Augustus (1926)

Header

I’ve removed the header from here; it appears to be an attempt to pre-judge the decision of the discussion, below, which has not been decided yet.Xyl 54 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero

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 was no consensus for merger'Xyl 54 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Both articles are on the same vessel and have relatively little content. According to WP:SHIPS naming conventions, a ship's entire career should be covered in a single article unless "the ship had significant careers in two navies, [in which case] it may be best to create two articles". In this case the criteria in my opinion not met, as the conversion of the Sparvieto was never even completed and as such she never entered service as a military vessel. On the other hand her civilian career as the Augustus was extensive. As such in my opinion merging the content from Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero is called for. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What about SS Roma, which is the sister ship of MS Augustus? At first, I saw that there is an article name Italian aircraft carrier Aquila, which is the later transformation of the Roma. Like her sister, the Augustus was later transformed into Italian aircraft carrier Sparviero. In addition, the passenger ship and aircraft carrier are completely different. I had saw many separate articles like SS Normandie and USS Lafayette (AP-53), SS Manhattan and USS Wakefield (AP-21). Aquitania (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Where, as here, a ship changes function completely a merge should not be done. This is not the situation where a ship is sold to another owner but engages in the same activity, but rather one where a ship was reconstructed for a different purpose. Compare Lexington class battlecruiser with the class and individual articles on the aircraft carriers. And for a carrier converted to a liner, see HMS Attacker (D02) and Fairsky. Kablammo (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Re:Aquitania: Both USS Wakefield (AP-21) and USS Lafayette (AP-53) would (arguably) fullfill the requirement of having "significant careers in two navies" (of course, a commercial operator is not a navy, but that is implified in the guideline—which is one of the many WP:SHIPS guidelines written without a provision for commercially operated vessels). In case of the Augustus/Sparviero this requirement is, in my opinion, not filled. The fact that the article on Italian aircraft carrier Aquila predates the article on SS Roma does not change the facts related to the merger under discussion (although in my opinion a similar merge should be performed on Roma/Aquila). That the ship appeared physically completely different as an aircraft carrier from her appearance as a liner does not change the fact it was still the same ship. We have, for instance, only one article on Costa Allegra (and her sister Costa Marina), covering her life as a freighter and the completely different cruise ship. Similarly the post-1994 MS Athena is completely dissimilar to her original appearance from 1948 but there's just one article.

Re:Kablammo: If this is the concensus then the various guidelines should be updated to reflect this. Never the less, in this particular case I do not feel two different articles are justified, as per my reasoning above. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the guideline you mention is in the section entitled "Ships that change name or nationality". It does not appear intended to address the situation where, as here, the vessel was completely reconstructed for a different purpose. A "see also" in those situations will point readers to the page on the vessel's prior or subsequent iteration. An added benefit is avoiding a singe article dominated by a bloated infobox, or series of them, which dominate the page. This may be a situation where a little inconsistency is tolerated; I would hope no one would merge relatively more complete articles such as the Lexingtons for the sake of following a guidleine. I believe what Graeme suggests below may address that. Kablammo (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the relatively low content of both and that the aircraft carrier forms were never used, I'd merge for the now but use two infoboxes and demerge should the article get more comprehensive. HMS Courageous (50) and HMS Vindictive (1918) were two ships heavily reworked into different types of ships but both "manage" with a single article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Kablammo: I admit that the guideline I quoted was not nescessarily meant for cases such as this, but I could not find a more fitting one—on the the other hand, I could not find a guideline that would directly oppose my proposal. And to clarify, I didn't in any way intend to propose that all cases where a ship was rebuilt the articles should be merged (if more than one exist that is), so I'm in agreeance with Graeme. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - These ships are unusual in that they were, IIRC, Italy's first attempt to build full carriers. I think lumping that info in with the previous incarnations' history will not serve to make the info as prominant as it should be. I'd like to see the articles have some time in which there is a concerted effort to expand them. If after that time, say 3-4 months, the carrier articles have not been improved considerably, then we could merge them at that time. - BillCJ (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The subject of a ship with two distinct careers can be covered adequately in one article. See HMS Activity. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I wanted these two articles be merged. But, if it's that so, I also wanted SS Roma (1926) and Italian aircraft carrier Aquila be merged too. Aquitania (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are doing, Aquitania! You ask for a discussion 3 months ago on moving Sparviero to MS Augustus,then drop a mention of merging Aquila to SS Roma here with no posting of merge tags on those articles, or any direction to the discussion here. Now you've merged them, but not these articles! Anyway, I've reverted your merge of Aquila to SS Roma as unnotified and nonconsensual. If you still feel they should be merged, do it right! Note that WP can be very complex - it's better to ask for help then make a big mess that someone esle has to clean up. - BillCJ (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If this discussion is still open, I’d oppose a merger: I’d say a period as a passenger ship, followed by another as an aircraft carrier (even if incomplete), constitutes "two different careers", certainly more different than those of the USS Wakefield (AP-21)/SS Manhattan quoted above. Is it only American ships that merit two articles for their different incarnations? At the least two articles simplifies the references and categories for the two ‘ships’.Xyl 54 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Kjet, GraemeLeggett and Mjroots are for the merger,
while Kablammo and BillCJ. are opposed.
Aquitania seems to be of two minds.
I would suggest there is no consensus for the merger, and it should be recorded as such. Are there any objections to that? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Done. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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.