Talk:Naval History
Appearance
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move
[edit]Naval History → Naval History (magazine)– The current title could be the target of a mistaken link for naval history in general. Naval history is a common term that should take the common name, and it has roughly 100 links as opposed to the magazine's 20ish. Thus the Naval history article should remain in place, Naval History (with two caps) should be a redirect to Naval history, and the article about the magazine should be Naval History (magazine). The magazine article was originally tagged for a merge, but a move is much more appropriate. - Draeco 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support as nom. - Draeco 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Few would think the magazine is the primary topic. Though this begs the question, why don't we have an article on Naval History? 205.157.110.11 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. -- Beardo 07:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Quuxplusone 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories:
- Stub-Class magazine articles
- Low-importance magazine articles
- WikiProject Magazines articles
- Stub-Class Maryland articles
- Low-importance Maryland articles
- WikiProject Maryland articles
- Stub-Class military history articles
- Stub-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- Stub-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Stub-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles