Talk:SS Washington

Tonnage

This table lists gross tonnage under the displacement field. They are not the same. When one tries to change the name of the field to "tonnage"-- the correct term-- the gross tonnage figure does not appear, and in its place appears the word "unknown". This seems to be due to the use of a template for naval vessels. Can anyone correct this? Tonnage is the proper measure here, which has nothing to do with displacement. Kablammo 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since GT didn't come into effect until 1980, I'm pretty sure it's meant to be GRT. I adjusted it as such. Haus^Talk 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same ships?

It seems there is some redundancy. This 2006 start-class article is about the same ship as the 2008 start-class USS Mount Vernon. The 2006 start-class article SS Manhattan is the same as the 2008 start-class USS Wakefield. The Mount Vernon and Wakefield articles are by the same author that may not have known the others existed. Otr500 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the overlap between the two articles is enough to warrant a merger (and perhaps lop off the extraneous log info from Mount Vernon's page). I'm putting up merger templates on both pages. 174.0.253.201 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Each is a different subject, regardless it concerns the same vessel. With different focuses. WP is lucky when there is so much to create a legitimate article around regarding a "private" vessel's commandeered WWII service. It is much better, and easier, for readers to keep the two topics separate.2601:196:180:DC0:8417:1C5A:8581:D612 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, with no merge, given that the April proposal has received no support and an uncontested objection, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]