Talk:PacifiCat-class ferry

I propose that

• Support – The scandal has to do with the development of the ferries anyway, so it would only make sense to combine both articles. —Compdude¹²³ 06:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes, I thought it odd that there's two articles, since PacifiCat Class Ferries are only this one design/project. There are two categories, also, I think; I'll check when I get a chance unless someone else would oblige (I'm working on an upgrade to be website right now).Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The one issue I have with this is that there's a big difference between a scandal article and a ship article; more input from WP:SHIPS is needed IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there's enough material to support separate class and scandal articles. I see no reason for a merger. If it were merged, then it would merge the other way around, with the ship-class article into the scandal article, as the political scandal would seem more significant than the ships themselves. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, that's pretty much the point in my comment; changing my vote. It's like
    Amor de Cosmos, Matthew Baillie Begbie, BC Rail and various others) and should all eventually be split once enough material/citations are provided to warrant stand-alone articles......Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Except the Pacific Scandal has a separate article. So, is your changed vote supporting a merge the other way around (ships into the scandal article), or opposing a merge? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was meaning by way of example that it wouldn't be appropriate to have only the scandal as part of the railway article, or vice-versa.Skookum1 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There do not seem to have been any additional comments for almost two months here, so I think it might be fine to go ahead and merge the two pages. —Compdude¹²³ 19:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • well, I've been kinda busy elsewhere..... but my point remains that
          William Richards Bennett page instead. The media-fanning of "Scandal" in relation to the Fast Ferries is why the current title; it's just commonly, and more honestly, titled as "Fiasco".Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Comment I see you actually haven't done the merge yet; I'd hold off; the "scandal" article should focus on the political/media information, the ferry article should remain as a ship article with all the technical data; they are different subjects...so my vote is waffle and hold out; as I can see the reason now for the two separate articles, given the separation of ship titles from associated matters being somewhat the norm in WP:SHIPSSkookum1 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Politics and Ship Building do not mix: Keep them separate with links to each other. Political analysts do not want engineering information and ship builders do not want politics.

Thanks, TW Burger (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]