Talk:Ram (ship)

Suggested merge[edit]

This article is more or less a duplicate of Naval Ram. It does have information that the other doesn't, so it should be merged rather than just deleted. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to proposed merge. Ships that have intentionally rammed without an actual ram or extra structural strength designed into the bow can be treated as an anomaly. Binksternet 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Ram (ship) is a bad article name, as this is precisely what we would use for a ship named Ram. The related article ramming contains an incomplete section on ramming at sea. Suggest:

naval ram - should describe the device's form and purpose across the ages
ramming - should cover tactics and actual ramming events

Both articles should clearly reference the other. ram (ship) should remain as a redirect to naval ram. Maralia 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Should we do this now, or wait a little longer? I doubt anyone will object to the proposed merger. Parsecboy 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. As link from Naval Ram to merger discussion has just been redirected here, I suggest waiting a couple of days. Kablammo 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Sounds reasonable with little controversy.Brumhildaa 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I may work on it later on today, if I have time. Parsecboy 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]