Talk:HMS Venerable (R63)

Merge (2007)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My opinion about the suggested merging: Strongly disagree, I believe the best way of tracking the evolution of a ship that has been used by different navies under different names is by creating a main article under the initial name (whenever possible) or the most important name from a historiucal/career pov. That article should include a brief reference to its usage by other navies and links to articles that should detail the service under each of those navies/names. This would support much better the "neutral point of view" than merging everything and choosing (under which criteria?) one of the names to represent the ship. An example of this can be seen in the book "Crusers of Worl War Two", by M.J.Whitley, where several ex-british cruisers transferred to allied navies have an entry for their history under british flag and another entry for their history under the allied country flag (Australia, Poland, etc.). Thus, "Venerable", "Karel Doorman" and "Veinticinco de Mayo" should not be merged but cross-referenced. DPdH 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments
I've added an infobox to this article with the full career history with all 3 navies included, I've copied this career history into the other 2 articles with the name of the ship wikilinked to the other two articles. Therefore all 3 articles are cross referenced. JonEastham (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)