Talk:No.2 class escort ship

Merge
Hi! The're (at least ^_^) two articles about this class: No.2 class escort ship and D Type class escort ship. Data in infoboxes are littlebit different but the ships are the same as you can see in the list of units (name, shipyard, fate) and the japanese article on ja:Wikipedia is the same for both articles. --Sceadugenga (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, these look like the same class of ship under two names.
 * If you are merging them together, what did you have in mind? The text at "No 2 class" is a bit iffy; it looks like a google translation; but the table is good. And I’ve no idea where the title "No 2 class" comes from; the sources there aren’t clear. But the sources for "Type D escort vessel" are sound enough.
 * I would suggest moving stuff to "Type D..." rather than the other way around, for that reason. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS (Ditto for the "No 1 class"/"Type C escort ship" merge, here). Xyl 54 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! My english is not so good to recognize that this text is a google-translation (it doesn't look like one) ^_^ But yes, I thing that "Type D" is more common designation. There're no inline citations but it seems, that these informations are from the publications of the Bibliography section. I don't have them so I can't judge which statement should be merged and which should be removed. (imho all shoud be moved and only remove duplicity) --Sceadugenga (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I’ve had a look at the articles; if you are agreeable I’m happy to do the merger.
 * I propose to :-
 * Create a “Background” and “Design/Construction” sections at “Type D” and blend the stuff from “No 2” to there
 * Add the class review material from “No 2 to the “Type D infobox
 * Amend the armament section with detail from “No 2
 * Create a “List of Type D escort ships” page and move the Table at “No 2 to there
 * Summarize the “Ships section at “Type D and add a main article link to the “List page
 * Create a ships lost/ “Losses section to complement the “Successes/Allied subs sunk section use and use the current Ships material for that
 * I’ll also do the same for the “Type C” /”No 1” class pages
 * What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I think thak this is littlebit complicated. I agree with points #1-3. But about creating a new “List of Type D escort ships” page (#4 & 5): I suggest only to replace current /Ships/ section from type D by /Ships in class/ table from No.2. Maybe not only replace but merge some events from Type D list into No.2 table (for example that CD-8 was torpedoed and damaged by USS Hoe on October 8, 1944.). Ad #6: It'll be redundant after replacing /Ships/ section by table from No.2. Bye... --Sceadugenga (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we could try it that way; the ship information here could do with being in the table, certainly. Are you OK with me doing it, or would you prefer to do it? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good... If you have a time, you can try it... I'll not have a time until next week/ Thanks for cooperation ^_^ --Sceadugenga (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)