Talk:Samarth-class offshore patrol vessel

Sri Lanka Navy Offshore Patrol Vessels are not Samarth Class
Sri Lanka Navy's new Offshore Patrol Vessels (P623,P624) are not Samarth Class. They are based on Saryu Class. Although several media reported it as Samarth class, according to the Goa shipyard and Sri Lanka Navy its Saryu Class. If you want to confirm just look the images of those vessels. cc: User:Adamgerber80 User:Tupsumato
 * Hi, You are absolutely right and thanks a lot for bringing this to my notice. Sorry, I was the one who added them here. I think I messed up because of two reasons: incorrect news reports and same specifications of the 2 classes. I will fix this asap. For anyone else who wants a reliable source that this is indeed the case, please refer to this link of the product page on Goa Shipyard's website . Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The respective pages have been updated. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Thanks for the update.-Randeepa

Proposed merge with ICGS Samarth
No much information on its own. Can be included in the class page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge —Gazoth (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with ICGS Samrat
Not enough information on the individual ship. Merge to ship class page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page should be merged, but the destination is wrong. Samrat is a Sankalp-class offshore patrol vessel. —Gazoth (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct. This was in the absence of Sankalp-class offshore patrol vessel which you recently created. Thanks and great work. Just for a historical perspective, there was a time when Sankalp-class offshore patrol vessel was not treated as a distinct class and was merged with Samarth-class offshore patrol vessel until ICG updated their website and made it clear that they were indeed distinct classes. I support that this should be merged into the newly created page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jane's Fighting Ships does the same, although it considers Samarth class to be a part of Sankalp class, not the other way around. —Gazoth (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am digressing here but I do understand why Jane's Fighting Ships would do that. Sankalp-class did precede Samarth-class and both were built by GSL. But ICG is indeed right in terming them as separate classes since there are differences in dimensions, armaments, propulsion and the fact that they were laid almost 8 years apart. This same issue might crop up when the follow-up order for Samarth-class gets commissioned. We will have to keep an eye out on how ICG terms it. Based on my experience so far, it is highly likely that ICG might term this a new class and not a new flight. But unless they do that it is okay to maintain that in the current article. I will update the preceding and follow up classes on the associated pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you got all the preceding and follow-up classes. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. As a commissioned ship (albeit in the Coastguard) over 100 tons it's deemed a notable ship by WP:SHIPS and should have its own individual article Lyndaship (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument is not about whether it can be on it's own. That is already the case but the question is it really required in this case? Given that there is not much information about the class or the ship in themselves, it is more judicious to merge them. The notability part of WP:SHIP allows us to create a new page if it is so required but it does not state that this should be the case. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed WP:SHIPS does not say it has to be a separate article but it defines the criteria for what makes a ship likely to be notable and worth its own article. Given that this ship has quite a large tonnage, that more information is likely to be added in due course and that it already has its own article I don't see the point in merging as its likely to be split out again. Incidentally the article is much longer and better sourced than many other individual ships articles (note the C-class rating as opposed to a stub) Lyndaship (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the C class rating was when there was an image for the page which was removed for CR violations. My motivations behind the merge was to consolidate a lot of individual ship pages under the ICG. We do not have many editors in this area and before came along most of these articles were being monitored just by me and largely in poor shape. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's the story throughout modern minor warships especially outside the major navies. Regardless of if this one is considered stub or C class its a lot better than many others which have their own article and I come back to it's notable in it's own right so it deserves it's own page Lyndaship (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)