Talk:SuperSeaCat

Merging with Super SeaCat
I suggest the Super SeaCat [sic] article is merged into this one. As I understand it, the correct spelling for these crafts is SuperSeaCat, without a space. Furthermore, if the HSC SuperSeaCat Two is operated by a different company than Three and Four (which this article is about), it would make sense to let this page be a general article about the craft type and dedicate separate section/pages for the shipping company operating two of the crafts. --Jopo 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Supported. Makes little sense having two different pages. (And SuperSeaCat is indeed the correct spelling). - Kjet 10:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Supported. Why not. Seems better to have one than two, but it would be a bit out of shape. Lightoller (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Supported. SuperSeaCat is the correct spelling, this is also a little unnecessary article because the other article about the SuperSeaCat is more comprehensive. To me, merging is the best option. SuperWeber 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to point out that currently this article is about the SuperSeaCat company, while the other one is about the SuperSeaCat ferry class. While the other one is more comprehensible about the class, it doesn't deal at all with the company. Not that this would change my views about the merger, I just had to point it out as the main creator of this article. -- Kjet 10:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For the "Super SeaCat" rticle, I suggest putting it as either "Fincantieri MDV1200 fastcraft" or "MDV1200-class fastcraft" Lightoller (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The suggestion by Lightoller has been done some time ago. In the light of the :::information that there are two MDV1200 craft that never sailed for SeaCo/SuperSeaCat I feel it would be correct to maintain two separate articles. therefore I must change my vote to against (not that anyone would notice for such an old proposal). -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed my vote to against also. Kjet's statement of maintaining both articles is correct Lightoller (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)