Talk:HMS Cygnet (H83)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-17C-Cygnet-StLaurentRCN.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• Disagree - The above was generated by Sturmvogel 66. It might be helpful to have his rationale. It certainly isn't obvious to me that this is anything but a recipe for arguments. When vessels are sold from one nation to another they get different flags, names, crews, armaments, engagement histories, and battle honours. They are, in a real sense, different ships with a common hull. Each nation is mostly interested in the ship that sailed under its flag and forms part of its national history.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but much space is wasted by duplicating information common to both articles. So long as there is a redirect from one to the other, all that's left are quibbles about which name the ship should be listed under. Unfortunately, I already merged them before I noticed that somebody had actually bothered to comment, unlike the three other RN/RCN destroyer articles that I'd already merged. Apologies, but I think that you'll see that no information is actually lost and much is saved by consolidating these two articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)