# Talk:SMS Panther (1885)

I suggest a merge between this article and the corresponding page regarding its sister ship. They're nearly identical save for a few service record notes, and could without much ado be merged. There will be requirements for some cleverness regarding a few of the sentences, and a redirect from here to there would need to be explained a bit in the other article so as not to confuse any reader. I have, however, already edited in some note of the Panther's service record in the Leopard article because of their shared fate. Synthmon (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge - commissioned Navy ships are considered notable in their own right, and the two ships are not identical, nor did they have identical careers. There is no particular reason to merge. Benea (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see no difference when comparing their articles, apart from the service record I mentioned. Compare the articles - they are indeed identical, apart from a bit of minor rephrasing in the opening paragraphs, and the very last paragraph. If the ships are different as you say I think the article should reflect this? Synthmon (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no need and no precedent for this. Commissioned Navy ships are considered notable in their own right, hence HMS Lancaster (1902) and HMS Donegal (1902) at the moment are very similar and were identical in design, but no one is suggesting they are merged and then expanded out again if and when more details come to light. The ships were different, different captains, crews, different careers.  The precedent here is to have a class page, and a page on each ship of the class. There is no need to combine all the ships of a class into a single page, because they had similar careers. Benea (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as well, per the reasons given by Benea. Ships commissioned into any navy are automatically notable; there's no need for merger here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per Benea. Endorse Benea's summary of the precedent and of how naval ship content is organised throughout Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, seems decent enough. Thanks for the other examples regarding Lancaster/Donegal, that was more like it. I'll browse through the city library some day to see if I can't add something to these two articles. Removing merger tags, wikifying other article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthmon (talk • contribs) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 

here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

And here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Another here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)