Category talk:Naval artillery

message: === Merge ===
There seems no point having these 2 categories, as they are splitting information that should be collated into 1 category. Emoscopes Talk 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they should be merged, perhaps under Naval artillery which seems a broader category. --Victor12 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge under one or the other.   Gene Nygaard 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge as "artillery" includes both guns and rocket devices etc. but not the other way around. Emoscopes Talk 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that, then you need to rewrite Naval artillery (with citations!) as it is very specific about cannon.--J Clear 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge either way.--J Clear 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from artillery; "Historically, artillery refers to any engine used for the discharge of projectiles during war". Surely this is a catchall for naval guns, cannons and rocketry? Emoscopes Talk 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When has the Army and Navy agree on anything?  Perhaps the Army call rockets "artillery" just so the Air Force doesn't assert priority. --J Clear 02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Still, a subcat for "Naval rockets" under Naval artillery should keep everyone happy, there are so few of them that it shouldn't cause too much fuss. Emoscopes Talk 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support Merge to Artillery. I agree with Emoscopes proposal about rockets. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is anything more required, or shall I go ahead and do this? Emoscopes Talk 10:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Too keep things neutral and in the style of existing categories, I'd stay with "naval artillery". Emoscopes Talk 09:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: There seems no point having these 2 categories, as they are splitting information that should be collated into 1 category. Emoscopes Talk 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they should be merged, perhaps under Naval artillery which seems a broader category. --Victor12 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge under one or the other.   Gene Nygaard 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge as "artillery" includes both guns and rocket devices etc. but not the other way around. Emoscopes Talk 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that, then you need to rewrite Naval artillery (with citations!) as it is very specific about cannon.--J Clear 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge either way.--J Clear 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from artillery; "Historically, artillery refers to any engine used for the discharge of projectiles during war". Surely this is a catchall for naval guns, cannons and rocketry? Emoscopes Talk 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When has the Army and Navy agree on anything?  Perhaps the Army call rockets "artillery" just so the Air Force doesn't assert priority. --J Clear 02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Still, a subcat for "Naval rockets" under Naval artillery should keep everyone happy, there are so few of them that it shouldn't cause too much fuss. Emoscopes Talk 11:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support Merge to Artillery. I agree with Emoscopes proposal about rockets. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is anything more required, or shall I go ahead and do this? Emoscopes Talk 10:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Too keep things neutral and in the style of existing categories, I'd stay with "naval artillery". Emoscopes Talk 09:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge