Talk:USS America (ID-3006)

message: This particular ship had a long and varied career and it's fortunate that danfs had such a complete write up available even though at times it branches off into speculation and pov of the writer. If we add up all the names this ship operated under using the information available, we get: SS Amerika, USS Amerika, USS America, USAT America, SS America and finally USAT Edmund B. Alexander. Most of the previous names already have stub articles or redirects pointing towards this article. Given the size of the text, I thought it might be an idea to split off one or two incarnations of this ship to separate articles. At least the military careers of this ship could be separated from the civilian ones to avoid reader confusion, if anything. A few months ago I had started to break the articles off but became involved in finding photos and trying to wikify the lengthy text. Whatever is decided to do here, the infobox needs to reflect the careers in one box and not have three boxes on one article page. --Brad (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the multiple infoboxes because of the differing details such as armament.  Someone more familiar with the infobox will have to merge the info.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The various articles need to be clearly crosslinked.  The SS Amerika article didn't have a link to this article until I added one today.  Is there an infobox/navbox for aliases?  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Should we invite Wikiproject Ships to tackle this ships[sic], or are enough participants here already?  -- SEWilco (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started to pick away at it. Need to add EB Alexander to the infobox stack next. Still don't know what to do about the splitting; either leave everything here or separate it. --Brad (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I doubt there is enough additional information yet for more than a stub for each name, so I prefer a single article (maybe merge back :SS Amerika also).  If separate articles are done then we need a good navigation box with all the names.  Are ship renamings common enough that this situation often exists?  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was plenty of material for a few articles to have several paragraphs on each one. But if things stay in one article you're describing a huge effort to get everything into continuity and flow so that it is coherent. I noticed that the references for the SS Amerika include some further items of interest that haven't been expanded on such as the collision with HMS B2. The advantage of bringing everything into one article is all of the references from SS Amerika could be used to enhance this article. Normal ship article naming conventions point to naming an article where the most history on the ship is available, which would be this one. It's quite common for one ship to have had several names and have been operated by several different entities. --Brad (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  … and now the SS Amerika article has been merged in here too.  Well, at least the decisions can now be made in one place.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, jeez... I didn't know this discussion was taking place in here. Sorry if I stepped on anyone’s toes. I had this in a 'to-do' list of my own to combine into a single article. It seemed the SS Amerika article was just the early DANFS stuff with a few added tidbits, and it seemed silly to have it by itself. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion is still under way, and this offers the advantage of editing in one place for consistency.  I think you did better than what I did, when I added all the rest of the DANFS article to Amerika before discovering this article (and adding a link to here).  -- SEWilco (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it stands right now, there doesn't seem to be enough as SS Amerika or USAT Edmund B. Alexander to warrant separate articles. What I could see work would be a fork to an article History of USS America (ID-3006) in World War I or some other similar title that could go over every troop trip, etc., with a major overview in this, the main article. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to get caught up here.. I had actually come to the conclusion that things would be better off in one article rather than try to separate them. So thanks for the combining of SS Amerika and renaming this article. Also, splitting off the WWI history would be a good idea as currently things are lengthy in that area and don't need to be so detailed. --Brad (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Given the above debate about the length of the article, the bit about the Russian Revolution should be culled. The ship was sent to evacuate Czech soldiers. There are other places for the Russian Revolution information and the Czech Legion information DermottBanana (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One article or more?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion