|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
Merging with Replenishment Oiler article
I disagree with merging these two articles . This is a fairly decent for small size articile at moment. A good next step here woudl be specific informaiton on equipment and the rigs.
The replenishment oiler article has a below average rating in my opinion. It refers to some decommissioned classes of ships, lack specifics on distinction of replenishment oilers to tankers.
Wfoj2 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the articles in their entirety, but I disagree they should be merged. Underway Replenishment covers MORE than just fuel. As a merchant mariner working for Military Sealift Command, I've sailed on many types of ships that underway replenish. Ammunition and Dry Cargo ships replenish with pallets, both by connecting, and by helicopter. the article for Underway Replenishment Oiler is a specific topic, while this article seems more broad in scope. Hengineer (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Merge - The article, at this time, does mention the replenishing fuel, stores, and ammunition by various means. It is meant to cover all materials and methods. The replenishment oiler article is too specific, dated, and would have a large amount of overlap with the full "underway replenishment" article. The articles need to try to broaden beyond being about the U.S. (although the U.S. fleet is the largest) and work on a history section. Work should be spend improving the Underway replenishment article to Wikipedia standards. --Pesco (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Merge Underway replenishment is a technique. A Replenishment oiler is a ship that happens to use the technique. Two different things, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think this article about the technique should include sections about the ships. I would see replenishment oiler as a section of this article, just as you could have ammunition ships, dry stores ships, and combination vessels like the fast combat support ships. Broad enough to be international, of course. I just don't see enough justification for an article for each type of vessel, especially when the unrep oiler article is so spotty. If the sections get big and developed enough they could be split. --Pesco (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - ships and concept should have different articles. Quality of an article is only a minor point - moving the info over to the replenishment article doesn't make it better. Replenishment is also a wider concept than just ships. Ingolfson (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - the concept/procedure and the ships are separate things; there are separate articles for Airliner and Aviation, for example. And I would point out that UNREP/RAS goes beyond just oilers, but also includes ammunition ships, stores ships etcetera. What is needed is expansion/improvement of the 'replenishment oiler' page, not a merge which IMO would be a retrograde move. Solicitr (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Merging with Ship to Ship Cargo Transfer Article
It looks like these are two different subjects. The Ship to Ship article isn't very descriptive, but it seems to say that the two ships moor to one another before cargo transfer takes place. That's not what military UNREP is, or is about. Lou Sander (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm gonna say Oppose too, the guy who suggested it hasn't even given a rationale. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am totally opposed. The topic of UNREP is only known to U.S. Naval vessels and those vessels that have been trained by the U.S. Navy to accomplish it. No other Navy in the world is able to accomplish such a tremendously difficult and hazardous task. Ask the Russians. They have spent decades following the U.S. Navy trying to learn how to perform an UNREP. Bambam4274 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)