Talk:PacifiCat-class ferry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PacifiCat-class ferry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Canada: British Columbia C‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

fine to have what they were sold for, but without how much they cost?[edit]

I've just been looking over Fast Ferry Scandal and though a $460 million figure is given, not clear which cite will have that figure; I've seen 477 million somewhere recently.... this in ref to this edit.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge. Klbrain (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Fast Ferry Scandal be merged into PacifiCat-class ferry. I feel it is impossible to adequately explain the scandal without explaining the ships themselves and vice versa. Gwsk55970 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The scandal has to do with the development of the ferries anyway, so it would only make sense to combine both articles. —Comp dude¹²³ 06:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Yes, I thought it odd that there's two articles, since PacifiCat Class Ferries are only this one design/project. There are two categories, also, I think; I'll check when I get a chance unless someone else would oblige (I'm working on an upgrade to be website right now).Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The one issue I have with this is that there's a big difference between a scandal article and a ship article; more input from WP:SHIPS is needed IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's enough material to support separate class and scandal articles. I see no reason for a merger. If it were merged, then it would merge the other way around, with the ship-class article into the scandal article, as the political scandal would seem more significant than the ships themselves. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, that's pretty much the point in my comment; changing my vote. It's like Canadian Pacific Railway vs. Pacific Scandal a bit, other examples are out there. Many BC scandals are just sections on bios or town or company articles (Amor de Cosmos, Matthew Baillie Begbie, BC Rail and various others) and should all eventually be split once enough material/citations are provided to warrant stand-alone articles......Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except the Pacific Scandal has a separate article. So, is your changed vote supporting a merge the other way around (ships into the scandal article), or opposing a merge? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was meaning by way of example that it wouldn't be appropriate to have only the scandal as part of the railway article, or vice-versa.Skookum1 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There do not seem to have been any additional comments for almost two months here, so I think it might be fine to go ahead and merge the two pages. —Comp dude¹²³ 19:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - well, I've been kinda busy elsewhere..... but my point remains that Pacific Scandal should not be upmerged to Canadian Pacific Railway, and that real scandals in BC history, such as the Cottonwood Scandal or Texada Scandal may eventually have enough to warrant separate articles rather than being sections of the Begbie and deCosmos articles. Whether Doman Scandal redirects to Doman Industries I'm not sure (just checked it goes to Bill_Bennett#Controversies where there's a tiny bit on it; perhaps to the section on the William Richards Bennett page instead. The media-fanning of "Scandal" in relation to the Fast Ferries is why the current title; it's just commonly, and more honestly, titled as "Fiasco".Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see you actually haven't done the merge yet; I'd hold off; the "scandal" article should focus on the political/media information, the ferry article should remain as a ship article with all the technical data; they are different subjects...so my vote is waffle and hold out; as I can see the reason now for the two separate articles, given the separation of ship titles from associated matters being somewhat the norm in WP:SHIPSSkookum1 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Politics and Ship Building do not mix: Keep them separate with links to each other. Political analysts do not want engineering information and ship builders do not want politics.

Thanks, TW Burger (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.