To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
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. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
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.
Closed as No consensus - A 14-month-old merge proposal, with minimal discussion on the 2 non-target articles. - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see this being more than a dictionary definition, and would benefit from the context of the Warship article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Surface combatant is Navy-speak for "escort". Warships would include LPDs, SSNs, CVNs, etc, but the surface combatants exist mainly to keep the small stuff from bothering the power projection ships as they operate aircraft, LCACs and EFVs. Hcobb (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Mine sweepers are not surface combatants and of course that makes sense. Mine-layers seem to fit the definition of surface combatant because they deploy weapons from their ships for the purpose of engaging other ships. Therefore I think mine laying ships should be included in the list of surface combatant ships. XXVII (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)