Redirect to:
Merge discussion
Because the remains are an NHL while the memorial above is only an NRHP dm (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely this article should be merged with the USS Arizona article, rather than the memorial one? I can't see the point in having one article for the ship and another for the wreck. Jellyfish dave (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agree Clearly, this article USS Arizona (shipwreck) needs to be merged into the the existing USS Arizona Memorial article. This is merely a footnote and discusses the same subject matter. -Signaleer (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I stronly disagree. There is a lot more really important info that would be harder to find if the search began ith USS Arizona Keep this site and merge the USS Arizona into it if you wish but not vice versa. 03:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.4.231 (talk)
- Strong Agree. The shipwreck article doesn't really state anything about the shipwreck anyway. I wouldn't even say that the Arizona is a shipwreck in the traditional sense of the word. The Shipwreck article should be removed. Mjf3719 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely merge. Has little independent significance. A ship that is sunk remains the same ship, and its history remains continuous. Chaparral2J (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into USS Arizona Memorial. This redirect should have never been created as a separate article in the first place. JGHowes 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Merge: Probably would work in either the article about the ship or the memorial, both should probably at least mention the NHL status of the wreck but I can see little independent notability in the shipwreck that is worthy of a separate article. --IvoShandor (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree This article USS Arizona (shipwreck) doesn't seem to be justified per se. IMHO it needs to be merged either into the existing USS Arizona Memorial article or (even better) into the existing USS Arizona battleship article. After all, in this case the shipwreck is the final state of the ship itself. Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
- Comment The shipwreck itself is listed as a National Historic Landmark (#89001083) while the memorial itself is only a NRHP (#66000944), they are distinct. You'd need to put the NHL infobox for the shipwreck in whichever article you merge into in addition to whatever other NRHP or Ship infoboxes exist.. IMHO, although it seems like an obvious thing that they should be merged into one or the other articles, I wasnt able to edit it into either of the other article easily. After some thought, I went with the shipwreck article as is. I am not opposed to a merged article in theory, if it's done well. I would ask that you create the merged page in a sandbox first though. dm (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The ship and the memorial are two different things. Both articles are also long enough in their own right. The construction of the new memorial will also complicate things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)