Talk:Naval ram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naval ram article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid	rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Maritime warfare task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

[edit] Suggested merge

This article is more or less a duplicate of Naval Ram. It does have information that the other doesn't, so it should be merged rather than just deleted. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes to proposed merge. Ships that have intentionally rammed without an actual ram or extra structural strength designed into the bow can be treated as an anomaly. Binksternet 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. Ram (ship) is a bad article name, as this is precisely what we would use for a ship named Ram. The related article ramming contains an incomplete section on ramming at sea. Suggest:

naval ram - should describe the device's form and purpose across the ages
ramming - should cover tactics and actual ramming events

Both articles should clearly reference the other. ram (ship) should remain as a redirect to naval ram. Maralia 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Should we do this now, or wait a little longer? I doubt anyone will object to the proposed merger. Parsecboy 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. As link from Naval Ram to merger discussion has just been redirected here, I suggest waiting a couple of days. Kablammo 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. Sounds reasonable with little controversy.Brumhildaa 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I may work on it later on today, if I have time. Parsecboy 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The merge is done. If anyone wants to rearrange stuff more, that's cool too. Parsecboy 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First modern ram

The assertion that Taureau was the first ram built in the modern era is ambiguous. I presume that you mean 'built from the keel up,' as several modern rams preceded her in the American Civil War. The first of these was CSS Manassas^[1] Better known was the noted CSS Virginia (ex-USS Merrimack (sic, not Merrimac)).^[2] The latter made a successful ramming attack on USS Cumberland during the Battle of Hampton Roads, 8 March 1862. PKKloeppelPkkphysicist (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Pkkphysicist