Talk:Naval warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

	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
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

This redirection makes a hash of two distinct concepts; naval warfare in the general sense, which as a concept should be "timeless" and draw upon multiple periods to mention ramming, guns, boarding, etc, while naval history is more of the narrative. Another way to put it is that one is a "how to do it", and the other is a "how was it done". Stan 19:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would think it is comparable to siege warfare, nuclear warfare, chemical warfare, biological warfare, and guerrilla warfare all of which have the history and modern elements handled in the same article. - SimonP 19:44, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, although those are rather smaller in scope. There's plenty of "how to" material for a non-history naval warfare article, it's just scattered all over the place right now, very disorganized (too bad I have a day job :-) ). Stan 21:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)