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
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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK I'm not going to argue over this but if this is a dab page (as it suggests it is) it should be governed by MOS:DAB because this is not an article. If however it is a list then it is not. Could the category be changed to reflect this I wonder? Abtract (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Shipdab was set up as an alternative to general dab pages, combining features of a dab page with that of a list. This is why it has the specific template, and does not carry the general dab one. I don't recall this being a categorisation problem before, and there are thousands of such pages. But this is a case where common sense has ruled out the general application of MOS:DAB requirements, and specific guidelines have duly been written especially for these pages. If you hadn't come across them before then you weren't to know. Benea (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply