Talk:Swedish warship Mars

Article name

I noticed the article has recently been renamed Mars (ship) instead of the original name Mars (Swedish ship), but is this really a good idea? Considering there's apparently at least one more ship by the name of Mars, as the article Shipwrecks of Tasmania now links to this article. And Tasmania is pretty far away from the Baltic Sea as far as I'm concerned. So maybe a move back to the original name is a good idea, to differentiate the two? 78.73.101.183 (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is only one article about a ship called Mars. As long as someone doesn't actually write an article about a different ship, there's no need to differentiate.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Mars (ship) → Swedish warship Mars –

• multiple ships named "Mars" at Mars (disambiguation), so "Mars (ship)" should be repointed to the disambiguation page. WP:NC-SHIPS form for the new name of the article. (ie. Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov) 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Or to Mars (Swedish warship)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NC-SHIPS, the naming convention, it would be Swedish warship Mars or Swedish ship Mars. The other would be a redirect. Though yours should also be a redirect. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - the new WP:NC-SHIPS appears to be out of synch with the rest of the encyclopedia In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's very hard to get NC-SHIPS based redirects through WP:AFC without it being rejected. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment at any rate, it should be renamed to one of the two options here, and the current name redirect to the disambiguation page. So the reviewing closer should just move the article to one of them, and create a redirect at the other, so this can be properly disambiguated. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photos

Amazing photo of the ship in this tweet http://twitter.com/abandonedpics/status/531980625939795968 Lars (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)