Talk:Naval History

Requested move

Naval History → Naval History (magazine)– The current title could be the target of a mistaken link for naval history in general. Naval history is a common term that should take the common name, and it has roughly 100 links as opposed to the magazine's 20ish. Thus the Naval history article should remain in place, Naval History (with two caps) should be a redirect to Naval history, and the article about the magazine should be Naval History (magazine). The magazine article was originally tagged for a merge, but a move is much more appropriate. - Draeco 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. - Draeco 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Few would think the magazine is the primary topic. Though this begs the question, why don't we have an article on Naval History? 205.157.110.11 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Beardo 07:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Quuxplusone 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)