Another case of 1 ship, two names, two owners = two articles. Maybe the stub Spanish submarine G-7 should be merged into this one? Sebastian scha. (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, not enough info to justify two articles in this case. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agree to merger MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be opposed to a merge, as the implication of the suggestion (merge G-7 to here) implies the Spanish career of this vessel (over 20-odd years) is less important than the 15 months she spent in the German Navy. As neither career was particularly significant, having two pages avoids the argument over which takes priority: It also makes the categorization simpler. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger There are cases where the notability of a ship or military unit under different names and at different times call for separate articles, but this isn't one of them. I'm nearly neutral on which article survives, but lean slightly toward this one on the basis that combat participation probably makes this name for the boat more notable. I have added merger notices to both pages. I wonder if the nom put((subst:Mergenote |Source|Talk:destination)) on the pages of those who have edited the articles. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to U-573 - no reason to have two articles on this submarine, and wartime service is heavily weighted to determining what is the more notable name. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obvious merge to U-573. War service outweighs peacetime service. Manxruler (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've commented already on this, but would like to add some thoughts: The basis for this suggestion (presumably) is WP:SHIPNAME#Ships that changed name or nationality, but we ought to be considering WP:MERGE#Reasons for merger.

Of the reasons to merge (Duplication, Overlap, Text and Context) there is little overlap (a few sentences, maybe 10% altogether, and those give all the context required) and the text of both articles is a decent length (10Kb, and 5Kb); whether there is a duplication of subject is actually the point at issue (I would say there isn't), but they certainly don't have the same scope. OTOH if they are discrete subjects, (and each would be inherently notable under other circumstances) then we shouldn't merge.

As far as SHIPNAME is concerned, the issue is whether the careers are “significant”. I don't think there's that much to choose between them; G7 was one of only half-a-dozen submarines of the Spanish Navy, so she wasn't insignificant. And U-573 didn't have that much of a career, either. I also don't think it's good that we have a (conscious or unconscious) bias in these cases towards German (also American, or British) incarnations of vessels (a few examples spring to mind).

As previously stated, the way to cut the knot is to have two articles. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that these two articles are duplicates, in that they cover the same physical object. There are rare examples where two articles are warranted (ARA General Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46) spring to mind), but that should be the exception, not the rule, and I don't think this submarine was notable enough under both names to justify two articles.

Whether there may or may not be bias towards German, US, and/or UK ship names is irrelevant; wartime service is given much more weight than anything else (which is why the examples you list should probably be renamed). I'd also say that given that we are the English Wiki, English (and to a lesser extent German) names are likely to be emphasized in English-language sources, so there will be a tendency toward English names for objects. But this is getting past the point. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Merge to U-573 (adjust naming if needed). Both articles are somewhat short and combining them would not produce a long article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this would be any U-boat captured by the Allies we would know her under the name they gave her (eg HMS Graph or Roland Morilliot) - and rightly so. In this case, however, we are dealing with a slightly different situation. U-573 was acquired by Spain with the intention to produce submarines locally as the G-class. G-7 may have been the only example of this class in service with the Spanish navy, but not for the want of trying. In the light of this, we should treat G-7 as an article on a ship class, rather than on an individual submarine, as it would make no sense to discuss this part of U-573's history either in the article on her wartime service or in the article on her class. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes from the German Type VIIC class to the Spanish G-7 class are not that clear in the G-7 article now. Adding a schnorkel is only thing I can gather from the text. The class argument could get my support (and maybe others) if the differences are clarified. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]