This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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 WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Todd Pacific Shipyds and Todd yards are two separate places. One Pacific
one Atlantic, hence the fricking name. Ignorant editors linking stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These two subjects should not be merged; the strike deserves its own standalone page. This was a significant event, involving thousands of union workers. There are many other less significant strikes that have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History.alex.morrow (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Total mess without much focus and misleading history[edit]
Vigor may be the current corporate entity but the components were major shipbuilders before the late 20th century conglomerate frenzy. Basically the state now is Vigor, a list of those notable shipyards, random almost irrelevant facts (Frank Sinatra worked at one yard!), a list of those locations and some ships. The components of the current Vigor need a thorough scrub as well. A quick check leads me to agree with the first comment above; editors "grabbing" names. As is the "article" is misleading without any justice to the shipyards of the past. Links to notable ships through the redirect may be completely wrong. Following company histories back through acquisitions and mergers can be an absolute mess even for experts, but this is a miserable summary that needs correction. Shipbuilding History has expertise and has done most of the work in list and very brief summary form and is a good place to start. Palmeira (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
