Talk:British U-class submarine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British U-class submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711194518/http://home.cogeco.ca:80/~gchalcraft/sm/page29.html to http://home.cogeco.ca/~gchalcraft/sm/page29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert frenzy

Why revert to this awkward form [[HMS Unique (N95)|HMS ''Unique'']] from this efficient form {{HMS|Ursula|N59|2}}? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gaius Cornelius: If I don't get a reply, can I take it that no-one objects to me altering the former to the latter? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No frenzy. I reverted your changes by accident and put them back within minutes. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Not recognising your name, I thought that was a third party, apols. Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've got a source on order so want to stop tinkering around and get the article to B class but I'm still doing a bit of copy-editing. I have in mind an infobox for each of the three groups which should allow the main infobox to be slimmed somewhat. Any thoughts? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Groups I, II and III

The sources I have use different definitions of the groups, which is awfully confusing. Any suggestions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What sources are you using? I’ve got Conway, which has sections for the Undine class (Group I here) and for the U class War Emergency and 1940/41 short hull programmes, (Groups II and III), while the V class are listed as U class 1941 long hull and 1942 programmes. I don’t know the source for the separate orders. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Tables

@Xyl 54: Do you think you can work your magic and make the boxes go from margin to margin? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keith-264, Thanks for asking: I'm really not sure why that is happening. I was looking at it with a reduced screen (about 75%), so they go from side to side at that width; It's only at full-screen that they don't. It's usually because there is an infobox, but the sections all have the clear template (and removing them doesn't seem to make a difference). And the one in the Group I section is weird! Maybe it's a function of the table itself (I'll have to check the template page for clues! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Xyl 54 Thanks, I assume that the first one is cramped for space and that the others are determined to the amount of writing in the 'notes' section. I had a look at PQ16 (which I think you did) but the column widths are determined at the top of the table rather than a particular notation about margins. I shifted the clear templates around too, which didn't help. Because the specifications of the groups are similar but different I tried to put infoboxes in for each of the three groups then found that I had to start adding material to avoid the layout going all over the place. I'm not sure that it works but have asked at milhist if they can be made to collapse (no answer yet) to see if that helps with the layout. As for the Polish, Norwegian and Danish names, I put them like that to try something new but I didn't much like the result, I thought I'd wait for some of our aficionados like you to decide. ;O) Thanks for taking the trouble. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I added a line of As to the first entry of the Group I notes section and it stretched the table to the right margin. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Back again! I checked the wikitable template and it turns out it has a width parameter; I found adding width="100%" style="text-align: center" will extend the table to the margins (though aesthetically I'm not sure if it's an improvement; it looks a bit strung out to me. What do you think?)

Also, on collapsing the tables: the Chronology section of this article was like that for a long time, until it wasn’t, after this edit for ‘mos compliance’. I’m not sure what that refers to; I thought that was a better arrangement there, though I’d be less convinced about a ship table in a ship class article. The result was achieved with Template:Hidden, thusly:

Fee-fi-fo-fum

• Fee
• fi
• fo
• fum

What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

PS: About the non-English names: my apologies if my edit summaries were a bit testy; probably lack of sugar! Anyway, sorry! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The tables: I suppose it depends on whether any more data goes in so best to leave it until the article goes in for assessment. I don't want to collapse the tables but thought of collapsing the infoboxes before I added text which helped with the layout problems. As for the Allied navies, it was just a throwaway idea. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Submerged Endurance and Speed

I've noticed this article has almost no information about underwater endurance. This is a noticeable omission compared to almost all other articles regarding submarines in general and especially WW2 submarine classes.

Only 1 sub type has something listed and it just gives the range, with no information about what speed that endurance can be achieved. 103.106.91.178 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)