Talk:Upholder/Victoria-class submarine

Untitled

Upholder/Victoria class submarines have their own pages as each class is a different type of ship (e.g. weapons systems). see

• Upholder class submarine and
• Victoria Class Submarine 66.57.87.50 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

They are the same vessels and only vary slightly. Much of the information that was in the separate articles applies to both, such as history. Anyhow, I have requested special protection from these pages. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected (no doubt on m:the wrong version, but I couldn't care less). I ought to block both of you for blatantly violating WP:3RR, but I think it would be more productive if you just discussed this. the wub "?!" 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but they do vary and each article has different information on their history. Most ship that are sold to different countries (e.g. INS Viraat, ARA Santisima Trinidad, Kidd class destroyers) have individual pages on wikipedia. 66.57.87.50 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are the same class. The class was transferred from one Navy to another. In any event, the original articles shared most information, and should continue to share most information. The only adequate way to transmit what occurred with these vessels is a single article, as it was a mere renaming of the class. And actually, you chose a bad example, as the Kidd class destroyers use the original article for their class name. Nobody considers them anything other than Kidd class. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading the original pages of both the Upholder and Victoria classes I would tend to think that they deserve top be separate articles on en.wikipedia. It seems both pages were separate but merged without any discussion in violation of wiki policy. The current merged page does not contain all of the information in the individual articles and I would recommend that individual pages on both the Upholder-class and Victoria-class be established. 152.1.111.234 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing information? I took great care to ensure that information from both articles was carried over. What information was missing? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Protected yonks ago. No ongoing discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know how the infobox make things cluttered. Makes the information much easier to read. Following style of Nimitz class aircraft carrier and Invincible class aircraft carrier. Jcmurphy

Rename or split?

The current title is awkward, and I'm pretty sure we're discouraging "/" in page titles. Should this be renamed to Upholder class submarine (being the primary type) or split to Upholder class submarine and Victoria class submarine? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fire

"On October 5, 2004 Chicoutimi, sailing from Faslane Naval Base, Scotland to Nova Scotia, declared an emergency north-west of Ireland following a fire on board.[4] The fire was caused by seawater entering through open hatches in rough seas."

Didn't the crew know that once at sea the only hatch that is usually allowed to be open is the conning tower one. You don't have any of the others open in rough seas. That ought to be fairly obvious, due to lack of freeboard. If you do the water comes in. Every RN submariner has known this to be the case for at least the past century, and that upon leaving harbour, unless carrying out a gun action if the vessel carries a deck gun, the deck hatches are kept closed until entering harbour again, and the conning tower hatch is the only one normally open when on the surface at sea. What were they doing with the deck hatches open in rough seas off the Irish Coast anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Upholder/Victoria-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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120425163301/http://www.gdcanada.com/news/detail.cfm?prid=258 to http://www.gdcanada.com/news/detail.cfm?prid=258
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130523040701/http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3-a_eng.asp?category=7&id=158 to http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3-a_eng.asp?category=7&id=158

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)