| discuss

German Type UB I submarine

22 articles

SM UB-2

SM UB-3

SM UB-4

SM UB-5

SM UB-6

SM UB-7

SM UB-8

SM UB-9

SM UB-10

SM UB-11

SM UB-12

SM UB-13

SM UB-14

SM UB-16

SM UB-17

Austro-Hungarian U-10 class

SM U-10 (ex-UB-1)

SM U-11 (ex-UB-15)

SM U-15

SM U-16

SM U-17

Main contribuitor: Bellhalla

He has suddenly stopped editing two months ago and I have left a notification on his talkpage about a month ago. This might be one of the last contributions that Bellhalla has given to Wikipedia. Nergaal ( talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: I believe the subtopic should be separated because it has 5+1 article by itself and because I plan on nominating a super-topic on Austro-Hungarian classes or submarine list which would need the U-10 class as a subtopic by itself. Nergaal ( talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - I disagree as I do not think the topics are big enough to merit splitting. I definitely think that SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary) (the only one of the 5 not a GA but at GAN) and SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary), in particular, should be part of this topic, as they were originally used by the German navy, and were only later sold to Austria-Hungary (while the other three boats in the U-10 class were built for and used from the start by Austria-Hungary). Also I don't think your plans to nominate a supertopic are relevant as the U-10 class article can appear in such a supertopic whether it has its own topic or not. While it would make for nice visual structures, I don't see why this supertopic would need the U-10 class to appear as a subtopic at all. More than that, the subtopic link could actually point back to this topic - rst20xx ( talk) 13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, so you are suggesting to remove the class article and add 10 & 11, then in the supertopic put the class article but link here for the subtopic? Or you want the class and the five other articles here? Nergaal ( talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the second option would be better, and after all, 10 is the only one of the 6 articles that isn't a GA already - rst20xx ( talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What should happen to the image in that case, as some of the boats did not run under the German flag. Nergaal ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As the Germans made all the boats, I don't see a problem with still using this flag, or maybe the German national flag - rst20xx ( talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. I've gotten SM U-11 to GA status and the GA for SM U-10 was a quick pass. All articles are at GA status now.-- Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - so uh then the Austro-Hungarian boats, all GAs now, are SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-16 (Austria-Hungary) and SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary). As I understand it, they were all built with the UB Is, and the first two were in fact formerly used by Germany in the UB I class. I think all 5 should be added to this topic, and certainly the first two - rst20xx ( talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes to all, Nergal promoted SM U-10 and I promoted SM U-11. However credit goes to Bellhalla for the whole thing. But all articles are now at GA.-- Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - so, uh, it seems most people would favour adding the articles (well, 2 out of 3). I've added them above and struck my oppose. I would support the 22-article layout above. Feedback from others would be appreciated - rst20xx ( talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Support, but should the U-10 class be a subtopic? — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Well, that's what all the discussion before your vote was about... rst20xx ( talk) 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  ...and I continue to demonstrate my lack of reading skills. ;) Thanks Rst. — Ed  (talk • majestic titan) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx ( talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply