Talk:HMS P311

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale
Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

[edit] Requested move

HMS P.311 → HMS P311. For consistency with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Royal Navy submarines with no name. Gdr 11:32, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support --Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - as you say, the discussion has already happened and so this page conflicts with the standard. --Jll 20:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

This discussion has already happened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Royal Navy submarines with no name. The move is a techical problem because of an edit history on the target page HMS P311 which is a redirect page to HMS P.311 Philip Baird Shearer 13:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the edit history is really not worth keeping! I created the original page here and them moved it there for a while when it appeared that the convention was to exclude the dot, and finally back here again when I noticed that Churchill used the dot in his memos. It just needs moving back there again... --Jll 20:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All page histories should be kept. I'll merge it in when it's technically possible again, but for now I've done the move. violet/riga (t) 22:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've finished merging the page history; the history is now fully reconstructed. No more cut-and-paste moves, everyone! Noel (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)