Talk:Unterseeboot 110
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
.jpg/37px-Napoleon(1850).jpg){kind=small}
[edit] Split/merger
I would like to suggest:
- We split this article into separate articles covering the two separate boats.
- Operation Primrose be merged into the second of the subsequent articles. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Support. There's no reason to treat the first and second U-110 boats together as (I presume) they are otherwise unrelated. I would suggest we use primary disambiguation in this case, given that the WWII U-110 is much more notable; that is, I propose the WWII boat stays here (Unterseeboot 110), we move the WWI info to an article titled something like Unterseeboot 110 (World War I), and we add a disambiguation header to the top of this article. — Matt Crypto 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Convention would suggest Unterseeboot 110 (1917) for the elder vessel. We could rename this one to Unterseeboot 110 (1940) and have a disambiguation page as is common for USN and RN ship disambiguation pages. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. I still think "primary topic" disambiguation would be a better fit here, because the 1940 U-110 seems to be much more famous as a result of the Enimga capture. See, e.g. Google search: someone typing U-110 into the Wikipedia search bar is almost certainly looking for the WWII boat. But it doesn't matter a great deal, and I certainly wouldn't start a fight over it ;-) — Matt Crypto 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Convention would suggest Unterseeboot 110 (1917) for the elder vessel. We could rename this one to Unterseeboot 110 (1940) and have a disambiguation page as is common for USN and RN ship disambiguation pages. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. There's no reason to treat the first and second U-110 boats together as (I presume) they are otherwise unrelated. I would suggest we use primary disambiguation in this case, given that the WWII U-110 is much more notable; that is, I propose the WWII boat stays here (Unterseeboot 110), we move the WWI info to an article titled something like Unterseeboot 110 (World War I), and we add a disambiguation header to the top of this article. — Matt Crypto 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed "England" to "Britain", as if one is heading to Scarpa Flow in Scotland, it doesn't seem to me to make much sense to be heading for England, as one has to circumnavigate that country to reach Scarpa Flow.
Kaenei 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
