Talk:Upholder/Victoria-class submarine

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename or split? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Fire 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified