Talk:SM U-115

}}

Merge

First of all, the articles on SM U-115 and SM U-116 are not notable. The submarines never entered service, and the articles don't make any claim to their notability. They should be merged into their class, which could lay claim to notability as, well, a class. A similar case happened to some articles I wrote, see Grom class destroyer (1939) (particularly the discussion at that article's talk). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

At least I understand why you are so zealous to get rid of these two articles, now. As to notability, firstly they have numbers allocated by the KM, secondly they were built by Schichau. Why is this important? Schichau was a major production site for surface craft, but they had no experience in submarine technology. They offered to built two boats worth over 8 Million Mark (about € 40 Mio) free of charge to gain that experience. 20 years later they were building dozens of boats for the KM. Apart from that: when does the life of any ship begin? When the order is placed, when the keel is laid down, when she is launched, when she is commissioned? Any of these dates are important. If anything, these boats are in a line with the other boats of the KM simply because they have numbers allocated and thus had an impact on u-boat construction. --ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• So you would create a new article at Type-115 U-Boat, and merge both articles into it? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think never completed ships should be discussed in the class type article. They collectively lend notability to the class, but not to themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• merge Not for notability, but because they have identical histories and the resultant article would be clearer like that.

"not notable as it never entered service" is a clear confusion between real-world notability and WP:NOTABILITY. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• • So you think it would be an improvement to have an article like e.g. HMS Mimi and HMS Toutou that is almost impossible to categorize? 08:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the notability of these two submarines is not in question. What is in question is the best way to handle them. General practice at WP:SHIPS is that when a class of vessels is not completed, the best idea is usually to cover them all in a class article and leave the individual ships simply as redirects. There are of course, some exceptions, such as Tosa class battleship and Japanese battleship Tosa, where one of the unfinished hulls had a non-trivial history, but that does not seem to be the case here. The best option in this case appears to be merging the articles at German Type 115 submarine, which would parallel articles like German Type I submarine, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • My point exactly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - You lost me now completely. What are we discussing right now? A merger of one article into another? A merger of two articles into a new one? So far we have established notability for the articles themselves, I understand. Very well, I doubt there is very much further information available to merit an article on the class. As has been noted these boats never entered service. Most authors on the subject of WWI u-boats note the two boats but do not elaborate on the class and its specifications. It's usually a sentence or two here and there. On the other hand, most handbooks and overviews that mention the boats use their number. An article on the class - which btw I don't feel up to - would also venture into the realm of original research, which I understand is discouraged in Wikipedia. We already have a dodgy class-article (German Type Mittel U submarine), which I find hard to verify. I don't think we need another one. What I think we need is an explanation why there are gaps and red links in the lists of WWI u-boats though. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I am talking about merging the two articles on the individual submarines into a single class article at a new title. No, class articles are not original research, and there is certainly enough material for a decent class article. Good class articles should expand on greater detail on the development and technical aspects of the vessels - see for instance this article on the German Type U 66 submarine. You don't have to write the class article if you don't want to, but this is the best way to handle these unfinished U-boats. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notability

As the boats are covered in five independent sources their notability should be out of the question if I interpret WP:N correctly. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo here

A photo of this ship(?) moved London here:

http://mykbon.com/forum/topics/photos-from-ww-i