Knowledge:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1

3425:

be regarded as a great online source but I understand that books always trump websites. I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject. Every single book on German U-boats coast at least 50$ such as Sokol's and as a result, the use of Uboat.net is sometimes needed to complete the article. It may appear that the article overly relies on Uboat.net but there are only a few instances where something is cited by Uboat.net and not another offline source. I did use it as a tertiary source for the most part but still fail to believe that the site is not of high enough quality to remove or degrade or a "filler" source. If need be, I can add in yet more pages from Conway's into the table but I honestly think that such a course of action is not needed. I will continue to use this site on any future works on U-boats that I undertake as I have yet to see someone who actually works on the subject questions the site's reliability.--

3519:. I really appreciate the restraint shown by Malleus, Aude, Courcelles, Elcobbola and hamiltonstone in not opposing, and all the work they've put in to helping us decide the question. Taken together, their arguments are persuasive. uboat.net has been relied on too much for this article, and as currently sourced, it seems to me the article falls apart if you remove uboat.net. I'm not opposed to this article ever becoming an FA, but it's going to take more than a day or two to fix the sourcing problem. Btw, what's notable about this FAC isn't that SHIPS people are piling in to support, what's notable is that they aren't. TomStar gave a weak support, and his reviewing work is incredibly valuable, he always has perceptive things to say, but like Tony1, he's not expecting everyone to take his support as a clue that they don't have to do their own work, he works as part of a team. Everyone else who normally reviews and supports SHIPS articles at A-class and at FAC is notably absent. I've never heard a credible argument that SHIPS reviewers can't be trusted, and in my 6-month history at SHIPS, I haven't seen any articles pass FAC or A-class that shouldn't have. - Dank ( 3445:. I'm not seeing ten supporters (pls clarify), and there is plenty of concern raised by editors who aren't willing to oppose, but aren't convinced. Some of the supports are from WikiProject members who routinely support all ship articles, and Tony1 supports only on prose (I wish he'd consider all issues raised before supporting, but know from history to consider his supports only on 1a, and a 1a support from him is valuable, but limited). I'm also aware of other cases where high quality sources end up contradicting non-peer-reviewed online sources, so it is always a problem to rely on marginal online sources. These issues should be addressed; would it be possible to review the uboat.net sources and try to diminish the reliance on that source or replace them with higher quality sources? 2984:- I have mixed opinions about sourcing from uboat.net. Generally, I am comfortable sourcing to an amateur historian who has developed a good reputation and is widely cited in published sources. The problem is that I can't tell from looking at pages on uboat.net, where that information is sourced from. I would be more comfortable if uboat.net and other such sources used on Knowledge had more meticulous references for where it gets info, and that you could follow the sources. I would feel the same way about a published book that lacks meticulous sourcing, unless perhaps the author has stellar, beyond-a-doubt expertise, and don't care that in this case, it's published online. For example, 3319:. Reading through the comments above, I can sense the reluctance of editors tackling the question of uboat.net's status. On the one hand, Gudmundur is clearly a devoted student of the boats and appears to have taken considerable care in his work. Ditto White Shadows. Further, that website has been relied upon for various articles at GA (I understand) and no-one wants to see the quality status of a series of articles potentially unravel over a discussion only now taking place. I can also hear myself thinking "how will we ever consistently get English-language FAs on non-English subjects if we insist on consultation of non-English language books?" (I hoped to one day get 1434:

length in comparison to outside reviewers. I know that I've certainly delivered some drive-by supports for ship articles, but I reviewed them at our ACR. I reject any imputation that Ships editors automatically support ship articles; if it were otherwise then this discussion would not have begun as it would gotten the requisite number supports from project members. That it hasn't speaks volumes from my POV; you may disagree. I'm not so foolish to claim that our ACR is flawless as the quality of each review depends on the reviewers, but it certainly does eliminate many issues that may commonly arise with articles from projects that don't have an ACR process.--

1985:, especially in MilHist. The cost of books is irrelevant; they are available at public libraries, and even through GoogleBooks and Amazon, where you and/or readers can in some cases gain access to excerpts that contain key search words. Where there is a more reliable hard-copy source, it should be referenced as well as a URL: the best of both worlds. I suggest this FA be withdrawn and a thorough audit conducted on the sources. In other respects, it is very close to being among our best work. Let's ensure that we can be proud of this article in terms of its verifiability, too. Please, it's worth the extra trouble. 3366:

so). Seventh link: A university website listing links to WWII resources: but it explicitly puts quote marks around the assessment of the site, indicating it is not the site's author's own assessment. Eighth link: Listed in a book called "The history highway 3.0: a guide to internet resources". Describes the site as "A comprehensive study of the German u-boat", which is simply inaccurate, calling the source into question. Ninth link: The Naval Museum of Manitoba's list of links that describes uboat.net as "very accurate and complete".

1547:

oppose over the sourcing just yet, but a cooperative attitude is definitely helpful in keeping folks from opposing. The fact is that it is a SPS and nothing I'm seeing shows that it's by an expert. I'm glad to be shown wrong on that, but the page Sandy linked to doesn't inspire confidence that the people putting out the site are experts. All over Wiki, standards of sourcing are rising, and while it may mean more work for writers, it's an important and useful thing for the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole.

2734:. Because the Netherlands was neutral during the war, and UB-6 did not leave Dutch territorial waters within 24 hours as required by international law, the submarine and her crew were interned by the Dutch. The Germans protested, but because UB-6's grounding was merely the result of an error and not because of distress, the Dutch could not release the submarine. Does this explain the situation? I'd rather not add it into the article as that would be going into a bit too much detail.-- 3531:

to; especially in cases such as this: non-English topic where a questionable source is being heavily replied upon). As a fundamental property of Wikiepdia is the ability to collaborate with geographically and culturally dispersed editors, however, I don't accept as valid issues of inability to read a given language and inability to access “foreign” works, whether cheaply or otherwise. Have any Germans (e.g. via Babel categories or Wikiproject Germany) even been asked to assist?

182:

of the Flanders Flotilla, the Adriatic sea, The Baltic sea as part of the Baltic Flotilla, and the area around Ottoman Turkey as part of the Constantinople Flotilla. Any comments would be much appreciated. This is my first true FAC that I myself am undergoing. I was a co-nom in the FAC for the Austro-Hungarian Battleship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand yet it failed. This time around, I will be addressing most of the comments and I hope to promote this article to FA status.

916:- Decorative (NFCC#8). That "the boats of this class were designed to be shipped by rail in sections" is not something that requires visualization to understand. An image of sections on a rail line only serves to identify the design was successful in that regard (something a reliable source could do), not to illustrate meaningfully aspects of the actual design. Now moot, but image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B). 843:, I'm operating under the assumption that free images are not available (and am thus treating that image as non-free). So then we have three non-free images with these purposes: 1) visual identification, 2) visualization of a manufacturing difference and 3) visualization of rail design. I don't believe that the last two pass NFCC#8. However, because visual identification passes, I'm recommending using 2552:

because that varies according to the subject of the article. What's "high quality" for a medieval bishop (peer reviewed journal articles, books by university presses) isn't possible in say horse biographies (the next peer reviewed horse biography article I find will be the first). Every reviewer needs to evaluate the sources in a particular article against the "high quality" criteria themselves ...

1352:". I'm getting rather tired of you trying to throw this FAC off track with your position of power in this process and I'm beginning to think about requesting input from the other delegate or the FA director. All of us cannot be dead wrong on this issue and comments like "I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide" really are like spitting in the face of the members of 541:"The group is sometimes known as the UB-1 class after SM UB-1, the class leader. In the Austro-Hungarian Navy, it was called the U-10 class." - the group or the class leader was called the U-10? I assume the former, but in that case it would seem logical to have the term bolded. Also, in a later note you say that the Austro-Hungarian Navy called it the " 1495:, particularly because so much of the article depends upon it. As SPS says, if the information were reliable, surely better sources would have picked it up; if the author is indeed an "expert" (that hasn't been established), and if his info is reprinted in other books, why aren't those books cited, rather than a dubious website? 2988:, where did he get that information? Can you find another more official or reputable source to back up this information? I think this article over-relies on uboat.net as a source. Used more sparingly, perhaps I would support this as a featured article. Right now, I can't support but not going to oppose, either. -- 2748:

waters within 24 hours as required by international law, the submarine and her crew were interned by the Dutch. Germany protested, but because UB-6's grounding was the result of an error and not because of distress, the Dutch could not release the submarine." IMHO would not be overdetailed for a footnote IMHO.

2504:, will editors supporting this article please speak to the outstanding concerns about reliable sources? Specifically, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..." Are high-quality reliable sources consulted? 3530:

For my part, I don’t consider it so much restraint as an attempt to avoid being unfair, as I’m uncertain of the extent to which the relatively new "representative survey of the relevant literature" verbiage requires consultation of foreign sources (although my personal view is that it certainly ought

3400:

By Robert Gardiner, Randal Gray, Przemysław Budzbon is a reliable source already used to a significant degree in the article. It appears to contain information that can be used to replace stuff coming from uboat.net in some instances. I note the WP article cites uboat.net in support of the first line

3294:

I know what it's like. Anyway, I understand and agree but I do consider Uboat.net a high quality source. I have tried to use other sources to get a mixture of online and offline sources in the text and will continue with this but I can only do so much with books. Not much exists on the subject if you

2551:

I think the main thing to remember here is that about a year ago, sourcing requirements for FAs went from "reliable" to "high quality reliable". So while uboat.net probably meets RS, it may not meet the high quality side. Note that I generally don't get that involved in the "high quality" evaluation,

1433:

The reason that Ships editors generally support ship articles is because most of the major issues from our perspective have been dealt with at our ACR. I agree that fresh eyes are needed for outside perspectives, but I think that your own perspective may be distorted by the fact we may not comment at

1980:

White Shadows says: "I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than

1381:

Re which sources are used, the fact that a published book exists is not the same as having that book to hand to check the info -i.e. if you haven't got the book, then you can't use it as a source, whereas the website is accessible online by all. Suppose a book is used as a source, and you don't have

3424:

I think most of us (considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition) can agree that it is OK to use Uboat.net as a source as long is other secondary and offline sources are consulted as well. Uboat.net is great for those who do not have any offline sources available and can

3365:

reliability. Fifth link: a list of links appended to a commercial TV documentary webpage. Sixth link: a book about using online sources to teach critical thinking skills. I don't think the authors are frankly qualified to comment on whether the site is good or not (not that it stops them from doing

2707:

Thanks for the explanations. But I read being caught running aground where a sub shouldn't be and deliberately sailing into Dutch waters and surrendering to a neutral as somewhat different. Do you have sources that say which of those scenarios applies? Or were German submarines free to pass through

1976:

It is fine for members of a related WikiProject to visit and support an article, but all eyes are on the scope with which they delineate their support, and the depth of their comments. We would be delighted if such members stayed around to review chosen aspects of a few articles outside their area;

181:

small U-boats that three of the four Central powers operated in the First World War. Both German, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria used them and it was a Type UB I submarine that became Bulgaria's first true U-boat. These small vessels patrolled the coast of Belgium, France and the Netherlands as part

2930:

I like the use of colour, but it made me think why the table looks wrong, I think the name of the sub should be the first column. Also if you are going to use colours for ownership then ideally the ones that changed ownership should be in both colours either with stripes or diagonally split boxes.

2525:

I've become accustomed to seeing the uboat.net web site used as a reference in these submarine articles and I believed that it had been accepted as a reliable source. That the editor-in-chief, Guðmundur Helgason, is not a professional naval historian is not a matter of concern to me; he is in fact

561:

Logically, it seems that "The group known as the UB-1 class" was known in Austria-Hungary as the "U-10 class". Grammatically, however, the sentence would indicate that "SM UB-1, the class leader" was known in Austria-Hungary as the "U-10 class". If the former is correct (as I suspect it is): since

3073:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the

1546:

One, standards for sourcing for FAs have risen in the last few years. Two, I suggest that "putting your foot down" isn't the best method of persuading others to see your side of things. There's a perfectly sensible solution, go look up the books that uboat.net uses and use them. I'm not minded to

3405:

the subsequent handing over and scrapping in 1920 (p.343). Firstly, we should use Gardiner in preference to uboat.net; secondly, the wrecking is omitted from uboat.net's page. It looks to me as though a bit more can be drawn from Gardiner. This will also minimise the losses from the article that

2747:

Thanks for looking that up, I'd suggest that the gist of that either belongs in an article on UB-6 or a footnote here. "UB-6 entered Dutch territorial waters due to a navigational error, and ran aground. Because the Netherlands was neutral during the war, and UB-6 did not leave Dutch territorial

2587:

Reply to Ealdgyth: And that's exactly why I'm not prepared to oppose this article's promotion, as I'm not in a position to judge whether uboat.net is generally considered to be a "high quality reliable source" in this field. I could be persuaded that it is, but the nominator needs to present the

469:

The wording about displacement in the lead is unclear. Based on the infobox alone, I would assume that 127 tonnes at the surface and increases to a total of 142 tonnes when completely submerged. However, wording in the lead suggests that displacement varies due to "small size variations between

176:

left Knowledge back in December of last year. When I found this article, no one was working on it but it remained in very good shape. I decided to further work on it by taking it through a Peer Review and promoting the remaining U-boats from this class to GA status, thus making this article the

3369:

My feeling about the endorsements / praise for the site from most other sources is that they have done less fact-checking than anyone here, with the possible exception of Gordon Williamson. His alone is the only endorsement out of all the above that I feel can be trusted as coming from someone

3360:

resources. Second link: didn't work for me - no relevant content. Third link: not sure that any claim to reliability can be made in the context of this particular book (on a very tangentially-related subject). Fourth link: Intute, an online resource for which I could find no evidence of its

1347:

There is a mountain of evidence against you Sandy, Bellhalla's page, the ACR, the FAC. In fact, the ed17 was the one who told me about the site in the first place and told me that it was trustworthy. Several dedicated editors of this topic have told you and provided evidence on this site's

3007:

I've seen more and more of these submarines go through GAN, and I'll admit, the reliance on u-boat.net has made me stop and shake my head once or twice. Might be why I've never chosen to review any of them; I know I'd get into an argument on the site's reliability. Their sources page,

2530:. What does concern me is that there's no indication as to where the information on the uboat.net web comes from. In this particular article I'm also concerned that it over-relies on uboat.net even where there are equivalent sources published by university presses, such as Fontenoy's 2677:

Interment is when a ship or other military personnel/equipment makes it's way into a neutral nation and rather than face the enemy across the border, they "intern" themselves in the neutral nation. It was not a breech of neutrality at all. They "surrendered" themselves to a neutral

3343:

Is it just me, or is there another factor here, in that we are relying consierably on what is in fact a tertiary, not a secondary, source? What Gudmundur has created is essentially the U-Boat Encyclopedia. Note WP:RS includes: "Knowledge articles should be based mainly on reliable

1516:

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to put my foot down on this one. I see no reason to remove Uboat.net as a source to this article and quite frankly, I refuse to do so. If this source leads to the downfall of this FAC, then so be it. The fact that the site is used extensively (while

1463: 817:

does not appear to be a significant contribution to our understanding. However, given that the current infobox image has a unsupported license, this would be appropriate re-purposed in the dual roles (NFCC#3A) of primary visual identification and illustration of "One of the

3011:

lists a good number of sources, but one sentence that concerns me, "We also have a number of things here that are not available anywhere in print." So where are they getting their information from? Who is fact-checking everything? Are they conducting original research?

3029:

for four years? Was she only operational for a week, as that's how long she's listed as having a CO? The page seems quite incomplete. I won't oppose over it, but it does seem like there are better sources available, though one may have to read German to understand them.

3373:

Having said all of that, I would also comment that the dominant use of the website is for some fairly bare facts - launch dates, commissioning dates, and ultimate fate. Not sure whether this should be a factor in our deliberations about the extent of reliance on the

1295:

I agree with White Shadows over the reliability of Uboat.net as a source. As Bellhalla has shown, that website is used as a reference by the authors of several printed books. I see no good reason why that source cannot be used in this or any other relevant article.

3279:

Sorry, about that - I keep crashing! Had actually tried to delete above, but it seems have posted anyway. Anyway, glad you added more from Gibson and Prendergast. Generally I think it's best to use the highest quality sources available. (Hope this posts ... )

2110:"Several of the first boats underwent trials in German home waters, but the rest were"—why "but"? Are you contradicting the notion that only several of them were trialled in German waters? No: this is perfectly well expected by the reader. And, or a semicolon. 3100:: It seems to me that a "representative survey of the relevant literature" on this topic (a military vessel designed, constructed and operated by German-speakers) would include reasonable consultation of German sources. The only German source appears to be 3328:

So. There seem to be two issues mixed together here: whether the website is a "high quality reliable source"; and whether a comprehensive survey of the lit. has taken place in the absence of reference to major German-language books on the subject. I am

177:

centerpiece of a Good Topic. Ceranthor may make a few passing comments and help out here and there on the FAC but he has declined my offer to have him co-nom this FAC with me. As for the article itself, the German Type UB I submarines were a series of

2804:

Ships sunk, damaged, or taken as a prize. Any chance of an expansion on this such as which theatres, any tonnages and whether these were military or civilian targets. Also with only a deck machinegun I'd be very impressed if they'd taken anything as

1891:

I don't think listing each name in the last section, then having a table with all of them is the best possibility. First it is redundant, and a bit not very esthetically pleasing. How about just having a table with colored lines for non-German ones.

3535:, for example, appears highly involved in Marine articles at de.wiki and has an English Babel level 3 (advanced). Has s/he been asked whether s/he has sources or could go to a library and get them? How much effort has really been put forth here? 689:

Given the slightly different designs, some of the technical figures should vary slightly between manufacturers (you specifically mention a different displacement when submerged in article text). Which design is reflected in the infobox figures?

2873:

The 33 second dive time refers to how long it took for the sub to reach the regular test depth of 50 metres. Would you like a mention of this or do you think this is too obvious to include and goes against the "don't go into unnecessary detail

1412:, as editors have delayed here for several weeks on doing that. We need independent review of ship articles, but we get ship editors consistently supporting ship articles, with little independent review-- sourcing still needs to be resolved. 595:"The German Imperial Navy ordered an additional pair later to replace two boats sold to Austria-Hungary, which ordered a further three in April 1915" - wording is slightly awkward. Also, do you have a date for the German additional order? 2117:

I know it was an empire; "who" is used for people. "The German Imperial Navy subsequently ordered an additional pair of boats to replace two sold to Austria-Hungary, who ordered a further three boats in April 1915." Isn't it "which"?

2026:

Do we need the German clutter at the opening? One is in italics, the other in roman: why? But I expect to see these German terms later if we are bothered with them right at the top. Otherwise a footnote, preferably tagged in the main

2813:

I'm afraid not. There was a captain but other than that, I'm not sure about any other crew positions/rankings within the submarines. I can take a crack at trying to find out if you want me to but don't be surprised if nothing turns

117: 3355:

is germinal in this regard. However, the list isn't as impressive as it first appears. The first link: it certainly receives high praise from writer Gordon Williamson, though as Malleus has noted, that is in the context of

3336:

None of the editors / contributors appears to have relevant qualifications. Like Malleus, I agree that this in itself may not be necessary to establishing reliability, but it may influence judgement about "high quality"

2534:

published by the University of Hawaii Press and available on Google books. On the other hand, I think it's quite likely that the information on uboat.net is accurate, so I'm not prepared to oppose because of sourcing.

1981:

a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject." But this is not the point. WP damages its reputation significantly if we get it wrong, and that is

2729:

On 10 March, UB-6 left Zeebrugge to patrol off the Mass lightship. Two days later, UB-6 entered Dutch territorial waters after their captain, Steckelberg made a navigational error, and ran aground at the mouth of the

3230:

I would try to incorporate these sources into the text...if I spoke German or had access to them. I'm in no position to get them and what 1-2 books on that list I can read on Google books, is in German.--

650:"boats from the two manufacturers" - you have not yet mentioned two manufacturers, so this statement is somewhat confusing. The entire sentence could be reworded and potentially split into two for clarity 562:"UB-1 class" is bolded, then "U-10 class" would logically also be bolded. As for the final comment, the later note includes a hyphen not present in the phrase quoted here. Hope that clarifies my comment. 3060:

says, "I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books", listing 7 published

3016:

they are soliciting writers. What kind of credential verification are they doing for those writers to keep an enthusiast who has never seen the inside of a university library from doing their writing?

693:

Not everything was different between the two and if you look at the infobox, you'll see that what was different is already mentioned. (U-1 to U-whatever) and then the other set of numbers for the other

2852:

What does the 33 second dive time relate to? I'm assuming it isn't the one hour that the sub could travel submerged. Also do you know how long they could stay submerged for before running out of air?

2228:

I guess many readers won't have a clue how to visualise what happened. A map of northeastern Europe at the time, with arrows, etc? But this is beyong the call of duty; just a thought for the future.

3470:

limited" would have been a more diplomatic term, particularly since I am distraught that you should seek to undermine my work elsewhere, and since I informed you that I would ignore you henceforth.

2160:

I'm not really a fan of adding even more 2-3 sentence unreferenced stubs into the mainspace. with that in mind, I've merely de-linked them for ascetics. Perhaps one day I'll try to get to them.--

1007:

Randomly butting in here - I'm 99.9% sure Malleus means your tenses don't match. "compensating tanks" is plural, "this" is singular. Same with the "submarines" vs. "the submarine" comment above.

290:

This is a RS as it is just text from the "Austro-Hungarian Warships In Photographs, Vol. 2. 1896-1918". One of the authors of the book wrote this so yes permission is given based on that fact!--

1245:

that speaks to reliability, editorial oversight, and factchecking-- it looks like a home-spun site, but is frequently cited here. Perhaps Ealdgyth has something about this site in her notes?

3401:

in the uboat table. That line includes in the "fate" section: "Handed over to Italy as a war reparation and scrapped at Pola by 1920." Yet Gardiner p. 180 has this: "wrecked 4.6.15 and 1918"

3245:

Reluctantly agree with comments above; particularly Courcelles and Elcobbola. Haven't the time for a full search, but it seems that a book such as the following should have been consulted:

172:

I am nominating this for featured article because in the past few months, Myself and to a lesser extent, Ceranthor have been improving this article from the state that it was left in once

3370:

competent to reach a view. The rest are too tangential or themselves unreliable for us to use them as an assessment of whether the webpage in question is a "high quality reliable source".

2656:"UB-6 ran aground in Dutch waters" If I was Dutch and in WWI I would have regarded a German submarine straying into my waters as a breach of neutrality. Hence I suspect the internment. 2636:

It mentions that one sub was interned by the Dutch, can you check for more info on that incident? I would have thought that such a breach of Dutch neutrality would have been covered.

1773:

I think all you're expected to do is to answer SandyG's question. The reason that the type name (Type UB 1) isn't hyphenated is that it might cause confusion with the submarine

1348:

reliability and yet you continue to shove OTHERSTUFF down their (and my) throats while claiming that "It is not at all clear to me that this site meets the requirements of

239: 1400:

Highest quality sources are required for Featured articles, and editors here have yet to establish that the authors of this website are published experts in the field, per

729:"Germaniawerft boats seem to have had fewer large vents" - why is this "seem to have had"? Is the design inconsistent even among boats produced by the same manufacturer? 1107:"During their trials, the Type UB Is were found to be too small and too slow, and had a reputation for being underpowered". They had a reputation for being underpowered 707:

Not quite. The text says that the two "differed slightly in displacement submerged", but only one number is present in the infobox (I think it's for Germaniawerft?)

2074:

Second para: two parallel rhythms: "small, maneuverable submarines able to operate in the narrow, shallow seas". They jangle a bit. Remove the comma after "small"?

1595:

It's unclear to me why "German" is in the article name; isn't that redundant (as shown by the first line of the article, which doesn't have that name bolded? See

88: 83: 92: 1360:

who edit these articles. There is enough sources in Knowledge alone, much less the books that have cited the website to show that this site does indeed meet

75: 2960: 40: 1326:, and I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide. We haven't yet gotten an answer on why the published books weren't consulted instead. 1822:

Would you like sources for these or something? Sokol Mentions Medusa in the last chapter of his book and I have another book source for the cruiser.--

2308:, "U-boote der Ostseetreitkräfte V. U-Halbflottille", etc.—who cares, really? Why not an appendix at the bottom. This is the English WP, not WP.de. 133: 826:

I'm guessing that what you were saying is that while it cannot be used under fair use in it's current state, it can as an infobox image. Right?--

2479:- Should probably support this, even though I helped with it. My work was minimal, and so I feel comfortable supporting this wonderful article. 1382:

that book, then how can you tell if it has been used accurately or not? You can't, can you, but you can easily check the website if it is used.

3550: 3524: 3500: 3483: 3457: 3433: 3415: 3389: 3303: 3289: 3274: 3261: 3238: 3225: 3091: 3034: 2999: 2976: 2947: 2925: 2903: 2882: 2868: 2843: 2822: 2777: 2764: 2742: 2724: 2702: 2686: 2672: 2651: 2629: 2595: 2582: 2560: 2542: 2516: 2494: 2463: 2441: 2424: 2403: 2383: 2362: 2334: 2321: 2296: 2282: 2263: 2241: 2215: 2192: 2168: 2150: 2131: 2103: 2085: 2067: 2045: 2019: 1998: 1950: 1935: 1926:

But there are a few things in the article that could be worked on, a copyedit for comma use being one and the table issue noted above another.

1916: 1901: 1881: 1861: 1848: 1830: 1784: 1764: 1747: 1726: 1705: 1678: 1662: 1648: 1611: 1576: 1555: 1537: 1507: 1474: 1443: 1424: 1391: 1372: 1338: 1305: 1286: 1257: 1230: 1213: 1190: 1169: 1143: 1127: 1093: 1063: 1033: 1016: 998: 932: 913: 899: 879: 866: 834: 776: 758: 740: 718: 702: 682: 664: 643: 624: 606: 584: 571: 556: 530: 517: 499: 481: 462: 429: 417: 400: 387: 362: 349: 330: 311: 298: 273: 249: 232: 219: 190: 164: 3348:." (emphasis in original) Yet Gudmundur has used the secondary sources (acording to his sources page) to create what is now a tertiary source. 2917:

I've added in colors to the table. Feel free to comment as to whether or not this is a good idea so I know whether to leave it or remove it.--

765:"Germany felt treaty-bound to support the Austrians" - maybe, except Germany's ally was Austria-Hungary, not the entity now known as Austria 508:

every time you translate the name of something into German? If no rule (MoS or unwritten) mandates it, I would recommend paring those links.

30: 17: 3057: 2798:

There is quite a bit of repetition for example "becoming Podvodnik No. 18" in slightly different wordings is in three consecutive sections.

1837:

What happened to the subs that survived the war? I'd assume they either became war reparations or went to the breakers (or probably both).

1271: 871:

I've replaced the lead image and removed the remaining images in the article text. Are there still any problems with the remaining image?--

613:"The total number of UB I boats constructed was twenty" - suggest rewording as "A total of twenty UB I boats were constructed" or similar 2350:

to get a reading on the use of uboat.net? This article relies a lot on it, when there apparently are higher quality published sources.

3051: 1620:

This article is merely following the consistency of the other U-boat related articles that belonged to the Kriegsmarine. There was the

1408:, and the accessibility of a source (online vs. book) is most certainly not how we judge our best sourcing. I've entered an inquiry at 303:

I'm still not convinced that hosting it there is reliable though. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves.

1735:

Now you've puzzled me as well; I thought SandyG was asking why isn't it "Type UB-1"? I notice as well that at least two of your sources

1404:-- there seems to be some misunderstanding here of the requirements for high quality sourcing in Featured articles, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, 848: 840: 794: 3340:

The fact that there is a general list of sources, but no sourcing on the individual pages, I think counts against the site's quality.

3266:

Truthkeeper, that book was consulted! It is used several times throughout the article and I've just added more citations from it :)--

2692: 2801:

Too small and too slow. In what way were they too small? Also some info on typical speeds of target ships would be helpful context.

138: 3078:

Although I can see why the site's mention in published works lends it an air of respectability, I'm currently unable to see that

1666: 453:- a neat article, and I wish you luck in getting it to FA status. Below are some suggestions/questions for further improvement. 2034:"U-boat", bunched. Every kid knows what a submarine is. U-boat is a more specific article that links to submarine prominently. 844: 810: 79: 3351:

The strongest argument in favour of uboat.net's favour is its reputation amongst other writers. Slp1's list at the discussion

3201: 3188: 3175: 3162: 3149: 3136: 3123: 1809: 1640:

discussion that I don't know of but I'd rather not change the naming of this article without widespread support to do so.--

1621: 3323:

up to this standard, and own almost all the English-language books on the subject, but can see that ambition fading...)

395:: best of luck with your first solo FAC, WS, I'll keep it watchlisted and jump in if it looks like I can help. - Dank ( 3248:

R.H. Gibson, Maurice Prendergast. "The German Submarine War 1914-1918". Periscope Publishing Ltd., 2002. 9781904381082

2938: 2894: 2859: 2834: 2755: 2715: 2663: 1318:(it has not been established that the author is an established expert on the topic); I suggest someone raise this at 839:

It's not quite as simple as that, but I suppose that has the same end result. Because of the unsupported license on

3108:?) Was the book itself surveyed, or just that site? Whatever the status of uBoat.net, the apparent neglect of the 2699: 2617:"In addition, five of the German Type UB Is assigned to the Pola Flotilla" is followed by a list of just four subs. 2592: 2539: 1781: 1744: 1488: 1323: 1166: 1157: 1140: 71: 64: 1661:, the nationality disambiguator is only necessary if there is another Type UB I submarine class. For example, see 1813: 1629: 1625: 1185: 3411: 3385: 3285: 3257: 1942:

Thanks for the support and the comment. I'll send in a request for copy-editing in terms of comma usage :)--

1564:

Alright, perhaps I was a little blunt in my reply. I'll take a look into it and bring it up (once again) on

1439: 470:

boats". Which interpretation is correct? Can you change the wording/infobox to erase potential confusion?

3496: 3453: 2933: 2889: 2854: 2829: 2750: 2710: 2658: 2512: 2399: 2358: 1701: 1607: 1503: 1420: 1334: 1253: 1209: 2696: 2589: 2536: 1778: 1741: 1163: 1154: 1137: 1012: 1119:

Yes, I believe so. However, it's not like the bad reputation was lost once they were put into action.--

1977:

that way, everyone benefits and we can gain familiarity with their analytical and critical approaches.

1689:

Why is "Type UB I" not hyphenated, but every other use of UB-number of boat is? Also, please review

1180: 567: 513: 458: 445: 3546: 3221: 2487: 1931: 1877: 1674: 928: 895: 862: 380: 3426: 3407: 3381: 3296: 3281: 3267: 3253: 3231: 2972: 2918: 2875: 2815: 2770: 2735: 2679: 2644: 2622: 2621:

There were only 4 U-boats in Pola (as stated earlier in the article) not five. I've fixed that.--

2578: 2557: 2434: 2421: 2376: 2327: 2289: 2275: 2256: 2208: 2161: 2143: 2096: 2078: 2060: 2038: 2012: 1943: 1909: 1854: 1841: 1823: 1757: 1719: 1658: 1641: 1569: 1552: 1530: 1471: 1435: 1365: 1279: 1223: 1222:

I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. I'll also be looking for replacement sources to them.--

1120: 1086: 1056: 1026: 991: 872: 827: 769: 751: 733: 711: 695: 675: 657: 636: 617: 599: 577: 549: 523: 492: 474: 410: 355: 345: 327: 308: 291: 266: 229: 212: 183: 157: 3352: 1464:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Military history of Australia during World War II/archive1

1077:"After Italy had entered World War I ...". Called it the First World War earlier in the article. 2963:

for more eyes on the sourcing issue as I am conflicted on how consensus is leaning in terms of

3489: 3446: 3198: 3185: 3172: 3159: 3146: 3133: 3120: 3105: 3021:

honestly doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the head's credentials. Then I see pages like

2505: 2392: 2351: 1897: 1694: 1600: 1496: 1413: 1387: 1327: 1301: 1246: 1202: 1201:

raised by Ealdgyth, or ask supporters to explain why they think these sources are reliable.

978:

designed to flood and offset the loss of the C/06 torpedo's 1,700-pound (770 kg) weight, but

3082:

recognizes that as a principle determining reliability of a source for a Knowledge article.

2326:

I've moved every translation into German into the notes section at the bottom of the page.--

2095:

It's the nation. I don't know what is the problem here or what you want me to do about it.--

1973:

My support was indeed on the basis of Criterion 1a alone, and I should have made this clear.

1008: 1736: 3478: 3087: 3031: 2964: 2458: 2368: 2316: 2236: 2187: 2126: 1993: 1637: 1565: 1353: 1275: 563: 509: 505: 454: 441: 710:

I've fixed that and added both numbers (they were only off by 1 ton!) into the infobox.--

2273:

I don't see this mentioned anywhere when I search for it. Mind telling me where it is?--

1632:

and so on and so forth. Perhaps the idea of putting "German" in front of it came from a

1055:

I've made it singular I think. Can you check back to make sure that I did it properly?--

3536: 3520: 3320: 3211: 2994: 2481: 1927: 1873: 1690: 1670: 1596: 1274:

I feel that you'll accept the site as reliable. Uboat.net has been accepted as a RS by

918: 885: 852: 425: 396: 374: 173: 1738: 2968: 2574: 2553: 2417: 2372: 2347: 1633: 1548: 1492: 1484: 1467: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1357: 1349: 1319: 1315: 341: 323: 304: 245: 225: 53: 3182:Österreich auf allen Meeren. Geschichte der k.( u.)k. Kriegsmarine von 1382 bis 1918 2416:

Actually there are two OTHER outstanding source queries up above besides uboat.net.

851:) because it will then be fulfilling two purposes, albeit one that's not necessary. 473:

I've reworded it. Feel free to check and make sure that it is no longer confusing.--

3074:

greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

3043: 1893: 1526: 1383: 1361: 1297: 3022: 2985: 2433:

I've removed one. The other is fine IMHO as it's just a set of text from a book.--

671:

Is the design correctly called Type UB I or simply UB I? You use both in the text

109: 3532: 2643:

There was no breach of neutrality. The Dutch simply had the sub interned there.--

3079: 3066: 1085:

Fixed all mentions of "World War I to "First World War"in the text and notes.--

204: 3471: 3083: 2731: 2451: 2309: 2229: 2180: 2119: 1986: 1047:"Over the Type UB Is' first year of service ...". Surely the type is singular? 598:

Reworded to make more sense. As for the other question, no, I'm afraid not.--

2989: 2611:

Nice work, I've made a small tweak, hope you like it if not its a wiki. But:

1322:

to get a definitive reading, since the fact that it got by previous FACs is

322:

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

1714:

I think that I added the dash/space to every mention of "Type UB I" in the

504:

Mostly. I'm not sure of the protocol for the "translations": must you link

3443:(considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition) 2827:

Thanks for checking - FA only requires us to go as far as the sources go.

2052:

The other class names are italicised. Why is the opening "UB I" in roman?

488:

Avoid linking the same term more than once, especially in close proximity

3013: 3009: 2270:

two- to three-week". This in numerals while you spell out large numbers?

2204:

No map of the advance? (Modern Belgium wouldn't have to be linked then).

2056: 2008:"Boats of the design were also operated by"—bit odd. At least "of this". 1805: 241: 3101: 3018: 2887:

I'd suggest either a link to an explanation of that test or a footnote.

2526:

described as a naval historian in at least one article published in the

1487:, and the fact that it cleared previous FACs is neither here nor there ( 281: 1522: 2388:

I have been asking that this be attended to since 24 August; I've now

1491:). Could we please get some independent views on how this site meets 1483:

It is not at all clear to me that this site meets the requirements of

1278:

and if you want further conformation, just feel free to ask there :)--

258: 39:

Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in

2255:

The only mention to this in the regular text is not in italics...--

409:

Much appreciated. I'll be sure to call you if I need your help :)--

1242: 372:- Just to clarify, links (disambiguation and external) check out. 2004:

This is savable, but needs work. Here are examples from the top.

1840:

Handed over and soon broken up. I'll try to add than in ASAP :)--

1756:

Wait, so what am I supposed to do here? I'm equally confused...--

653:"via" is common enough in English that it need not be italicized 2252:

I'm confused about the italics: "German Imperial Navy Type UB".

1025:

Oh. I've got it now. Malleus, I've fixed both of these issues.--

2708:

Dutch waters as long as they held fire and didn't run aground?

118:

Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1

1525:

is enough proof IMHO that the site has and continues to meet

3406:

would occur if we avoided uboat.net as a source altogether.

2695:; as White Shadows says, there was no breach of neutrality. 747:

German Imperial Navy or Imperial German Navy? Be consistent

2157:

You couldn't write stubs for the two red links, could you?

354:

Fixed. I've converted it to Long Tones like the tag said.--

2573:(not saying it alleviates the concerns, just a heads-up). 3488:

Yes, "delimited" would have been a better term; thanks!

3195:

Seemacht unter rot-weiß-roter Flagge. K.u.K. Kriegsmarine

143: 2179:

Nice. I probably shouldn't have bothered you with this.

1740:

don't hyphenate either the type name or the boat names.

2570: 2389: 990:

I'm not quite sure what you meant by bolding them....--

105: 101: 97: 57: 2055:

All German submarine Types are in Roman numerals like

1162:

I'm withdrawing my support, see my explanation below.

3112:

German publications seems problematic. For example:

3042:- I understand we are asked to accept uboat.net as a 440:- I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed. 1153:. All my issues have been addressed satisfactorily. 522:

I've removed the translations that are repetitive.--

3398:Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1906-1921 3333:commenting on the latter question. On the former: 3169:Die deutschen Unterseeboote im 1. und 2. Weltkrieg 2532:Submarines: an illustrated history of their impact 1908:Can you elaborate a bit further on that? Thanks.-- 340:The clarification needed tag should be addressed. 3561:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 2809:Crew of 14 - any info as to how that breaks down? 963:down into what was essentially a knock down kit." 1853:I've added in the info for all the sub's fate.-- 1179:. There does not appear to be any issues left.-- 674:I've made it consistent. It's now "Type UB I".-- 3071: 822:differences" - assuming no free version exists. 43:. No further edits should be made to this page. 3117:Die UB-Boote der Kaiserlichen Marine 1914-1918 3567:No further edits should be made to this page. 1314:I am not seeing that uboat.net complies with 29:The following is an archived discussion of a 8: 1270:If I may please draw your attention towards 847:as the visual identification (i.e. removing 205:http://www.hicon.pl/~pothkan/hhwn/index.html 2306:U-boote des Marinekorps U-Flotille Flandern 2207:I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.-- 632:"German waters" or "Germany's home waters" 548:I'm not quite sure what you mean here....-- 2371:and there is no reply as of yet. I'll try 122: 41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates 3130:Die Unterseeboote der Kaiserlichen Marine 1521:falling under OTHERSTUFF) in another FA, 944:. This seems generally OK on first pass, 845:File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg 811:File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg 805:. Who is the author? When did s/he die? 286:And do they have premission to host this? 576:Oh. Thanks, I've made that bold now :)-- 768:Re-worded to say "austro-Hungarians".-- 616:Reworded to say what you suggested :)-- 125: 115: 2288:Never-mind, I found it and fixed it.-- 1663:United States Porpoise class submarine 982:did not always function properly ...". 914:File:Sections of SM UB-13 on train.jpg 2691:The relevant law is enshrined in the 946:but I think a few things need fixing: 282:http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ahsubs.htm 18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates 7: 3058:User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability 2092:Is Austria-Hungary a person? "who"? 2037:You're right. I've de-linked that.-- 1272:User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability 801:date. License depends upon date of 3143:Geschichte des deutschen U-Bootbaus 3052:Knowledge:WikiProject Ships/Sources 1197:Please resolve the questions about 841:File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg 795:File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg 635:Reworded to say "German waters".-- 259:http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/ 24: 3145:. Band 1. Bernhard & Graefe, 2769:I've added it in as a footnote.-- 884:Nope, image issues are resolved. 1667:British Porpoise class submarine 1466:which is where it is discussed. 3380:Dont know if that is any help. 1243:http://uboat.net/about/crew.htm 3180:Basch-Ritter, Renate (1991). 3156:Unterseeboote der K.u.K-Marine 1810:Italian armored cruiser Amalfi 974:"The boats were equipped with 750:German Imperial Navy, fixed.-- 448:) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 224:What did you replace it with? 1: 3551:17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3525:14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3501:13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3484:13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3458:11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3434:10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3416:02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3390:02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 3304:21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3290:21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3275:21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3262:21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3239:20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3226:20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3092:19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3035:19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 3000:18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2977:17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2948:20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2926:20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2904:10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2883:03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2869:21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2844:10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2823:03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2778:15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2765:10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2743:20:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2725:19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2703:19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2687:19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2673:19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2652:18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2630:19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2596:21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2583:21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2561:21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2543:21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2517:18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2495:00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2464:10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2442:20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2425:15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2404:12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2384:20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2363:15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2335:21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2322:01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2297:21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2283:21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2264:21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2242:10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2216:10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2201:Last para in lead is perfect. 2193:10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2169:10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2151:10:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2132:10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2104:21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2086:10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2068:10:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2046:21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 2020:21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 1999:13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1951:00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 1936:23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 1917:00:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 1444:18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1425:12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1392:05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 1170:21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 955:"The process of shipping the 274:20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 3210:Were any of these surveyed? 3184:. Styria im Styria Pichler, 2030:I wouldn't link "submarine" 1622:German Type UB III submarine 545:-class" - which is correct? 3141:Rössler, Eberhard (1996). 3128:Rössler, Eberhard (1997). 3119:Mittler & Sohn Verlag, 2528:Journal of Military History 2450:Thanks for your responses. 2346:, has anyone posted yet to 1902:18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1882:01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1862:01:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 1849:01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1831:01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1785:23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1765:23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1748:16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1727:16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1718:, but not the references.-- 1706:15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1679:15:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1659:WP:SHIPS naming conventions 1649:15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1612:15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1577:20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1556:20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1538:20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1508:17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 1475:00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 1373:21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1339:20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1306:19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1287:15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1258:15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1231:15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1214:15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1191:21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 1160:17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 1144:00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 1128:02:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 1094:02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 1064:01:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 1034:02:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 1017:02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 999:01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 933:20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 900:14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 880:13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 867:15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 835:00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 777:23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 759:23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 741:23:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 719:15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC) 703:23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 683:23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 665:00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 644:00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 631:"German home waters" -: --> 625:00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 607:00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 585:01:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 572:00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 557:23:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 531:01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 518:00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 500:23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 482:23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 463:19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 430:22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 418:22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 401:19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 388:19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 363:18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 350:18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 331:17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 312:17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 299:17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 250:16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 233:23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 220:23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 191:17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 165:17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 31:featured article nomination 3584: 3167:Botting, Douglas (2001). 3115:Bendert, Harald (2000). 1816:having sunk the submarine 959:by rail involved breaking 797:- Dead source. 1915 is a 72:German Type UB I submarine 65:German Type UB I submarine 3132:. Bernhard & Graefe, 1814:SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) 1630:German Type IXA submarine 1626:German Type VII submarine 1241:I can't find anything at 3564:Please do not modify it. 3197:. Milizverlag Salzburg, 3046:based on the following: 56:19:18, 8 September 2010 36:Please do not modify it. 3154:Sieche, Erwin (1998). 3040:Comment about uboat.net 211:Removed and replaced.-- 3193:Gruber, Karl (2005). 3076: 3054:mentions the site; and 2959:: I've made a request 789:per criterion three: 2375:if you want me to.-- 2142:Added a semicolon.-- 1872:That's all for now. 3295:know what I mean.-- 3102:this online excerpt 1489:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1324:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 424:Please do. - Dank ( 3065:Nevertheless, per 2571:this reply by Slp1 1963:Sourcing at issue. 976:compensating tanks 207:a reliable source? 3346:secondary sources 2998: 1968:Updated comments: 168: 151: 150: 3575: 3566: 3543: 3493: 3481: 3476: 3450: 3431: 3301: 3272: 3236: 3218: 3104:(a violation of 3025:. What did she 3023:this one on UB-9 2992: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2923: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2880: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2820: 2775: 2762: 2758: 2753: 2740: 2722: 2718: 2713: 2693:Hague Convention 2684: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2649: 2627: 2509: 2502:Note on sourcing 2492: 2484: 2461: 2456: 2439: 2396: 2381: 2355: 2332: 2319: 2314: 2294: 2280: 2261: 2239: 2234: 2213: 2190: 2185: 2166: 2148: 2129: 2124: 2101: 2083: 2077:Removed comma.-- 2065: 2043: 2017: 1996: 1991: 1948: 1914: 1859: 1846: 1828: 1808:having sunk the 1777:, or some such. 1762: 1724: 1698: 1646: 1604: 1574: 1535: 1500: 1417: 1370: 1331: 1284: 1250: 1228: 1206: 1199:reliable sources 1188: 1183: 1125: 1091: 1061: 1031: 996: 925: 892: 877: 859: 832: 774: 756: 738: 716: 700: 680: 662: 641: 622: 604: 582: 554: 528: 497: 479: 415: 385: 377: 360: 296: 271: 217: 188: 162: 154: 123: 113: 95: 48:The article was 38: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3562: 3549: 3537: 3491: 3479: 3472: 3448: 3427: 3297: 3268: 3232: 3224: 3212: 3158:Podzun-Pallas, 2943: 2939: 2934: 2919: 2899: 2895: 2890: 2876: 2864: 2860: 2855: 2839: 2835: 2830: 2816: 2771: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2736: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2680: 2668: 2664: 2659: 2645: 2623: 2507: 2488: 2482: 2459: 2452: 2435: 2394: 2390:done it myself. 2377: 2353: 2328: 2317: 2310: 2290: 2276: 2257: 2237: 2230: 2209: 2188: 2181: 2162: 2144: 2127: 2120: 2097: 2079: 2061: 2039: 2013: 1994: 1987: 1944: 1910: 1855: 1842: 1824: 1758: 1720: 1696: 1642: 1602: 1570: 1531: 1498: 1415: 1366: 1329: 1280: 1248: 1224: 1204: 1186: 1181: 1121: 1087: 1057: 1027: 992: 931: 919: 898: 886: 873: 865: 853: 828: 770: 752: 734: 712: 696: 676: 658: 637: 618: 600: 578: 550: 524: 506:German language 493: 475: 411: 381: 375: 356: 292: 267: 213: 184: 158: 86: 70: 68: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3581: 3579: 3570: 3569: 3556: 3554: 3553: 3545: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3461: 3460: 3437: 3436: 3419: 3418: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3349: 3341: 3338: 3325: 3324: 3321:Art of Iceland 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3242: 3241: 3228: 3220: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3191: 3178: 3165: 3152: 3139: 3126: 3063: 3062: 3055: 2955: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2689: 2638: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2613: 2612: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2585: 2564: 2563: 2546: 2545: 2520: 2519: 2498: 2497: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2445: 2444: 2428: 2427: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2367:I've asked at 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2202: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2112: 2111: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2028: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2002: 2001: 1978: 1974: 1954: 1953: 1939: 1938: 1920: 1919: 1905: 1904: 1885: 1884: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1804:No mention of 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1768: 1767: 1751: 1750: 1730: 1729: 1709: 1708: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1652: 1651: 1615: 1614: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1559: 1558: 1541: 1540: 1511: 1510: 1478: 1477: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1428: 1427: 1395: 1394: 1376: 1375: 1342: 1341: 1309: 1308: 1290: 1289: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1217: 1216: 1194: 1193: 1173: 1172: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1114: 1113: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1080: 1079: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1050: 1049: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1020: 1019: 1002: 1001: 985: 984: 968: 967: 966: 965: 949: 948: 938: 937: 936: 935: 927: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 894: 861: 806: 782: 781: 780: 779: 763: 762: 761: 745: 744: 743: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 687: 686: 685: 669: 668: 667: 651: 648: 647: 646: 629: 628: 627: 611: 610: 609: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 486: 485: 484: 435: 434: 433: 432: 421: 420: 404: 403: 390: 367: 366: 365: 334: 333: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 278: 277: 276: 254: 253: 252: 237: 236: 235: 200: 174:User:Bellhalla 170: 169: 156:Nominator(s): 149: 148: 147: 146: 144:External links 141: 136: 128: 127: 121: 120: 67: 62: 61: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3580: 3568: 3565: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3542: 3541: 3534: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3477: 3475: 3469: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3444: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3430: 3429:White Shadows 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3408:hamiltonstone 3404: 3399: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3382:hamiltonstone 3372: 3368: 3364: 3359: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3342: 3339: 3335: 3334: 3332: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3305: 3302: 3300: 3299:White Shadows 3293: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3282:Truthkeeper88 3278: 3277: 3276: 3273: 3271: 3270:White Shadows 3265: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3254:Truthkeeper88 3252: 3247: 3246: 3244: 3243: 3240: 3237: 3235: 3234:White Shadows 3229: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3217: 3216: 3209: 3208: 3203: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3190: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3151: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3138: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3125: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3075: 3070: 3068: 3059: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3036: 3033: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3015: 3010: 3006: 3002: 3001: 2996: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2957:Delegate note 2949: 2946: 2942: 2937: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2922: 2921:White Shadows 2916: 2913: 2912: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2879: 2878:White Shadows 2872: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2851: 2845: 2842: 2838: 2833: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2818:White Shadows 2812: 2811: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2779: 2776: 2774: 2773:White Shadows 2768: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2739: 2738:White Shadows 2733: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2714: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2688: 2685: 2683: 2682:White Shadows 2676: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2667: 2662: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2647:White Shadows 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2628: 2626: 2625:White Shadows 2620: 2619: 2618: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2586: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2541: 2538: 2533: 2529: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2503: 2500: 2499: 2496: 2493: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2465: 2462: 2457: 2455: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2437:White Shadows 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2391: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2382: 2380: 2379:White Shadows 2374: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2336: 2333: 2331: 2330:White Shadows 2325: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2315: 2313: 2307: 2304: 2298: 2295: 2293: 2292:White Shadows 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2279: 2278:White Shadows 2272: 2271: 2269: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2259:White Shadows 2254: 2253: 2251: 2250: 2243: 2240: 2235: 2233: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2217: 2214: 2212: 2211:White Shadows 2206: 2205: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2194: 2191: 2186: 2184: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2164:White Shadows 2159: 2158: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2147: 2146:White Shadows 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2133: 2130: 2125: 2123: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2100: 2099:White Shadows 2094: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2084: 2082: 2081:White Shadows 2076: 2075: 2073: 2069: 2066: 2064: 2063:White Shadows 2058: 2054: 2053: 2051: 2047: 2044: 2042: 2041:White Shadows 2036: 2035: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2018: 2016: 2015:White Shadows 2010: 2009: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2000: 1997: 1992: 1990: 1984: 1983:so easy to do 1979: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1946:White Shadows 1941: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1915: 1913: 1912:White Shadows 1907: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1863: 1860: 1858: 1857:White Shadows 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1844:White Shadows 1839: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1829: 1827: 1826:White Shadows 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1786: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1760:White Shadows 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1749: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1722:White Shadows 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657:According to 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1644:White Shadows 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1572:White Shadows 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1534: 1533:White Shadows 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436:Sturmvogel 66 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1368:White Shadows 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1282:White Shadows 1277: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1226:White Shadows 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1123:White Shadows 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1111:their trials? 1110: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1089:White Shadows 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1065: 1062: 1060: 1059:White Shadows 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1044: 1035: 1032: 1030: 1029:White Shadows 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 997: 995: 994:White Shadows 989: 988: 987: 986: 983: 981: 977: 972: 971: 970: 969: 964: 962: 961:the submarine 958: 953: 952: 951: 950: 947: 943: 940: 939: 934: 930: 926: 924: 923: 917: 915: 911: 901: 897: 893: 891: 890: 883: 882: 881: 878: 876: 875:White Shadows 870: 869: 868: 864: 860: 858: 857: 850: 846: 842: 838: 837: 836: 833: 831: 830:White Shadows 825: 824: 823: 821: 816: 812: 808: 807: 804: 800: 796: 793: 791: 790: 788: 784: 783: 778: 775: 773: 772:White Shadows 767: 766: 764: 760: 757: 755: 754:White Shadows 749: 748: 746: 742: 739: 737: 736:White Shadows 731: 730: 728: 720: 717: 715: 714:White Shadows 709: 708: 706: 705: 704: 701: 699: 698:White Shadows 692: 691: 688: 684: 681: 679: 678:White Shadows 673: 672: 670: 666: 663: 661: 660:White Shadows 655: 654: 652: 649: 645: 642: 640: 639:White Shadows 634: 633: 630: 626: 623: 621: 620:White Shadows 615: 614: 612: 608: 605: 603: 602:White Shadows 597: 596: 594: 586: 583: 581: 580:White Shadows 575: 574: 573: 569: 565: 560: 559: 558: 555: 553: 552:White Shadows 547: 546: 544: 540: 532: 529: 527: 526:White Shadows 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 501: 498: 496: 495:White Shadows 490: 489: 487: 483: 480: 478: 477:White Shadows 472: 471: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 460: 456: 452: 447: 443: 439: 431: 427: 423: 422: 419: 416: 414: 413:White Shadows 408: 407: 406: 405: 402: 398: 394: 391: 389: 386: 384: 379: 378: 371: 368: 364: 361: 359: 358:White Shadows 353: 352: 351: 347: 343: 339: 336: 335: 332: 329: 325: 321: 320: 313: 310: 306: 302: 301: 300: 297: 295: 294:White Shadows 289: 288: 287: 283: 279: 275: 272: 270: 269:White Shadows 264: 263: 262: 260: 255: 251: 247: 243: 240: 238: 234: 231: 227: 223: 222: 221: 218: 216: 215:White Shadows 210: 209: 208: 206: 201: 198: 195: 194: 193: 192: 189: 187: 186:White Shadows 180: 175: 167: 166: 163: 161: 160:White Shadows 153: 152: 145: 142: 140: 137: 135: 132: 131: 130: 129: 124: 119: 116: 114: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 66: 63: 60: 58: 55: 51: 44: 42: 37: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3563: 3560: 3555: 3539: 3538: 3521:push to talk 3516: 3515: 3473: 3467: 3442: 3428: 3402: 3397: 3379: 3362: 3357: 3345: 3337:reliability. 3330: 3316: 3298: 3269: 3233: 3214: 3213: 3194: 3181: 3168: 3155: 3142: 3129: 3116: 3109: 3097: 3077: 3072: 3064: 3050:The list at 3039: 3038: 3026: 3004: 3003: 2981: 2980: 2956: 2954: 2932: 2920: 2914: 2888: 2877: 2853: 2828: 2817: 2808: 2772: 2749: 2737: 2709: 2681: 2657: 2646: 2624: 2616: 2608: 2531: 2527: 2501: 2489: 2480: 2476: 2453: 2436: 2378: 2343: 2329: 2311: 2305: 2291: 2277: 2274: 2258: 2231: 2210: 2182: 2163: 2145: 2121: 2098: 2080: 2062: 2040: 2031: 2014: 2003: 1988: 1982: 1967: 1966: 1960: 1958:Disappointed 1957: 1956: 1955: 1945: 1923: 1911: 1888: 1856: 1843: 1825: 1817: 1799: 1774: 1759: 1721: 1715: 1643: 1571: 1532: 1519:technically 1518: 1462:Sandy - see 1367: 1281: 1225: 1198: 1176: 1150: 1149: 1136: 1122: 1108: 1106: 1088: 1076: 1058: 1046: 1028: 993: 979: 975: 973: 960: 956: 954: 945: 941: 921: 920: 912: 888: 887: 874: 855: 854: 829: 819: 814: 809: 803:author death 802: 798: 792: 786: 785: 771: 753: 735: 713: 697: 677: 659: 638: 619: 601: 579: 551: 542: 525: 494: 476: 450: 449: 437: 436: 426:push to talk 412: 397:push to talk 392: 382: 373: 369: 357: 337: 293: 285: 268: 256: 214: 202: 196: 185: 178: 171: 159: 155: 139:Citation bot 69: 50:not promoted 49: 47: 35: 28: 3171:Gondolino, 3110:substantial 2678:nation :)-- 2011:Reworded.-- 1009:Dana boomer 203:What makes 3403:as well as 3202:3901185259 3189:3222117969 3176:3811218530 3163:3790906506 3150:3860471538 3137:3763759638 3124:3813207137 3106:WP:LINKVIO 3032:Courcelles 2732:Maas River 2588:argument. 2032:as well as 957:submarines 813:- Purpose 732:Removed.-- 694:U-boats.-- 656:Removed.-- 564:Nikkimaria 510:Nikkimaria 455:Nikkimaria 442:Nikkimaria 265:Removed.-- 3540:Эlcobbola 3215:Эlcobbola 1928:TomStar81 1874:Parsecboy 1671:Parsecboy 922:Эlcobbola 889:Эlcobbola 856:Эlcobbola 280:Likewise 257:Likewise 3466:Sandy, " 2969:Karanacs 2965:WP:WIAFA 2944:Chequers 2900:Chequers 2874:rule"?-- 2865:Chequers 2840:Chequers 2761:Chequers 2721:Chequers 2700:Fatuorum 2669:Chequers 2593:Fatuorum 2575:Dabomb87 2554:Ealdgyth 2540:Fatuorum 2418:Ealdgyth 2369:WP:SHIPS 2057:Type VII 1961:Support. 1806:SM UB-14 1800:Comments 1782:Fatuorum 1745:Fatuorum 1638:WP:SHIPS 1566:WP:SHIPS 1549:Ealdgyth 1468:Ealdgyth 1354:WP:SHIPS 1276:WP:SHIPS 1182:Twilight 1167:Fatuorum 1158:Fatuorum 1141:Fatuorum 942:Comments 799:creation 451:Comments 342:Dabomb87 324:Ealdgyth 305:Ealdgyth 226:Ealdgyth 197:Comments 134:Analysis 54:Karanacs 3492:Georgia 3449:Georgia 3317:Comment 3098:Comment 3005:Comment 2982:Comment 2915:Comment 2805:prizes. 2697:Malleus 2590:Malleus 2537:Malleus 2508:Georgia 2477:Support 2395:Georgia 2354:Georgia 1924:Support 1894:Nergaal 1889:Comment 1779:Malleus 1742:Malleus 1697:Georgia 1691:WP:NBSP 1603:Georgia 1597:WP:LEAD 1523:SM U-66 1499:Georgia 1416:Georgia 1384:Mjroots 1330:Georgia 1298:Mjroots 1249:Georgia 1205:Georgia 1177:Support 1164:Malleus 1155:Malleus 1151:Support 1138:Malleus 491:Done.-- 438:Support 393:Comment 370:Comment 338:Comment 126:Toolbox 89:protect 84:history 3517:Oppose 3480:(talk) 3358:online 3061:works. 2460:(talk) 2373:WP:RSN 2348:WP:RSN 2318:(talk) 2238:(talk) 2189:(talk) 2128:(talk) 1995:(talk) 1818:Medusa 1812:or of 1634:WP:MIL 1628:, the 1624:, the 1568:too.-- 1493:WP:SPS 1485:WP:SPS 1410:WP:RSN 1406:WP:SPS 1402:WP:SPS 1358:WP:MIL 1350:WP:SPS 1320:WP:RSN 1316:WP:SPS 1187:Helryx 1109:during 787:Oppose 93:delete 3490:Sandy 3447:Sandy 3374:site. 3084:PL290 3044:WP:RS 2940:Spiel 2896:Spiel 2861:Spiel 2836:Spiel 2814:up.-- 2757:Spiel 2717:Spiel 2665:Spiel 2609:Query 2506:Sandy 2483:ceran 2393:Sandy 2352:Sandy 2344:Query 2027:text. 1695:Sandy 1601:Sandy 1527:WP:RS 1497:Sandy 1414:Sandy 1362:WP:RS 1328:Sandy 1247:Sandy 1203:Sandy 820:minor 815:as is 376:ceran 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 3547:talk 3497:Talk 3474:Tony 3454:Talk 3412:talk 3386:talk 3353:here 3286:talk 3258:talk 3222:talk 3199:ISBN 3186:ISBN 3173:ISBN 3160:ISBN 3147:ISBN 3134:ISBN 3121:ISBN 3088:talk 3080:WP:V 3067:WP:V 3019:This 3014:Here 2995:talk 2990:Aude 2986:here 2973:talk 2961:here 2935:Ϣere 2891:Ϣere 2856:Ϣere 2831:Ϣere 2752:Ϣere 2712:Ϣere 2660:Ϣere 2579:talk 2569:See 2558:Talk 2513:Talk 2490:thor 2454:Tony 2422:Talk 2400:Talk 2359:Talk 2312:Tony 2232:Tony 2183:Tony 2122:Tony 1989:Tony 1932:Talk 1898:talk 1878:talk 1775:UB-1 1716:text 1702:Talk 1675:talk 1665:and 1608:Talk 1599:). 1553:Talk 1504:Talk 1472:Talk 1440:talk 1421:Talk 1388:talk 1356:and 1335:Talk 1302:talk 1254:Talk 1210:Talk 1013:talk 980:this 929:talk 896:talk 863:talk 849:this 568:talk 543:U-10 514:talk 459:talk 446:talk 383:thor 346:talk 328:Talk 309:Talk 246:talk 230:Talk 179:very 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 3533:KuK 3363:own 3331:not 2059:.-- 1693:. 1636:or 1529:.-- 1364:.-- 242:PMG 52:by 3523:) 3499:) 3468:de 3456:) 3414:) 3388:) 3288:) 3260:) 3090:) 3069:: 3027:do 2975:) 2967:. 2581:) 2556:- 2515:) 2420:- 2402:) 2361:) 1934:) 1900:) 1880:) 1704:) 1677:) 1669:. 1610:) 1551:- 1506:) 1470:- 1442:) 1423:) 1390:) 1337:) 1304:) 1256:) 1212:) 1015:) 570:) 516:) 461:) 428:) 399:) 348:) 326:- 307:- 284:? 248:) 228:- 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 59:. 33:. 3495:( 3452:( 3410:( 3384:( 3284:( 3256:( 3086:( 2997:) 2993:( 2971:( 2577:( 2511:( 2398:( 2357:( 1930:( 1896:( 1876:( 1700:( 1673:( 1606:( 1502:( 1438:( 1419:( 1386:( 1333:( 1300:( 1252:( 1208:( 1011:( 566:( 512:( 457:( 444:( 344:( 261:? 244:( 199:- 112:) 74:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1 - Knowledge

Index