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 articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Due to a lack of imagination or something, both the US Navy and the Royal Navy (and sometimes other navies) have more-or-less used up the alphabet for pre-WWII classes of submarines. The Royal Navy has already got pages for E class submarine and M class submarine, while S class submarine is shared by both with the Italian navy. I've done pages for the (2) USN E-class boats, using (USN) as a disambiguator. I suggest that using [[<letter> class submarine (USN)]] and [[<letter> class submarine (RN)]] consistently would be a good thing---better than having the default for some letters meaning one navy while other letters mean the other. —wwoods 07:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The dates listed on this page are ambiguous. I presume they are all the dates within which the submarines were constructed. Perhaps a table would be a better way to express the data present here? (Could also include dates of service/decommisioning) Timb0h 08:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are date's of construction, which isn't at all clear, so I've added that to the page. I'm not sure a table would help, and adding too much additional data would obfuscate the fact this is a list to gather together the links of all the submarine classes, that sort of thing best belongs on the ship class / ship page. EmoscopesTalk 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a simple 3 column table within each subheading would make it look a lot neater, along the lines of List of The Daily Show correspondent titles. If we keep the existing information and categories I don't think it will cause any cluttering. Timb0h 14:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a frameless table might present the information slightly more neatly, but you would have to be prepared to bring all the other "lists of ship classes" pages into line with this to maintian the style. Also, tables can be confusing for new users (I still make errors myself after thousands of edits) and I tend to avoid them where they aren't really neccesary. As this is primarily a page listing links to other pages containing the pertinant data, I think it does it's job fine as it is. EmoscopesTalk 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The date of construction is also ambiguous, since ships are rarely constructed within a single calendar year. Should the date refer to the date of launch? The launch date is usually the most verifiable date associated with a ship's construction. Lostdistance (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This policy seems to have broken down, with entries near the bottom of page clearly showing the in-service dates, not the construction dates. Thom2002 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've now changed these to construction dates, based on the information on the class articles Thom2002 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Generally in the UK all boat names (or numerical designations) are italicised as they refer to an individual vessel. Thus X1 is a boat name even if it's only a number. Personally I would italicise the Pennant number only if there is not a corresponding actual name for a submarine; e.g., HMS Unicorn, versus HMS P219.
BTW, I know P219 is Seraph but that's the only example I can think of ATM.
If there's a Pennant Number only, italicise it, if a name as well then italicise that rather than the Pennant No.
The point of italicising vessel names/designations is that it makes it obvious to the reader that the writer is referring to an individual vessel of that name/number, e.g., MV San Demetrio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)