Talk:41 for Freedom

Infobox

Replaced older infobox with the standard submarine class template infobox. Legohead1 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Legohead1

Full list

Since this is the article for the 41, would it be appropriate to have a list of all 41 here, perhaps still separated by class, without having to comb through four other pages? 75.204.167.180 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The navigation boxes for each of the classes of sub's had previously been added to the bottom of the article. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why 41?

The claim in the introduction is bull - as Rogers was ordered (and the US stopped buying new ones) long before the 1972 treaty. I'll have to dig into my sources and see what they say. 24.16.164.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

List of submarines

Editor Tom991 left this message on my talk page. I have moved it here because issues about articles belong on article talk pages where everyone who has an interest may participate.

Trappist, I put the names of all the submarines back on the page because I feel that they should be on there! If somebody is doing research or something they can find the link more easily. If you have any questions please feel free to email me. Thank You, tom991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course I disagree. The boats that make up the 41 for Freedom are already listed, segregated by class, in the nav boxes at the bottom of the page. Duplicating all of that is just needless duplication. And so I've reverted your edit. The burden is on you to show how your list is necessary. Feelings don't count.

If you must list all of the boats in this (or any other ship article) pay attention to proper formatting according to WP:SHIPNAME and other pertinent guidelines. If you are going to do it, do it right. Consider putting the list in columns.

I am all for constructive change and for challenging the status quo to make articles better. Simply re-listing information that is already listed does not make this article better.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

More from EditorTom991, left on my talk page (where it doesn't belong):

TRAPPIST, I reverted the edit for a reason. That reason is so that way the names are listed on the page without having to scroll down. Please leave it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

[W]ithout having to scroll down. A less than convincing argument, that. On my monitor, to get to any of the boats listed below John Adams it is necessary to scroll down. I don't have an iPhone but it would not surprise me to learn that anyone viewing this article on an iPhone has to scroll around. It's the nature of the medium. I haven't reverted your edit yet, but I will.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)