Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of protected cruisers of Germany/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [1].

List of protected cruisers of Germany edit

List of protected cruisers of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another list of warships of Germany - these are the eight protected cruisers built by the Imperial Navy in the 1880s and 90s. This list is the capstone to this Good Topic, and is the third of four components for this massive project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose many issues, mostly minor...

  • Don't we normally use a {{lang}} template for things like "Kaiserliche Marine"?
    • [Note: TRM and I are actually both arguing about the {{lang-de}} template here, the one that begins "German:". Psychic, or daft? Your call!] It's redundant to say "German" twice in the same sentence. People sometimes get a bug up their ass about the "semantic web", and if we could get some solid support from Google, possibly through their Wikidata project, I'd be all in favor of helping them make it work. But I'm not going to champion bad prose in the meantime, just because they're promising to get to work on that semantic web, oh, any day now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was thinking about WP:ACCESS for blind people or screen readers etc, not about people with "a bug up their ass" whatever that means. Of course, no need to say thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The answer to your question is: no, we don't, if the name of the language is already nearby, because it would be redundant, per any style guide you can name. Certainly not at Milhist, and not that I've noticed at FAC. WP:ACCESS has been a haven for bad copyediting advice for years. (If the screen reader is making wild guesses about pronunciation, even when given clues like "German" and italics and words that occur in German but not English dictionaries, it's time to upgrade, not kowtow to the whims of the screen reader.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you don't wish this list to comply with WP:ACCESS then, is that what you're saying? (And by the way, I thought the template would link to German language, not just say "German" as you assert)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, you insist that the article should begin, "The German Imperial Navy (German ..."? [with a link]. I don't drop by FLC enough to know Giants' position on that; I'd be interested. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't really see an issue with that at all since the German link goes to the German language, no-one loses out and people who need to use accessibility software to browse Wikipedia will have an enhanced experience. I can't see why you'd prejudice against those readers, but you seem dead set against it so I guess further discussion here with you is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • [Some bits deleted.] Let me see if there's a parameter to that template that will fix what I see as the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh, oops! The lang template you requested is fine, as long as we don't have to repeat it every time. The template I meant to object to, in this context at least, is {{lang-de}}. I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starting with the two ships of the Irene class in the 1880s." not sure you need to repeat "in the 1880s".
  • What's a "fleet scout"?
    • A scout...for a fleet? Shouldn't this be obvious?
    • Is there a link for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from the general reconnaissance article, no.
      • I see both sides, actually. Changed "fleet scouts" to "scouts for the fleet". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "and a greater number of" what's wrong with "and more"?
    • I like to be wordy :P
  • Lead image could be expanded, and that nasty Warships of Germany navbox could be relegated (it looks terrible in the lead).
    • Sometimes I forget that I have my preferences set to 300px. As for the navbox, where do you suggest it go?
      • Parsec expanded to 300px.
  • "Irene in 1894" well, not really, it's an artistic vision of what she looked like in 1894 isn't it?
    • I suppose so.
      • Parsec added "Painting of".
  • AG Vulcan or AG Vulcan Stettin?
    • It's commonly referred to simply as AG Vulcan (since there isn't an AG Vulcan Bremen, for instance).
      • Guess we should move our article then... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are of course free to request the move...
          • Please stop linking me to pages you know I'm well aware, it is somewhat patronising. I just wondered why it wouldn't be entitled by its common name. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then please stop making daft comments. Plenty of things have more than one frequently used name, especially for institutions that were around for a hundred years and had several official names. It's perfectly fine to have an article at one location and be referred to by another name elsewhere.
              • Oh, "daft comments". Okay, I'll refrain from making any comments on your lists in future, that'll probably make both of our lives a lot easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we just agree that this entire thread is daft? TRM, I think I'm going to side with Parsec on this one, on the theory that I'm being nice to you, me, and reviewers everywhere by rejecting the "I refuse to fix this article until you fix that one" argument. That is, I'm not interested in what people are doing over at AG Vulcan Stettin, I'm only interested in whether AG Vulcan is a common name for the company, and my understanding is that it is. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stettin is now Szczecin, for consideration to others, perhaps consider a note that says that Stettin is modern-day Szczecin in Poland?
    • It's already linked; for the average reader, who doesn't know Szczecin from Szechuan, that should suffice.
      • Assuming that no English-language name is relevant, this question can be a really tough one, in general. If the connection between the old town and the new town is weak (for any number of reasons ... because the town is small or has shifted slightly or because people have been actively trying to distance themselves from the history, for a long time), then I'm fine with not mentioning the modern name. Otherwise, I prefer to mention the local name, which is more or less the position of WP:NCGN.
  • What's a "goldmark"?
    • Linked
  • What version of English is this article written in? I see "maneuvred" but then I see "armoured". Needs logical internal consistency.
    • 'Muhrican - I don't know how that "armoured" slipped in.
  • "21-centimeter (8.3 in) guns and eight 15 cm guns" consistency with hyphens, conversions etc.
    • Hyphens are only used with spelled out units, abbreviations don't get them. Conversions are also usually only appropriate at the first use of the measurement.
  • You relink "East Asia squadron" a couple of times, but then you don't later. What's the rationale for over linking in some place but not others Where?
    • Mainly because I'm incompetent :P
  • While you're fixing the above, suggest you fix Annapolis to link to Annapolis, Maryland.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • It does, just via a redirect, which isn't a problem. Thanks for reviewing the list and identifying these issues. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm well aware of that, that's why I said "while you're fixing the above". Silly to know about redirects and not just taking one second to fix them when you're making other fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The guideline seems to support Parsec's take on this, TRM, and I don't even remember (much) controversy over this point before. I hope we've dealt with your points to your satisfaction. Thanks kindly for this review and all your reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • On this last point, we may just be misunderstanding each other, TRM, but WP:LINK#Piped links also recommends against what you're asking for, at least in this particular case: "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRM's last edit was in June, and I can't tell which if any of these points he feels haven't been addressed. I've pinged him. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets criteria.--GoPTCN 11:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - some of these are a bit warship-geeky, but, hey, that's what I'm here for. ;-)
  • Support - happy now. :-) The Land (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First sentence. Why did the German Navy bother building these ships - what was their role? A sentence or two about this would make a lot of difference here.
      • See the 4th sentence - overseas work and fleet scouts.
I think it would make more sense putting this in the first and second sentences - would read better that way.
    • The summary information for each ship could be a little more detailed, for instance
    Guns - I'd prefer to see links to the individual gun types (even if redlinks). Giving only the calibre obscures the improvements between marks.
    Done.
    Any reason why the number of torpedo tubs isn't mentioned in the armament? They're just as important as the gun armament.
    In these lists, I've generally limited the armament description to the primary offensive battery and left out secondary guns and torpedo armaments.
    I think that for a protected cruiser of the period, torpedo tubes are just as important as guns.
    Machinery. Can we have the manufacturers of the engines noted, and also the horsepower.
    In the tables or the text? The machinery boxes already have more info than the others - I don't really want to cram more into them.
    Horsepower is quite important, in my view. Perhaps I'm an unusual reader caring about the power of a ship's engines, rather that just her speed, but it's useful information for the well-informed reader and deserves to be in the summary...
    Alright, I've added the ihp figures. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the thickness of the armoured decks and how much of the length did they run?
    Added thickness, but I don't have figures for the length of the hull protected.
  • Otherwise great work, look forward to supporting. :-) The Land (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I deleted the redundant link to Imperial German Navy and Kaiserlich Marine in the beginning of the first class description.
  • I would oppose any further info added to the ship descriptions; they're purposely kept very sparse. See any of the FL-class ship lists at WP:OMT; they lack most everything you're asking for, except, possibly shaft or indicated horsepower. All of my more substantive comments were addressed at the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine by me on the link, and thanks for reviewing the list again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the following edits: - Dank (push to talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_protected_cruisers_of_Germany/archive1&oldid=1036548121"