Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates

Minas Geraes-class battleships edit

The following two topics are 100% included into an overview topic, therefore I don't see the point of having the additional rather obscure mini-topics:

edit | discuss
  Rivadavia-class battleship
 
Featured topic
3 articles
 
  ARA Rivadavia
  ARA Moreno


edit | discuss
  Minas Geraes-class battleship
 
Featured topic
3 articles
 
  Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
  Brazilian battleship São Paulo


The overview topic is:

edit | discuss
  South American dreadnought race
 
Featured topic
5 articles
 
  Minas Geraes-class battleship (subtopic)
  Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
  Rivadavia-class battleship (subtopic)
  Almirante Latorre-class battleship (subtopic)

As a further argument, the "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" does not exist. Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - 100% overlap with parent topic for both subtopics. --PresN 05:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed with consensus to demote the "Rivadavia" and "Minas Geraes" topics. GamerPro64 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why was I not notified about this? You can't conduct a discussion without notifying the primary contributor. That's a bit bonkers. I would have pointed out that there was earlier consensus to do it this way. I'll get the links later today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GamerPro64: here, where consensus held against Nergaal's view. This is why primary contributors should always be notified. Can this be re-opened and re-examined? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/South American dreadnought race/archive1. In the past 3 years the view has changed quite a bit. Ed, you should be very well aware of the super-topics that have been created under the mil-hist umbrella which in essence are quite similar to this issue here. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Former_featured_topics#Former_topics_that_have_been_merged_into_other_topics and you will see that 95% of the cases there are ship MINI-topics that have been superseeded by broader topics. The actual reason I proposed this nom was when I saw the numbers at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Main Page appearances. If you check them you will see that the Rivada views are quite below the broader topic. Other than for bragging rights I am not sure what would be the point of keeping topics separate, especially when the Latorre ships don't have their own separate topic. Also, if you read at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria you will see a recommendation established a very long time ago: "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." I am not sure how 100% does not fall under the "overly" quantifier. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Delist - yeah, better just leave the bigger one. (I don't even need to keep the link to FFT given the rationale is fully detailed up there) 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is From where I sit, these three all cover different aspects, therefore they should be treated separately, not merged. Keeping them as they are would be in the best interest of everyone involved. Also, this serves as a preemptive measure since I am sure that if this is delisted sooner or later someone will renominate them figuring that they are different enough that they should be there own FT. By keeping them now we can negate having to do the Texas Two Step later. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an ill-informed nomination. A class of warships is a distinct thing, and so its a suitable topic for a stand-alone FT. The naval race was another thing again, and also justifies a FT. It's not like having multiple FTs is a bad thing. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically per Nick-D. Also, there are no quality issues raised with any of the articles involved, so therefore there is no reason to delist a FT. If a FA that was part of a FT were to be delisted, then wouldn't that have the effect of delisting the FT at the same time? Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the point of keeping these subtopics is so that when the end project is complete, they can be included without adding additional articles to what will be a large topic. And the comparison to the former GTs isn't exactly apt, since those are primarily topics that have since been rolled into national topics (which will be the building blocks for the final FT) - there aren't national topics these two can be rolled into. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81, Mjroots, and Parsecboy: Yo fan boys, can you actually cite policies for your views instead of turning this nomination into a popularity contest? Have any of you even glanced at wp:FT? ?. It looks like none of you even bothered to read the paragraph I wrote. I don't think this project is going to heat in any positive direction if one of the larger wikiprojects will decide to change consensus with complete disregard to existing policies with a call to arms on their talkpage whenever somebody feels insecure. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with WP:NPA. Are we clear?
As to your substantial comments, the fact that we disagree does not mean I have not read your comments. If anything, it seems you have not read what I wrote, which substantially refuted your argument (in other words, there is a reason to keep the topics separate - this was addressed here, for instance). Oh, and I don't see anyone from either side of the discussion citing policies either. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy:@Nick-D: Having a current topic because of some possible issues with a future topic (that may or may not get to be nominated in the next 5 years) is (should) not be relevant here. Those issues should be addressed WHEN that nomination is brought up not before. EVEN THEN I see little weight for your point since you can still have a major topic where say all the 10+ entires subtopics are actual subtopics, and the smaller ones (Turkey and below) would not get separate subtopics and instead would be fully present in the broader topic. EVEN if this were not enough, your point does not stand when you see that NOBODY bothered to nominate "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" as a separate subtopic (by your rationale that topic would have to be separated also). EVEN if linking only 10+ topics is not accepted in that nomination, you could STILL link a continental subtopic instead of 3 national ones (I see no reason why South American dreadnought race would not be equivalent/on par to say Austria-Hungary). As for policy: "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also. Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read WP:FT, and it seems that my comments were generally correct. If an article is demoted, then there is a period of time allowed to bring it back up to scratch before the topic is also demoted. The fact stands that all articles in the topics are FAs, so I see no reason why the topic should be delisted. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: - I've said all I'm going to say on the actual proposal. Your continued arguing with those who do not share your opinion smells strongly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a feature which also infests some AfD discussions. I suggest that you allow editors to state their opinions, and an independent admin close the discussion in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria#Recommendations there is a bullet point stating "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic.". The only reason this has not been made into FT? #4 is because there is a vague definition as to what constitutes "overly". I am pretty sure wherever you want to draw the line at, 100% does fall on the overly side. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those recommendations are just that: recommendations. As for me, I draw the line at IAR, and since I perceive that the recommendations and rules as you are interpreting them prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, I am choosing to ignore them for the betterment of the project as a whole. There is no harm in co-existence, so that is the path I choose to follow here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are aware of FL? #3b. Do you see any parallels between this recommendation and FL?#3b ? With the negligible number of users providing any significant input the wp:FT project will die before any consistent discussion will happen about this recommendation becoming an actual rule. Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we drop the Almirante Latorre class point? Just because I was stupid enough to forget to nominate the class doesn't mean that it should disqualify the worthy arguments above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't already clear, I oppose separating these topics. They're different nationalities and therefore have an explicit purpose until the WP:Featured topics/Battleships of the world (or WP:Featured topics/Dreadnoughts of the world?) topic is nominated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Disclaimer: I was a co-nom on one of these articles. (OTOH, I've never associated myself with this featured topic, and my argument concerns all FTs, not just this one.) We can't consult a reliable source on what a "Featured Topic" is supposed to be; it's determined entirely by convention and practice on Wikipedia, and for many years, all the articles in a non-trivial ship class (along with the parent article) have constituted a featured topic. That's really the only argument that counts here; various recent and inconsistent notions of what featured topics should or shouldn't don't trump established practice. For better or worse, that's how Wikipedia works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate idea: Why not keep the dreadnought race topic, but pull out all the overlapping articles? I.e. have the two battleship-class articles, plus create one for Almirante Latorre, and make the dreadnought race topic look like this:

edit | discuss
  South American dreadnought race
 
Featured topic
5 articles
 
  Minas Geraes-class battleship(subtopic)
  Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
  Rivadavia-class battleship(subtopic)
  Almirante Latorre-class battleship(subtopic)

Cuts out the 100% overlap, without losing any articles. --PresN 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like quite a reasonable compromise to me. Parsecboy (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like how it looks (is there a better way than superscripting it?) but overall I agree with Parsec. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging PresN and GamerPro64. I don't really like how this looks, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a great idea of how to make it better. Any thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit | discuss
  South American dreadnought race
 
Featured topic
5 articles
 
  Minas Geraes-class battleship (subtopic)
  Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
  Rivadavia-class battleship (subtopic)
  Almirante Latorre-class battleship (subtopic)

Having it look like this could work. Just using two columns instead of three. GamerPro64 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two columns looks better. As far as the superscript goes, that's the standard way to indicate a subtopic exists; while it's possible to come up with a better-looking way, that would be outside the scope of this nomination and should be brought up at the FT/FTC talk page. I did add in a space between the article and suptopic indicator, since that's the standard formatting. --PresN 01:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate Comment - This review have been going on for almost two months. Is there enough consensus to close this nomination all together? GamerPro64 21:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestion for the two-columned box is fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with this. Thank you for working with me and reopening it, GamerPro64, and good luck with your RfA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you Ed. I think we're almost done with this review. The only thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that in the new topic design for the dreadnought race, there is a redlink involving a topic for Almirante Latorre-class battleship. That would mean a Featured Topic might have to be made for that series of battleships. Before we close this nomination, I wanna know what will be done with that prospect. GamerPro64 20:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right. And with that I think we're done here. Thanks goes out to everyone for putting up with this for two months. This nomination is now closed to have "Rivadavia-class battleship" and "Minas Geraes-class battleship" keep their statuses. GamerPro64 19:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_removal_candidates/Minas_Geraes-class_battleships/archive1&oldid=1000270286"