Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Greece/archive1
- 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:23, 25 April 2012 [1].
List of battleships of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Nomination restarted: 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Another one of my warship lists, this one covers the four battleships purchased or ordered by the Greek Navy shortly before the outbreak of World War I, only two of which were delivered. These ships, former American pre-dreadnoughts, survived until 1940, when they were sunk by German divebombers. This list will complete the Good Topic seen here, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review here. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unfortunate that the only two images in the article are of the same class of ship, but this makes sense, since those were the only two delivered. Still, could it be possible there's photos of those ships under construction? Or one of the same class? Though that might be a little too far off the topic. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't ever come across any photos of the two unfinished ships under construction. There's File:Early Salamis design.png, but I felt that since it wasn't the final design, it shouldn't be used in this article. The only illustration of the final design for Salamis is copyrighted. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that, I just found this illustration of a completed Salamis in the German Navy from 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't ever come across any photos of the two unfinished ships under construction. There's File:Early Salamis design.png, but I felt that since it wasn't the final design, it shouldn't be used in this article. The only illustration of the final design for Salamis is copyrighted. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from RexxS:
- The first column of the key table contains bold text contravening MOS:BOLD. They either need to be marked up (and scoped) as row headers, or rendered in normal weight. Is the table format superior to a simple unordered list for the purpose of explaining the meaning of column headers in the main tabels?
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The accessibility of the images would benefit from having alt text per WP:ALT.
- Why is this list not a table with four entries? The functionality of such a list would be improved as it then could be sortable by different criteria in the same way that Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps does.
I'm aware that other FLs exist that resemble this FLC, but since our featured content is meant to represent the very best that Wikipedia can produce, should we not always be striving to improve on what already exists where we can? --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we should. Existing FLs are meant to be surpassed. Goodraise 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the bolding, this might qualify under "Table headers and captions", and I personally feel that it's much easier to read while bolded (try unbolding it in the edit window and previewing it). ALT is not a requirement, should Parsec not decide to do that. The lists of battleships/cruisers have a common format – see List of battleships of Germany, List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, or List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. I'd have no objection to improving them, but if you put it all in one table, you will have all the information on the ships in two different places. Is it not enough that armament, armor, speed, etc. will in almost all cases trend upwards as the reader gets to the more modern ships? (serious question, no sarcasm intended!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MOSBOLD states "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases: Table headers and captions ... In the first two cases, the appropriate markup automatically adds the boldface formatting; do not use the explicit triple-apostrophe markup". I don't think that could be clearer.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images states "Images should include an alt attribute, even an empty one, that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users". ACCESS is part of the MOS and compliance with MOS is required by WP:FLCR #5. Alt text is not optional here, and I would ask the question why anyone would want to omit simple steps that would improve an article if they wanted the article to be as good as possible?
- The whole point of a list to gather together and summarise in a functional manner multiple examples of a given subject so that they can be compared, contrasted and referenced in a single place. Scattered multiple tables with exactly the same format defeats the object of having a list. You might as well just write prose.
- I hope that makes my comments (not objections) clearer. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I should have read farther down that page. ;-) Still, I think an exception for this could be warranted, as its not common to have a stand-alone table, and it makes it muh easier to read (though I understand that's relative).
- In my opinion, the captions are enough here. "Illustration of Salamis had she been completed during World War I and taken over by the Imperial German Navy" is the content of the image, aka what ALT is trying to do. I suppose "ship at rest" could be added to the "Kilkis while still in US Navy service" photo, but I don't think more is necessary.
- We'll have to agree to disagree here. The FL community has passed other lists similar to this one, so I think consensus is that they are okay, but that can always change. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm afraid I can't agree for the simple reason that while the article can be improved by simple changes, it cannot be considered one of Wikipedia's best. There is guidance at WP:DTAB on how to mark up tables appropriately and I see no reason why that advice should not be followed. You also give no reason for an exception to MOSBOLD being made, neither do you offer any justification for breaching MOS by not supplying alt text as required – a caption, although part of alternate text, does not perform the same function as alt text and the guidance at WP:ALT needs to be read carefully. Perhaps I should remind you that the Manual of Style enjoys considerable consensus across the whole project and deviations need to made for good reason, not just editor preference. There are many visually impaired visitors whose experience on Wikipedia is degraded by thoughtless inattention to good accessibility practice, and it is not in the interests of the Featured content process to ignore those visitors. You do this candidate no favours by encouraging the nominator to accept substandard practices, no matter how common they may have been in the past. Energy would be better spent bringing up the standard of old lists that could be easily improved. --RexxS (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which I fully understand, and I assure you that I am reading ALT carefully. Please see WP:ALT#Captions and nearby text and/or Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images/Archive 4#External reviews. There are many instances where captions can fulfill the same role as alt text. You're also giving no reason for blindly following a guideline that, in this case, will make things more confusing for a reader... which is exactly what ACCESS is meant for. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you don't seem to be displaying the understanding that you claim. Nevertheless, reading ALT is helpful, but only if you can take in the issues presented, rather than looking for loopholes to justify poor practice. The point of alt text is that it is supplied to non-visual agents in place of the image; that includes spiders (like Google), text-only browsers (used by visitors with limited bandwidth), as well as screen readers. Perhaps I can point you to Jared Smith's comments that you linked in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images/Archive 4#External reviews where he states In most cases, this image would be given empty alternative text (alt=""), but because the image is linked, it must be given alternative text - probably alt="Vincent van Gogh" or similar. A more optimal approach would be to combine the image and the text caption into one link with the image being given empty alternative text. Now, Jared doesn't know that the MediaWiki software doesn't allow us to combine the image link and the caption, but I think you realise that. The upshot is that on Wikipedia, it is rare that no alt text should be presented – an image otherwise leaves a link that makes little sense to non-visual agents. Alt text does not need to be complex, but in most cases it does help to supply it. Why not have a look at other quality websites (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ for example), and see if you can find a single image that doesn't have alt text? I know I can't find any – even where captions or nearby text contain similar information, there is still alt text. So please, pretty please, let's stop making excuses for editors to do the wrong thing and get down to improving our articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making excuses, Rex – all I am saying is that the captions suffice for the alt text, and adding anything more would simply be a hassle for those with screen readers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you don't seem to be displaying the understanding that you claim. Nevertheless, reading ALT is helpful, but only if you can take in the issues presented, rather than looking for loopholes to justify poor practice. The point of alt text is that it is supplied to non-visual agents in place of the image; that includes spiders (like Google), text-only browsers (used by visitors with limited bandwidth), as well as screen readers. Perhaps I can point you to Jared Smith's comments that you linked in Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images/Archive 4#External reviews where he states In most cases, this image would be given empty alternative text (alt=""), but because the image is linked, it must be given alternative text - probably alt="Vincent van Gogh" or similar. A more optimal approach would be to combine the image and the text caption into one link with the image being given empty alternative text. Now, Jared doesn't know that the MediaWiki software doesn't allow us to combine the image link and the caption, but I think you realise that. The upshot is that on Wikipedia, it is rare that no alt text should be presented – an image otherwise leaves a link that makes little sense to non-visual agents. Alt text does not need to be complex, but in most cases it does help to supply it. Why not have a look at other quality websites (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ for example), and see if you can find a single image that doesn't have alt text? I know I can't find any – even where captions or nearby text contain similar information, there is still alt text. So please, pretty please, let's stop making excuses for editors to do the wrong thing and get down to improving our articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which I fully understand, and I assure you that I am reading ALT carefully. Please see WP:ALT#Captions and nearby text and/or Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images/Archive 4#External reviews. There are many instances where captions can fulfill the same role as alt text. You're also giving no reason for blindly following a guideline that, in this case, will make things more confusing for a reader... which is exactly what ACCESS is meant for. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm afraid I can't agree for the simple reason that while the article can be improved by simple changes, it cannot be considered one of Wikipedia's best. There is guidance at WP:DTAB on how to mark up tables appropriately and I see no reason why that advice should not be followed. You also give no reason for an exception to MOSBOLD being made, neither do you offer any justification for breaching MOS by not supplying alt text as required – a caption, although part of alternate text, does not perform the same function as alt text and the guidance at WP:ALT needs to be read carefully. Perhaps I should remind you that the Manual of Style enjoys considerable consensus across the whole project and deviations need to made for good reason, not just editor preference. There are many visually impaired visitors whose experience on Wikipedia is degraded by thoughtless inattention to good accessibility practice, and it is not in the interests of the Featured content process to ignore those visitors. You do this candidate no favours by encouraging the nominator to accept substandard practices, no matter how common they may have been in the past. Energy would be better spent bringing up the standard of old lists that could be easily improved. --RexxS (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the bolding, this might qualify under "Table headers and captions", and I personally feel that it's much easier to read while bolded (try unbolding it in the edit window and previewing it). ALT is not a requirement, should Parsec not decide to do that. The lists of battleships/cruisers have a common format – see List of battleships of Germany, List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, or List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. I'd have no objection to improving them, but if you put it all in one table, you will have all the information on the ships in two different places. Is it not enough that armament, armor, speed, etc. will in almost all cases trend upwards as the reader gets to the more modern ships? (serious question, no sarcasm intended!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Violates criterion 3b. Can reasonably be included as part of List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. Goodraise 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that should read "violates your interpretation of criterion 3b" with a link to WP:FL?. Let's let others decide for themselves. Also, your comment is simply not true – if that article were upgraded to FL standard, I counted at least 38 items in just the first six sections (out of 20 content sections) that would need one to two paragraphs of text. That would make for one really long article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it reads just fine. I try not to insult the readers of my comments by pointing out and linking to the obvious. Anyway, you are correct in that the article would become really long. However, that does not necessarily mean that its battleships section would need to be split off. Goodraise 23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that we can all agree that FL treatment of the list of decomissioned Hellenic warships would be too large and would require forking to reduce things down to a manageable size. That said, the logical way to break down that long list is by type (battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc., which this list is the first piece. I would oppose trying to combine battleships with the next largest size of ship, cruisers, because they have vastly different roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would require some splitting. And once the larger sections (Destroyers, Torpedo boats, Landing ships, Submarines) have been given the SS treatment, the list would likely be of a decent size. Goodraise 23:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how would we then characterize the resulting list after those sections were broken out into their own lists? Decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy except for destroyers, etc? I'm not all sure that it would be workable to summarize the lede sections of the subsidiary lists. However, if you can point me to any example of what you mean, I'd be grateful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still be List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. To give an example: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients does not itself list all recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Goodraise 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a fan of consistency, ie a list for every warship type (or a link to the article if there's only one), than arbitrary splits for just some of the categories. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would still be List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy. To give an example: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients does not itself list all recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Goodraise 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how would we then characterize the resulting list after those sections were broken out into their own lists? Decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy except for destroyers, etc? I'm not all sure that it would be workable to summarize the lede sections of the subsidiary lists. However, if you can point me to any example of what you mean, I'd be grateful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would require some splitting. And once the larger sections (Destroyers, Torpedo boats, Landing ships, Submarines) have been given the SS treatment, the list would likely be of a decent size. Goodraise 23:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that we can all agree that FL treatment of the list of decomissioned Hellenic warships would be too large and would require forking to reduce things down to a manageable size. That said, the logical way to break down that long list is by type (battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc., which this list is the first piece. I would oppose trying to combine battleships with the next largest size of ship, cruisers, because they have vastly different roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it reads just fine. I try not to insult the readers of my comments by pointing out and linking to the obvious. Anyway, you are correct in that the article would become really long. However, that does not necessarily mean that its battleships section would need to be split off. Goodraise 23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that should read "violates your interpretation of criterion 3b" with a link to WP:FL?. Let's let others decide for themselves. Also, your comment is simply not true – if that article were upgraded to FL standard, I counted at least 38 items in just the first six sections (out of 20 content sections) that would need one to two paragraphs of text. That would make for one really long article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - content looks good. If you want another source, this has a bit on the Grecian/Ottoman dreadnoughts. Otherwise, my only thought is that a bit more on the arbitration could be given, as right now it's a little threadbare. I'd understand if you don't have sources that cover that obscure information, though. The images are all in the public domain. Spotchecks of Conway's 1906 revealed no plagiarizing, etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I didn't see any problem the last time and I still don't. While the entries could reasonably be included elsewhere, the article itself couldn't feasibly be consumed by another article without serious bloat issues or the loss of useful and verifiable information—if all of the entries on List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy were given this level of attention the article would definitely qualify for forking and we'd be right back in a circle again. I do agree that a precedent doesn't have to be hard-and-fast established as to size or scope, especially not at the smaller end such as this, but I believe this one passes the post comfortably. GRAPPLE X 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – While the content itself looks good, I remain unconvinced that this page meets criterion 3b, but my viewpoint is slightly different than Goodraise's. I'm not sold that this should be thought of as a list to start with. If you changed the title to Battleships of Greece, I'd be perfectly happy to consider this an article instead. There aren't many entries in the tables (4 is fewer than in any FL I can think of right now), and there aren't enough prose entries for me to consider it a list in that way (like in List of culinary nuts). To me, this is slightly more of an article than a list, and along with the 3b concerns discussed at length already, I don't believe this meets the FL requirements (which doesn't mean it's not good work; it is). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have hoped this and this were clear enough. Apparently not. I have no intention of pursuing this nomination, please archive it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.