Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1

Battlecruisers of the Royal NavyEdit

23 articles
  Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
  Invincible class battlecruisers
  HMS Invincible
  HMS Inflexible
  HMS Indomitable
  Indefatigable class battlecruisers
  HMS Indefatigable
  HMS New Zealand
  Lion class battlecruisers
  HMS Lion
  HMS Princess Royal
  HMS Queen Mary
  HMS Tiger
  Renown class battlecruisers
  HMS Renown
  HMS Repulse
  Courageous class battlecruisers
  HMS Courageous
  HMS Glorious
  HMS Furious
  Admiral class battlecruisers
  HMS Hood
  G3 class battlecruisers

This GTC consists of all the British battlecruisers built or planned. They fought in most of the major ship-to-ship engagements during World War I, including the Battle of Jutland where three were destroyed by magazine explosions. Only three survived the post-war scrap drive to fight in World War II: Hood was sunk by the German battleship Bismarck, Repulse by Japanese aircraft and Renown survived the war only to be scrapped in 1948. All articles are GA or better, although List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy is currently at FLC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support pending the promotion of the FLC. The sad part is that 4 GTs will have to be removed/merged into this one, and it will probably mean no Courageous either. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support But Courageous has the AC article, so there still is a ligth at the end of the tunnel. Or you could have them as sub-topics, just like the Hurricane FTC above us. Buggie111 (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support (Providing that the list passes FLC of course) Great job Strum.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -MBK004 07:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Note - the lead list has now passed its FLC. -MBK004 06:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Subtopic version
  • I'm more for using subtopics instead of quite larger topics. I suppose it depends on how you OMT is looking to do the unified topic. You might end up with a large topic tree with a number of sub-sub-sub topics etc. Here's how this topic might look: Woody (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
23 articles
  Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy
  Invincible class battlecruisers (subtopic)
  Indefatigable class battlecruisers (subtopic)
  HMS Queen Mary
  HMS Tiger
  Lion class battlecruisers (subtopic)
  Renown class battlecruisers (subtopic)
  Courageous class battlecruisers (subtopic)
  Admiral class battlecruisers
  HMS Hood
  G3 class battlecruisers
Oooh, I like that! I withdraw the earlier version and will use Woody's creation as my submission.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Then it is time to oppose based of criteria 1.d. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain, please. I must be dense, because I'm not seeing any missing articles. Or do you mean the Renown-class topic? Trivial enough to renominate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, delightfully cryptic oppose, but of course my version would be dependent on the Courageous issue being rectified and the Renown being passed, though that should simply be a formality. I presume that is what they is getting at. Subtopics themselves are nothing new. Woody (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
1.d says There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic, and in that case it would miss 10 ship articles. Because there would be only 23 articles in total in the complete topic, there is no need to split the subtopics. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Age of Empires series/archive1 for a similar case. Also, since precedents are worthwhile to consider (due to the sake of consistency) see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of Germany/archive1. Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
<Confused> How are 10 articles missing, once the Renown and Courageous-class subtopics are closed? Neither of the two examples you mention are relevant at all to this case, as they were far smaller topics in total numbers and did not lend themselves to a large number of sub-topics as does this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I am with Sturmvogel here, I'm not following your argument. The articles aren't missing, they are still there. This is following the principle of overview topics that formed from this 2009 discussion. I think this is a good example of an overview topic that could benefit from the use of subtopics. I would agree with a precedent argument if there had been a discussion about subtopics in that discussion, there simply wasn't and I don't think qui tacet consentire videtur applies there. I would be happy to renominate that one if the outcome of this discussion is to go towards subtopic based noms. The German battlecruisers topic is a small one, what happens when you get to the German battleships? Woody (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
We already have a topic with 42 articles so I see absolutely no problem with having a topic with only 23 articles. The point of overview topics is to have a broad set of articles covering the topic, but not have 8 articles with 6 of them as subtopics of 3-4 articles. If you see the example above, it could have reasonably been split into at least 3 topics, but it was decided that it is better to have them merged in a single, unified, well-defined topic. As for the German batleships example, since there are 60-something articles, one topic is not feasible. I think a good way to have it is to split it into two topics, one for WWI and the other for WWII, probably with the same lead article; or instead it could contain only the class articles, and the topic would be named German BS classes. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of the Invincibles topic, that is why I note it doesn't lend itself very well to comparisons as it isn't an overview topic: you would end up with 2 subtopics, one on the series, one on the players. The structure doesn't lend itself to it, whereas I think this structure does. Your German BS suggestion wouldn't work: the first ships started coming in in 1890, one being laid down in 1890 and scrapped in 1957. Time would not work with those, subtopics of classes would. I don't understand your aversion to subtopics though I make it plain that I am acting somewhat as a devil's advocate, I could perfectly accept the first one, I just don't think it is the best option going forward. Woody (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I prefer topics with subtopics, and when the movement to include subtopics in the parent topics started I was disappointed since like in this case, it kind of discourages editors to submit complete topics (i.e. if lead was not a FL then the subtopics alone would probably be fine). But due to the sake of consistency, I prefer merging smallish topics (see my proposal below with the Persian invasion of Greece); in this case it would be lead + 9 articles, of which 5 are subtopics, as opposed as well defined, complete topic with just lead + 22 entries. Just a note, it the topic would get promoted in this format, then HMS Hood should be left out (consistency). Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Why leave Hood out? Because she's an Admiral class BC? But the Admiral class BC article will never constitute a subtopic. And the whole topic would be incomplete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure exactly why Nergaal's opposing the subtopic version of this proposal, but I will reiterate that I prefer this because two of the subtopics, Courageous class battlecruisers / aircraft carriers and Indefatigable class battle cruisers have articles that fall outside the purview of this large GT. Courageous class has the aircraft carrier article and Indefatigable class has HMAS Australia, a battlecruiser owned by Australia, and not part of the RN. Disbanding those subtopics into a larger British BC topic is not appropriate as both have a meaning outside any British BC topic. All of the others can be subsumed into the overall British BC topic because they have no independent meaning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support either version; I think both fall within criteria 1d & 1e (which should be considered together). I don't really care which one of the two is chosen. Ucucha 23:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - While the subject has been brought up, splitting the German battleships between WWI and WWII is unfeasible. There are only 7 WWII articles, so instead of a 62-article FT you'd just have a 55-article one, not much difference IMO. As far as I can tell, the only two options are displayed here. I personally prefer the un-condensed version, but that's just my opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending exlanation of HMS Incomparable. Nomination says "all the British battlecruisers built or planned" but said article seems to have been proposed/planned so topic seems to fail 1d/e. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Not a serious plan, just a paper exercise. Never approved by the Admiralty.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • With or without this the topic should be fine if it includes the 15 built ships. Auxiliary articles like the case here (15 were built and one was just proposed) aren't a big issue. Ideally they may be added later, but the topic is not cherry-picking by not including 1 proposal, while including 15 completions. If the topic instead focuses on classes than on all the members, this would be a bigger issue, since the topic scope is skewed towards the design part. Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But it does include proposals, such as G3 battlecruiser. My concern is including some that were planned but not all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The G3's were ordered, but cancelled before they were laid down. Incomparable was Fisher's fantasy, never close to being built or ordered.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Agreed with Sturm. I highly doubt Incomparable was ever a serious proposal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - whichever format Sturm prefers is fine with me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. IMO, the issue in the second oppose has been addressed. Nergaal's oppose seems to me to be a debate about criterion 1(d) more than it concerns a question of whether there are any articles that do or don't belong in this proposed featured topic. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • 1(d) relates to completeness. How is either of the two versions incomplete, provided that Courageous and Renown class topics are promoted simultaneously? I don't understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it is not just criterion 1(d). See recommendation #4: The topic is not overly large nor needlessly small... a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of five articles is better than two topics of three each. These recommendations appeared over time, and were never transformed into criteria because it is tricky to establish a clear threshold. In the past, topics like this were merged together instead of needlessly over-splitting them (see The Invincibles case) because it makes sense to have them together. In addition, in this specific case, not only would this oversplitting break the consistency of existing topics, but it would also require a IAR in a place where is really no need to have one (see below). Nergaal (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Now I understand, although I'm afraid that I don't agree that the Indefatigable and Courageous class topics should be subsumed into this larger one because both have one article that falls outside the larger one, which means that the sub-topic variant is preferable. However, I'd not object to the individual variant provided that both the Indefatigable and Courageous class topics remain independent, albeit with considerable overlap with this one. One last question, what's the "see below" in reference to?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not really going anywhere lately. Care I suggest to restart the nomination? Nergaal (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Why? You'd just oppose again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't oppose the topic, but the divided into subtopics version. By a restart I meant to ask each voter to submit a preferrence between the two. Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm okay with either version; I'd prefer the single-topic one, but since it would lose articles that way I'm fine with subtopics. I also don't see why this nom would need a restart- counting me, that's 8 supports, plus Woody who never supported but defended the nom anyway?, 2 opposes (Nergaal and Rambo's Revenge, who's oppose was disagreed with by everyone who posted after him, including Nergaal (and me, btw)). That means effectively that, if we discount RR, Nergaal is the only oppose. If we need a unanimous opinion, then the topic will never pass while you oppose it. If we don't, then we have a clear consensus right now to promote the subtopic'd version. --PresN 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

While the consensus is pretty clear to promote, I'm unsure of which one has consensus, since many seem find with either; do those people have any preference? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first version I submitted provided that the existing Indefatigable topic isn't merged into it and the Courageous-class topic is promoted as an independent topic. Both topics have articles that fall outside the scope of this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote. The main, 23 article topic will be promoted, with the current Invincible and Lion class articles merged in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)