Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier/archive1

Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier edit

5 articles

These three ships were built as battlecruisers during World War I and converted to aircraft carriers in the 1920s. Two of the ships were sunk early in World War II, but the last one survived the war, only to be scrapped in 1948. I split the class article because of length concerns, which raises the issue of which one to use as the lead. All three ships spent more time as carriers than as battlecruisers so an argument could be made either way. I'm nominating this as a good topic and only Courageous class battlecruiser is FA, the rest are GAs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For which of the two periods you your opinion they are most famous/had the most impact/sunk the most ships? The lead class might be towards the first, while the last two, the latter. My preliminary impression is that this could be ok:

Courageous-class aircraft carrier

5 articles

HMS Courageous (50)

As battlecruisers

HMS Glorious

HMS Furious (47)

Also, reviewers for the ship classes should start noting important battles that the classes took part in; for example now, Second Battle of Heligoland Bight. Nergaal (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one, but I think Sturmvogel's original proposal is the best; selecting either class article as the lead would be artificial. Ucucha 00:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would break the criteria #2. Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, per #2 there must be a clear lead article. We can't have two lead articles for a topic. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? This is a special situation; perhaps it should get special treatment. Ucucha 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The BC article is formally the lead, but the proposed structure visually emphasizes the CV article as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I support the topic but not with two entries in the lead field. I oppose anything that has, or it makes it look like it has, two leads. Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It has a clear lead, the top article. Your formulation devalues the second class article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support formulation one. While this shouldn't be taken to invite similar constructions in the future as a matter of course, there are a few fully complete topics that have two articles with equal claim to be the lede article. Courcelles 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about:

Courageous class battlecruisers and aircraft carriers

5 articles

HMS Courageous (50)

Service as aircraft carriers

HMS Glorious

HMS Furious (47)

Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is misleading piping. Ucucha 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more than in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Towns in Trafford and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Physical geography of Somerset since there is a clear section in the main article on the second part. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point; can you explain it a bit more? Both of those seem to have single main topics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical point, the carrier article is a subarticle of the battlecruiser one. The piping thing is linking to the actual lead (BC) but uses the name of the topic. The C article is just part as a topic rather the lead. A topic is by definition (FT? #2) on a single article. Nergaal (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - disclaimer: I proposed the first version to Sturm (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good topic, but I don't really have a preference which way you list it. The aircraft carrier class article has a bit more on the battlecruisers than the battlecruiser class article has on the aircraft carriers, and of course more people will remember the ships as aircraft carriers simply because they had more of an impact and came later, so if forced to choose one as the lead, I'd say go with the aircraft carrier article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - option 1. If the FTC prevent this, then we can IAR. It doesn't really work in another way. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 1.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 1 Bonewah (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is mostly moot at this point, now that the British BC GT is almost finished. Sturm's just waiting on the main list, which is currently at FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's not irrelevant because the aircraft carrier article isn't counted as part of the British BCs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Considering that 4 of the 5 articles will be merged in the broader topic, I am going to oppose this; this way there is no large overlap (80% of the articles would be in the other big topic) and there would be no need to IAR anything. Nergaal (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one exceptional topic stick up your craw so much? These ships will fall under ultimate topics for both battlecruisers and aircraft carriers of the RN, but does that have anything to to do with the validity of them as a organized topic in and of themselves? Nothing. The great thing about topics is that they let you compare and contrast the developments and evolution between the individual ships, or whatever, and you want to deprive a reader of that ability by splitting them among two much larger topics, neither of which will encompass all of the articles relevant articles needed to track these ships for the entirety of their careers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really exceptional. The only reason there is a separate article on AC is because the main BC article grew too big. I don't necessarily see any major issue with leaving the AC article outside the main topic, but I would not really mind putting the AC in. The issue I am having is to pull out a IAR which would get then merged anyways into a big topic. Why IARing if it is not actually necessary to do it? Nergaal (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic will stand on its own, albeit with 4 out of 5 articles in either the British battlecruiser GT or British aircraft carrier GT (and the 3 individual ship articles in both), so I'd not count it as merged into either of those big topics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or the British AC topic is a long way before being done? If yes, then there is no point in debating yet how do BC v AC ones need to look. To my understanding, there will soon be a bib British BC topic coming soon though. How do you think that will look? Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it will look like. I'll probably nom it tomorrow; I'm a little burned out on GTCs at the moment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the BC topic is up, things are pretty clear: that topic has 23 articles, and this has 5. I oppose having two such topics when 4 items overlap. However, when a complete AC carrier will go up, which will presumably have over 30 articles, I won't mind two 20+ articles topics sharing 3 entries. Nergaal (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your point above. What difference does it make if the majority of one topic is shared with another or not? The important thing, IMO, is if the topic is organized and meaningful. You're saying that you'd be OK with this topic if the British AC one was already in existence, but what difference does the timing make? Why does it matter that the British AC topic isn't yet written and why should that impact this topic at all?

To be honest I don't understand the opposition to smaller topics, even if they're going to be subsumed into a larger one. As far as I'm concerned they're all equally valid and the only real cost in the admin time to process the nomination. Forex I could do 3 or 4 topics each on British or French ironclads based on their design and 3 or 4 others based on their role with the same articles in both groups of topics, just sorted differently. And they'd be useful because a reader could see how the central-battery ironclads or 2nd-class ironclads evolved over time. But I'd think that people would object to such a treatment as waste of time and I don't understand why. People seem to act as if we had a limited number of topics that we could create and need to prioritize the ones that we allow; as if we were limited in storage space or something. What's up with that?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See recommendation #5 in wp:FT?. To give an article analogy. Do you think if History of the United States (1776–1789) got featured, another article like "History of the United States (1778–1791)" would get promoted? Or since List of Florida hurricanes (1975–1999) and List of Florida hurricanes (1950–1974) are FLs, anybody would support a list like "List of Florida hurricanes (1965–1989)"? Nergaal (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've adopted Woody's suggestion to rework the British battlecruiser topic with subtopics, I see no reason why this can't proceed with the understanding that it will be a subtopic in that larger topic, and eventually a subtopic within a British aircraft carrier large topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why there are criteria at FT?: for them to be bent/ignored for the sake of a few WikiCup points. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have such a large lead that the points for the CV article, which won't be included in the overall BC article are meaningless, so get off your high horse.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote. Option 1 with the double lead has the clear consensus. I'm not positive if the templates allow for both leads to be acknowledged, but if not it could probably be worked around. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]