Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Milwaukee-class monitor/archive1
Milwaukee-class monitor
[edit]
I'm nominating this group of articles on a class of monitors because they meet the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have a serious question: why do these ships deserve their own separate articles? I am no naval expert, but most of these ships don't seem to have a large impact, so I am pretty sure most of the information in the subarticles can actually be condensed into the class article. Also, the table in the main article does not link the ships themselves. Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch on the lack of table links. Haven't we had this conversation before? The individual ships meet WP:GNG and WP:SHIPS holds that any commissioned warship is inherently notable. You may not like it, but consensus is against you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong. I love ship topics, and I was the first one to nominate ship topics to GTC a long time ago. My issue is how low is the bar set for a ship. As an outsider, monitors seems to be a relatively obscure class of ships (not like say submarines). A good question would be what does commissioning mean in laymen's terms? Is a 20 meter personal yacht commissioned and therefore notable? If not, about how many ships have there been commissioned worldwide? I almost want to say that having the bar set so low would be equivalent to having an article on every chemical that is commercially available from the large chemical companies (which would be in the 10k's). Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I think that we got them chemists beat hands down, especially once you get into the merchant shipping. Just in warships alone, lessee, 530 battleships and battlecruisers, not much less in the number of aircraft and seaplane carriers, probably 2,000 cruisers, 5,000 destroyers, 4,000 submarines, all since 1890 or so and not even counting the 10,000+ destroyer escorts, corvettes, torpedo boats, and patrol craft. Couple hundred ironclads, plus lots and lots of early steam warships, plus thousands of sailing warships. And that commissioned for the duration 20-meter yacht, you bet, provided, of course, that you can actually find some info on it. Which, of course, is the real issue since so much documentation hasn't survived.
- Somebody bothered to transcribe a bunch of DANFS entries for the ad hoc patrol ships that the US commissioned during WWI. Personally, I thought that was a waste of time, but what the hell; it's not like there's a limited amount of room on the servers. Practically speaking, the lack of info on the little boys will limit article creation. If you want to argue for a higher bar, feel free to make your case over at WP:SHIPS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- A "20 meter personal yacht" is never commissioned - in layman's terms "commissioning" is the point at which a military vessel has been accepted for service by a national military force. Although the term "commissioning" is sometimes used in regard to large merchantmen, sensu stricto (and in the sense that it applies to notability) it is only applicable to military vessels. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong. I love ship topics, and I was the first one to nominate ship topics to GTC a long time ago. My issue is how low is the bar set for a ship. As an outsider, monitors seems to be a relatively obscure class of ships (not like say submarines). A good question would be what does commissioning mean in laymen's terms? Is a 20 meter personal yacht commissioned and therefore notable? If not, about how many ships have there been commissioned worldwide? I almost want to say that having the bar set so low would be equivalent to having an article on every chemical that is commercially available from the large chemical companies (which would be in the 10k's). Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch on the lack of table links. Haven't we had this conversation before? The individual ships meet WP:GNG and WP:SHIPS holds that any commissioned warship is inherently notable. You may not like it, but consensus is against you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is gonna need some Supports or Opposes. Really looks stalled right now. GamerPro64 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is hard for me to support a topic with articles that I am not convinced merit being separate from the lead. It would help if a link were to be provided showing where did a consensus come to decide that monitors or ships of similar obscurity and/or sizes merit their own article. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- You made the exact same point three years ago, but nobody agreed with you. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Pará class monitors/archive1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Curiously, Nergaal had no reservations about Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/John Ericsson class monitors/archive1. Parsecboy (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus that ships of this "obscurity" are notable through being commissioned and should have standalone articles is by long-term consensus, WP:GNG, and WP:SHIPS. The consensus is through standard editing practice, and also through long-standing consensus through results at WP:AFD - a commissioned military vessel, assuming GNG/RS can be passed, is (and always is) notable by virtue of being a commissioned vessel of a national military force. Civilian vessels (like the aforementioned yacht) don't pass that bar - the standard for inclusion in WP:SHIPS' scope is a length of 100 feet (30 m) and/or a displacement of over 100 tons - while this isn't a notability standard by any means, it has been demonstrated over a long period of time that the vast majority of ships above that line will prove notable, while the vast majority of ships below that line will not. As an aside, while I'm sure that your viewpoint of the topic is a result of your not being familiar with warships (despite, as noted, this having been explained to you before, it's been awhile and must have slipped your mind), stating that monitors are "obscure" compared to other types of ships is both heading into WP:POV/WP:BIAS territory (after all, the corvette would be an extremely "obscure" ship type to most American readers, whereas it's quite widespread in the rest of the world), and doesn't reflect their history; the type's namesake is one of the most famous ships of all time, and the type was a mainstay of naval forces from 1862 through World War I (and, for the British, World War II). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's a bit too broad a brush, unless you think dreadnoughts and cruisers were monitors... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- You made the exact same point three years ago, but nobody agreed with you. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Pará class monitors/archive1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - the proposed topic meets the criteria, and the articles are clearly notable enough (IMHO) for separate articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - these articles clearly surpass the bars at both GNG and WP:MILUNIT. Great work as usual, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Clears all notability policies and guidelines, meets the Good Topic criteria, nice work. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Support - just because a topic is "obscure" doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)