Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/October 2013

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Battlecruisers of the world

Battlecruiser

63 articles

List of battlecruisers

List of sunken battlecruisers

French battlecruiser proposals

Battlecruisers of Germany

SMS Von der Tann

Moltke class

SMS Moltke

SMS Goeben

SMS Seydlitz

Derfflinger class

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

Mackensen class

Ersatz Yorck class

O-class battlecruisers

Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Invincible class

HMS Invincible

HMS Inflexible

HMS Indomitable

Indefatigable class

HMS Indefatigable

HMAS Australia

HMS New Zealand

Lion class

HMS Lion

HMS Princess Royal

HMS Queen Mary

HMS Tiger

Renown class

HMS Renown

HMS Repulse

Courageous class

HMS Courageous

HMS Glorious

HMS Furious

Admiral class

HMS Hood

G3 battlecruisers

Battlecruisers of Japan

Kongō class

Kongō

Hiei

Haruna

Kirishima

Amagi class

Akagi

Design B-65 cruiser

Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser

Battlecruisers of Russia

Borodino class

Kronshtadt class

Stalingrad class

Battlecruisers of the United States

Lexington class

USS Lexington

USS Saratoga

Alaska class

USS Alaska

USS Guam

USS Hawaii

The culmination of 5-years work by the members of WP:OMT, this featured topic will absorb all of the existing featured and good battlecruiser topics, notably Battlecruisers of Germany, Indefatigable-class battlecruisers, Alaska-class cruiser, Battlecruisers of Japan, Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy, and Battlecruisers of Russia. This makes it the largest featured or good topic on Wikipedia. It will not absorb the FT on Courageous-class battlecruiser/aircraft carrier, nor the nominated Lexington-class battlecruiser/aircraft carrier. The book for this topic will follow the nomination within a day or two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The book is done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Bravo! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Rather involved support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delegate Comment The Bushranger and The ed17, both of you are listed as contributors at WP:OMT, so I do not believe your support votes can be taken as neutral parties of the topic, and it is therefore likely that both of you had a hand in improving some of these articles to their current statuses.--十八 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The Bushranger hasn't worked on any of these aside from a stray edit or two. Ed acknowledged that he'd worked on several of these in his support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • My OMT participation has been primarily lists, and (due to muse shifting) I've been mainly a kibitzer and WikiGnome for awhile. Also, if being "involved" is considered grounds to weight or discard a !vote on the topic as a whole (to the point of the comment above frankly sounding downright accusatory about it) then that really should be put into the FTC "supporting and objecting" rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
      • • I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory; I could have worded it better. And I agree that the instructions should probably be updated to include a note like what is already found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 2: Starting a review.--十八 08:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
          • No worries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • On the issue at hand, I think we can accept Bushranger's Support for the nomination. For Ed, however, his involvement with getting some of these articles to the statuses that they are now would probably not count towards the final outcome of the nomination. GamerPro64 23:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: How can this be opposed?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Is it really necessary to merge the subtopics with more than 3 or 4 battlecruisers? Nergaal (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't they be merged? This is the overarching topic for all battlecruisers. What would be the point of leaving the bigger national topics independent?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, it might be better to leave them independent, since the national topics can be included in other combinations. For instance, I'm planning on doing a capital ship topic for Germany (which would need an independent BC topic, and will be part of a very, very long range "warships of Germany" topic). Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • IMO if a subtopic has almost 10 articles then it is fine to keep it independent. With the current format it is really hard to see how the topic is actually structured and by having 2 or 3 subtopics it would work much better for a reader. Nergaal (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I can see Parsec's point about including them in overarching topics covering the national navy, although, honestly this is really only going to be possible for the Germans and Japanese in the next five years or so. Everybody else has too many ships. But by this logic, we'd need to add a topic for the Americans. I can do that easily enough even though they've only got eight articles. I'm not sure that I understand your point, Nergaal, can you expand on it a bit further?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Battlecruiser

63 articles

List of battlecruisers

List of sunken battlecruisers

French battlecruiser proposals

Battlecruisers of Germany^subtopic

Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy^subtopic

Battlecruisers of Japan^subtopic

Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser

Battlecruisers of the United States^subtopic

Battlecruisers of Russia

Borodino class

Kronshtadt class

Stalingrad class

I meant this format. Nergaal (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew somebody would propose doing this in subtopics, but I'm not a fan of subtopics in general unless each subtopic is far more massive than the 20-odd in the RN battlecruiser topic. I agree that the full topic takes a little bit to decipher, but that's because pretty dominates intelligibility in our design of the topic box. It would be very nice to have all of the RN battlecruisers in a single column with the layout of the others placed so that they did not run over into another column. Doing so, however, would probably be lopsided one way or another, which is heavily frowned upon. Even your version has the subtopics out of alphabetical order and why should Russia be the only nation not to have its own subtopic? You could redo yours with only three entries per column and have it work nicely. So what if there are only three individual entries in the subtopic?

If I had my druthers, this is something like what I mean:

Battlecruiser

63 articles

List of battlecruisers

List of sunken battlecruisers

Battlecruisers of Germany

SMS Von der Tann

Moltke class

SMS Moltke

SMS Goeben

SMS Seydlitz

Derfflinger class

SMS Derfflinger

SMS Lützow

SMS Hindenburg

Mackensen class

Ersatz Yorck class

O-class battlecruisers

Battlecruisers of Russia

Borodino class

Kronshtadt class

Stalingrad class

Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Invincible class

HMS Invincible

HMS Inflexible

HMS Indomitable

Indefatigable class

HMS Indefatigable

HMAS Australia

HMS New Zealand

Lion class

HMS Lion

HMS Princess Royal

HMS Queen Mary

HMS Tiger

Renown class

HMS Renown

HMS Repulse

Courageous class

HMS Courageous

HMS Glorious

HMS Furious

Admiral class

HMS Hood

G3 battlecruisers

French battlecruiser proposals

Battlecruisers of Japan

Kongō class

Kongō

Hiei

Haruna

Kirishima

Amagi class

Akagi

Design B-65 cruiser

Dutch Design 1047 battlecruiser

Battlecruisers of the United States

Lexington class

USS Lexington

USS Saratoga

Alaska class

USS Alaska

USS Guam

USS Hawaii

Symmetrical, but that center column sure does predominate and no real pretense to any sort of order of the topics in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Oh Hell yes, I definitely want a piece of this action! Attention all enemy forces on the map, the battlecruisers are operational! :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Stunning. Although I can see the point of the third version, that central column is pretty dominant. I prefer the first version I think. Miyagawa (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As a note, I actually prefer the third version. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The more I look at it, the more I prefer this version. It's very clear that the Brits built almost twice as many BCs as any two other countries combined and the outer column are almost perfectly symmetrical. It's a little bulkier, true, but I think that's OK in a topic this big.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'd have to say I prefer the third option (and not just because it keeps my German BCs first!) - as Sturm says, there's a significant visual impact from seeing that the Brits completed more BCs than everybody else combined. It's much clearer this way, and you don't have to fuss with trying to follow the columns to see who built/planned what. And in any event, the amount of extra space the slightly longer box takes up is trivial (what with us not being paper and all). Parsecboy (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - not much to say other than "WOW!" igordebraga ≠ 15:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since they asked my opinion, although #2 would be less cluttered (specially as a few are already GT\FTs), #3 deserves support for the even split. igordebraga ≠ 17:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I seem to have missed a lot during my absence. Buggie111 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer Parsec's question I support options 1 or 3. Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, the question is basically between those two options - is there one you prefer over the other? Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question - Before this nomination can be closed, what is the consensus? Should the topic be made in the first or third option? GamerPro64 17:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as explicit endorsements of a specific version go, Nergaal has proposed (and I presume prefers) the subtopic version (#2), Miyagawa supports #1, and Sturmvogel, Bushranger and I prefer version #3. The others either expressed their opinions before the alternate versions were proposed, or did not specify which one they prefer. It would be helpful if we could get those who have already !voted to cast their !votes for a specific !ver...er...version. I can post some requests for clarification on their talk pages if you'd like. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes please. Possibly for the better of this nomination if we get everyone's take on this. GamerPro64 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, I sent out messages to the five editors who haven't supported a specific version. Hopefully that will help firm things up. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On a visual level, the second proposal is the most appealing, but the third one keeps the spirit of the original nomination. So, I support the third option. Thanks for the notification, by the way.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think option 2 would work the best if for no other reason than it alone doesn't give the appearance of overwhelming information to the new people. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But that's just it, Tom, we're supposed to impress people with our dedication and hard work to build such a large topic! ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case we should definitely pick #3, since It does the most to advertise that perspective. Numbers 3 and 1 are the best options, and I think 3 to be my favorite, but I put in for 2 so as to avoid confusing people with long lists. That said, lets live a little :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support #3 TomStar81 (Talk) 20:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I saw a message on a talk page that led me here. I have to say I'm partial to option 3. The central column being slightly longer does not bother me nearly as much as the breaking up of topics in option 1. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to the delegates:

This is a WikiCup nomination and needs to be promoted before the end of the month to count for the competition. I understand that the sheer size of the topic and the amount of time to update the article history for each article may deter promotion until time is available, but I would strongly prefer that the intent to promote be announced before the end of the month as I believe that the Cup judges can accept the decision even if the hard work of updating each article's talk page is postponed until convenient. If need be, I can help update the article histories as I've done it before. Bowing to public pressure, there's no need to absorb the existing national battlecruiser topics, but the existing Indefatigable-class battlecruisers and Alaska-class cruiser topics do need to be absorbed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• So, looking through the entire discussion, I am Closing this nomination with consensus to promote to Featured Topic status and using Option #3. GamerPro64 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee

John Edward Brownlee

4 articles

As Attorney-General of Alberta

Premiership

Sex scandal

Contributor(s): Neelix, Steve Smith

I have had nothing to do with the development of these articles, but Steve Smith, the primary contributor to these articles, has left Wikipedia. I am nominating this group of articles for featured topic status because I believe that all of the relevant criteria are met. --Neelix (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic collection of articles. Perhaps a navbox could be created to link them. Adabow (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Neelix (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Left Wikipedia" is perhaps putting it a bit strongly. Support, I suppose. Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delegate Comment - Can't really accept Steve's support seeing that he contributed to getting some of these articles to their statuses. This review is gonna be more discussion before a consensus is reached. GamerPro64 22:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Neelix asked me to comment as I did some of the GA/FA reviews on these articles. I can't think of any reason not to promote this set, nor can I think of any other topics specific to Brownlee that are missing. Resolute 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support nice to see some variety around here. Nergaal (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 00:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Lexington-class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier

Lexington-class battlecruiser
Lexington-class aircraft carrier

4 articles

USS Lexington (CV-2)

USS Saratoga (CV-3)

This featured topic covers the six Lexington-class battlecruisers laid down after World War I; four fell victim to the Washington Naval Treaty, but two were converted into aircraft carriers and served in World War II. The format is a little unusual, but I've based it on that used in Courageous-class battlecruisers. That nom had a lengthy discussion before its promotion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delegate Comment As in the other topic you linked, I do not believe battlecruiser and aircraft carrier should be linked separately in the links to the lead articles. Besides, those articles are linked in the first sentence of both Lexington-class battlecruiser and Lexington-class aircraft carrier. The topic will remain on nomination until after some discussion is initiated.--十八 21:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I've gone ahead and fixed the templates in the box. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic, oppose having two headers. Pick which one is more notable and have the other one as a sub-article. Nergaal (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the exact same header style used for the Courageous-class topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Which I also opposed. Nergaal (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support with two headers, or no objection to "Lexington-class battlecruiser and aircraft carrier" if that's not overly eggy, which it almost certainly is. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Although is it possible to get the headers on the same line, or at least the same indentation? It looks unfinished with them indented differently. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I wish that it was possible to center them both the same as I agree that it would look better, but I don't believe that it can be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. And going along with the precedent set by Courageous-class battlecruisers, the topic is passed with two lead articles.--十八 22:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy

Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy

4 articles

HMS Unicorn

HMS Pioneer

HMS Perseus

This topic is comprised of the three aircraft maintenance carriers built for the Royal Navy during World War II, one purpose-built and two converted from Colossus-class light carriers. As far as I know, no other navy built or modified any of their carriers for this purpose, maintaining their aircraft either ashore or aboard their carriers between combat operations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - though wasn't Shinano intended to fulfill a similar purpose? Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Shinano wasn't intended to repair aircraft, but merely issue replacement aircraft and to act as a fuel and ordnance depot for other carriers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the lead article of the topic is a list which starts with "This is a list..." seriously. We stopped doing this two or more years ago. I don't see many articles saying "This is an article...", so let's fix that up please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• The lead article is a list, so why was it ran through the GA process, not the FL one? Lists are usually explicitly excluded from being GA's. Courcelles 01:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Because (as far as I know) its too short to go to FL. To go to FL list needs more entries. PMG (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it's a list, but the powers that be deem it too short a list to qualify for FLC. Of course, they've been careful not to specify just how long is enough to qualify. Technically two items is a list, but they don't seem to care about that. I suspect that they worry about being inundated with lots of very short lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, one imagines that any list of two ought not to be considered one of Wikipedia's finest lists. Naturally "the powers that deem it too short" are mere humans trying to keep some level of consistency across Wikipedia. The lead article is certainly not a list in my opinion, it's a small "good article". "Of course, they've been careful not to specify just how long is enough to qualify" - try engaging with the community there if you actually want to improve things rather than make snipes from the sidelines. As I'm sure you're aware, FLC normally expects eight or nine entries, but it depends on the context. Asserting you could make a great list of "two" is a little churlish. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Parsecboy and I have asked several time for a firm number as to what constitutes a list for FLC purposes, but never gotten a firm answer as the delegates have always said that "it depends". You, sir, are being disengenuous in your criticism. The community has refused to engage with us over this issue. If the delegates have a firm number in their minds, why then has it not been added to the criteria to forestall questions such as ours?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, asserting a list of "two" to be possible FLC content is nonsense. Once more, a "firm number" is impossible, as you're aware. "List of notable horses" may contain 50, "List of notable aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy" may contain 2. We can't arbitrarily expect the best from the latter. But hey, it's not my issue any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and " built a few aircraft" is really not what I expect to read in an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. And you might be surprised to know that I actually mostly agree with you on the bottom end of what constitutes a FLC-worthy list, but I was making a rhetorical point. A list of 2 for FLC would be ridiculous, 3 ludicrous, 4 unlikely, 5 possibly, etc., IMO. But I still think that the FLC directors/delegates should actually say how many they think is necessary, with the caveat that they can adjust up or down as they think necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as I said before (and in various other places), it's impossible to make a "one size fits all" minimum number of items for a list. I'm certain you understand this concept, and I'm glad I no longer have to continue to defend the concept, it's boring and lame to have to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Lead article was fixed, everything else is correct. PMG (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delegate Comment The issue with the lead article appears to have been resolved, but the topic will remain on nomination until further consensus is established.--十八 22:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Miyagawa (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic --十八 11:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)