Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/December 2010

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Reign in Blood

Reign in Blood

4 articles

"Angel of Death"

"Raining Blood"

Still Reigning

I am nominating the Reign in Blood topic to be promoted to featured topic because I believe it meets the criteria. The main article, Reign in Blood, has achieved featured status, along with "Angel of Death" and Still Reigning, which are also featured articles. The only good article of the four is "Raining Blood", which recently went through two good article nominations, the first nomination was failed because there was one comment that I had accidentally not done right after five days, and the second nomination was pretty much smooth-sailin'. So in case you're still reading this... CrowzRSA nominated this at 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Should not be Still Reigning included? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure, since it only showcases the album. But that still means it is related to Reign in Blood, so I suppose. CrowzRSA 22:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - seems OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I see no issues w/ this. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question how come this album does not have more singles? Since it is regarded as being so influential, I am surprised to see that only two songs have articles. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about this is album specifically, but bands and the record companies decide to release singles to promote the album. The number of singles has nothing to do with the influence of the album. Zginder 2010-12-13T16:47Z (UTC)
    • Also worth noting that thrash metal isn't exactly the biggest singles market going..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the topic appears complete. Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana studio albums

Nirvana studio albums

4 articles

Bleach (album)

Nevermind

In Utero (album)

I am nominating this for a featured topic because I believe it meets the criteria. It has two good articles and two featured articles. I know the Delichon topic is featured, and it has two good articles and two featured articles too. CrowzRSA 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Until now there are only topics on "albums" and "discographies" and none on studio albums. Does anybody remember if there was a consensus at some point to require full album list as opposed to studio albums-only? Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrongs with it, I mean, it's still a topic anyways. CrowzRSA 20:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is just that it fits a specific topic... by narrowing the subject greatly - the current discography GTs/FTs include compilations, EPs, live albums, and the such. But most of Nirvana discography is outside "studio albums", so pushing them all to GA would be tough. I'm on the fence with this one. igordebraga ≠ 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "M.I.A. albums" FT consists of four studio albums (well, one of them is a mixtape) but there are more articles on the bands albums. CrowzRSA 01:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all existing "....albums" topics (of which there are three) include all albums but not EPs. Having said that, though, none of the acts concerned seem to have released any live or compilation albums -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, the GT "No Doubt albums" does not include all albums. With this in mind, I see no reason why it goes against being a topic. CrowzRSA 01:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose fails 1.d. All albums should be included. At Wikipedia:Featured topics#Music studioand live albums are included, as well as EPs and mixtapes. BTW Wikipedia:Featured topics/No Doubt albums actually contains all eight of their albums (except one yet to be released). Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• So then how did M.I.A. albums (including 4/8 album articles) pass its FT nomination with 6 supports and 0 opposes? Plus, this topic is labeled Nirvana studio albums not Nirvana albums. CrowzRSA

• M.I.A. has not released eight albums, she's released four (if you include the mixtape), all of which are in the topic. Where are you seeing eight albums? She may have released five EPs, which would make a total of nine (not eight) if they are now considered to be albums, but if it's now been decided that EPs count as albums (which would be truly baffling - how could anyone claim that How Many Votes Fix Mix EP is equivalent to an album.......?) then that's a blatant case of moving the goalposts since that topic (and the Bloc Party one, which would be similarly affected) were promoted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, nine albums, but eight album articles, but how are EP's not albums? If they weren't albums what would they be? An album is defined by the Apple Dictionary as "a collection of recordings, on long-playing record, cassette, or compact disc, that are issued as a single item." That perfectly fits an EP. The only actual difference between studio albums and EP's that EP's are 36 minutes or less and studio albums are more than 36 minutes. In which case, the M.I.A albums topic consists only of studio albums. CrowzRSA 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• To my mind an EP is akin to a single, not an album. "How Many Votes....." has three tracks, running for a total of 10 minutes, and would thus have been eligible for the UK singles chart had it sold enough copies (many EPs have in fact charted on the UK singles chart, including two that got to number 1!). Most singles released in the 80s had a 12" vinyl format which included three or four tracks. Most singles released in the 90s had a CD single format, which again had three or four tracks. By your logic, these would all be considered albums. At the end of the day, I'm not fussed either way. If someone wants to nominate the M.I.A. albums topic for delisting on the grounds that it doesn't include releases with as few as three tracks then sod it, I'm not going to kick up a fuss (life's too short), but I would point out that it would represent a ridiculous moving of the goalposts. This is all getting a bit off-topic now, feel free to suggest a better place to continue the debate...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it was getting off topic, but either way, the topic is studio albums and not albums. Therefore, it should only include studio albums. CrowzRSA 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support—I think it meets all the criteria. I don't see why all of Nirvana's albums need to be included for a featured topic. Several, such as Sliver: The Best of the Box and Icon are barely notable, and not worth writing about.—indopug (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it could be argued the other artilces are not needed, precedent demands that live albums be included. Zginder 2010-10-20T17:16Z (UTC)

• If the topic is studio albums instead of albums, it should not include live albums. CrowzRSA 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• The lead article is not about studio albums, it is a list of all music commercially released by the band. I agree that the way artilces are made about bands, and how topics are made about them is not ideal, but the precedent has been made, and I do not think this is a good time or location to re-discuss it. Zginder 2010-10-21T05:50Z (UTC)

• Then why is albums a topic? Discographies include singles and video albums too. CrowzRSA 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral–After thinking more about this, I have changed my mind. As I stated before, I do not like the precedent. Zginder 2010-11-12T20:33Z (UTC)

Comment I'm the primary contributor to two of those articles, and this is the first time I've heard of this topic nomination. Just sayin'. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment At least by our discography article these are Nirvana's only 3 studio albums. But it strikes me as somewhat of a disingenuous link pipe to take an article on the full discography (covering studio, live, and compilation albums) to create a studio-only topic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now simply because of the precedent. I remember not promoting some previous topics for something very similar to this. I would not mind the inexact piping it there was not a precedent against that specifically on album topics. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support I don't agree with this precedent at all. You can have a "discography" topic for some artists and a "studio albums" topic for others. As long as you make a distinction it's fine. Studio albums are a well-defined, well-publicized topic for any artist. I'd say most non-studio albums, even if notable, can never be good articles because the existing coverage is not broad enough. This disqualifies almost every artist from FT/GT. If the intent of FT is to be useful for readers, excluding most artists is a bad precedent. A topic on studio albums is completely reasonable, it's much more well-defined than "all releases", and there's no reason it should be disallowed. —Gendralman (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Nominator's Comment I don't see why studio albums can't be a topic but albums can be... I mean neither have an article dedicated to them, like discographies include singles and video albums, not just albums. So in which case, I see no reason why this is unacceptable for a topic. CrowzRSA 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed (see above). —Gendralman (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - precendents are made to be changed, and I think that "studio albums of blah" is a reasonable, well-formed topic. --PresN 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: 3 supports, 2 opposes and a bunch of neutral votes/comments after a months. Sounds like a non-consensus to me. Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well User:Adabow apparently never checked back at the opposes' comments and you just opposed because of precedents, but User:PresN says precedents are made to be changed, so I'm not sure if a consensus was released. CrowzRSA 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about not replying. I have been meaning to return here, but it kept slipping my mind. I've been thinking about this FTC, and I'll change my mind and support it now – it's not like there are any gaps in the topic given. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• So that is four supports, one oppose, one neutral, and three comments… CrowzRSA 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll hold off 3-7 days to see if there are any more comments, then I'll make a final decision on this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support It seems that the consensus is changing and that was the reason for my reservation 4-1. Zginder 2010-11-30T22:23Z (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

New York State Route 31

New York State Route 31

6 articles

New York State Route 31A

New York State Route 31B

New York State Route 31C

New York State Route 31E

New York State Route 31F

The first new NY highway Good topic candidate in quite a while. This one is a co-nomination between me and User:TwinsMetsFan, my editor-at-large. This is the NY 31 candidate. For people who are wondering, NY 317 was replacement for NY 31C, which had a flood and washed out. I hope we get this good topic, since this is 2-3 years in the making. :) Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirming my co-nomination. – TMF 02:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no issues w/ this. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good. Dough4872 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support All of the articles are high quality and they are clearly related.  VC  03:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support These highways are all connected and roughly follow the Erie Canal through upstate New York. Racepacket (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support an obvious connection between then and all Good Articles Imzadi 1979 → 18:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New York and New Jersey campaign

New York and New Jersey campaign

20 articles

Battle of Long Island

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

Attack of the Turtle

Staten Island Peace Conference

Landing at Kip's Bay

Battle of Harlem Heights

Great Fire of New York

Battle of Pell's Point

Battle of White Plains

Battle of Fort Washington

Ambush of Geary

Battle of Iron Works Hill

Washington's crossing of the Delaware River

Battle of Trenton

Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton

Battle of the Assunpink Creek

Battle of Princeton

Battle of Millstone

Forage War

This is the second nomination for this topic. The first nomination failed because the orders of battle had not been promoted. They have now been promoted, and I've also added a few articles to the set (which should track the content of {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Northern 1775}}. Credit, as before, goes to User:Kieran4 for promoting some of the articles before I picked this up as a project. Magic♪piano 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Zginder 2010-12-06T01:40Z (UTC)
• Support I see no issues w/ this. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support nice work. Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

23 articles

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)

Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

23 articles

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)
    • Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 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)

Courageous class battlecruiser & aircraft carrier

Courageous-class battlecruiser
Courageous-class aircraft carrier

5 articles

HMS Courageous (50)

HMS Glorious

HMS Furious (47)

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)

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)

• 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)

• That would break the criteria #2. Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Why not? This is a special situation; perhaps it should get special treatment. Ucucha 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
      • 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• Support - disclaimer: I proposed the first version to Sturm (see here). Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support option 1.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support option 1 Bonewah (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Pará class monitors

Pará-class monitor

7 articles

Pará

Rio Grande

Alagoas

Piauí

Ceará

Santa Catharina

This GTC addresses the six Brazilian river monitors built during the War of the Triple Alliance where Paraguay fought Brazil and Argentina during the late 1860s.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not offense intended, but could you give a few reasons why the ship articles would pass an AfD proposal to merge them into the class article? To be specific: what makes them stand out/notable enough to compensate for the lack of details about the ships? Nergaal (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Every individual commissioned warship is considered notable, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#Units_and_formations. Information is a little scanty on these ships right now, but who's to say that some Portuguese-speaking naval enthusiast won't log on tomorrow and expand their individual information?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Appears to meet the criteria. Don't know why no one has said much… CrowzRSA 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Admrboltz (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support the topic seems fine, but I think the guideline by MILHIST is a bit overly-broad. Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington State Route 22

Washington State Route 22

6 articles

Washington State Route 220

Washington State Route 224

Washington State Route 221

Washington State Route 223

Washington State Route 225

I am nominating Washington State Route 22 as a Good Topic. All of the associated highways are considered spur routes of their parent route, SR 22. All articles are GA-class. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Articles are fantastic GAs and all related to main article via parent-child route relationship. Also, WP:WASH is going to get its first GT! –CG^Talk 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support all articles meet the Good Article Criteria. The child articles are clearly related to the parent article based on WSDOT practices. The grouping above meets all three of the topic criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 00:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, meets topic criteria and is a logical, natural topic to boot. – TMF 08:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to met all requirements. Zginder 2010-11-25T04:50Z (UTC)
• Support - Meets the criteria. Dough4872 05:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support appears to meet the criteria. Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to promote, will close officially within 48 hours. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Battleships of Austria-Hungary

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary

19 articles

Habsburg-class battleship

SMS Habsburg

SMS Árpád

SMS Babenburg

Erzherzog Karl-class battleship

SMS Erzherzog Karl

SMS Erzherzog Ferdinand Max

SMS Erzherzog Friedrich

Radetzky-class battleship

SMS Radetzky

SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand

SMS Zrínyi

Tegetthoff-class battleship

SMS Viribus Unitis

SMS Tegetthoff

SMS Prinz Eugen

SMS Szent István

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship

Good Topic Nom Well it's taken us (User:Buggie111 and I) the better part of this year but we did it. We finished the first entire set of one nations's Batleships (Germany and Russia as well as the UK have already gotten the Battlecruisers done) This topic covers all 13 battleships, 5 classes (including an uncompleted class) and the lead list for a total of 19 articles. If this GTC passes, this will be a major mile-mark in OTM's history and I hope that this nom will not be the last of it's kind. Thank you :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum With outside support from User:Parsecboy and User:Sturmvogel 66. 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - two things: A-class doesn't matter for GT/FTs, so Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand should be listed as a GA. Also as a disclaimer, I wrote Radetzky class battleship and SMS Radetzky, and a good chunk of SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• I fixed the A-class issue and a couple of misnamed articles. You still need to create a book; see the other battleship FT/GTs for examples. Ucucha 13:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• An obvious question: why arent Monarch class battleships included here? Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:OMT has decided against putting them in. If need be, WS can take the three of them to GA. They are technically Coastal defense ships, BB"s only in name. Buggie111 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
    • OMT aims at promoting a specific type of ships, which might not necessarily be complete for the aim of topics. I am just curious how come nobody raised this issue at FLC. Leaving this aside, they are called BS, and even if they were not used much they should probably be included. Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok then. I'll go ping WS to start using Sokol to get the Monarch's to GA. Buggie111 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Should they be put in the list? Buggie111 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I would say yes, but see what others think (considering it was promoted like this). The section itself could be presented as a background-type one. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm gonna get to work on the other two Monarch's, but I would hold off including them until I see more consensus. I respect your opinion, but would like some others. After all, it would make the FT require two more FA's. Buggie111 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
              • That is what I said by "see what others think". To me is not immediately obvious wether Monarchs should or should be included so I did not vote. I just raised the issue for those more expert in the field and I will see what they think. Nergaal (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought you ment that for only the list. Ok, problem solved. I've got Budapest at DYK, and Monarch is next on my lineup. Buggie111 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Monarch class ships are generally considered to be coastal defense ships, not true battleships. For instance, Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 calls them "coast defense ships" and states that "they were too small to be efficient, well-balanced battleships, and were officially designed as Coast Defense Ships." There is a good deal of haze, mainly because of the fluidity of the term "battleship" - many coastal defense ships were called 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th class battleships, coastal battleships, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Parsec ad Strum get credit in this as well for their parts. Sokol's The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy calls them Coastal defense ships as well and states that they were no where near the size of battleships of contemporary navies of the time.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with what is the typical size of ship categories; but you are saying that at the end of the 19th century all the battleships were well above 6k tonnes? Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am. Most true BBs were well over 6k tonnes. Just look at the Habsburg-class. They are truely coastal defens ships and I've never seen them mentioned as battleships other than in name anywhere in any text.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Support, provided that the Monarch-class CD ships aren't included. One of these days I'll remember to rename the damn things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Support without the Monarchs, though there's another GT waiting for someone there. Courcelles 06:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I prefer subtopics personally, it would look like this for this topic:

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary

19 articles

Habsburg-class battleship^(subtopic)

Erzherzog Karl-class battleship^(subtopic)

Radetzky-class battleship^(subtopic)

Tegetthoff-class battleship^(subtopic)

Ersatz Monarch-class battleship

That would be "List of Battleship classes of Austria-Hungary" then....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

19 articles isn't all that unwieldy, in my opinion anyway. Parsecboy (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support but only as a 19-alrticle entry. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'd like to keep the nomination as a 19-article entry as well.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Consensus seems to be to promote the 19-article one. However, if this is done, what is to be done with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Radetzky class battleships and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Habsburg class battleships? I would presume delisting since they're in this one now, but maybe that's what you're trying to avoid. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Since that was the case with the German BC's, I think it's how it should go out. Buggie111 (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  Alright. Consensus to promote at 19-article, the other two topics will be merged into this one. This will be handled within 48 hours (as it will take a while to do). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote 19 article version. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)