Talk:List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

Areas for improvement
Well, I say areas, the main issue that would prevent going to ACR/FLC for the moment is a lack of citations in the lead. You need to make sure that you cite everything in the introductory paragraph. For lists, these tend to make up the majority of text though I do understand that most of the information is covered already by citations in the individual sections. A little gripe though, excellent work so far. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia
Is there any reason why HMAS Australia is in this list? She was always a unit of the Royal Australian Navy and was under the ultimate control of the Australian Government. I think that she should be removed as she was in no meaningful sense a "battlecruiser of the Royal Navy". Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've just tweaked the text so that Australia is specified as 'HMAS' and New Zealand as HMS. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Table wrapping
With regard to my comment at FLC here is why I feel there is a problem:


 * Current tables
 * Wrapping without convert and with a few &amp;nbsp;

See the difference when you change the width of the screen. The second set of tables is much more readable. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  09:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This was resolved after discussion here and can be solved by using  instead of  . Rambo's Revenge  (talk)  16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)