Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Battlecruisers of the World/archive1

Battlecruisers of the world
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 Good article nominations/Instructions.--  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 | T al k 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)

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:

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 | T al k 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.  S ven M anguard   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)