Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive1

Battleships of Austria-Hungary
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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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:


 * 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 Featured topics/Radetzky class battleships and 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)