Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/U-1 class submarines

U-1 class submarines

 * Major contributor: Bellhalla

First class. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment for all three noms - two things:
 * Could you possibly merge U-1 class submarines, U-3 class submarines, U-5 class submarines, U-10 class submarines, U-20 class submarines, U-27 class submarines and U-43 class submarines? None are very big, and I think it would be more useful in facilitating easy navigation to have them all merged into one template.
 * You need to find free-use images
 * - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is Austro-Hungarian U-boats and the navy flag? Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to Austro-Hungarian U-boats to conform to standard WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST navigation box template style. But how about, instead, Austro-Hungarian submarine classes, a list of Austro-Hungarian submarine classes that is on each class article page. This keeps the individual submarine articles from being cluttered with two templates. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it decreases ease of navigation, because then the class pages don't link to the boat pages. Howsabout we simply merge the two templates by adding the classes from Austro-Hungarian submarine classes not currently in Austro-Hungarian U-boats to Austro-Hungarian U-boats, and then redirecting the former to the latter? (Flag looks good by the way) rst20xx (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about now? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Each class article still has its own class template. For example, if one is looking at the article on the U-1 class, one can switch to the individual submarines of the class via U-1 class submarines OR to other classes via Austro-Hungarian submarine classes. Having Austro-Hungarian U-boats attached to each page is a bit of overkill with such a large template (as it is currently structured), and adding all of the classes to it is a little silly in that several of the later classes, while documented and notable, never had any completed submarines, leaving large expanses of space in the template.


 * Further, the use of individual ship class templates, like U-1 class submarines, is a consensus approach for ship classes (per WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST) that is in wide use throughout Wikipedia. I see no compelling reason in this case to go counter to this established method. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the other option would be to have entries only for the submarines that were actully completed and used and remove all the other ones - and just mention the classes for those that were never built. Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was what I was thinking of, Nergaal, and I think that is what should happen. I don't think the template would be too big if we do this. And the compelling reason would be that it is significantly more useful in easing navigation than having all the templates split up is. After all, the sole point of navigation templates is to act as aides to navigation - rst20xx (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. Weren't you, Nergaal, the one that added most of the incomplete submarines to Austro-Hungarian U-boats? And now you want to remove them?
 * As far as an aid to navigation, how is the set up on, for example, SMS U-20 (Austria-Hungary), not conducive to navigation? And how is that on U-20-class submarine not conducive? And why, exactly, should the WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST consensus methods for navigation be thrown out the window? I'm not trying to be contrarian or anything, I genuinely don't understand why… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not conducive if you want to jump from, e.g., SM U-2 (Austria-Hungary) to SM U-3 (Austria-Hungary). Further, try and think about the intent of the WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST consensus method - it's because, in general, following that consensus method gives templates which aren't excessively big, but still have a reasonable number of articles bound together by the template to help ease navigation. In this case, it seems to me that we can bind even more articles together in a template without having it become too big, and indeed some of the templates, if kept separate, are almost sillily small, eg U-3 class submarines - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I only expanded the list, and then realized that it it unnecessarly chlunky - take my edits as test versions. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What, because you're unhappy with Austro-Hungarian U-boats? rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK004 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - and for what it's worth, based on the Bellhalla's comments in the USS Princess Matoika nom, I think when they say they are "withdrawing", they mean they are staying neutral, not opposing, so I am not sure as to the correctness of MBK004's logic - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. As I have said above the major contributor's support is in no way required. I do give more weight to a major contributor's objection to a topic than a regular oppose if a major contributor who is intimately familiar with a topic expresses an informed opinion as to whether or not a topic is complete or ready to become a topic. However, in this case there has been none of that. In fact the major contributor has not specified any specific reasons why he "opposes" the topic. As far as I can tell he just does not want to be involved in the process at all. As for MBK004's oppose, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close with consensus to promote with comment - I would still like to see the templates merged into the one Nergaal created, however this is no longer an issue for the GTC - rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)