Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Victoria Cross recipients by campaign/archive1

Victoria Cross recipients by campaign
After some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:FTC I think this is the best course of action for this topic. The master list for this is the campaign list. Given the technical restrictions and for page management larger lists are forked out but are essentially part of the main list, hence why I think this topic is the best way forward. I intend to eventually have this as a subtopic of the already featured Victoria Cross topic as envisaged at my sandbox. I think this is a complete and rounded topic that meets the FT criteria and I leave it to your consideration. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I think I criticised pretty much every list in this topic and Woody worked tirelessly to fix each one up to standard. It's irrefutable that all lists are (recently) featured and I believe that the top-level list is significant enough to warrant a featured topic here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I reviewed a fair amount of these lists. They are all representative of our best work. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great work by Woody. Have been waiting for this to come here for long time. - DSachan (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I, too, had the pleasure of reviewing some of these lists. This is an excellent, and complete, topic that satisfies the criteria. Well done, Woody! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not really sure which way to vote on this (oppose?), but as per the above-linked discussion, I think this topic should be included in the existing VC topic. The end result would only be 13 articles and topics go up to 30 articles before being considered too big (in fact if all the VC articles were combined into one topic that would only be 29 I think, including the 3 proposed A-Z articles in the sandbox). I realise it looks more impressive to have 2 topics instead of one but this is not in itself an argument to have them separate. It is more useful to have just one topic, and it is worth bearing in mind that the WP:FT page is already taller than the WP:FA page. Recommendations at WP:FT? state that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" so that seems to me to advocate a general policy of combining topics, assuming the end result is comprehensive, and isn't too big. In summary, I'd favour this:


 * The topic will be somewhat comprehensive with just the 13 articles listed above in the sense that every single recipient will now be listed once - in excluding for the time being the other VC lists, all you're excluding is different ways of presenting the same data - rst20xx (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For me this isn't about numbers, nor the "FT credits" as you seem to be implying (which is a fair enough assumption–alas inaccurate–we all have our own motivations). That the FT page is getting a bit big would suggest a redesign to me, not to reduce the number of FTCs. For me this is about the best presentation of these articles and I think the way envisaged at User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria Cross/BoxOne is the best way forward. Personally I don't think this is excessive sub-division, I think it is the logical way forward given the way these lists have been constructed. Woody (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I didn't mean to imply your motives were to get more "FT credits", I didn't know where you were coming from, so was just covering that this wouldn't be a reason. For the reasons I stated above, I think the topics would be better merged, and further think they look better merged, but we'll have to see what others think - rst20xx (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with Woody's views on how the topics should be presented. -MBK004 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Woody's presentation -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 14:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Woody's version. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Close with consensus to promote - I guess it is time to bring a supplementary nomination to the "Victoria Cross" topic - rst20xx (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)