Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ohio-class submarines/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:10, 12 March 2012.

List of Ohio class submarines

 * Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... the list has recently undergone a very successful A-class review which saw its promotion only seven days since its creation. I think the list is ready for the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Regretful oppose per WP:FLC 3b. I don't believe this list meets the requirements for being a stand-alone list as it could easily be integrated as an embedded list in the article Ohio class submarine.  Currently the article Ohio class submarine is only 1340 words, while the length of the prose in this list is 583 words.  Much of the text in the list, as well as the list itself, would fit nicely within the main Ohio class article.  In fact, there is already a simpler version of the list in the Boats of the class section.  I recommend merging the list and article and redirecting this page to the main class article; when cleaned up, the main class article can be nominated at WP:FAC. –Grondemar 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had a think about this, and decided that embedded lists would only be suitable for articles such as Seawolf class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Trafalgar class submarine, and any other classes have less than 15 vessels (the Ohio class is the third-most numerous after the Los Angeles and Sturgeon classes). If the list in question is to be merged, don't you think the detailed information (date order, launch, commissioning, status, etc) is too much for, and would dominate, the article? For the records, there is a similar list at List of Los Angeles class submarines. Please read my comment over carefully, and tell me what you think. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a tough call. I'm not sure that I can agree that there should be a hard cut-off when an embedded list should be split from an article, although I definitely agree that List of Los Angeles class submarines needs to be separate from Los Angeles class submarine.  To me the key question is whether, when Ohio class submarine is brought to FA status, would including this list in the prose of that article be WP:UNDUE weight.  I invite other editors to weigh in on this subject; if the consensus believes that this list should be stand-alone, I'll withdraw my oppose. –Grondemar 01:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * C and D class destroyer is the only example of a decently developed article on a large class of ships (14 in total) I can think of. It has a table with the relevant data like this list, followed by several paragraphs that sum up the activities of the ships. I am really on the fence about whether it should be a stand-alone list or not. I doubt these boats have all that interesting service histories, so I don't think it would be overkill to do something like the C and D class example. Removing the photos from the table would go a long way to shrink the table, making it more manageable if it is merged in. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of effort I have invested in this list, and the fact that most of us are on the fence, I think this list should remain as it is, instead of being merged. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking at the revised list with the pictures of the individual boats embedded in the list, I'm willing to strike my original oppose as I believe that in this format it can and should stand alone from the main class article. I will review the list further before deciding whether to support. –Grondemar 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Just a few things:
 * "is currently, as of February 2012," - "currently" can be removed per WP:DATED.
 * Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As those are American submarines, why not convert to mdy format?
 * I was expecting somebody to bring up the point; WP:STRONGNAT allows articles about modern US military to use DMY format. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe a see also section for similar submarine classes?-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ✔ Thanks for your comments. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, pending resolution of Grondemar's concerns above Comments
 * Not sure why this wasn't brought up earlier, but the list needs to differentiate between the SSBNs and the SSGNs.
 * There are only four SSGNs, so I thought it would be better to merge both types of boats. Also, the main differences between the two have been outlined in the intro -- I wouldn't know what extra information to add if I was to split the SSGNs off. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to split anything off. Technically, the SSBN/SSGN is part of the hull number and should be included in that column. All you need is a note explaining the difference between the two. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explained about the SSGN in the lead. You want me to further add a column called "Notes" and say what weapons and payload the SSGNs carry? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that should be in the table. You might consider replacing the unit identification code column with the weapon suite - I don't know what real value the UIC is to the average reader, but I think many would be interested in what weapons the boats carry. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You might consider merging the cells that are the same (see for instance List of heavy cruisers of Germany, which is also currently at FLC). Parsecboy (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed: Henry M. Jackson is listed as SSGN-730, but the armament column has Trident IIs - which is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, why are there redundant sorting methods (i.e., color coding and symbols?)
 * See below.


 * I don't know if this has been considered or not, but do the colors chosen work for color-blind individuals? Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point of the inclusion of both symbols and colour coding -- the symbols help the colour-blind readers, while the colours are for those who can see colours. User Matthewedwards insisted that I use both types of classification during a previous FLC. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Avoid bold links like the one in the intro, per the MoS.
 * In the drawing's caption, is the note for item 11 supposed to have a 1 at the end, like the Auxiliary machine room no. 2 a bit later? Giants2008  ( Talk ) 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ✔ Thank you for your meticulous eyes! --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support In my opinion this list meets WP:FLCR. –Grondemar 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quick comment from  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk
 * After sorting the Weapons and Status columns break.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See below.


 * Support Nice work.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 11:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * Per Harrias above, and against Parsecboy's suggestion above, I would remove the col merge and go with separate cells. For one thing, this list is sortable, while the "List of heavy cruisers of Germany" is not.
 * The breaking of the two columns prior was due to the ROWSPAN function requested by TRB and Grondemar. To address this and SatyrTN's comment, I've separated the two cells into eighteen cells. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the color coding and the accessibility symbols be in the same column? If it were me, I'd color code (and symbolize) the boat name column.
 * The ROWSPAN function doesn't work with the colour coding, and so I've moved the symbols and colours to the "Hull number" column. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with the above modifications. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.