Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons
Nominating this list for the first time. It has been my passion for more than a year now and has just passed an A-class review with the WPMILHIST project. I believe she is ready for this process.--Looper5920 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support. This is one of the most comprehensive lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's well-sourced, well-references, has pictures when needed, and is extremely organized. The lead-in is also fantastic. Wlmaltby3 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very strong, organized and eye pleasing.  Jo  e  I  07:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, a great list that meets all criteria. -Phoenix 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong support. Probably the best list I've seen so far on Wikipedia!  No question this should be a WP:FL. RyguyMN 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The TOC is definately overwhelming (see WP:WIAFL #2c). I suggest having a table TOC like that of List of California birds. (If you want, I can do it for you... I would have done it now, but it's getting rather late for me.). Also, move the sidebar further up the page. Apart from that, this is an excellent list. :-) Tom pw (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made the changes to the TOC. I could not figure out how to keep the USMC template without creating a huge gap below the intro so I just dropped it.  Hopefully this is what you were after.  Cheers--Looper5920 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Though I agree with Tompw's suggestions Qjuad 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Wow. Just, wow. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Highly complete list worthy of the status Cheif Captain 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what I should do. I really should oppose on the basis that too many of the items are red links - in fact, across the whole list(s) they outnumber the blues. But, it's a great list in so many other ways, and the reds are (with one exception) entirely in the inactive squadrons. Hmmm, I think I'll just leave this as a comment rather than actively opposing. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed - this is impressive, but it would be nice if there were not so many redlinks (all 5 of the Pre-World War II squadrons, all 11 of the Marine Reserve Scouting Squadrons, all 6 of the Marine Barrage Balloon Squadrons, all but 2 of the 17 Marine Scout Bombing Squadrons, most of the Marine Torpedo Bombing Squadrons and the Marine Fighting Squadrons, all 10 of the Marine Bombing Squadrons, etc...). Is this something that can be tackled any time soon? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are inactive squadrons notable enough to have their own articles? If they aren't (and they probably aren't), then they shouldn't be wikilinked, and those parts of the list will be fine as set of items (see WP:WIAFL 1a). Tom pw (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of them are significant enough to rate articles. Not all will be tackled as individual articles though. For example, many of the Scout bomber and torpedo bomber squadrons will have their own articles since most saw extensive combat duty in World War II.  Some on the other hand were training squadrons and will be part of a larger article on the Training Group of which they were apart.  The barrage balloon squadrons will all be merged into one article on the Marine Corps balloon program during WWII as will the pre-WWII reserve squadrons since there is not a preponderance of information on them.  Another example are the Marine Operational Training Squadrons.  I am going to create an article on Marine Operational Training Group 81, under whose command they all fell.  They will all have a mention and will be appropriately linked to.  I have taken the advice on the redlinks and just in the past 2 days have created VMTB-341, VMSB-245, VMSB-243 and VMTB-151.  I will be able to address the larger articles this weekend.  Please bear with me as I am one man trying to take on a big subject. Cheers--Looper5920 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose (but I feel bad). OK there are two editors above who feel uncomfortable on FLC 1a grounds, but don't like to oppose since the rest of the article is so nice. Since this issue appears to be actionable, and the author aims to resolve this (just probably not quick enough), can we delay promotion? Wikipedia is in no rush. There is no shame in resubmitting at a later date once it is ready. Colin°Talk 13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with objection Even though this nomination is closed, I wanted to state my disagreement with the objection about the red links. Placing wikilinks in an article leaves an open invitation to others to create articles for those red links and shouldn't count against the information that is in this particular article or list.  Downgrading the quality status of an article because of red links means that others will have to submit articles without the wikilinks that might be currently be red, which means they just have to be added later.  So, what does it matter if they're there now or later? Cla68 06:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you make your opinions known at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. There have been discussions on the quantity of red links ever since FL were born. The current consensus is that a large number of red links fails criterion 1.a.1. Colin°Talk 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)