Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Japan/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 20:46, 5 March 2011.

List of battlecruisers of Japan

 * Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In what is our first FLC, this list has been in the works since before the new year, being the culmination of our efforts on the unifying topic of the battlecruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This article passed a Milhist A-Class Review in November 2010. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am co-nominating this with Cam. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reason the two B-65 are not named consistently? Nergaal (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * they were never laid down or ordered (which is typically when they actually name them). They were still in the design phase when they were cancelled. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what Cam said. Without names, I went with the second best option, which is their "yard number", or the number designation assigned to them by the Japanese builders. This is similar to what was done with the Yamato-class battleship and probably every other class, but those ships were eventually assigned actual names (Yamato, Musashi, Shinano), so their yard numbers are much less significant. I have added a footnote clarifying this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant "Yard number 795 [not named]" vs "796 [not named]". Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The names themselves aren't consistent. Every other ship had a defined name – the best I could do here was give a yard number and notate that there were no actual names. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments :
 * Why are the entries of Hiei and Kirishima top-aligned, and you have a mix of top and center-aligned?
 * Fixed all. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're consistent, although I find center alignment for these sorts of tables far easier on the eyes. But that's just me.


 * I presume that the commissioned date for Akagi is a typo?
 * yep. fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You would do well to move the (projected) to the Commissioned line rather than the ship entries.
 * For which entries? the B-65s? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The B-65s and the Amagis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "with high fuel efficiency" reads oddly.
 * fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you link to 8-8 Fleet or programme?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already linked in the lead. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - What is the status of this nomination? No responses to Sturmvogel66's comments nor any edits to the article for two weeks. Continued inactivity will result in the nomination being withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It's been a rather busy week (papers, travel, etc). I've fixed Sturm's comments at this point. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Support now. bamse (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that at least one Kongō's modification back to combat duty from training-ship status (which is not mentioned) was kept secret as it was in violation of the WNT?
 * I'm of the view that the section is meant to provide a general overview without getting into the crazy specifics. Would adding a footnote solve the issue?
 * That could work, but it's just a quibble.
 * Most of this is just nitpicking, overall it's great work and I'll be happy to support once "I've got questions" gets a "you've got answers". :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with most of your comments; the rest I have directed to Ed's attention. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I'm happy to Support. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I see "Eight-Eight fleet" in the lead and "Eight-eight fleet" in the body. The capitalization of the second eight should be consistent throughout.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Giants' comment does not appear to have been addressed yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been now. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * In the lead it is written "The first phase of the Eight-Eight plan began in 1910 ...". In the first section: "The four ships were authorized in 1911 as part ..." . There seems to be a contradiction in dates.
 * The lead should summarize the whole article, but there is no information about B-65 cruisers in it.
 * Ruslik_ Zero 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the slow response. I will deal with all of these concerns (Ruslik0, Giants2008, The Bushranger) tomorrow afternoon. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a mention of the B-65s, see the last sentence, second paragraph. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Has Ruslik been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now he has. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * item 1 has not been addressed. Ruslik_ Zero 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Went back to my sources; it's 1910. Clarified for consistency. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Ruslik_ Zero 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.