Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/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 Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010.

List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy

 * Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is just about finished with a MilHist ACR and I believe that it meets all the FLC criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support on prose. I recently copyedited this one, but there wasn't much to do; Sturm's prose is straightforward, just like it should be. My British English isn't great, but John and Diannaa also worked on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Can years be added to all captions? Ruslik_ Zero 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sort of. I added a date to the Indefatigable class caption, but I don't know when the photos of Lion or Queen Mary were taken. I can narrow it down a bit, but I'm not sure that a date range over a couple of years is really all that helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can use a better image of Lion, which was taken in 1915. Ruslik_ Zero 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done


 * Support - an excellent list with no problems I could find. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support great work on this, Sturm. Buggie111 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:orange;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from {{User|Rambo's Revenge}}|content=

Apart from my concern at a number of apparent "drive-by supporters" I have some concern with the table coding. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In G3 Battlecruiser I get text wrapping in some odd places (indicated by [br]: "53,909 long tons (54,774[br]t)" and "4 screws, steam turbines, 31 kn (57 [br] km/h; 36 mph)". Some consideration of &amp;nbsp and forced breaks is probably needed. I realise alot of these come from convert templates which should have it hardoded in so...
 * Your width forcing is causing problems. Seem to be random collection of 98% and 100%. Isn't the point of percentages that they add up to 100? In some places it is causing (well I'm pretty sure it's that) some randomness.
 * I've deleted all forced widths, I think that the tables will display a little better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In "Indefatigable class" I think rowspans might be causing the absence of a bottom border
 * They're definitely not the cause, although I haven't been able to figure out the problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out you were half right. The rowspans were set to three when they should have been two. All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean me? If so, see WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy and the edit history. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No I was think more of some of the other people who haven't edited the page or participated in that Assessment. But I do admit I was at fault for glossing over "MilHist ACR" in the nominators rationale because I didn't understand what it meant. In future, some reviewers (well I can only speak for one, me) may find it useful to have a link to any peer or WikProject A-class reviews in the rationale. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to revisit this but I'm still concerned about visual appeal of the tables with unwanted wrapping (screenshot of what I mean to the right). I think this it quite ungainly. Can't find anything in the Convert template stuff that might cause this, or how I can fix it. Could  be utilised, seehere. I'm interested what other people think as it just frustrates me when things don't display right. Rambo's Revenge  (talk)  18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a function of screen width. They display properly if I change my window size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortuanately it is not just "a function of screen width". I mocked up some tables on the talk page, see here for what I mean. Rambo's Revenge (talk)</b>  09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spending time on this. My understanding is that we're required to follow the manual of style here.  WP:MOSNUM (at WP:MOSCONVERSIONS) recommends the {{tl|convert}} template, and WP:TABLE doesn't make an exception for tables.  I have to admit that I have no idea what's customary at FLC, but I'm leery of having an unwritten set of style guidelines that differs from custom at FAC and from the Manual of Style.  Would you like to argue your case at WP:TABLE or WP:MOSNUM? - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the MOS doesn't recommend {{tlx|Convert}}, it says "Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units". However, let's not get into arguing semantics. I recognise Convert is a highly used template, but it is obviously not functioning optimally. My examples are just copying the text from Convert and putting in a few nbsp's (a simple fix if it wasn't for all the coding). Now I think Convert puts in nbsp's, however if it puts them in everywhere it has the same effect as having none at all. I realise this is unlikely to make or break the candidacy but it is clearly an issue (one which I think you have now seen for yourself) and should be addressed – moreover, it likely affects hundreds of articles. My problem there is that the Convert templates have coding that is incredibly hard to follow for us meer mortals. Any idea who would be the code person to go to with this? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A relevant thread has just been opened at Template_talk:Convert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I gotta say that I'm not very inclined to hand-code a table; too much work for too little return. I may go in and delete all the subsequent conversions as they're not needed and see how how that displays, but that's about the limit I'm willing to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it seems there is an easy fix (according to thread linked above) which is using  instead of   for the short units. While you are there can you also check the vertical alignment of text in all the tables. There is a random mixture of top and centre present. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b>  <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  10:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Half there. I hope you agree that this does make a difference. There are some tables that jump out at me as still needed. Queen Mary, Courageous (displacement) and G3 {the earlier columns). Perhaps there are a couple more. Also
 * Sorry, they look fine at my screen width.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay this is what I required. Feel free to revert if you think it is wrong, but I see no problems with it. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Seperate concern: "8 × 13.5 inches" (Lion) is fine but "8 × 13.5-inch" (QM) is not in my opinion. You'd have a thirteen-inch but not a thirteen-point-five-inch which is how it reads. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All guns are now x-inches with a manual conversion. Turns out that the abbr=mos is incompatible with the adjectival form.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bit more consistency please. I assume you are not converting on second/third appearance etc. Personally I would, but regardless of that it needs to be consistent. Currently 6" converts in Renown even though it has been converted in Invincible class. Double check this hasn't happened elsewhere too. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

}} While I have not thoroughly reviewed this (and have found what I've done excessively laborious) I now no-longer have concerns with the tables. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment
 * Can you add a citation to "Suspended 9 March 1917" on one of the tables?-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've made the citations in rows of three instead of two. (They seemed to be getting rather long with only two columns) Feel free to revert if you think it's ugly or something :)-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm pretty indifferent either way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support With the assumption that all other issues above have been addressed.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 00:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Support, no additional issues from me, similar to White Shadows, my support is based upon remaining issues raised being addressed, but it is only a few tweaks away. Nice work on this!  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I know this is nitpicking, but could you make the top template a bit more compact? Try to reduce the empty space, or even reduce the font size. Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not mine, but I'll look at it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shrunk. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. Ruslik_ Zero 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.