Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/South American dreadnought race/archive1

South American dreadnought race[edit]

Contributor(s): The ed17, Sturmvogel 66

These ships are all linked by the expensive and ultimately inconsequential South American dreadnought naval arms race. All of the component articles are or will soon be featured (Agincourt has been promoted but is waiting on the bot run). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really great work on these, Ed. What are you going to do now that they're all done? Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on a draft of the Pennsylvania class battleship article in my userspace... so probably that. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous work. NapHit (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite an achievement. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note this topic means the demise of both Wikipedia:Featured topics/Rivadavia-class battleships and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Minas Geraes-class battleships. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I've asked at WT:OMT if that will interfere with the project's goal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you could get away with treating those topics as subtopics here; though I don't get the impression that this topic would be outside the remit of WP:OMT—after all, it's a bit more relevant than battleship (game) or Battleship (horse), which are included in Phase V of the project's scope. GRAPPLE X 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm with Grapple X and I don't think that any transnational topic necessarily requires the demise of any national topic. I have a draft topic for Battleships of the Russo-Japanese War at the bottom of my sandbox that I'm currently working on and it shouldn't affect any of the class articles/topics, if I decide to include them, at all as they could be considered sub-topics. And the topic article arguably belongs in OMT although we could argue exactly which phase it's most appropriate in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also agree with Grapple X here. An FT composed of sub FTs shouldn't disqualify either one for featured topic status. They can co-exist, after all nothing on Wikipedia says that that they can not. TomStar81 (Talk)
        Grapple- Phase V would not be included in the eventual FT we're planning, which will go from battleships -> battleships of [country] (example) -> [ship] class battleship. :-) Sturm- SADR is in phase 3 right now.
        
        Everyone- alright then, if it doesn't supersede them, then I'm fine with it—I'll just note that this situation did occur before, albeit only on a national level, at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Moltke class battlecruisers/archive1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I would not be agains having separate topics if this was about actually completed ships. But all the ships actually naturally with within the scope of the overview topic, and therefore don't need to exist separately. Nergaal (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        All of these ships were completed, albeit three for different countries (+one later sold back), and one as an aircraft carrier... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for not being clear. Yes, they were completed, but they were not actually used by the countries themselves and have no real relevance to the world outside the scope of this proposed topic. That's why I sait that they naturally fall in this super-category, and not in separate sub-categories. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for my confusion, but the MG class and Rivadavia class were both used by their respective countries? Agincourt and one of the two Chilean ships weren't, but they would only be a part of this topic. MG and Rivadavia, on the other hand, have their own topics. What key information am I missing in your argument? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ARA Moreno‎ has a dead link in it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. They reorganized their site and killed the Moreno link, but not the Rivadavia link... odd. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Awesome work; no reason to oppose. TBran dl ey 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but remember to open a FTRC for the subtopics at the end to get some input from the community about the overlap. Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]