Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Germany/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 The Rambling Man 14:59, 26 February 2010 [1].

---

List of battlecruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Germany/archive1

I wrote this list to tie together this featured topic. This is the first list I've ever written, but I feel it meets the FL criteria. It underwent and passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review over the past week. Thanks in advance to all editors who review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Comments The article is very well written but I have a couple of concerns before supporting it.

1. Lead - The lead is good and well written.
2. Disambiguous links - There are no DAB links
3. Alt text - All images have alt text
4. External links - All good here
5. Inline citations - All citable items appear to have a citation and the citation are in keeping with WP guidance. Although I personally do not believe that we need to cite every item for every ship. I would recommend just putting the inline cite behind the column title to reduce clutter since the same citation is identical for each group but I would ask for a second opinion on that.

   I still think that the multiple repetetive cites in the cells make the tables look cluttered and should be consolidated to the column title. This will make the tables more readible and reduce the amount of overall bytes of the article. I also asked another editor, Dabomb87 for a second opinion and he concurred. --Kumioko (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

   As a concrete example for Kumioko's suggestion, see List of counties in New Jersey. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Tables
   • All ships should should be linked, if an article doesn't yet exist for the ship then an article should be created as at least a stub. With the Battleship topic currently under way they will all have an article eventually anyway. I would say that the exception would be for the Ersatz class that was scrapped before completion and the O classs that was cancelled.
   • I know that there is a link to the article for each class but I think a summery of the class should be contained in each section.
   • I think that the dates in the tables should be added to a DTS template.
     • Here is a link to the DTS template, Template:Dts. Its designed specifically for table sorting and although some of the tables only have one row most of the others have more than one and this will help them sort better. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
   • The table width is causing a scroll bar to appear at the bottom of the page. I recommend that the width for the tables be set to 98% to eliminate the scroll bar. This can be seen on the List of African American Medal of Honor recipients if you need an example of how to do it.
7. Gallery - I think that the gallery should be eliminated and a column added to the tables that shows the ship image or after some text has been added about each class an image is added to the section.

   I still think this would be better if it was incorporated into the sections somehow. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

8. References - These look good to me.
9. AWB Check - I ran the article through AWB and came up with nothing so thats good.--Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, all of the ships should not be linked for the exact reason you give. :) None of the Mackensens, Ersatz Yorks or "O"'s were completed, and in this case there is not enough other information to warrant a full article like USS Hawaii (CB-3); it would simply duplicate text present in the class article. I'd also argue against scrapping the gallery and moving the images into the tables, as the tables would be way too crowded IMHO. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly; for instance, SMS Mackensen had an article, but as you can see, there wasn't anything there that isn't in the class article. Generally, unless there were conversion programs or a significant construction process (i.e., as in the cases of Hawaii as mentioned by Ed and Graf Zeppelin, respectively) then there really isn't a need for an individual ship article.

Ok, makes sense I line that one out, there are still a few others I have concerns about though. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a DTS template? I'm not familiar with that.

I linked to the template page above but basically its designed specifically for table sorting dates. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that sortability is need for the tables; none of the tables has more than four items so it would be fairly pointless. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the scroll bar from the table width, but maybe that's because I have a wider monitor. I reduced it to 98% anyway.

Great thanks its fixed know and I lined it out above. It could also vary depending on the browser we use. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See my response to Staxringold below in regards to the gallery point.

I'll add in some short paragraphs in each section about the individual classes tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I've added sections for Von der Tann and the Moltke class. I don't have the time to finish the rest now, but I'll get to it later today. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've added short summaries to each section now. Let me know if they fit what you were thinking, or if they need any work. Parsecboy (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better to me, I lined it out as completed. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why include the images within the table as in Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that'd be a good idea; there aren't any PD images of Lutzow, and there aren't really any good ones for the unfinished classes. That would leave about half the entries with empty boxes in that column. Parsecboy (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion its fine if not every ship or section has a picture, I just think it puts images in better context if the sections or ships have the image in them. I admit that most of the ships in a class are going to be the same but maybe an image for each section (or at least the ones were an image is available). --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The German navy, the Kaiserliche Marine" I notice that Kaiserliche Marine does not italicize the name. The "Main guns" column confused me. Does "8 × 28 cm (11 in)" mean that the ship had eight 28 cm guns? Sentence fragments don't need punctuation at the end: "Scuttled at Scapa Flow on 21 June 1919, wreck raised 1930s and scrapped at Rosyth." "otherwise very similar" Wordiness; does "very" add substantial meaning? I suppose this has been discussed already, but instead of having a gallery couldn't you move each image to the top of each relevant section? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I fixed everything you mentioned except for the point about the main guns column. I'm not sure exactly what to do to make it clearer (other than adding "guns" to the "2 x 28 cm" bit, which seems redundant to me). Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) You could add some kind of a key to what that means. Like how some of the baseball lists give explanations for what their abbreviated positions mean (sorry to relate everything to baseball, it's just the FL field I know). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, Stax's suggestion is good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't "Kaiserliche Marine" be italicized because it is a foreign language? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I stole the box from List of Silver Slugger Award winners at shortstop. Does that help? Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Link battlecruiser the first time, not the second. You italicise "Kaiserliche Marine " on its second use but not its first. Any reason why? "during World War I saw relatively heavy combat during the war" during x2, war x2, can we rejig this a little? Prefer consistent use of either World War I or First World War (the latter is preferable to me). You don't have "laid down" in your key (amongst others) - this is a term I'm not familiar with so would like to see explained. Could link the Battle of Jutland. You link mine under the Moltke class but not in the lead. Worth linking Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company? If 25,400 metric tons is 25,000 long tons then how can 5,300 metric tons be 5,300 long tons? I'm guessing rounding down to the nearest 100, but it does look odd to me. You use mt as metric ton abbreviation, does the t in the tables just mean ton or some other measurement? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing the article, and sorry for taking so long to reply. Real life and all... The first "Kaiserliche Marine" was italicized, but someone pointed out that it shouldn't be during the MILHIST ACR; I just missed the second one. I reworded the "during World War I..." sentence, does that work better now? I know there is a bit of ENGVAR in relation to "World War I/First World War," but I've always used them both (I'm a yank) and I thought it would mix up the word choice a bit. If it's better to just stick with one, the article is written in American English (again, I'm a yank :) so I guess it'd be "World War I." I added an entry for "laid down;" let me know if that's clear or needs tweaking Jutland is linked in the intro, do you think it's needed in the sections too? I didn't want to err on the side of overlinking. Mine link location fixed Parsons is now linked For whatever reason (presumably because I didn't specify AE in the template), it gives just the "t," which would be "tonne" in BE, the equivalent of "mt" in AE. Perhaps if I add in the " Shouldn't the n of navy be capitalised per our own article? I left it uncapitalized because I was using it as the common noun (because Germany has had several navies), as in the second half of the introductory sentence in the German Navy article (i.e., "the navy of Germany"). Does that make sense (it does to me, but I'm not sure I'm being clear)? I just felt that because you were referring to it as The German Navy (not just a navy of Germany) it should be capitalised. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, that makes sense. I've capitalized it now. Thanks again for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I know that you've changed this once, but I'm pretty sure that "Kaiserliche Marine" and "Kriegsmarine" have to be italicized per MOS:ITALICS as they are foreign words. I've also gone through and made many tweaks to the article; could you take a look at them? [2] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought originally but Kaiserliche Marine does not italicize those terms, so it's unclear which is right and which isn't. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Technically speaking they shouldn't; they aren't the names of ships etc., but they are foreign words. Maybe it's okay either way? All I know is that I italicized them in one of my FAs, Design 1047 battlecruiser. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
      • MOS:ITALICS says that foreign words that have common use in English (Kriegsmarine definitely is, and Kaiserliche Marine is also pretty frequently used) shouldn't be italicized. I figured that it would be weird to italicize Kaiserliche Marine but not Kriegsmarine (if it was decided that Kaiserliche Marine doesn't meet that threshold), as that would appear inconsistent. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Didn't see anything lacking, and your appear to have addressed the other issues present in the article, so I offer my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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