Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Greece/archive1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:44, 16 April 2012

List of battleships of Greece

Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Greece/archive1

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination restarted: 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one of my warship lists, this one covers the four battleships purchased or ordered by the Greek Navy shortly before the outbreak of World War I, only two of which were delivered. These ships, former American pre-dreadnoughts, survived until 1940, when they were sunk by German divebombers. This list will complete the Good Topic seen here, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review here. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the only two images in the article are of the same class of ship, but this makes sense, since those were the only two delivered. Still, could it be possible there's photos of those ships under construction? Or one of the same class? Though that might be a little too far off the topic. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't ever come across any photos of the two unfinished ships under construction. There's File:Early Salamis design.png, but I felt that since it wasn't the final design, it shouldn't be used in this article. The only illustration of the final design for Salamis is copyrighted. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strike that, I just found this illustration of a completed Salamis in the German Navy from 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <!-- Please don't edit anything above here. Be sure to include your reasons for nominating below. -->
 :<small>''Nominator(s): [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)''</small>
+'''Nomination restarted: 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)'''
 Another one of my warship lists, this one covers the four battleships purchased or ordered by the Greek Navy shortly before the outbreak of World War I, only two of which were delivered. These ships, former American pre-dreadnoughts, survived until 1940, when they were sunk by German divebombers. This list will complete the Good Topic [[User:Parsecboy/FT_prep#Greek_topics|seen here]], and it passed a MILHIST A-class review [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battleships of Greece|here]]. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 11:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 11: / Line 13: @@
 **I haven't ever come across any photos of the two unfinished ships under construction. There's [[:File:Early Salamis design.png]], but I felt that since it wasn't the final design, it shouldn't be used in this article. The only illustration of the final design for ''Salamis'' is copyrighted. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 14:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 ***Strike that, I just found [[:File:Salamis illustration.png|this illustration]] of a completed ''Salamis'' in the German Navy from 1916. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 15:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Question''' – In the lists there are only four items total. Do my fellow reviewers consider that to be enough to meet criterion 3b? [[User:Giants2008|<font color="blue">Giants2008</font>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<font color="darkblue">Talk</font>]]) 02:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-**'''Response''' yep, this is most likely a [[WP:GAN|good article candidate]], it certainly doesn't meet our 3b criteria, but I'm not sure if there's a main article for this to slip into.  Either way, not sure it's a featured list candidate.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-***In what way does it not meet 3b? There's no length requirement for a number of subjects in a list, and it is a stand-alone topic, just the same as [[List of battleships of Germany]] or any other similar list. The list is a comprehensive topic (the battleships purchased by Greece) and is not a content fork. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-****The way it's presently worded, [[WP:SAL]] is basically useless for our purposes. That leaves [[WP:CFORK]] violations as the only reason to oppose based on criterion 3b. Anyone arguing that this is a content fork should name the article (existent or not) of which he or she believes this to be a content fork. I'm not particularly pleased about the shortness of this list, but without a reasonable merge target, I'd have to say that it meets criterion 3b. That said, I think it could "reasonably be included as part of" [[List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy]]. If there's arguments against that, I'm willing to listen, but for the moment I'll have to '''oppose'''. <tt>'''<font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User:Goodraise|Good]]</font><font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User talk:Goodraise|raise]]</font>'''</tt> 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-*****If that list is improved to the quality of this list, it would be unmanageably large. I have plans to break out at least some other sections of the list (such as the ironclads and probably the cruisers for starters). Regardless, there is precedence for lists of this size: [[List of battlecruisers of Russia]] and [[List of battlecruisers of Japan]] both have only 3 entries and [[List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire]] has 5. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-******We are not bound by precedence; [[WP:FLRC]] exists for a reason. Also, we're not item counting; what we're concerned with is article size. Assuming a natural growth of [[List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy]], with the largest sections (presumably the ones with the most items) being split first, I'm not convinced that the battleship section would have to be split at all. <tt>'''<font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User:Goodraise|Good]]</font><font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User talk:Goodraise|raise]]</font>'''</tt> 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-*******I didn't say we were bound by precedence, I was pointing out that lists of similar size have passed without issue. Since we're concerned with article size, then, this list is 12.7kb, the Russian list is 16.8kb, and the Japanese list is 17.2. The difference is insignificant. But let me get back to [[WP:CFORK]] - please explain how this list is an unacceptable fork of the [[List of decommissioned ships of the Hellenic Navy]]? As far as I can tell, CFORK prohibits articles that largely duplicate another, or are POV forks. How is this list either one of those? [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-********Let me put it differently: What previously passed is irrelevant. We don't care.<p>CFORK basically says that multiple articles (with a few exceptions) shouldn't cover the same subjects (note that it's about the articles' subjects, not their contents). One of the exceptions being articles created through following [[WP:Summary style]]. Summary style in turn [[WP:AVOIDSPLIT|recommends against splitting off sections not establishing notability]], which this list does not presently do in the way demanded by [[WP:LISTN]].<p>Perhaps you're thinking now that we're interpreting these guidelines overly strict, but we have to do that, because if we don't (and there was a time when we didn't) editors will go around scooping little pieces out of larger articles for the purpose of gaining featured credit at FLC as opposed to creating spin-out articles when doing so is the best way to present the content and it outweighs the additional [[WP:SYNC|burden of maintenance]] having sub articles creates. <tt>'''<font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User:Goodraise|Good]]</font><font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User talk:Goodraise|raise]]</font>'''</tt> 00:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-{{outdent}}You ''are'' interpreting the guidelines overly strict, and your analysis seems partially incorrect at best. What previously passed is relevant in the sense that two of the three lists above were passed with the [[WP:FLCR|same criteria]] as are in place now without the hassle this one is receiving. I don't see how LISTN is failed here as I'm sure the battleships have been talked about as a group (prove me wrong), and it specifically states there is no consensus for assessing the notability of "List of X of Y" lists besides the [[WP:GNG]], which has been satisfied in this case. And I'm not sure a list that has precedence for inclusion (many "List of battleships of X" exist) will get everyone to go hog wild trying to force other small lists through FLC as you seem to imply. '''[[User:Clay|<font color="green">Clay</font>]]'''<span style="font-size:75%">[[User talk:Clay|<font color="orange"><sup>Clay</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Clay|<font color="red"><sub>Clay</sub></font>]]</span> 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-:What Clay said. To argue that this list does not meet notability while numerous others on other countries' ships have passed without issue is ludicrous; it's systemic bias if nothing else. The same applies to SYNC; no one raised SYNC concerns when the previous FLs on types of warships I have written. Please stop wikilawyering and withdraw your baseless opposition. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 11:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-::I think we all need to chill out a bit here.  My concern over a "list" of four items still holds (while not in the criteria, we have, for some time, used ten items as an unwritten benchmark for submission), I've seen featured and good article nominations with less prose and more tables than this candidate, hence my suggestion that it would be better suited to the [[WP:GAN]] process.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-:::Lists cannot be GAs - see [[Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#What_is_not_a_good_article.3F|the GAC]]. As I pointed out above, there are several examples of FLs with the same number of items (well below 10) that did not have these concerns raised. [[List of armored cruisers of Germany]], one of my other FLs, has six entries with 9 articles; [[List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire]] has five entries with six articles. If you want to have a cutoff, then do so, but tell people, and please do not apply it inconsistently. If I knew this was going to be an issue, I wouldn't have wasted my time writing this list. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-::::Yes, I am aware of the GA criteria (for recent examples of GAs which contain listed info, see [[2011 Team Europcar season]] and [[Delaware Route 36]], by the way), but what I'm saying to you is that this isn't ''really'' a list.  It's mainly prose with some very brief tabulated information.  I do think you need to remain calm, we're hear to discuss this, well I certainly am, and losing your temper won't help anything. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 12:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-:::::@Clay: If we were bound by what previously passed, in time we would not be able to oppose for any reason, because with every FLC that passes, things are missed. Reviewers aren't perfect. Furthermore, as Wikipedia matures, its guidelines and policies evolve. Standards rise even if the wording of the featured list criteria remain the same.<p>Proving that the battleships have ''not'' been talked about as a group is impossible. There's no burden of proof on me here. The GNG isn't satisfied either. LISTN merely explains how notability guidelines should be interpreted for lists. That "There is no present consensus for how to assess ... cross-categorization lists" only supports my position. If we can't assess a subject's notability, then we can't consider it meeting notability guidelines.<p>I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it straight up: Promoting tiny lists makes editors create more tiny lists.<p>@TRM: I'll have to disagree with you on two points. Firstly, this is a list. Of course I can't cite some guideline to support this opinion because of [[WP:SAL]]'s uselessness. Secondly, falling back to "unwritten benchmarks" every reviewer has to set for him- or herself and their unpredictability for nominators is the worst possible thing we can do. Relying on CFORK may only be a stopgap measure until the community finally decides on what lists should stand alone and what lists shouldn't, but it's still way better than arbitrary limits. <tt>'''<font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User:Goodraise|Good]]</font><font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User talk:Goodraise|raise]]</font>'''</tt> 13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-::::::I'm not convinced of its ''listness'', many GAs have more listness and less prose than this one.  It could easily be submitted there without anyone blinking twice (and I saw this FA: [[Tanks in the Spanish Army]] which, while it has more prose, is essentially the same as this list).  However, everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course.  Probably best for me to withdraw here and let the community at large decide. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 14:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::If this is not a list, then why are any of [[Wikipedia:SHIPS#Featured_lists|these]] lists? The only difference is size, and in the case of several of them, that difference is negligible. If you don't want short lists, fine, I'll withdraw the nomination and only work on categories of items that have more than some random, arbitrary limit. But decide on the limit and let everyone know, so I don't keep wasting my time.
-:::::::Having said that, no one has yet explained (as far as I can tell), how this is ''not'' a stand-alone list. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::I understand the frustration but size ''is'' important.  We couldn't, for instance, imagine a list of two items becoming a featured list, it would simply be an article (or pair of articles) which should achieve GA or FA status if possible.  I wonder (and I'll need to do some more research) how much more this list brings to the Wikipedia beyond the individual articles about each battleship, most of which seem to have a {{tl|main}} article.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::::So four items is too few. Gotcha. I won't be wasting my time here anymore. Archive the nomination so I can go over to GAN, where someone else can tell me it doesn't fit their criteria either. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-*Well I for one think it works as a list, and '''support'''. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] ([[User talk:Golbez|talk]]) 14:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' - For what it's worth, I don't see GA and FL as being mutually exclusive (see, for example, [[The Simpsons (season 1)]], [[Smallville (season 1)]], [[Millennium (season 1)]] and [[The X-Files (season 1)]]; and yes I do seem to focus on television a bit). I think this article ''does'' work as a list, as lists don't strictly need to have tabled data. The article is a list of entries, rather than a list of raw information in table form; if that's deemed to be outside of FL's purview then I think there'd be a few other FLs that would have to be taken to FLRC and then brought FAC instead ([[List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters]], [[List of Uncharted characters]]). I've seen a similar grey area over what is and isn't within the scope of FLC, and I'm wondering if perhaps an RFC on the subject to draw a line in the sand for what we do want here and what would be better served by FAC instead would be in order. [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 12:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-**I don't think we need such an RFC. What we need is clear criteria on what lists should exist. Dividing articles between FAC and FLC is not really a problem. We take what they don't want. As far as GA-lists are concerned, I'm in agreement with you, but if the Good Article people don't want lists, that's fine with me also. <tt>'''<font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User:Goodraise|Good]]</font><font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User talk:Goodraise|raise]]</font>'''</tt> 13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-***To be fair, "the Good Article" people is a pretty nebulous term given that reviews can be done by anyone, whereas featured content has a set panel of delegates. I know I've passed GAs that could have been termed as lists, because I see GA as an intermediary step for FL when the list is prose-heavy (as is often the case with things like television seasons or summaries of warship classes, etc). I'd probably straight-pass this as a Good Article as I see no problems with it within the standard used at GA. However, another editor may fall under the "lists are for FL only" crowd and quick-fail it for that. It's a grey area that could probably do with a hard-and-fast rule somewhere down the line. I'm erring on the side of this one being FL, and not FA, territory, but ultimately I'll have to defer to Giants and Rambling Man as they're the ones with much more experience in this field. But to equate FL and GA isn't really right, as FL and FA are the equivalent processes, GA being a rung below either (and feeding into both). [[User:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''GRAPPLE'''</small></span>]] [[User talk:Grapple X|<span style="color:#556655"><small>'''X'''</small></span>]] 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-****As a point of order, GA '''does not''' feed into FL - the [[WP:Good article criteria]] are very specific on that ("Stand-alone lists...should be nominated for featured list...status" under "what is not a good article"). Unless there is a discussion and the criteria are changed, lists should not be nominated, or passed, at GA. I realize that the majority of this discussion is focused on whether this list is actually a list or more of an article, but I wanted to make the distinction between GA and FL clear before more confusion is sown. True lists '''do not''' go to GA...it is not a stepping stone to FL status. [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-*****Gah, I didn't want to come back here, but one question is clear and obvious to me, what is "a list" Dana?  I noted two articles above that passed GA which are essentially lists with significant prose.  We have many examples that are similar.  What's a "true list"?  Sounds like we're back to the old "why isn't there a 'good list' if there's a 'good article'" discussion which I've never really seen satisfactorily resolved.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-******I think it's less one single question, but several related ones we (and the wider community) need to answer. To name the main ones: What distinguishes a stand-alone list (aka. list article) from a non-list article? And when is the existence of a list article justified? The page that should (but doesn't) answer these questions is [[WP:SAL]]. Recently I tried getting things moving over there, but all I accomplished was stepping on tows and getting caught up in tedious debates over minor details. Anyway, we've been dancing around theses questions for long enough. A large scale RFC may be the only way to get this problem solved. If it even can be solved, that is. <tt>'''<font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User:Goodraise|Good]]</font><font style="color:#2E2E2E">[[User talk:Goodraise|raise]]</font>'''</tt> 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-******TRM, I definitely agree that there are many articles/lists that are borderline - the ones you note above are great examples. This battleships article/list I can see as going either way; however, I think it is more list, since if it went to FA they would ping it for having too high of a table to prose ratio, IMO. My main point was in reply to Grapple X saying that GA should feed/does feed into FL - this may occasionally happen, but the GA criteria explicitly say it shouldn't. If people want that to happen, then a discussion needs to start to have the GA criteria changed. I don't think there's a call here for a good list page, since if this was at a theoretical GL page people would still probably be arguing over whether it was an article or a list. The argument here isn't "this is almost good enough to be FL, but not quite, so it should go to GL", it's "there's too much prose for it to be FL, so maybe it should go to GA". To be honest, I think that this type of situation isn't something that can be fixed by a hard-and-fast rule - it's more of a case-by-case thing, to my way of thinking. [[User:Dana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|talk]]) 22:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-{{od}}I can't believe that this nom is getting hung up on the number of entries; what does that matter? The main principle should be if it has a fundamental organizing principle. So what if the Greeks only bought two battleships and attempted to buy another pair? The organizing principle is valid and cannot subsumed into any other than a complete list of all decommissioned Greek warships, which is unlikely ever to be finished. Breaking that list down by type is a perfectly valid way to handle that information in bite-sized pieces. Otherwise you'd have to try and digest lists with over 100 entries as even the smallest navy has likely had that many warships over the years if you get down to gunboats and the like. Aside from the few entries I see no fundamental difference between this and [[List of battleships of the United States Navy]] as they're both structured around the same fundamental principle. Just as List of birds of Colorado is fundamentally equivalent to List of birds of Matto Grosso. So what if one has over 70 entries and the other only 4? I think that threat of an inundation of short lists is greatly exaggerated in reality and can easily be dealt with by looking at the organizing principle. List of The Prisoner episodes that aired in Peoria, Illinois may not even be short, but is pretty easy to shoot down as an invalid basis to organize the list around as it is better subsumed into List of The Prisoner episodes. Just like List of battleships of the US Navy recommissioned in the 1980s is best incorporated in with the Iowa class battleship article, to go back to our original naval theme.<br />
-I find it odd that The Rambling Man supported the FLC for [[List of battlecruisers of Russia]] with only three items two years ago, but have now problems with this one, which has even less text than the Russian battlecruiser list, but I suppose that people can learn better over time what is GAN worthy or not. If y'all want to impose some sort of limit for minimum # of items to qualify for FLC then do so formally rather than this "informal consensus" which is just outright wrong. There are few enough reviewers here that such a consensus can pretty well dominate all of the noms and it's not fair to the nominators to judge them by a hidden criteria. And if you do set a minimum please start the FLCR process for the Russian battlecruiser list and all the other short FLCs so we can discuss things at length. Hell, maybe I'll do it myself, just to get the ball rolling. Oh, and I'm working on [[List of battlecruisers of the United States]] right now with only two entries covering 7 articles and I expect that I'll be nominating it in a few weeks so y'all might want to put some effort into deciding this issue. It will be formatted about the same as the Russian battlecruiser list so I wonder if I'll see some comments that it's really rather an article than a list. Unlike [[List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy]] which covered 20-odd ships and classes and passed FLC a year and a half ago. But that was then and this is now.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 00:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-:If you wish to single me out, then just a couple of minor points of information: the Russian list had nine items in three tables, and I don't recall supporting it, I simply reviewed it. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 07:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-::Forgive me for mischaracterizing your comments, but you are correct that you did not support that list. Your characterization of the Russian list is correct, but limited. It does cover nine ships, but none of them were completed and all are covered in only three class articles. So which is more important, # of entries in the list or the number of articles? It matters because my forthcoming American battlecruiser list has a dozen entries, although over half of them were never completed and they are covered in 5 individual ship articles and two class articles and I'd like to know if I should bother coming here or not.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 13:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-:::Of course you should bother.  This discussion has come about from a couple of editors (mainly me and Giants) who expressed concerns.  It would appear that we are in the minority, and that's just fine.  It would also appear that we need to revisit the "implementation" of 3b in this sense, so we should do that too.  My suggestion here is to move this lengthy debate to the talk page, and restart the nomination so all this chatter doesn't get in the way of people deciding whether or not this is a piece of Wikipedia's finest work.  What say thee to that? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 14:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-::::That would be fine. Let's clarify 3b so everybody knows what the standards are.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)