This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
A fact from Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
This list is too short to be considered for WP:FLC, according to the delegates, and thus I bring it here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Move to "Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy"
I suggest this article (having been identified as not really being a list), be moved to the subject title. As present it is coming up in Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles. Kirill has suggested move it to avoid confusion. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Since there haven't been any objections, can we go ahead and move the article to the new title? Kirill[talk] 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You can see that I started a GAR. (The history confused me. I thought it was a non-list article that had been converted to a list.) If we can rename this article, as suggested, the GAR will be a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Recommend you try again. – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
As a list article, it does not qualify under WP:GA?. Seems that it did qualify as an article about aircraft maint carriers, but was renamed. It is included in the good topic WP:GT listing, but that criteria requires featured list assessment for all list articles in the topic. I recommend removing this article from the GA listing and starting up a WP:FL? assessment. – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I've created some confusion. To restate my concern: If the article is a list, then it cannot be GA. To keep it as part of the Good Topic realm, it needs to be a Featured List (or a GA). So if it is too short for a list, then it needs to be renamed as an article and keep the list designation off of it. I have no qualms about the renaming to an article type name (v. list). And if renamed I would withdraw this GAR. – S. Rich (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A move/renaming of the article has been requested. Once accomplished, I think we can close this GAR as moot. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination As the article has been remained, dropping the "List", this criteria for GA is resolved. Delisting. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to renaming it, but some admin will have to do it as there was an earlier attempt to do so according to the move log.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: article moved. Unopposed proposal after more than two weeks. ArmbrustThe Homunculus 08:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually we have a clear agreement from the remarks above which support moving. If a non-admin move can be accomplished, I will so do. If I can't, then there is no need to keep this move request open and a syop should make the move. – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC) After writing this I see that Peacemaker67 tried a move, but the result is a redirect to the List article. I believe the redirect needs to be deleted. Can interested editors assist? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.