Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/December 2014
No. 90 (Composite) Wing was a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) wing that operated during the early years of the Malayan Emergency. It administered two RAAF units, No. 1 (Bomber) Squadron, flying Avro Lincolns, and No. 38 (Transport) Squadron, flying Douglas C-47 Dakotas. The wing was termed "composite" because it operated a mixed complement of aircraft, rather than only one type. Following No. 38 Squadron's departure for Australia in December 1952, No. 90 Wing was disbanded, leaving No. 1 Squadron to carry on as the sole RAAF unit in the campaign until its withdrawal in July 1958.
This formation constituted Australia's commitment to the air campaign in the Malayan Emergency for some two-and-a-half years beginning in 1950. Although small, we believe the topic is comprehensive -- unlike many such RAAF formations, the wing had only flying units as components, maintenance being handled by the squadrons themselves, and logistical functions by the host RAF bases in Singapore. This is the first time Nick or I have nominated here, so hopefully we've got it right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Why is the title of the topic different than the title of the main article? Neelix (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't have to be but I thought it was better. The article title follows WP unit naming convention, simply stating number, type and service. I felt perhaps we could have a bit more latitude with the topic name. There are precedents for GT/FT topic name being slightly different to main article name, e.g. Command in the South West Pacific Area, though the main article was South West Pacific Area (command). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find the additional bracketed word confusing; it suggests to me that there are other entities known as "No. 90 Wing RAAF" that are not "composite". I would recommend retaining the article's title for the sake of clarity. Does including the word "composite" provide any benefits I'm not seeing? Neelix (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't think any air force uses the same number for different wings. "Composite" simply explains the type of wing that it was, it doesn't mean that there were other No. 90 Wings. As to whether it's beneficial to use its full name in the topic, did you read the lead article to see why it was called a "Composite" wing, i.e. that it was multi-function as opposed to simply a "Bomber" or "Transport" wing? Let's by all means get consensus on the naming because when the time's ripe I'll be nominating a similar formation, No. 91 (Composite) Wing RAAF at FTC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be good to get other users' input on the subject. I would prefer see the naming conventions for articles used except in cases where there is a clear reason for why there should be a difference (such as to avoid a parenthetical disambiguator), but the community must decide on this matter. My initial thoughts when reading these three articles is that they aren't sufficiently related to constitute a topic. No. 90 Wing RAAF is only mentioned once each in No. 1 Squadron RAAF and No. 38 Squadron RAAF, and both mentions are near the middle of long articles; both No. 1 Squadron RAAF and No. 38 Squadron RAAF have considerably longer histories than just their involvement in No. 90 Wing RAAF, and there aren't even individual sections on the No. 90 Wing RAAF article devoted to each of the two squadrons. It is interesting that you mention Command in the South West Pacific Area, because that topic defies my conception of what a topic is as well, although it seems to have gotten assent to be featured. The vast majority of featured topics have one article that is clearly a direct parent article for the rest of the articles in the topic. Most of these topics also correspond with navboxes on the relevant articles, demonstrating a generally accepted and important conceptual link between the articles. I feel as though, if such a navbox was created for these three articles, the existence of the navbox would likely be questioned, and that makes me hesitant to support this FTC. I won't go so far as to oppose the nomination, but the idea that these three articles form a topic isn't clear enough to me for me to support, especially considering that it is likely that this discussion will form precedent for many other similar FTCs, such as for No. 91 Wing RAAF as you mention. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that membership of 90 Wing was a relatively small part of the histories of 1 and 38 Squadrons, and I did look to Command in the South West Pacific Area for precedent, as their command roles in the South West Pacific Area formed a relatively small part of the careers of the soldiers who make up that FT. You're obviously entitled to your point of view about the latter's eligibility but it was deemed to have consensus so I think 90 Wing does too. This would not, by the way, open the floodgates for a bunch of RAAF wing nominations at FTC. 90 and 91 Wings are unusual in that they were formed for particular overseas deployments in the 1950s, the former for the Malayan Emergency and the latter for the Korean War. They were disbanded as soon as they were no longer required and seem unlikely ever to be re-formed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Each of the squadron articles also has substantial coverage of the activities they undertook while part of No. 90 Wing, which provides more detail on the wing's operations than could be justified in its article. Read together, they should give readers a good understanding of what the RAAF was up to in South East Asia during the 1950s. The fact that the two squadrons operated more or less independently of each other and with the wing HQ providing mainly administrative support (rather than operational command and control) is interesting in its own right in the context of the RAAF's somewhat tortured path to becoming a self-sufficient service, and Australia gradually staking out an independent role in its region in the decades after World War II (which, in turn, fleshes out the second para of No. 90 Wing RAAF#Origins and formation). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that membership of 90 Wing was a relatively small part of the histories of 1 and 38 Squadrons, and I did look to Command in the South West Pacific Area for precedent, as their command roles in the South West Pacific Area formed a relatively small part of the careers of the soldiers who make up that FT. You're obviously entitled to your point of view about the latter's eligibility but it was deemed to have consensus so I think 90 Wing does too. This would not, by the way, open the floodgates for a bunch of RAAF wing nominations at FTC. 90 and 91 Wings are unusual in that they were formed for particular overseas deployments in the 1950s, the former for the Malayan Emergency and the latter for the Korean War. They were disbanded as soon as they were no longer required and seem unlikely ever to be re-formed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be good to get other users' input on the subject. I would prefer see the naming conventions for articles used except in cases where there is a clear reason for why there should be a difference (such as to avoid a parenthetical disambiguator), but the community must decide on this matter. My initial thoughts when reading these three articles is that they aren't sufficiently related to constitute a topic. No. 90 Wing RAAF is only mentioned once each in No. 1 Squadron RAAF and No. 38 Squadron RAAF, and both mentions are near the middle of long articles; both No. 1 Squadron RAAF and No. 38 Squadron RAAF have considerably longer histories than just their involvement in No. 90 Wing RAAF, and there aren't even individual sections on the No. 90 Wing RAAF article devoted to each of the two squadrons. It is interesting that you mention Command in the South West Pacific Area, because that topic defies my conception of what a topic is as well, although it seems to have gotten assent to be featured. The vast majority of featured topics have one article that is clearly a direct parent article for the rest of the articles in the topic. Most of these topics also correspond with navboxes on the relevant articles, demonstrating a generally accepted and important conceptual link between the articles. I feel as though, if such a navbox was created for these three articles, the existence of the navbox would likely be questioned, and that makes me hesitant to support this FTC. I won't go so far as to oppose the nomination, but the idea that these three articles form a topic isn't clear enough to me for me to support, especially considering that it is likely that this discussion will form precedent for many other similar FTCs, such as for No. 91 Wing RAAF as you mention. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't think any air force uses the same number for different wings. "Composite" simply explains the type of wing that it was, it doesn't mean that there were other No. 90 Wings. As to whether it's beneficial to use its full name in the topic, did you read the lead article to see why it was called a "Composite" wing, i.e. that it was multi-function as opposed to simply a "Bomber" or "Transport" wing? Let's by all means get consensus on the naming because when the time's ripe I'll be nominating a similar formation, No. 91 (Composite) Wing RAAF at FTC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I find the additional bracketed word confusing; it suggests to me that there are other entities known as "No. 90 Wing RAAF" that are not "composite". I would recommend retaining the article's title for the sake of clarity. Does including the word "composite" provide any benefits I'm not seeing? Neelix (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't have to be but I thought it was better. The article title follows WP unit naming convention, simply stating number, type and service. I felt perhaps we could have a bit more latitude with the topic name. There are precedents for GT/FT topic name being slightly different to main article name, e.g. Command in the South West Pacific Area, though the main article was South West Pacific Area (command). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delegate Comment - It has been over a month since this nomination started, who only one discussion being made about it. There needs some kind of consensus before a decision is made for it. GamerPro64 17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course -- I've never nominated for FT before, would it be considered okay to leave a neutrally worded post at say the MilHist project talk page to encourage comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that's all right to do. GamerPro64 03:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course -- I've never nominated for FT before, would it be considered okay to leave a neutrally worded post at say the MilHist project talk page to encourage comment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support - I think this is a fine topic, and topics that cover a narrow topic will necessarily have sub-articles that cover material outside of their scope. If I were to create a topic on, say, the Battle of Coronel, the commanders present, obviously, were alive for a considerable period before the battle (and in the case of Spee, briefly after it, Craddock being not even that lucky). That does not mean that they aren't closely related to the battle in question. In the case of military units, reorganizations happen all the time; it should not be a surprise that subordinate units have existences outside those of their parent units. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tks Nate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks also from me Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support and comments: It is a support article that is far from stub class! I ran across this from MilHist so outside listing is a good thing. I would think this could be listed at any project associated with the article, and a good idea to list it where ever it is allowed, which might also include Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation that was omitted for some reason.
- Last time I looked the Aviation project didn't seem incredibly active but I may be doing it an injustice, will check it out again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- What does this mean? "This would not, by the way, open the floodgates for a bunch of RAAF wing nominations...". Is there limitations? I would think that statement (maybe not understanding why it was offered and with no reply) strange because that indicates there is a limit, no matter how good an article becomes, and stating a fact that can only be surmising. When a gate is opened one would have to know the definitive limit to what was behind it, such as possibly that there will be no other editors ever writing such articles, before that could be asserted as fact. I just think the gate should be so lucky to include as many articles as possible that reach a point for consideration
- It's just highlighting the fact that Nos. 90 and 91 Wings RAAF are the only G/FTs of their kind I see on the horizon at the moment. There are of course many other RAAF wing articles that could theoretically lend themselves to G/FT treatment, but 90/91 are unique on WP in that there are articles complete or in progress for all their subordinate units, and they're disbanded formations unlikely to be re-formed. I don't think the RAAF's current wings naturally lend themselves to G/FT because their components can easily change. The RAAF's disbanded wings of WWII could qualify, but they generally had a great many support units, and it would be no easy task to create decent-quality articles for them all -- possible, yes, but don't hold your breath... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC).
- I almost didn't read the article (or comment) because I was directed here first and the title of the FTC is No. 90 (Composite) Wing RAAF. I do not like unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation's but happen to note the nominators stated they were new to this (this is also my first venture) and then that the title was changed. Maybe I missed it but I would suggest inserting a "Reply" in such situations because it can not be assumed it will be known if an important suggestion is followed.
- I liked the article and commend the editors. I would hope you are on a roll to improve more articles to whatever the highest level that can be obtained. I did have one issue: The first sentence in the Origins and formation subsection is long. I understand that a comma is not generally used after dates in British style articles but one needs a pause somewhere (breathing is good; turning purple not so good), or the sentence restructured, as the rest of the article does not have the run-on effect found there. Otr500 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the sentence worked quite well but have recast. Tks for your comments and support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support I don't have an issue with this as a natural group of articles or with the title for the grouping. BencherliteTalk 19:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tks Bench! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The topic seems fine, but I find the title to be very cryptic. Could you please have a short paragraph introducing the topic? This is one example where the viewer is guaranteed not to have any idea what is this all about unless clicking on the topic. In theory, if any of the two FTs would be TFAs, then this topic would be linked from there so some people might stumble on the topic page. Such an intro would also make clear how is the topic linked together. Check Wikipedia:Featured topics/Looking Glass Studios video games for an example. Nergaal (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tks Nergaal, no problem adding intro per the example you give -- should be able to do that later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Looks good! Nice job. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Looks good! Nice job. Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Tks Nergaal, no problem adding intro per the example you give -- should be able to do that later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. --十八 21:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)