Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Battlecruisers of Germany/archive1

Battlecruisers of Germany

Here's all of the battlecruisers ever built or planned by the German navies. This does not include the Scharnhorst class ships built before World War II. The reason they are not included is explained here. Note that the Derfflinger FT will need to be subsumed by this one. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - needs a book! rst20xx (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you clarify the difference between a battleship and a battlecruiser, ie why it's ambiguous as to which the Scharnhorst class belongs to? rst20xx (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to the book in the morning. As to the battleship/battlecruiser bit, battlecruisers are basically battleships that sacrifice either armor or main guns for speed, so they can act as scouts/cruiser killers/other specialized roles apart from battleships, which are basically designed to just fight other battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rst, the reason it is ambiguous is clearly stated in the note in Parsecboy's initial statement: "The two Scharnhorst class warships have been referred to as battlecruisers, especially in British works. The Kriegsmarine classified them as battleships, and a significant majority of scholarly works refer to them as such". That should be sufficient. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is up. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't format it like that. All article names must have one : preceding them. Any italics must be within a pipe eg like this. You need to take the templates out - rst20xx (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Out of curiosity, what's wrong with the {{SMS}} and {{sclass}} templates? Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - oh maybe they would have been ok actually, to be perfectly honest I didn't bother looking at them and just assumed that the italics in them would be outside any link, not inside a pipe - rst20xx (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I much prefer the layout of having class sub-topics and this be a topic of the classes and unique vessels instead. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support Looks perfectly fine and very organized. And sorry about the oppose. Buggie111 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose I might be a noob, but as I remember, SMS Mackensen, SMS Graf Spee, SMS Prinz Eitel Friedrich and SMS Fürst Bismarck (1915), four battlecruisers of the Mackensen class, should be a GA. They are redirects as of now. Buggie111 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are redirects because there is not enough individual information on each vessel to be able to sufficiently have enough for an individual article aside from the standard information that is reported in the class article. This oppose is spurious and should be struck since the proposed articles cannot meet the comprehensiveness requirements to meet the GA criteria. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seconded, see the histories of the now-redirected articles USS Philippines (CB-4), USS Puerto Rico (CB-5) and USS Samoa (CB-6); they were basically duplicates of information already in the class article. Mackensen etc. would be the same way. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although could the Seydlitz be moved to the third column so that Hindenberg can be with the rest of the Derfflinger's in column 2? Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, was bothering me too. --Pres N 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was that way to keep the topic in chronological order. Now it is disingenuous since Seydlitz came before the Derfflingers yet the topic box now suggests the opposite. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It may look worse, but I think it should be moved back - rst20xx (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've moved it back. Chronological order trumps aesthetics. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets the criteria. Congrats Parsec! We'll have to get the O class battlecruisers to FAC sometime. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - well done. I will merge the other topic into this one - rst20xx (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]