Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/October 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy

[edit]
edit | discuss
Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy
4 articles
HMS Unicorn
HMS Pioneer
HMS Perseus

This topic is comprised of the three aircraft maintenance carriers built for the Royal Navy during World War II, one purpose-built and two converted from Colossus-class light carriers. As far as I know, no other navy built or modified any of their carriers for this purpose, maintaining their aircraft either ashore or aboard their carriers between combat operations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - though wasn't Shinano intended to fulfill a similar purpose? Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the lead article of the topic is a list which starts with "This is a list..." seriously. We stopped doing this two or more years ago. I don't see many articles saying "This is an article...", so let's fix that up please. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead article is a list, so why was it ran through the GA process, not the FL one? Lists are usually explicitly excluded from being GA's. Courcelles 01:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because (as far as I know) its too short to go to FL. To go to FL list needs more entries. PMG (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's a list, but the powers that be deem it too short a list to qualify for FLC. Of course, they've been careful not to specify just how long is enough to qualify. Technically two items is a list, but they don't seem to care about that. I suspect that they worry about being inundated with lots of very short lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, one imagines that any list of two ought not to be considered one of Wikipedia's finest lists. Naturally "the powers that deem it too short" are mere humans trying to keep some level of consistency across Wikipedia. The lead article is certainly not a list in my opinion, it's a small "good article". "Of course, they've been careful not to specify just how long is enough to qualify" - try engaging with the community there if you actually want to improve things rather than make snipes from the sidelines. As I'm sure you're aware, FLC normally expects eight or nine entries, but it depends on the context. Asserting you could make a great list of "two" is a little churlish. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy and I have asked several time for a firm number as to what constitutes a list for FLC purposes, but never gotten a firm answer as the delegates have always said that "it depends". You, sir, are being disengenuous in your criticism. The community has refused to engage with us over this issue. If the delegates have a firm number in their minds, why then has it not been added to the criteria to forestall questions such as ours?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, asserting a list of "two" to be possible FLC content is nonsense. Once more, a "firm number" is impossible, as you're aware. "List of notable horses" may contain 50, "List of notable aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy" may contain 2. We can't arbitrarily expect the best from the latter. But hey, it's not my issue any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and " built a few aircraft" is really not what I expect to read in an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And you might be surprised to know that I actually mostly agree with you on the bottom end of what constitutes a FLC-worthy list, but I was making a rhetorical point. A list of 2 for FLC would be ridiculous, 3 ludicrous, 4 unlikely, 5 possibly, etc., IMO. But I still think that the FLC directors/delegates should actually say how many they think is necessary, with the caveat that they can adjust up or down as they think necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I said before (and in various other places), it's impossible to make a "one size fits all" minimum number of items for a list. I'm certain you understand this concept, and I'm glad I no longer have to continue to defend the concept, it's boring and lame to have to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Good_log/October_2013&oldid=1000210295"