Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1

• "The classic example is the Battle of the Falkland Islands ..." this is the "classic example" according to whom?
  • Sturm, I'm guessing "According to historian X, the classic example ..." or "In the Battle of ..." would work for the Rambling Man, and I think he's right ... opinions should be attributed. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Lemme see if I can find an attribution.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed it to best rather than classic. The existing cite suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Best according to "Robert Gardiner"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who is insufficiently notable to not even have an article? Forgive my ignorance, but you're saying that one guy (who is "non-notable" per Wikipedia) is the sole source for the "best" example here. Just seems a little incongruous to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sturm, many Wikipedians think a statement like this represents an opinion that needs to be attributed in the text, and some want the attribution to an expert, at least at the FAC or FLC level. Rambling Man, I haven't read a tenth the books that Sturm has, but even from my reading, I know that he's representing this accurately; everyone who writes on the subject thinks of this battle as paradigmatic. It wouldn't be going too far to say it's common knowledge among naval historians. What's the best way to represent this in the text without going into a winding digression along the lines of, "X [list of credentials] calls it this, Y [list of credentials] calls it this", etc.? - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most people quoted in Wikipedia lack an article. Has nothing to do with notability per se. He's a published author, nothing incongruous about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're saying that "in one man's opinion" this is the "best" example. What makes his opinion so important? Are there any other sources which back up the "best example" claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Puzzled>A consensus is not needed and never has been on Wiki. Don't need anybody else's opinion; one man's published opinion suffices since it conforms to WP:V and WP:RS.

Just curious how one man's opinion (a man who isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article) counts as absolute. I'm only asking if anyone else in the world shares his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dank already explained the consensus position above. Although, again, such consensus wouldn't be needed to justify any superlative. Only takes one author's opinion to support provided it meets V and RS.

What's the fundamental point that you're trying to make here? I'm perfectly willing to add an additional cite duplicating the existing one at the end of the paragraph to further clarify that this is Gardiner's position, though that seems an unnecessary duplication to me, but what are you looking for? You seem to care quite a bit that nobody's written an article on Gardiner, although that has absolutely no bearing on any notability he may have, and that some sort of consensus is needed to justify the superlative of best, when, in fact, nothing like that is necessary, nor has it ever been. You've made a number of other worthwhile comments that have improved the article, but I'm wondering what the issue here is since we seem to be talking past each other?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point, I guess, is that you're saying definitively that the "best example" of something is based on one guy's opinion. That's all. It may be me but when I make such claims, I tend to use at least two, preferably more sources to back it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary by Wiki standards, but fair enough. I only add multiple cites when I have two or more sources that disagree; an explanatory note is advisable, rather than just picking one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm, different Wikipedians have different standards on this. Whether and how WP:PEACOCK applies depends on whether the statement feels like "This is the greatest!", and that's going to vary depending on the reader and the material. WP:PEACOCK is just a short section in WP:WORDS now; well worth re-reading. Bottom line: when you can find a snappy way to do it, "show, don't tell" (and then if the reader draws the conclusion themselves that it's the paradigmatic battle, that's fine). Sometimes you really want to get across that something was the "best" of something, but it's complicated and there isn't a reasonably quick way to lay out the facts so that the reader can put that together for themselves, and in those cases, quote marks and attribution to someone or something the reader can recognize may be appropriate. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What's "flash protection"?
  • Going from memory, the issue was protection of the ammunition magazines, but Sturm is the expert here. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Explained, how does it read?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "a speed of 25 knots" do you mean a "top speed"?
  • I don't remember having seen this point in style guides but I'll keep an eye out for it. In a list of cars, if someone writes that a car has a certain turning radius, would you object that it should be "maximum "minimum turning radius"? Consider another sentence from this article: "... sacrificed armour protection and one gun turret from the main battery for a 4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) speed advantage." Just a personal preference, but "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage" seems too involved, and rewording seems too verbose. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what I mean to say is that the cruisers did not always travel at 25 knots, their top speed, however, was 25 knows. And perhaps instead of "advantage" it should be "increase in top speed". And I'm not surprised it's not in style guides. It is, after all, just a point of description, not a rule of grammar. And in car lists, I'd find a list of maximum turning radii to be a very odd thing to list. Perhaps minimum...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, struck "maximum". My point is, do you like "4-knot (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph) top-speed advantage", and if not, where do we draw the line on omitting "top"? Btw while I've got you ... great copyediting instincts, please weigh in on our articles any time! - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I like the alternative I suggested (i.e. "increase in top speed"), but it's difficult to draw a line in something so qualititative... (as for copyediting, just ask!). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done, and I will. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've reverted to the original phrase as I think it is perfectly clear that top speed is being judged. Who wouldn't understand that if my car has speed advantage over somebody else's it refers to maximum speed?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It wasn't just the "advantage", it was all mentions of speed which actually should be top speeds. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The key specifies top speeds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The prose before the lead doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I didn't mind Rambling Man's request for more exact phrasing in a couple of places, it does no harm and maybe it's a little clearer. This current edition of Chicago is great and it wouldn't surprise me if I stumble across this issue in the next month. But I never see the extra words Rambling Man is asking for in a long list of technical specifications. I have a Nissan Altima with a 150-horsepower engine and a 12-volt battery that deliver an acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 10 seconds. I've never seen anyone describe that as a maximum of 150 horsepower or 12 volts or a maximum acceleration; that goes without saying. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I bet somewhere you have a mention of the "top speed" of the vehicle though. I'm not asking for maximum or top horsepower, but you must concede that cars have "top speeds" in specifications, not just "speed". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The top speed is mentioned in the key, with all the other stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The prose before the key doesn't (i.e. my original point). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I don't feel that it needs to be explicated; it's not hard to understand what is meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • So adding the word "top" in the prose before the key is not possible? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are possible, but I don't see a need and it detracts from the prose, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how making things clearer and more accessible to non-experts and less ambiguous can be a bad thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just a style thing because I don't see it as ambiguous at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style? But you have top speed in the tables.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it doesn't mess with the flow of the text in that position.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by now it's clear that you're not going to budge, which is a shame. Good work besides. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "again appointed" you didn't mention he had been appointed to this position beforehand.
  • Changed to "for the second time". - Dank (push to talk)
• Worth explaining what a "magazine" is in the context of a "magazine explosion".
  • Linked, and changed to "artillery magazine". - Dank (push to talk)
• "They spent most of the war" previous sentence ends by talking about just one ship, so this is mildly confusing.
  • Nice catch ... but I think the thing that makes it mildly confusing is that the wrong sentence is first in the paragraph, and I fixed that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Is it World War I or First World War? I'd prefer the latter, but whichever, be consistent.
  • We lean towards "First World War" in BritEng articles, and there was only one "World War I", so that was the one I changed. I recently found out that WP:AWB automatically checked for duplicate links, and I'm trying to find someone to use it on our FAC and FLC articles, it would have caught this ... anyone? - Dank (push to talk)
• Sometimes you hyphenate e.g. Lion-class battlecruisers, sometimes you don't, e.g. Admiral class battlecruisers. Is there a reason?
  • Caught the two we missed. There's a recent policy change in WP:TITLE, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text", and I'm wondering if, by analogy, we also want to use hyphens in titles when they'd be used in running text ... I think the mistakes here came from copying the article title. - Dank (push to talk)
• "sinking her within five minutes of opening fire" of who opening fire?
  • Reworded. - Dank (push to talk)
• Ref 39, for consistency should be 172–73.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from my concern at a number of apparent "drive-by supporters" I have some concern with the table coding.

• In G3 Battlecruiser I get text wrapping in some odd places (indicated by [br]: "53,909 long tons (54,774[br]t)" and "4 screws, steam turbines, 31 kn (57 [br] km/h; 36 mph)". Some consideration of &nbsp and forced breaks is probably needed. I realise alot of these come from convert templates which should have it hardoded in so...
• Your width forcing is causing problems. Seem to be random collection of 98% and 100%. Isn't the point of percentages that they add up to 100? In some places it is causing (well I'm pretty sure it's that) some randomness.
  • I've deleted all forced widths, I think that the tables will display a little better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In "Indefatigable class" I think rowspans might be causing the absence of a bottom border
  • They're definitely not the cause, although I haven't been able to figure out the problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turns out you were half right. The rowspans were set to three when they should have been two. All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean me? If so, see WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy and the edit history. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I was think more of some of the other people who haven't edited the page or participated in that Assessment. But I do admit I was at fault for glossing over "MilHist ACR" in the nominators rationale because I didn't understand what it meant. In future, some reviewers (well I can only speak for one, me) may find it useful to have a link to any peer or WikProject A-class reviews in the rationale. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to revisit this but I'm still concerned about visual appeal of the tables with unwanted wrapping (screenshot of what I mean to the right). I think this it quite ungainly. Can't find anything in the Convert template stuff that might cause this, or how I can fix it. Could |disp=table be utilised, seehere. I'm interested what other people think as it just frustrates me when things don't display right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a function of screen width. They display properly if I change my window size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuanately it is not just "a function of screen width". I mocked up some tables on the talk page, see here for what I mean. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spending time on this. My understanding is that we're required to follow the manual of style here. WP:MOSNUM (at WP:MOSCONVERSIONS) recommends the {{convert}} template, and WP:TABLE doesn't make an exception for tables. I have to admit that I have no idea what's customary at FLC, but I'm leery of having an unwritten set of style guidelines that differs from custom at FAC and from the Manual of Style. Would you like to argue your case at WP:TABLE or WP:MOSNUM? - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the MOS doesn't recommend {{Convert}}, it says "Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units". However, let's not get into arguing semantics. I recognise Convert is a highly used template, but it is obviously not functioning optimally. My examples are just copying the text from Convert and putting in a few nbsp's (a simple fix if it wasn't for all the coding). Now I think Convert puts in nbsp's, however if it puts them in everywhere it has the same effect as having none at all. I realise this is unlikely to make or break the candidacy but it is clearly an issue (one which I think you have now seen for yourself) and should be addressed – moreover, it likely affects hundreds of articles. My problem there is that the Convert templates have coding that is incredibly hard to follow for us meer mortals. Any idea who would be the code person to go to with this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant thread has just been opened at Template_talk:Convert#.26_nbsp.3B. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say that I'm not very inclined to hand-code a table; too much work for too little return. I may go in and delete all the subsequent conversions as they're not needed and see how how that displays, but that's about the limit I'm willing to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems there is an easy fix (according to thread linked above) which is using abbr=mos instead of abbr=on for the short units. While you are there can you also check the vertical alignment of text in all the tables. There is a random mixture of top and centre present. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half there. I hope you agree that this does make a difference. There are some tables that jump out at me as still needed. Queen Mary, Courageous (displacement) and G3 {the earlier columns). Perhaps there are a couple more. Also

Sorry, they look fine at my screen width.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is what I required. Feel free to revert if you think it is wrong, but I see no problems with it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seperate concern: "8 × 13.5 inches" (Lion) is fine but "8 × 13.5-inch" (QM) is not in my opinion. You'd have a thirteen-inch but not a thirteen-point-five-inch which is how it reads. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All guns are now x-inches with a manual conversion. Turns out that the abbr=mos is incompatible with the adjectival form.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit more consistency please. I assume you are not converting on second/third appearance etc. Personally I would, but regardless of that it needs to be consistent. Currently 6" converts in Renown even though it has been converted in Invincible class. Double check this hasn't happened elsewhere too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]