The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

This is the list article to tie together all of the German battlecruiser articles. I've never written a list article before, so I wanted to get more feedback before I take it to WP:FLC. Thanks in advance to everyone who reviews the list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out the formatting of the tables so the headers are usual size font (MoS here), and the data lines up under the headings, dates might work better all centred. If space is and issue, reduce dates to just the year. fate could also fall under the "service" header.

A mention of the alternative designation of the various german Pocket battleships and heavy cruisers as battlecruisers should be made, eg some might expect to see Gneisenau here.

See also to other appropriate lists - eg the British battlecruisers, german battleships.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's also overlinking to be sorted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some fixes to the table (as have a couple of other editors); does that look better now? The pocket battleships were AFAIK never referred to as battlecruisers, and the Scharnhorst class is addressed here. I also added "see also" links as you suggested. Thanks for your help! Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are improved in terms of layout, but the overlinking remains.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I overlooked that. I've fixed in now. Thanks for reminding me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment - I'm glad to see that my suggestion for the image gallery was taken up, but I am unhappy with the number of images. The six are currently arranged with four on the top line and two on the bottom aligned to the left (at least that is how my browser displayed them). I am not sure if this is the general intention, but I believe that the gallery would be better with just four images, e.g. Von der Tann, Moltke or Goeben, Seydlitz, and a Derfflinger-class vessel. Having multiple images of the same vessel or of the same class seems to be a bit overkill for me, plus it borders slightly astray of the image gallery policies: going from illustrating the article with relevant images to that of being a repository of images. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note (I'll post full comments a bit later), my browser (Internet Explorer on a fairly wide screen) displays two rows of three images, and so looks balanced. No comment at the moment on the need for all of the images, except that they need alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed two images (the second Von der Tann and the one of Moltke); it's displaying as one row of four on my screen (though it's a fairly large screen). All of the images have alt text, but it doesn't seem to work with the gallery template. Is there a way to make it work? Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that is how it is now displaying for me as well. As to the alt text not displaying, I have no idea. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So apparently alt text doesn't work with the typical gallery formatting. See Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images#Galleries for the formatting you need to use to get the alt text to show properly. Hope this helps... Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, it looks like everything is working properly now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The note about Blücher was the only thing I would have came back with, but I see that you have already added it in. You now have my support as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an excellent, well presented, sourced and illustrated list. I just have three minor comments, however, but my support is not reliant on them:
  • I don't think we really need "battlecruisers" bolded in the lead. Unlike articles, lists seem to now have unbolded words/phrases in the lead.
  • The opening sentence in the lead is slightly confusing to me, and I think it needs a bit of a tweak. I am not entirely knowledgable in regards to the German Navy, so when I read the opening sentence it seems to me that perhaps the Kaiserliche Marine was a ship or class of ship, rather than the then German Navy.
  • There is a little inconsistency with both "First World War" and "Second World War" present, but also "World War I". Also, if this article going the British English route, just make sure everying is in the correct spelling.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I de-bolded the "battlecruisers" (see, I don't know that I'm doing :) Does taking away the italics on the "Kaiserliche Marine" make it less confusing? As for "First World War/World War I", I wasn't going for British English, I just thought it sounded better where I used it. While it's more commonly used in BE, us Yanks can use it too, right? Parsecboy (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All appears to be in order. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tom! Parsecboy (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support However, this bit in the lede looks very odd to me: German emperor Kaiser Wilhem since emperor and Kaiser mean the exact same thing, albeit in two different languages. One or the other is redundant, IMO. BTW, thanks for giving me a model to use for the British and Russian equivalents!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, who knows what I was thinking when I typed that... :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support Close to support as I think this is a very good article. However, before I do, can you ensure that SMS and HMS are used consistently - that is that they are either always used, always used at a first mention and dropped for subsequent uses (except in the tables, where it is either or), or that they are not used at all. At the moment there is a mix of styles and these have to be formatted consistently. Another point, although it is not essential to securing my support, is to consider including the information on the World War II ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the lead instead of/as well as in the note, as I was expecting to see mention of them and had to check a couple of times before I saw the footnote. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed them all except for the first mention of each. As for the Scharnhorst class, I'm not quite sure how to work it in. If you've got any ideas, go ahead and take a crack at it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add the footnote as it is to the end of the last paragraph of the lead - it would follow it quite nicely. However, this is up to you and I am not requiring it as a condition of my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Having read through the lead, examined references, looked at image licensing, etc, this article looks like a great A-class list. One minor comment, which doesn't change my support, is regarding the image caption "Von der Tann, seen at an unknown date". I'm not sure that the "seen at an unknown date" is necessary, as you don't have dates in any of the other image captions. Pointing a non-date out seems a little odd anyways, regardless of other image captions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking all through that. I removed the "unknown date" bit, as it is a little odd. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.