207:
all since 1890 or so and not even counting the 10,000+ destroyer escorts, corvettes, torpedo boats, and patrol craft. Couple hundred ironclads, plus lots and lots of early steam warships, plus thousands of sailing warships. And that commissioned for the duration 20-meter yacht, you bet, provided, of course, that you can actually find some info on it. Which, of course, is the real issue since so much documentation hasn't survived.
121:
109:
93:
81:
51:
72:
192:
commissioning mean in laymen's terms? Is a 20 meter personal yacht commissioned and therefore notable? If not, about how many ships have there been commissioned worldwide? I almost want to say that having the bar set so low would be equivalent to having an article on every chemical that is commercially available from the large chemical companies (which would be in the 10k's).
154:
I have a serious question: why do these ships deserve their own separate articles? I am no naval expert, but most of these ships don't seem to have a large impact, so I am pretty sure most of the information in the subarticles can actually be condensed into the class article. Also, the table in the
206:
Oh, I think that we got them chemists beat hands down, especially once you get into the merchant shipping. Just in warships alone, lessee, 530 battleships and battlecruisers, not much less in the number of aircraft and seaplane carriers, probably 2,000 cruisers, 5,000 destroyers, 4,000 submarines,
210:
Somebody bothered to transcribe a bunch of DANFS entries for the ad hoc patrol ships that the US commissioned during WWI. Personally, I thought that was a waste of time, but what the hell; it's not like there's a limited amount of room on the servers. Practically speaking, the lack of info on the
191:
Don't get me wrong. I love ship topics, and I was the first one to nominate ship topics to GTC a long time ago. My issue is how low is the bar set for a ship. As an outsider, monitors seems to be a relatively obscure class of ships (not like say submarines). A good question would be what does
274:
It is hard for me to support a topic with articles that I am not convinced merit being separate from the lead. It would help if a link were to be provided showing where did a consensus come to decide that monitors or ships of similar obscurity and/or sizes merit their own article.
308:
290:
40:
44:
17:
403:
is one of the most famous ships of all time, and the type was a mainstay of naval forces from 1862 through World War I (and, for the
British, World War II). -
233:
vessel has been accepted for service by a national military force. Although the term "commissioning" is sometimes used in regard to large merchantmen,
512:
498:
481:
462:
441:
423:
414:
320:
302:
284:
267:
248:
224:
201:
186:
164:
148:
371:. As an aside, while I'm sure that your viewpoint of the topic is a result of your not being familiar with warships (despite, as noted, this
23:
363:
standard by any means, it has been demonstrated over a long period of time that the vast majority of ships above that line
211:
little boys will limit article creation. If you want to argue for a higher bar, feel free to make your case over at
437:- the proposed topic meets the criteria, and the articles are clearly notable enough (IMHO) for separate articles.
340:
475:
408:
242:
177:
holds that any commissioned warship is inherently notable. You may not like it, but consensus is against you.--
229:
A "20 meter personal yacht" is never commissioned - in layman's terms "commissioning" is the point at which a
298:
220:
182:
144:
54:
395:"obscure" ship type to most American readers, whereas it's quite widespread in the rest of the world), and
169:
Good catch on the lack of table links. Haven't we had this conversation before? The individual ships meet
331:" are notable through being commissioned and should have standalone articles is by long-term consensus,
328:
419:
Well, that's a bit too broad a brush, unless you think dreadnoughts and cruisers were monitors... ;-)
507:
262:
124:
112:
84:
450:
494:
471:
458:
404:
359:' scope is a length of 100 feet (30 m) and/or a displacement of over 100 tons - while this isn't a
316:
238:
96:
294:
216:
178:
140:
396:
356:
348:
336:
212:
174:
280:
237:(and in the sense that it applies to notability) it is only applicable to military vessels. -
197:
160:
136:
60:
470:- Clears all notability policies and guidelines, meets the Good Topic criteria, nice work. -
384:
379:), stating that monitors are "obscure" compared to other types of ships is both heading into
355:
vessels (like the aforementioned yacht) don't pass that bar - the standard for inclusion in
380:
376:
344:
332:
170:
490:
454:
312:
438:
420:
276:
193:
156:
351:) notable by virtue of being a commissioned vessel of a national military force.
400:
309:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured topic candidates/John
Ericsson class monitors/archive1
71:
261:
This is gonna need some
Supports or Opposes. Really looks stalled right now.
289:
You made the exact same point three years ago, but nobody agreed with you.
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured topic candidates/Milwaukee-class monitor/archive1
388:
489:- just because a topic is "obscure" doesn't mean that it isn't notable.
291:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured topic candidates/Pará class monitors/archive1
367:
prove notable, while the vast majority of ships below that line will
347:- a commissioned military vessel, assuming GNG/RS can be passed, is (
343:, and also through long-standing consensus through results at
449:- these articles clearly surpass the bars at both GNG and
372:
135:
I'm nominating this group of articles on a class of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured and good topic candidates
155:main article does not link the ships themselves.
504:Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic
307:Curiously, Nergaal had no reservations about
8:
7:
120:
108:
92:
80:
50:
373:having been explained to you before
327:The consensus that ships of this "
31:
139:because they meet the criteria.--
119:
107:
91:
79:
70:
49:
453:. Great work as usual, Sturm.
1:
397:doesn't reflect their history
377:must have slipped your mind
339:. The consensus is through
529:
387:territory (after all, the
513:15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
499:15:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
482:13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
463:10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
442:03:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
424:16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
415:13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
341:standard editing practice
321:10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
303:03:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
285:03:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
268:00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
249:13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
187:01:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
165:01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
149:18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
225:05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
202:04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
375:, it's been awhile and
34:Milwaukee-class monitor
22:(Redirected from
520:
510:
478:
411:
265:
245:
123:
122:
111:
110:
95:
94:
83:
82:
74:
53:
52:
27:
528:
527:
523:
522:
521:
519:
518:
517:
508:
480:
476:
413:
409:
401:type's namesake
263:
247:
243:
133:
132:
131:
103:
75:
67:
66:
63:
47:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
526:
524:
516:
515:
501:
484:
474:
472:The Bushranger
465:
444:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
407:
405:The Bushranger
325:
324:
323:
271:
270:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
241:
239:The Bushranger
227:
208:
130:
129:
117:
104:
102:
101:
89:
76:
69:
68:
64:
48:
39:
38:
37:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
525:
514:
511:
505:
502:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
483:
479:
477:One ping only
473:
469:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
443:
440:
436:
433:
432:
425:
422:
418:
417:
416:
412:
410:One ping only
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:and always is
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
295:Sturmvogel 66
292:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
269:
266:
260:
259:
250:
246:
244:One ping only
240:
236:
235:sensu stricto
232:
228:
226:
222:
218:
217:Sturmvogel 66
214:
209:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
190:
189:
188:
184:
180:
179:Sturmvogel 66
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
162:
158:
153:
152:
151:
150:
146:
142:
141:Sturmvogel 66
138:
128:
127:
118:
116:
115:
106:
105:
100:
99:
90:
88:
87:
78:
77:
73:
62:
59:
57:
46:
42:
33:
25:
19:
503:
486:
467:
446:
434:
392:
391:would be an
368:
364:
360:
352:
234:
230:
134:
125:
113:
97:
85:
55:
509:GamerPro64
451:WP:MILUNIT
361:notability
264:GamerPro64
65:5 articles
491:Gatoclass
455:Parsecboy
393:extremely
329:obscurity
313:Parsecboy
126:Winnebago
114:Milwaukee
86:Chickasaw
56:Milwaukee
389:corvette
357:WP:SHIPS
353:Civilian
337:WP:SHIPS
231:military
213:WP:SHIPS
175:WP:SHIPS
137:monitors
98:Kickapoo
487:Support
468:Support
447:Support
435:Support
385:WP:BIAS
277:Nergaal
194:Nergaal
157:Nergaal
61:monitor
45:discuss
399:; the
381:WP:POV
345:WP:AFD
335:, and
333:WP:GNG
171:WP:GNG
58:-class
16:<
495:talk
459:talk
365:will
317:talk
299:talk
281:talk
221:talk
198:talk
183:talk
173:and
161:talk
145:talk
41:edit
369:not
215:.--
506:-
497:)
461:)
439:Ed
421:Ed
319:)
311:.
301:)
293:--
283:)
223:)
200:)
185:)
163:)
147:)
43:|
493:(
457:(
383:/
315:(
297:(
279:(
219:(
196:(
181:(
159:(
143:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
