Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/August 2010

Kaiser Friedrich III class battleships

Kaiser Friedrich III class battleships

6 articles

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa

These were Germany's second class of battleships, and the first class built under the naval expansion program initiated by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. The ships saw very limited service during World War I and were quickly decommissioned. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work. Ucucha 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one for SHIPS! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Righteous. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Gage (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Type IXA submarines

9 articles

U-37

U-38

U-39

U-40

U-41

U-42

U-43

U-44

Good Topic nomination. This topic covers all of the German Type IXA submarines including the class article itself. It has taken me several months to promote all of these articles to GA status and I hope that you all agree that it meets all of the criteria.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that the flag of the Kriegsmarine is a bit offensive to some so if anyone has an alternate image then feel free to add it in as a replacement.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work. Ucucha 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, File:U37 Lorient 1940.jpg may be the best image available if someone objects to the flag. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we really need the entire title for each of these articles? If we do, only the U-43 (for example) needs italics. I suggest just using the U numbers... -MBK₀₀₄ 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefatigable class battlecruisers

Indefatigable class battlecruisers

4 articles

HMS Indefatigable

HMAS Australia

HMS New Zealand

This is a good topic nomination of another class of British WWI battlecruisers, once of which was actually an Australian-owned ship. I've been waiting for the last article to reach GA for quite a while.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for another fine ships topic. Ucucha 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it will be most appropriate as well. Kyteto (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this obviously has legs to become a FT. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecruisers of Russia

4 articles

Borodino class

Kronshtadt class

Stalingrad class

A proposed good topic consisting of all three of the unfinished Russian battlecruisers classes. The lead list was just promoted and hasn't been processed by the bot as I write this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I don't think you should have links to "battlecruiser" in the FT box. Ucucha 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we don't used the template! <slap to forehead> Knew there was something I was forgetting. Thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be better to leave out the redundant word "battlecruiser" in the links for the classes? Also, shouldn't this be a GT instead of an FT nomination? Ucucha 17:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. It is a GT nom, they're named the same as candidates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You placed this under featured, not good, topic candidates, though. I've moved it to the correct location. Ucucha 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, thanks for fixing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Meets all criteria. Ucucha 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image issue - I do not believe it is permissible to use a non-free image as the main image of the topic (even with a FUR, I believe those are only valid for articles)). -MBK₀₀₄ 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no free-use images of any of these ships. Do we want to have no image at all?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think so. Fair-use images are never permitted outside of mainspace, and you'll probably get someone here removing it soon. Ucucha 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the image; the non-free image-use criteria are strict about namespace restrictions, I'm afraid. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP just added the naval ensign of the Soviet Union as the image. Considering that one of the three classes was Imperial Russian, that doesn't seem completely appropriate. Ucucha 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering two out of three were Soviet designs, I can see why. Both, though, would be best, if it were possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. That's not possible with the current template, though, unless you create an image that combines the Imperial and Soviet ensigns. Ucucha 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's what I figured, so I'm not going to get worked up about it. If some kind soul cares to combine them for me that'd be great, but I'm not going to take the time to figure out how to do one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 03:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buggie111 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Gage (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]