Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Rivadavia-class battleships/archive1

Rivadavia-class battleships

Nominating per Negaal's comments

. I personally think that having a topic composed of subtopics isn't against the spirit of FT, but community consensus could be against me.

This will also serve as an FTRC for

]

• Comment
  Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If there was a Battleships of Argentina FT, then I would agree with a removal. However, given that Rivadavia was the only class they built, having its own topic seems okay to me. Same applies to the other FT, unless I can't read then that was the only battleship class Brazil built. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct – they started a third ship but sold it. I suppose there could be a Battleships of Brazil article based on that, but realistically all of that content is already in
    [majestic titan] 22:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I'm for keeping this one; to me it serves a completely different purpose than the topic that it overlaps with. This, along with 99% of the ship topics, is an index of a particular class much in the manner of a list-class article. It allows an editor to see the other, similar articles to the one they've just read; or to browse topic-by-topic like an overview of classes. The dreadnaught race is more like chapters of a narrative, showing the development, stage by stage/ship by ship, of a relatively confined and exhaustive arms race. This would be like the difference between a topic listing, say, all of the nuclear warhead types, and another detailing just the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan—one is a dry index; one is a narrative. I know this sounds bizarre but I think it's beneficial to readers to have both of these retained. GRAPPLE X 04:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing, topic kept. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]