These ships are all linked by the expensive and ultimately inconsequential South American dreadnought naval arms race. All of the component articles are or will soon be featured (Agincourt has been promoted but is waiting on the bot run). Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really great work on these, Ed. What are you going to do now that they're all done? Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could get away with treating those topics as subtopics here; though I don't get the impression that this topic would be outside the remit of WP:OMT—after all, it's a bit more relevant than battleship (game) or Battleship (horse), which are included in Phase V of the project's scope. GRAPPLEX 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Grapple X and I don't think that any transnational topic necessarily requires the demise of any national topic. I have a draft topic for Battleships of the Russo-Japanese War at the bottom of my sandbox that I'm currently working on and it shouldn't affect any of the class articles/topics, if I decide to include them, at all as they could be considered sub-topics. And the topic article arguably belongs in OMT although we could argue exactly which phase it's most appropriate in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Grapple X here. An FT composed of sub FTs shouldn't disqualify either one for featured topic status. They can co-exist, after all nothing on Wikipedia says that that they can not. TomStar81 (Talk)
Grapple- Phase V would not be included in the eventual FT we're planning, which will go from battleships -> battleships of [country] (example) -> [ship] class battleship. :-) Sturm- SADR is in phase 3 right now.
I would not be agains having separate topics if this was about actually completed ships. But all the ships actually naturally with within the scope of the overview topic, and therefore don't need to exist separately. Nergaal (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of these ships were completed, albeit three for different countries (+one later sold back), and one as an aircraft carrier... Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. Yes, they were completed, but they were not actually used by the countries themselves and have no real relevance to the world outside the scope of this proposed topic. That's why I sait that they naturally fall in this super-category, and not in separate sub-categories. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my confusion, but the MG class and Rivadavia class were both used by their respective countries? Agincourt and one of the two Chilean ships weren't, but they would only be a part of this topic. MG and Rivadavia, on the other hand, have their own topics. What key information am I missing in your argument? :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. They reorganized their site and killed the Moreno link, but not the Rivadavia link... odd. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome work; no reason to oppose. TBrandley 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but remember to open a FTRC for the subtopics at the end to get some input from the community about the overlap. Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is complete and integrated. It covers an overview article on the US nickel, and the four types of nickels issued since 1866. All articles are FA. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you also.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a cool minority topic. We want more! Nergaal (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've got "Great Redesign of US Coins (1907–1921)" all done but the overview article, which is part-written.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definite support. The high-quality work we've come to expect. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work NapHit (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
