The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of battleships. Redirect is the majority opinion, but I'm not sure it truly represents a consensus. It sounds like there's some restructuring going on of the various navigation tools related to warships, and this is part of that. If nothinge else, making it a redirect leaves the history intact, and if that future reorganization renders this redirect moot, it can be overridden by any editor as a normal part of routine editing process. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of battleships by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of battleships will follow the same format as List of battlecruisers, which renders this list redundant since the battlecruisers list is sectioned by country. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’m not sure that this article is redundant. It covers a different period to the other two articles mentioned in the nomination. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Broad Characterizations of time periods constitutes primary research. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of battleships. There are also various list articles for ships of the line Category:Lists of ships of the line which list the information about those types of ships in this list. So this list has no reason to exist. Dream Focus 23:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article is really a list of lists. At present for navigational purposes the article is not much help. But it does have potential to be rewritten in such a way. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ajf773 makes a good point. This is a useful list page for navigating to all the other ship articles. Dream Focus 01:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally if kept this should be renamed to Lists of battleships by country, the other option would be your redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Dream Focus in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect By "will follow the same format", do you mean that you will be working on List of battleships, @Kees08:? If the links to the country ship lists will be in that article, then this is redundant. At the moment it may be a valid navigation page, but with the same links from List of battleships, it shouldn't be controversial to merge. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought it up at Operation Majestic Titan because it is on their task list. It was indicated that the formats of List of battleships and List of battlecruisers would be the same. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that every link in this article is a link to a list article. That information is not at any other location mentioned. Dream Focus 11:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each section starts with it, for example Main article: List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy Kees08 (Talk) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also note that a list like List of battlecruisers by country would be entirely redundant to the nav template Template:Battlecruisers of the world. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - the list is really just a nav template, and is mostly redundant to Template:Battleships (apart from mashing together multiple different types of ships that aren't all "battleship" as we use the term today. It's at best, redundant, and at worst, misleading. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of battleships. Combination of needed WP:TNT to this article (which indeed covers non-battleships as well) + this being a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as List of battleships is already sortable by operator. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Icewhiz: this article links to List of ships of the line of Denmark, and the other lists articles, 33 total blue links. That is not found in the other article. If ships of the line aren't considered battleships, despite being ships made exclusively for battle and having guns, then the article can be renamed List of lists of military warships by nation. Dream Focus 13:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I must say that I am confused by the various "list of battleships" Wikipedia articles, and whether they overlap or not. This article is really "Lists of battleship types by country" (i.e. not only is it differenet countries, but also different types of battleships; which other "lists of battleships" are not always). To the extent that we don't have a master-dabpage or master-navbox linking to all the main articles of "battleship types" by "country", then this could be a candidate (however, the name would need to be fixed, and the format is also very poor, if not terrible)?.

HOWEVER, just to clarify, is Kees08, telling saying that an updated List of battleships article is going to include everything on List of battleships by country article, and thus it is not needed (or that between List of battleships and List of battlecruisers is will capture everything, in which case a seperate dab/navbox type-page is overkill)? Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just to clarify that I am very (very) sympathetic to editors like Kees08 with a record of bringing topic areas and lists to GA/FL status, and thus would like to understand properly their issue with this article, so that I am help them. Britishfinance (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking at the current Phase of OMT, and saw a list. I was clicking through them and this specific list stood out as redundant. Parsecboy knows the definition of battleship better than myself, perhaps the suggestion to rename it to List of lists of military warships by nation is okay. Though it would need a ton of work, and I am not a warship editor, so not sure what the viability of such a list of lists would be. In case you were wondering how I happened across it and why I nominated it (I rarely nominate for AfD). On your clarification point though, yes, that seems like a reasonable summary. There are other battleship editors I would ping for their opinion but I do not want to canvas, so I have not done that. I do not know if they would want to have it deleted or not, if that makes a difference. Kees08 (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks Kees08, that is helpful. I would ping the other battleship editors if you think their view is relevant (you are allowed to ping editors who you think should be notified on an AfD); we are looking for the right outcome here, so getting the most informed input is the best approach. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Do you have any thoughts on this AfD? Kees08 (Talk) 17:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.