# Talk:Aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy

This list is too short to be considered for WP:FLC, according to the delegates, and thus I bring it here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this article (having been identified as not really being a list), be moved to the subject title. As present it is coming up in Category:Military history lists incorrectly assessed as articles. Kirill has suggested move it to avoid confusion. Thoughts? Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Since there haven't been any objections, can we go ahead and move the article to the new title? Kirill [talk] 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You can see that I started a GAR. (The history confused me. I thought it was a non-list article that had been converted to a list.) If we can rename this article, as suggested, the GAR will be a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Recommend you try again.  – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:List of aircraft maintenance carriers of the Royal Navy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
As a list article, it does not qualify under WP:GA?. Seems that it did qualify as an article about aircraft maint carriers, but was renamed.  It is included in the good topic WP:GT listing, but that criteria requires featured list assessment for all list articles in the topic. I recommend removing this article from the GA listing and starting up a WP:FL? assessment.  – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you not see my note about it being rejected by the FLC delegates as too short?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) 
Sorry if I've created some confusion. To restate my concern: If the article is a list, then it cannot be GA. To keep it as part of the Good Topic realm, it needs to be a Featured List (or a GA). So if it is too short for a list, then it needs to be renamed as an article and keep the list designation off of it. I have no qualms about the renaming to an article type name (v. list). And if renamed I would withdraw this GAR.  – S. Rich (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A move/renaming of the article has been requested. Once accomplished, I think we can close this GAR as moot.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 I withdraw my nomination  As the article has been remained, dropping the "List", this criteria for GA is resolved. Delisting.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to renaming it, but some admin will have to do it as there was an earlier attempt to do so according to the move log.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)