Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Atlantic campaign of May 1794/addition1
Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Atlantic campaign of May 1794 for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
5 articles
Hi, this is a fairly minor engagement that formed a small part of the overall campaign that needs to be added to the topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support - nice stuff, straightforward - rst20xx (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support -MBK004 05:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support Zginder 2010-04-03T15:39Z (UTC)
- Comments - erm, does Action of 7 May 1794 also need adding? Also I realise the articles in this topic need a navbox on their pages - rst20xx (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support, but shouldn't they all be linked together by a template or something? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the support. I have an issue with a campaign box, which is that the frigate action(s) were of vastly smaller importance to the campaign than the larger fleet engagement and I'm not sure how to effectively represent this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ehh, I think it's fine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I still think you should make one. The point of such a template is to aid navigation for the reader. The fact that there is an article on the order of battle at the Glorious First of June tells me that the Glorious First of June is more important than the unnamed actions, and this will be visible in the navbox. Also, should Action of 7 May 1794 be added? rst20xx (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Still not convinced, but I'll have a go - perhaps I'll put the inconsequential actions in a smaller typeface. I suppose that the 7 May action should be included - it was very minor in comparision with the principal battle, and unlike the present nomination it has never to my knowledge been explicitly considered part of the campaign as such, but the ships involved were participating at the periferaries of the campaign at the time of the action. Should I just add it to this nomination?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead! :) rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Still not convinced, but I'll have a go - perhaps I'll put the inconsequential actions in a smaller typeface. I suppose that the 7 May action should be included - it was very minor in comparision with the principal battle, and unlike the present nomination it has never to my knowledge been explicitly considered part of the campaign as such, but the ships involved were participating at the periferaries of the campaign at the time of the action. Should I just add it to this nomination?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I still think you should make one. The point of such a template is to aid navigation for the reader. The fact that there is an article on the order of battle at the Glorious First of June tells me that the Glorious First of June is more important than the unnamed actions, and this will be visible in the navbox. Also, should Action of 7 May 1794 be added? rst20xx (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ehh, I think it's fine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the support. I have an issue with a campaign box, which is that the frigate action(s) were of vastly smaller importance to the campaign than the larger fleet engagement and I'm not sure how to effectively represent this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and added in the article for Jackyd, but you need to remember that on 1 September all topics that are not 50% featured will be demoted to Good topics, and with these two GAs being added, you will need one more FA by that time to keep this featured. -MBK004 05:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- That almost certainly isn't going to happen, so I guess this will have to be demoted. I've put together a template and added to the articles now (this nomination is a lot less straightforward than I was assured it would be).--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I thought it'd be more straightforward, though to be frank I don't think the complications made this sup nom any less necessary - rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --Jackyd101 (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I thought it'd be more straightforward, though to be frank I don't think the complications made this sup nom any less necessary - rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)