Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-05/WikiProject report

Discuss this story

Great, just what we need, more warship articles to be featured on the main page — sigh. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's an interesting thought. I wonder how many warship-related articles have appeared on the main page in the last year? From WP:SHIPS, there are only five: Ironclad warship (12 April 2009), SMS Von der Tann (31 May 2009; anniversary of the Battle of Jutland), USS Connecticut (BB-18) (22 February 2009; centennial of the Great White Fleet's return), USS Nevada (BB-36) (7 December 2008; anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor) and USS New Jersey (BB-62) (15 October 2008). —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no obligation to read said articles, ya know. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as I go back and rewiew the main page articles for 2009 I see that the frequency of warship related articles has gone down in the 2nd half of the year, so perhaps my comment was unfair. However, from Jan-May (when I happened to be heavily involved in WP:TFAR) there was such an article on the main page nearly every month: SMS Von der Tann May 31, Ironclad April 12, USS Connecticut Feb 22, and SS Ohioan (a cargo ship most notable for its war time service) Jan 24. It was my memory of that stretch (when there was basically always a warship article up at TFAR) that provoked my off the cuff attempt at a humorous comment. The heavy representation (in my opinion somewhat over representation) of warship articles and military history articles in general on the main page is of course in no way adverse reflection on the wikipedia projects in those areas, which are obviously doing a good job. Rather I think it reflects poorly on our efforts in other areas of history, particularly that articles like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, César Chávez, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. have never been raised to featured status and thus never have been eligible for the main page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point with Ohioan, though it's certainly not a warship. ;-) My apologies if my comment came off as sarcastic—it was meant seriously, as I really had no idea how many had appeared as TFA. —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission granted to help articles outside the penumbra of MILHIST reach featured status. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see the this initiative upsets you, but in all fairness I hardly think that this was a constructive edit nor do I believe that you have assumed good faith in posting your comments here, Cashman. Simply because we are working on battleships for an FT nom does not mean that they will all appear on the main page. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fantastic project to be a part of. I would like to see more work on the Great Centenniary beginning, but I guess there is still plenty of time! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share similar views at User:Rusty Cashman. Shouldn't the report features other not-so prominent projects to attract participants? MILHIST can attract people easily without the assist of this report. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]