Talk:Battle of Red Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force

[edit] Merge proposal

It has been suggested that the Red Bank Battlefield article should be merged into this article. They cover the same topic, with only a few different pieces of information that could easily be merged. Truthanado (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. One is about the battle specifically, the other is about the historical site and current use. However, far be it for me to stop you. Be bold. dm (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, too. Antietam, for instance, has separate entries for the battlefield and the battle. The battlefield article could be expanded some, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's just a stub now, but I suspect if we move some of the current day details from the battle article into the battelfield article, it will improve both. dm (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Being bold, I am removing the suggestion to merge these articles. There is sufficient (and quick) consensus to support that decision. And, as pointed out, Antietam establishes valid precedent for two articles. Truthanado (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad it worked out amicably. More importantly, because you noticed the two articles, I've shuffled text around with both of them being better for it: the battle is more concise while the battlefield is fleshed out. Thanks! dm (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)