| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Big Bethel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2024. |
Merge Into Battle of Big Bethel
editThis proposal is to merge Big Bethel order of battle into the Battle of Big Bethel article.
- Merge The Battle of Big Bethel is only 60k in size, which is not the biggest article size, i've seen. The merge would only increase by a small amount. scope_creep talk 12:38 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge Per scope creep. TinaG (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per above. — Mr. V (t – c) 00:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Merge what here? I don't see any obvious merge subject, and since merge tags appropriate to such a procedure seem to be missing both from this _target page and from the subject page, this merge proposal is defective in construction. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am reluctant to do more than comment as there is nothing to "vote" on. As BusterD says, this "proposal" is defective. Donner60 (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- With the further explanation of the proposal, and comments of opposing editors below, I definitely oppose the proposal. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The merge subject or more correctly article, is Big Bethel order of battle, where the merge/discuss tag has been placed. For some reason, the tag template is pointing back to this talk page, which seems curious, and getting folk confused or perhaps it's not been completed correctly misinforming the general public. I think it is worth merging it, since the size of the Order of Battle article is fairly small against the size of the Battle of Big Bethel, which at 60k is still fairly small(ish). Hope that helps. scope_creep talk 18:54 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Our general practice in ACW articles is to list the orders of battle as separate articles, particularly when they use the unique style of tables and abbreviations that this one does. There are many dozens of examples, although usually for battles much more significant than this one. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm changing to Oppose. It is an Order of Battle, which seem to be a separate concept from the battle itself. Seems to be a case, if there is a merge it will create a lot on unnecessary work in other articles. scope_creep talk 17:03 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I created the (till then not on wiki) order of battle article as per wikipedia custom an ACW OoB is existing independent from the respective battle article. It may be small but relevant; and everyone is free to dig deeper into the matter and, for example, go into the company level. ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Peirce
editYou say: ...Brigadier General Ebenezer W. Peirce, a Massachusetts militia general of apparent bravery but no military training or experience.
His own wiki page says: Peirce enlisted in the 4th Artillery, Massachusetts Volunteer Militia, in 1843, and continued his service up to and including the Civil War.
Can you clarify? Valetude (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)