Talk:Action of 17 August 1779

Merge?
This article should be merged with Armada of 1779. Discuss. Shire Lord (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Why?


 * It is clearly obvious why. Shire Lord (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't see nothing obvious, whatever it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod D (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The action is part of this campaign, hence the suggestion of it being merged. Shire Lord (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Such a small action would not have more than a single line in such broad topic as its parent article. For its importance, there's certainly worse around. Uspzor (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Need more opinions & a consensus. Don't remove unless this is so. Shire Lord (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep it until someone agrees with you, you mean. Keep it forever then, I don't care. Uspzor (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it might stop some puppetry going on for sure. Shire Lord (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that Uspzor is right and there's no merge necessary. It would be hard fitting more than a sentence or two from this article into Armada of 1779 without seriously disrupting the prose quality of said article. Having this as a separate article therefore is the more correct option. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that because you are Uspzor (talk) and also the same person changing articles concerning the American Revolutionary war over to Anglo-French War? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No. I don't remember touching any article about the American Revolutionary war (except this one where I corrected some grammar) - please look at my actual edit history before claiming sock-puppetry or other such accusations. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, no merge then? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No merge. I'll remove the template. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)