Talk:Battle of Red Bank

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)

HMS Augusta
This source: http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/info.php?ref=0252 indicates that the Augusta burned accidentally, as does the article on said vessel. The current draft of this article suggests it was intentionally fired by the Americans. I assume there is authority for the latter proposition? -- But | seriously | folks   05:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article on the ship itself lists four possible causes for the fire. I have not gone into the sources there but this article should be fixed.  MB  02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)