Talk:Fortress of Humaitá

Quadrilatero
Humaita and the quadrilatero are two diferent things. The article confunds them both. Eleutheure (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * True, it didn't clearly distinguish the Fortress of Humaitá proper and its landward defences the Cuadrilátero. I have now sought to improve this.

Merger proposal
I have proposed that the pages Siege of Humaitá and Passage of Humaitá be merged into this page. For discussion, see the talk page of Siege of Humaitá. In essence: it doesn't make too much sense to have three independent Articles about aspects of the same thing, especially since separating the topics makes it much harder to appreciate the difficulties faced by the attackers and defenders, respectively. Ttocserp 13:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it would make this article much too large and unwieldy if two separate military actions were included in this page. Maybe those two articles could be merged into one as they took place consecutively in the same war however this article should remain separate. Articles over 150k are usually broken up into smaller articles. Llammakey (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Llamakey, if you are really opposed to it I won't insist. But I see you have expertise on this.  I wonder whether you think the description of the two military endeavours re Humaitá (forcing the passage, and the siege) could be improved in the context of knowing what an amazing fortress this was (by the standards of the time and place, of course).  Would you like to cooperate? Ttocserp 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not my area of expertise. I can copyedit as I did this article and make suggestions, but adding info and the sourcing is outside my ability. The only reason I suggested what I did was because I didn't want to see you waste your time merging the articles. So far you've done a wonderful job on this article and I was afraid if you added the two military endeavours, the article would become oversized and then would get cut up. That's why I suggested merging the two battle articles in one. You can give an overview of this article in that one to demonstrate the issues the attackers faced, but at the same time you have to give weight to what the attackers were bringing. If you did that in the Fortress article, undue weight would be placed on the Fortress. Llammakey (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Llamakey, you've persuaded me. I think the two battle articles should be merged. Ttocserp 08:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Forcing the passage is a different event that happened in the timeline of the siege, and had effects on it. I think it's ok to leave them as separate articles as long as each one does not unnecessarily duplicate information. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of superfluous categories
I have deleted a lot of superfluous categories. They were grandfather categories. Wiki policy says not to have every grandfather category. Wiki policy says to diffuse to the lowest branch of the tree. That is now the position of the categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it off my talk page please. Regarding Category:International relations theory - can you find one article that has a war in it, a battle or a passage? No? That's because it's about the subject in general. To have it otherwise would clutter it with a lot of material that is tangential to the subject. Only material that is directly germane to the topic ought to be in the top level. Everything ought to find it's own place in the tree structure (i.e. the bottom-most logical leaf). And so for all the other categories that I deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)