Talk:Melee

modern usages of melee
The problem with this article is that it does not include the BY FAR most common usage of melee, which is a noun for a disorganized struggle where there never was any idea of discipline, like a barroom brawl or shoppers christmas shopping. The article focuses on a "can-be-a-verb" form such as a military usage where troops go from being disciplined to undisciplined, or online gaming where players melee. OK, these are fine usages. But usually you will see in an ordinary newspaper that a melee broke out in ordinary life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things

 * First, melee combat is not always "disorganized". Whoever wrote that is biased to some degree. Sometimes orginization can be used to create efficiency.
 * Two, how do you pronouce it? I've always heard it
 * May-lay
 * but the title suggest's it's
 * Me-lé
 * Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * but the title suggest's it's
 * Me-lé
 * Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I always try to use a French pronunciation, something like. Even for Mêlée Island&trade;, never mind what the Voodoo Lady says. :-)&mdash;Dah31 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always heard it as "May-lay," and alternatively spelled simply melee without accented marks. And I agree, saying that melee is "disorganized" or "confused" is biased. IronCrow 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there IPA pronunciation at the top and "may-lay" separately in the gaming section? The one in the gaming section helps people like me who don't know IPA, but shouldn't it be at the top? Ian01 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The circumflex accent over the first e implies a longer e (as in "met"), the pair of "e"s with the acute accent over the first implies something similar to "ley" (or "lay", if you must, but I'd argue that "lay" implies a wider "a"-sound and stronger dipthong which would not be present in the original). Of course, the bastardised anglicised accent-free version could be pronounced however one wished, as it is arguably a new word - c.f "role" vs. "rôle" (not to mention tomato/tomato, etc.). However, in my non-gaming experience, the non-accented version would still be "meh-ley" - it depends on whether you think correctness is a democratic process or not. Clearly though, if the non-IPA pronunciation is moved to the top, surely it should represent the same thing, which currently it doesn't... ( or a note should be made pointing out that one is the "classical" pronunciation and the other a modern adoption).

The upshot is - if you are saying it out loud it depends on which spelling you are thinking of when you say it :-) Fizzybrain (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab
at editing the first part of this article. While an excellent effort, it appeared that the author was writing it more from a gaming perspective. I left the 2nd half - on mêlée in gaming terms - alone as I have little experience with it.

To my thinking, the key in defining a mêlée is that any kind of plan to fight as a unit has gone out the window and the fighting has degenerated into a mass of single combats. I've attempted to say that a little better in the article. Anyone who can neaten it up is welcome to.

I removed the 'weapons used in a mêlée' as, again, they appeared to refer to gaming terms only as a group of tanks fighting in a mêlée aren't going to be using swords.

Removed Mano-a-mano reference as the phrase means more like 'one on on.' While the direct translation is 'hand to hand', it is a colloquialism in Spanish that is closer to the English phrase 'one-on-one' or 'single combat'. As a mêlée involves a group, it doesn't really apply. --63.89.65.98 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I did the edit and the above without being signed in. Ooops --Lepeu1999 13:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Melee (with no accents)
The article implies the term w/o accents is used to refer to specific (copyrighted) games and companies. The actual reality is that, like most accented works, "melee" is commonly used in English with no accents at all, and that the use of the term w/ accents is at all usual and certain not unusual enough to distinguish it for specific meanings. While is it right and proper for an encyclopedic entity like Wikipedia to use the proper accented form, it should be noted that that general society is not nearly so observant in the use of accents. Pimlottc 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. No one in the incredibly lazy gaming world uses "mêlée attacks" to describe non-ranged attacks in games. --Raijinili 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is so right and proper. As an English word, "melee" has no accent marks.  See this.  --Doradus 03:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also, this should be under the English word. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are saying the article is supposed to reflect laziness-caused misspellings, rather than getting things right? -- Stormwatch (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they're saying that this is English-wikipedia and there are no accents in English words, so why should the article reflect otherwise. --Novaprospekt (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't real life melee! ...
Actually it is, the gaming isn't real life - it's a game. I've made a minor adjustment to the article to reflect that. --Lepeu1999 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just about gaming. This needs to have info on melee weapons, when and how melee fights were fought, etc etc. Weapon info on the sword, axe, etc from a real-life perspection need to be added, because right now this is about gaming melee, which is not what I expected for a topic on melee... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.68.139.150 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Two sides - Free-for-all
I know only about gaming, and this teached me a lot about a real melee, BUT... Dunno if it is only in gaming...

divided into two sides, fighting in a free-for-all

Everytime I see (in games) free-for-all it is translated as 'everyone for himself', meaning there are no teams, each one trying to kill everyone else to survive, having no friends nor enemies... Divided by two sides is obviously teaming... Unless they start up at two sides but not as teams thus making the two groups melee in themselves and then engaging the survivors of the other group or something like that or that it is not free-for-all as I understand (seeking the last man standing)... So I got really confused... Or maybe it's jsut missing an OR... I have no idea... 201.72.158.157 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * that quote was from the part of the article dealing with the Melee in a midieval tournament and its use in that context differs slightly from its current use as well as its current 'gaming' use. Midieval tournament melee might have been a free-for-all last man standing wins event or it may have been a team event - it depended on who was organizing the tournament.--Lepeu1999 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Surname "Melee"
Melee is a surname originating from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. No consensus that other uses challenge this one as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

– With the several newer usages of the term "melee" in recent times, the primary usage could arguably be the target of the redirect Melee (tournament) or article Melee (gaming) (which seems like a subject that was spun off from the aforementioned redirect.) However, given the historical significance of the currently-established primary topic, the best option would be to move the disambiguation page to the ambiguous title, establishing the lack of a primary topic, so readers can determine which topic they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Melee → Melee (warfare)
 * Melee (disambiguation) → Melee
 * Oppose – This is the primary topic. The present arrangement suffices. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two of the subjects on the disambiguation page which could be referred to simply as "melee" have either equal or more views than the currently-established primary topic. The disambiguation page only gets 1/10 the views of the current primary topic, but Melee weapon gets about the same amount as the current primary topic, and Super Smash Bros. Melee gets about 5-6 times the amount of views as the currently-established primary topic. (With that reasoning, I could argue that the the term should redirect to the aforementioned video game subject's article, but since video games aren't famous worldwide, I wouldn't even support it being the primary, but the fact that it gets so many views essentially invalidates the current primary.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Page views are irrelevant. Only historical significance and origin matter. This is the primary and original topic. The others are fripperies. Would the video be called just "melee"? No, it would not. Would a "melee weapon" be called just "melee"? No, it would not. The primary topic of the word is this meaning. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, the word should have precedence over other terms. However, the word seems to now have multiple accepted meanings, more meanings than covered by the current primary topic. Steel1943  (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is the primary topic. -- Calidum  20:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would appreciate an explanation of how the current primary topic (as a word) has a greater significance than any of the more recently-established meanings of the word "melee" ... because I'm not seeing it. Given the significance of the aforementioned related topics that refer to different meanings of the word other than the primary topic, how the current primary topic is the primary topic is beyond my understanding. Also, above, there is a comment that historical significance and origin matter; if that is the case overall, then (for example) Tangled's primary topic would probably be different. And, in this case, the "historical" meaning of the word seems archaic now to a point where its notability is not equal to more recently-established meanings. Steel1943  (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The video game pushes it over the line, especially considering how pitiful this article is. Red Slash 01:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the primary topic. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing how flash-in-the-pan video gaming or computing terms should take precedence over meanings that have been around for centuries. And I speak as a tabletop roleplayer who has been using the term in that context for decades. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not call the game a flash in the pan since it is still popular over a decade after its release. I think the better argument here would be the fact that the game is called Super Smash Bros. Melee not Melee on its own.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ten years compared to centuries? That's a flash in the pan! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Red Slash 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point might be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. First and foremost, this topic is primary on long term significance. Like apple. I do also think it's a reasonable candidate for primacy on common usage. When I think of this word, I think primarily of the third listing at melee, namely "a noisy or heated fight, argument or scrap". That meaning derives directly from the warfare meaning. Conversely I have never heard of the gaming or tournament usages. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care either way about the gaming topics, but I'm puzzled by the reference to this being "derived" from a "warfare meaning". If this is simply about an archaic meaning of the word "melee", it doesn't belong here per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. The article has been lacking references since 2009 which is pretty bad. This move request will be followed by a swift AfD unless the article is improved toot sweet. Peter Isotalo 23:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AfD is for deletion of articles that are not notable, not those that are poorly sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't "poorly sourced"; it's not sourced at all. Since at least six years back! There is no meaningful definition or even an indication that a general concept of "(confused) closed quarters fighting on land or at sea" goes beyond a dictionary definition. Again, I've done a reasonable amount of reading about pre-modern warfare, and what I'm looking at now strikes me as a collection of random observations and etymology. And that it would have some sort of precedence over contemporary topics called "Melee" seems nonsensical. I'm very conscious of recentism, but a definition of a term does not become a primary meaning merely by being older than others. Peter Isotalo 15:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I see no indication whatsoever that the modern meaning of "melee" has a specific military meaning. This article is devoid of sources and a merger to close quarters battle has been suggested. In my view, it smacks of original research. I've written quite a lot on early modern warfare (mostly naval warfare), but I never came across such a precise definition of the term. If this was actually some sort of standardized term used by military historians, it's pretty interesting that it's absent from both galley and galley tactics. Jan Glete has used the term "melee tactic" as a contrast to broadside tactics, but that's specialized naval warfare term. Peter Isotalo 23:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The term has certainly been used in military scholarship as this work attests to:
 * It's also an attestation that "math" and "myth" have been used. That doesn't make them relevant relevant encyclopedic topics. Peter Isotalo 17:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus?
Cúchullain, per WP:NOTMOVED, would you please clarify if you meant "consensus not to move" or "no consensus to move"? Thanks! Red Slash 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably on the line, but either way, the result is that the article doesn't move to a new title.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Had I participated in the above discussion, I would also have opposed the move. I have proposed below to merge Melee weapon into this page. bd2412  T 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance messages
I have moved these two editor to editor maintenance messages out of article space onto the talk page so that they can be discussed in detail

@user:Peter Isotalo what do you mean by "This article may primarily relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole"?

What is it in this article that you think " possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources"?

-- PBS (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As per the AfD debate, this article is essentially nothing but a prose-laden dabpage focused on military history. You're simply not going to find any serious discussion about "melees in general" in reliable sources. That's why this page hasn't gotten anywhere despite being around for over a decade.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there are only two aspects of a melee one is where it happens because an organised attack dissolves in to a melee without planning. The other is where it is chosen as a tactic as for example used by Nelson. As to whether it has "gotten anywhere" that is your opinion but there is certainly no justification for placing a large editor to editor message in article space when such things belong on talk pages. -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That you disagree is not a valid reason to remove tags like this. You didn't find any of this in a source, but rather extrapolated a theory of your own.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What theory is that? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of what use is the maintenance tag which you have placed in article space to a reader of an article. The guideline Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid discourages the use of this type of template. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You formulated your own two-pronged explanation of a concept called "melee" that would be applicable to all forms of combat from Antiquity (or at least the Middle Ages) until modern times. And this would include fighting with hand-held weapons, naval battles and dogfighting. That's what the article is supposed to be about according to the recent AfD. But I don't see any of that happening without synthesis.
 * My stance on this is that this is basically a pseudo-article that is being upheld by ignoring some very basic policies and ought to be what melee (disambiguation) is now. This article is basically what brawl is to hand-to-hand combat.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A Melee is not covered by any of the article that at exits at melee (disambiguation). "concept called "melee" that would be applicable to all forms of combat from Antiquity (or at least the Middle Ages) until modern times." This is not so for example: I could go on but there are a few examples that clearly refutes your statement. -- PBS (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ships in line did not fight as a melee
 * most sieges do not involve a melee until a final assault.
 * The use of the longbow in the 100 years war was not a melee.
 * Infantry squares did not involve a melee
 * push-of-pike (or the meeting of two phalanxes) did not involve a melee
 * soldiers fighting behind a shield wall does not involves a melee
 * cavalry cutting down a fleeing enemy does not involve a melee


 * That was an awfully literal take on what I stated. The point is that there is no meaningful, verifiable definition that encompasses 3,000+ of years of military history if the only common denominator is "confused, close-up combat".
 * And why are we arguing your personal opinions on this? This article isn't exempt from WP:V.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you made a statement I have refuted it. That is how debate works. "And why are we arguing your personal opinions on this" is that a rhetorical question because did you not state "concept called 'melee. that would be applicable to all forms of combat from Antiquity (or at least the Middle Ages) until modern times." and yet you did not produce a source to back it up. Where have I suggested that this article ought to be exempt from WP:V indeed have I not been adding reliable sources? -- PBS (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You state in the edit history "maintenance template stay until consensus is reached, not the other way around" what is the policy or guideline which makes such a statement? -- PBS (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't argue words. You're obliged to prove positives, not negatives. Back your theories up with sources.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To which theories are you referring? -- PBS (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm with Peter on this. PBS, you're being unnecessarily argumentative and even a bit jesuitical.
 * The article was a mess and is now only a little bit better, by virtue of being smaller. Peter summed it up accurately thus: "this article is essentially nothing but a prose-laden dabpage focused on military history. You're simply not going to find any serious discussion about "melees in general" in reliable sources. That's why this page hasn't gotten anywhere despite being around for over a decade.". That's true - I spent a lot of time trying to discover any generally accepted definition of melee that a broadly based article could be hung on and I failed. Go find me a single book about melee in a broad general sense. Plenty about it in specific contexts, but we have articles covering those specifics. So, this article is not made from whole cloth. That's why it has been sitting festering for a decade. Hence coatrack and, IMHO, synthesis.
 * You guys need to cool off. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

PBS asked me to look at this because I’d recently commented on the RM and added content to the article. First and foremost, I don’t think the tags are appropriate on the article because even as an experience editor, I’m not quite sure what they are telling me. I can’t imagine what the average reader thinks when they see one of these things.

As a term, Melee or mêlée is not a common term, but neither is it a term without clear meaning (see below). There’s ample examples of consistent use for several centuries. What complicates researching it, is that Melee is apparently also a name (surname?) and possibly a place. It is also confused with the biblical name Malec So one has to read it in context to find sources using the term in its historic military sense. Modern usage continues to complicate this, because the term has been co-opted into the gaming world even while it sees occasional use related to civil conflict.

I think the question WP has to decide is this: Does the traditional term Melee pass the hurdle established in WP:NOTDIC and warrant an article? I would oppose its deletion, but would not find it unreasonable to see it at AfD. I believe the article can be improved without OR or Synthesis with some good research.

1802 definition found in ''A New and Enlarged Military Dictionary: Or, Alphabetical Explanation of Technical Terms: Containing, Among Other Matter, a Succinet Account of the Different Systems of Fortification, Tactics, &c. Also the Various French Phrases and Words that Have an Immediate, Or Relative, Connection with the British Service, Or May Tend to Give General Information on Military Subjects in Either Language'', Charles James, 1802, published by T. Egerton, Military Library, London. 

The following are just a few snippets of use over the centuries:


 * I will continue to list snippets above as time permits. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page, not an article. It isn't necessary to quote at such length, just a few references to make your point and then wait for others to respond. If you feel that this material is relevant please post it in the article, not here. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is attestation of uses of the word "melee". We all agree that the word exists and what it means, but that it's relevant for a separate encyclopedia article is another matter. Again, it's like trying to write a Wikipedia article on brawls. Peter Isotalo 20:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this placing any maintenance templates on his stub. -- PBS (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo you wrote in the history of the article "maintenance template stay until consensus is reached, not the other way around", which policy or guideline gives such guidance? -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge.
I propose to merge the long-time stub Melee weapon here; a melee weapon is merely a weapon suited for melee fighting. Merging the pages will keep closely related topics together and enhance the quality of both. bd2412 T 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A Melee can be fought with whatever weapons are appropriate. For example during the Battle of Trafalgar ships of the line were melee weapons, at the battle of Kursk it was a tanks. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then it seems all the more appropriate to point "melee weapon" to this page, where this can be explained. bd2412  T 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A melee is a concept, a melee weapon is an object and a neologism to boot. This article, if it's about anything, is about the concept of melee. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The object is only significant in the context of the concept. bd2412  T 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. I've been holding off on changes while there were discussions still ongoing, but since they all, including this one, seem to have dead ended one way or another, I'll have another crack at it sometime tomorrow. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well, proposal withdrawn. Cheers! bd2412  T 23:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got held up, but should be able to get started on it tomorrow morning. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussions
I've heard lots of complaints about this article here on this page. I think this article is simply a WP:STUB, and should be expanded. Also, the lead article is a bit incoherent, but if these two issues were fixed, I think it would be a good article. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Compassionate727 you added a sentence "In other words a dogfight." Are you sure that is correct because a dogfight can involves two combatants (or under modern tactical doctrines usually a fighter and a wingman (making 4)), while a melee involves a fight involving many individual combats (such as happened in the Battle of Britain -- August 30th - Battle of Britain Historical Society), and was very common in the First World War while aerial tactics were sill being developed. So I put it to you while a aerial melee will probably involved dogfights, not all aerial dogfights are melees. -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain I didn't do that, and if I did, I didn't mean to. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes Unclear
Are the three things listed under the section "notes" supposed to be references? Compassionate727 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * They are shorthand references. "Notes" is one of the section headings that can be used for such a section.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Melee and Reconnaissance
User:Peter Isotalo what is the difference between this potential article and many other military articles. For example apart from the obvious difference in meaning what is the difference between "Melee" as a potential subject and for example and "Reconnaissance"? -- PBS (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Reconnaissance is a well-defined aspect of military operations with sub-topics like aerial reconnaissance and even codified rules. There are entire books written on this topic or aspects of it.
 * "Melee" is a term for "(sometimes massed) confused fighting". No reliable sources have any interest in describing that in any detail.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument in previous section is that using books that only cover one aspect of the subject is a synthesis if it is included in the article. Yet there are books and sections in the article reconnaissance that cover specific areas of reconnaissance. Most articles about military concepts are constructed in a similar way, why should this article be subject to different rules? -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made no such claims and I don't why you would think that. There are no books that actually "cover" melees.
 * You ought to foucs on making arguments of your own. Trying to make me seem logically inconsistent isn't working.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have now made this claim by placing the template synthesis on the top of the article. Please remove the template and explain here on the talk page what WP:SYN exists in this article at the moment. -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is attempting to make a unitary definition of "melee" that doesn't exist and does so by referring to dictionaries or simply uses of the word "melee". It's been discussed pretty extensively. You removed the WP:COATRACK tag by referring to procedural technicalities and that you simply don't agree with it. I suggest you deal with it by addressing the quality of the content, not by trying to shoot the messenger.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no census to include the tag synthesis to this article so why are you reintroducing it? The wording of WP:SYN is clear there is no "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". So please explain on this talk page which sentence you think involves syn and not a summary of the sources. -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why have you have placed both templates back on the page and yet there is no consensus for either one? Why have you readded synthesis when you have not explained which sentence you think meets the policy requirements for syn?-- PBS (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge?
Note the existence of close combat. —Srnec (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just linked it from melee (disambiguation). Making this the actual dabpage still appears to be the least complicated way out of this situation, though.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate for the dab page. Close combat can occur without it being a melee for example the Battle of the Tennis Court. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dabpages are not limited to perfect synonyms.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple issues
I guess I'm late to the party. Came here from the Military History Project. But wow. This article is a mess. This might actually be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. It seems to be about three totally unrelated subjects, but they all just happen to be called a "melee" at some point by someone. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Timothyjosephwood please have a look at the edit history of the article and see WP:ANI -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent content
This recent addition by PBS is clear WP:COATRACK and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. The source in question (Roemer, 1863) is a 19th century account of combat. It has nothing to do with any definition of melee.

Peter Isotalo 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a stub! The content that was added has nothing to do with the definition of melee, as that is already defined earlier in the article. The section is to do with how melee fighting (a form of combat!) affecting the type of uniform that soldiers wore at a certain time in history. This is no different than describing how developments in urban warfare affected protection given to tanks during World War II. There is no doubt much more that can be written about this aspect of melee figting, for example one of the justifications for changing from musket to rifle was that the enemy could be killed before getting close enough to melee, something that short range muskets were not so easily able to do. This is an important consideration in asymmetric warfare. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no description of melees beyond a dictionary definition. In contrast, concepts like urban warfare are clearly delineated and fairly easly defined. A melee is just a word to describe close, usually intense, fighting and can mean mean just about anything. In this, case, it refers to a clash of cavalry forces, but it could just as well mean fighting between any other type of hand-to-hand fighting. According to your own statements above it would even include fighting between ships and tanks. The term is so broad that is essentially meaningless for encyclopedic purposes. It merely refers to the general nature of fighting in an abstract manner. There is no common denominator in terms of technology, tactics, weapons, unit types or even historical period.
 * If the battle described in the quote you added (from a general of the Marbot family) is a melee, it can be applied to any form of intense close combat. And that would include the battle of the Tennis Court which you insisted was not a melee. But that's the nature of subjective, somewhat literary terms like this, and that's why we don't have general articles on these words. It's really no different from terms like brawl, clash or skirmish.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to intrude, but apparently this discussion needs another voice involved because the discussion between the two of you seems to be going nowhere fast.


 * A)If the topic is so nebulous that you cannot add any content that could possibly be relevant, why is the article here?


 * B)You cannot discount cavalry "melees" on the basis of it being too diverse, yet allow coverage of naval and aviation "melees" in the article. That is contradictory.


 * C)Seriously, why does this article not just redirect to Hand-to-hand combat? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've consistently argued that melee (disambiguation) be moved here. As far as I'm concerned, none of the current content actually belongs here.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo "but it could just as well mean fighting between any other type of hand-to-hand fighting." Not so when people fight in a shield wall providing the shield was hold then there is no melee. The Battle of the Tennis Court was not a melee (google book search of ["Battle of the Tennis court" melee] does not return one hit) this is because the two sides were fighting from trenches that the other side was trying to capture, ie there were lines and structure to the battle.

It is well known that organisation of soldiers is a force multiplier. A famous early proponent of this was the exiled Spartan king Demaratus when advising the Persian King Xerxes on what fighting the Spartans would be like: "the same goes for the Spartans. One-against-one, they are as good as anyone in the world. But when they fight in a body, they are the best of all." (Herodotos vii.iv (trans. G. Rawlinson)). A battle involving a melee is one in which organisation has disappeared, so there are many types of hand-to-hand battles which are not a melees (and to go back to the Spartans: hoplite phalanx battles were hand-to-hand but they were not melees -- "The Lakedaimonians [Spartans] despised archery. The Lakedaimonian way was to fight as heavy infantrymen at close quarters; any other form of warfare- was cowardly." ).

I am going to list some example of melees which involved other weapon systems than hand to hand weapons which are going to show why a melee does not involve just hand to hand weapons. But another important point is that in some forms of asymmetric warfare, a melee may favour the less well organised or armed force and this has meant that tactics which force both sides to engage in a melee have also been implemented by other commanders. Two example of this: "A that certain points along the enemy line would be subject to the full weight of the Highland charge. Dundee must have hoped that the engaged enemy battalions would remain stationary and that the attackwould quickly enough render their flanking fire ineffective. The unengaged enemy units would be unable to fire in to the mêlée without endangering friend and foe alike."
 * The Highland charge when Scottish Highlanders tried to close with the British Army during The '45 so that they could engage in a melee (it was a successful tactic until the Battle of Culloden where the Red-coats had developed new tactics to counter the charge). :

"From the first, Monmouth had been far from confident of his army's ability to withstand regular troops in pitched battle, but the confusion of a melee in the dark against men suffering from the effects of the local cider seemed to offer a chance of success."
 * Another example is the battle of Sedgemoor where the badly trained and organised Cornish men tried to launch a night attack but were stopped by a ditch and cut down by the well organised Royalist regiments :

@Timothyjosephwood there are lots of hand-to-had combat that is not a melee. I have already mentioned the Spartans and their use of the phalanx. Another example is the use of the bayonet at the Battle of Culloden by the British Army. It was hand to hand combat but highly disciplined to avoid a melee with the Scottish clansmen. The soldier were trained to stand in line and thrust at the highlander attacking the soldier to his right, so attacking the highlander's exposed side under his sword arm which was not protected by his shield. But to do this takes great discipline as the soldier as to rely on the soldier to his left to defend him.

Some examples of melees which involved weapon platforms that do not involve Hand-to-hand combat. -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The tank melee at the Battle of Kursk. "Then the surviving Sovet tanks were amidst the panzers and combat degenerated into a ferocious melee."
 * The battles ships at the Battle of Trafalgar. BTW Peter Isotalo it was not just Nelson who was developing these tactics it is just that he is the most famous, and used the tactics in one of the most famous naval battle in history. "Nelson and Britain's other admirals transformed the character of naval comabt in less than a decade... In contrast to line ahead, mêlée tactics turned fleet actions into a series of ship-to-ship battles by breaking up the enemy's formation
 * Fighter aircraft: "German Ace Oberstleutanant Adolph Galland, pounced on the Spitfire squadrons and a great melee developed. All formation cohesion was lost and it was every piolot for himself as Spitfires tried to disengage and return home. In the resulting dogfight Douglas Bader was shot down...".


 * You argue against yourself. You provide even more evidence that this is merely vernacular. There is no unifying military tactic or concept here. There is no more unifying aircraft melee with hand-to-hand melee with naval melee than there is boiling an egg with egging a house. This article is a prose list of people who have used the word melee. The article directly contradicts its own definition. Timothyjosephwood (talk)


 * To be clear, what you need is a WP:RS that establishes the existence of a military tactic which spans ships, planes, and guys with knives. No such source is provided in the article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "merely vernacular"? -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Timothy refers to wording used in normal, descriptive running prose. That's my view as well. The last post pins down the problem quite well: there simply is no source that describes a unified "melee concept" the way you believe the article should describe it.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a comparison to the word "brawl" was thrown out there at some point. You could say that airplanes had a brawl up in the sky, you can say that the infantry engaged in a disorganized brawl, but there is really nothing similar about these two examples, other than the fact that one guy in 1917 used the word about airplanes, and one guy in 1066 used the word about dismounted infantry.


 * It doesn't seem to be similar to a concept like flank, where you can clearly see mechanized infantry trying to turn a flank in the desert, and Hannibal trying to turn a flank at Cannae. It's the same maneuver with the same end goal because it offers the same benefits, whereas there's nothing at all uniting a dogfight, a naval broadside, and a fist fight, as the article seems to implicate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the difference is, in the most mundane way possible, I can simply open a field manual and see someone explain flanking as a military tactic. What is currently in the article is simply enough to establish that there is a word "melee" in the lexicon that has a generally agreed upon meaning. But that's not an encyclopedia article; it's a dictionary entry. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The OED dention for brawl is " A noisy turbulent quarrel, a ‘row’, a squabble." which is not a synonym for melee.
 * Timothyjosephwood What do you mean by "merely vernacular"? When military historians write about Nelson's fleet tactics at Trafalgar they talk about initiating a melee they do not talk about initiating a brawl. The examples I have given on this talk page are one where the term is being used by historians to describe a type of battle and is being used as a term of art (just as flank is used which means nothing more than side "The extreme left or right side of an army or body of men in military formation OED" (as it does for the sides of an animal such as a horse). -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not mean that brawl was synonymous with melee. The point I was trying to make was that they both seem to be a generic term, a figure of speech, vernacular and not a military term found in military doctrine. For flank I can look in Army Doctrine Reference Publication 3-90 and find pages on what it is, how you do it, why you do it, what goals it accomplishes, what are the downsides and risks, how do you array your forces, etc. I can name dozens of times flanking maneuvers have been done by the greatest generals of all time just off the top of my head, and hundreds of examples with a few books or google.


 * With melee we have a dictionary definition (which does not establish WP:NOTE), two times it is mentioned in passing in unrelated histories, and one time where pell mell is mentioned and assumed to mean melee. Further, these three examples all reference engagements that are completely unrelated. What you need are WP:RS on doctrine or tactics that explain what a melee is, how do you get one, why would you want one, or how it can be avoided if you don't. Not simply unrelated sources that happen to mention he word. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You write "green|and one time where pell mell is mentioned and assumed to mean melee.}}" Mêlé and Pêle-Mêle are from the same root ("mingled disorder" chaotically). One can see this in an early quote given in the OED
 * "1579  L. Digges & T. Digges Stratioticos 105   If at anye time they should come to the sword, or ioyne peale meale with their Enimies."
 * The OED specifically sates for pell-mell
 * A.adv
 * [now archich] "Chiefly Mil. With reference to combatants: without keeping ranks; hand to hand, man to man; in a mêlée. Also  fig. Obs.

and
 * C.n
 * Confusion, disorder; indiscriminate mingling. Also: an instance of this; a confused mixture or throng; a hand-to-hand fight, a mêlée. Now rare.

So there is no doubt that in the case of Nelson they can be used interchangeably as they are in many histories.

In many military histories, and in discussions by officers (such as General Marbot),melee is a term of art.

As to you other concern the whole point about the systematic development of most tactical doctrines is to avoid a melee, because in most case discipline and tactics are a force multiplier. See for example:
 * "Briefly, warfare has evolved from chaotic melees in which ever man fought on his own, to the design of massed, but often rigid formations, and then to the adoption of man[o]euvre" (

But of course this is nothing new and can be found in many histories by comparing the fighting style of the Heroic Greek age as described by Homer in the Iliad and comparing that with the disciplined fighting style as described by Demaratus in Herodotos's history (eg https://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10009.pdf ) -- I am writing this to explain to others who may follow this thread, as I assume that as you seem to know about military history that you already know the difference between the tactics and doctrines the age Homer wrote about, that of Herodotos, and still later Arrian's history of Alexander the Great.

As makes clear in this statement:
 * "Howe's attack shattered both formations, bringingabout the first intentionally produced Permanent melee since the adoption of the Fighting Instructions. ... At closerange, French valor and the doctrine of shooting at rigging were unequal to British..."

Royal Navy doctrines of the late 18th century were in the opinion of historians such a Potter are unusual because they flew in the face of military orthodoxy. because the better trained and motivated side were willing to forgo the advantages that two millennia of military orthodoxy on the advantages of unit (fleet) cohesion and discipline, develop a strategy to encourage melees. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OED, Brawl: Fight or quarrel in a rough or noisy way.

From The American GI in Europe in World War II: The March to D-Day By J. E. Kaufmann, H. W. Kaufmann page 9:

"'It had formerly been the belief that enemy fighters preferred to fight only over land, but these carried the brawl well out over the bay before heading back for land. ... Our group was engaged by a mixed assortment of Me-109s and FW-190s, and we staged quite a brawl.'"

From US Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II By Barrett Tillman p. 47:

"''Pappy' eluded the ambush, shoved up the power, armed his guns and began choosing targets. The fight degenerated into a brawl of largely solo combats.'"

From US Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II By Barrett Tillman p. 19

"'None of thse ships would ever fight back. The fourth carrier was not hit by bombs at all. It launched its own planes to continue the brawl.'"

From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Breaking the ... p. 265

"'She vectored 48 Lightnings to the scene, and in the ensuing brawl 23 of the enemy were splashed at a cost of but two Lightnings.'"

So we agree that "brawl" is not a military term, or formal tactic or strategy, but rather a generic word for an engagement. But yet I can also find it in the OED, and find a number of military histories which use the word to describe various forms of engagement. Like your presentation of melee, these seem to have little or no unifying theme other than the dictionary definition as a generic term for an engagement, and cover ships, plains, you name it. Like melee, brawl can not be found in any formal doctrinal publications explaining in detail the tactic or its use in combat by a commanding officer. All that has been provided are cherry picked passing references, much like the ones I have provided for brawl.

Does this suffice to illustrate the weakness of your argument? The article, at it's heart, is about a word, not about a tactic, not about a phenomenon. Per WP:NAD, the entire article is about the word, usage of the word, and times the word has been used. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT "That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Currently the article does not contain any content other than a definition, variations on the word, etymology of the word, and times it has been used to describe an engagement. It does not contain any information or detailed description of what a melee is, how to distinguish a melee from other forms of combat.

Per WP:GNG, the sources provided do not contain melees as their main topic, or even a significant topic, but rather simply mentions the word in passing. This passing mention is assumed to be important for no apparent reason, when it seems that the writer could have just as easily substituted any word that indicates disordered fighting.

The AfD page wanders into discussion of Medieval Tourneys, which may themselves meet WP:NOTE but nonetheless are not the topic of this piece. Per WP:NAD, if the article is nothing more than "check it out, this word may be used to describe x, y, and z, which are all basically totally unrelated", then the article is about a word. If the article is about a word then it must meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which this article does not. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The every one of the sources you have used are American and they are also contemporary to the Second World War II is that significant? The problem that I thinkwe have is that the deconstruction that you are doing can be applied to may military terms. For example ambush. "It does not contain any information or detailed description of what a melee is, how to distinguish a melee from other forms of combat." This is a sub! It already does contain information about how a melee is distinguished from other forms of combat (the definition does that). There is plenty of other information available that takes it way beyond a dictionary definition:
 * Descriptions of how military tactics an organisation developed as force multipliers over those who used none. (It is noticeable when teaching soccer to youngsters the naturally mob the ball in a style that is similar to a Rugby ruck. They have to be taught to spread out into attack and defence and to use space to pass the ball, which when they do always beats mob football. In the same way undisciplined soldiers tend to bunch and if they get into a fight behave in a similar way to a mob, military tactics preform a similar function in warfare to teaching kids how to win a soccer match.
 * Descriptions of how some units such as cavalry squadrons used tactics that encouraged melee fighting because they had a tactical advantage in such a fight.
 * Descriptions of how melee fighting has affected armour and weapons at different times in history.
 * Descriptions of how melee has been used as a tactic, usually by the weaker side in asymmetric warfare and also by the Royal Navy in the early 19th century.


 * -- PBS (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ambush.gif
 * Ambush is a pretty broad concept, but at least it's easy enough to find a description of it in modern field manuals (see image example).
 * Peter Isotalo 15:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * All the sources cited are from WWII because I simply searched for the word brawl and WWII. I'm sure I can find other wars if you would like.


 * I don't understand why this is so difficult. You have not, in any way, provided a description of what a melee is in any depth from a tactical perspective. You have provided descriptions of battles that happen to use the word melee. You have provided a description of armor that uses the word melee. The passage isn't about a melee; it's about the armor. From the same paragraph: "After this memorable example, we refrain from further comment, and leave the subject of defensive armor for heavy cavalry to the reflection of our reader." (emphasis mine) To WP:CHERRYPICK this single quotation in a section not on the topic being quoted is to give WP:UNDUE weight to the notion that melee is something cavalry commanders study in their academies and is a common tactic in the field.


 * The tactic Nelson used isn't about disorganized combat. He allowed his enemy to cross his T (an actual tactic), so that he could execute a breakthrough (tactic) of the enemy line and complete a pincer maneuver (also tactic) to encircle (need I go on?) the center portion of the enemy, knowing that his ships could fire simultaneously on the enemy salient, the cut off rear, and the front trying to about face. He doubled the effective fire power of his ships by placing enemies on both their port and starboard sides, allowing them to fire on both simultaneously. You could just as easily replace melee in the passage with brawl, clash, scuffle, or skirmish. None of these other generic terms for an engagement have their own article, because they are simply not important. Everything besides the quote in the Nelson paragraph is a WP:COATRACK, possibly WP:OR, and the quote itself is WP:CHERRYPICKING.


 * Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in sources cited must be more than a trivial mention to establish WP:NOTE. Trivial mention is precisely what these sources are. They are not significant coverage of the aspects of a melee, they are sources that simply use the word melee.


 * As for ambush:


 * Department of the Army Field Manual 7-8 has a dozen pages on half a dozen different forms of an ambush.
 * Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 3-90: "Subordinate forms of the attack have special purposes and include the ambush, counterattack, demonstration, feint, raid, and spoiling attack."
 * FM 25-101 Battle Drill 4 React to Ambush
 * Tank Destroyer Field Manual: Organization and Tactics of Tank Destroyer By U.S. War Department: Ambush pp. 125-126


 * I mean, it's just a quick google search, but if you would like I'm sure I can find similar doctrinal publications from other countries. This is the difference between actual military tactics and mere words. There is nothing similar for melee. What's the difference between a melee and a disorganized route? What if the disorganized route includes rear guard action? How do I array my troops for a melee? How do I train my troops to engage in a melee? How do I train my troops to react to a melee? What terrain features can be exploited by a melee? If there's only a team or squad involved is it still a melee, or is it something that occurs on the level of a company, air wing, or naval squadron? Can melee be used as a combined arms tactic?


 * There are no answers to any of these questions because those answers are found in military doctrine and basically all we have to go on for melee are dictionary definitions. That is, if we rightfully discount the sources that do not meet WP:GNG, and dismiss your own extrapolation of what you believe these sources say about the larger picture of warfare as WP:OR. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See the earlier version at, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melee&diff=141361319&oldid=140539387. This is much better and may meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The current version says nothing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no topic here beyond a dictionary entry. The medieval topic has a page at Melee (tournament). Anything else is just about this being another word for close combat. So, we can either redirect this to close combat, or move the disambiguation page here, but it has become abundantly clear that there is on single identifiable article subject under this heading. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree if there is only to be one article then as this is the older article then why not merge close combat into this article if you think there is no difference? However I think there is a difference. One can have close quarter combat without it being a melee for example fighting between two opposing shield walls. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a source about an earlier period than Nelson of when the formal school came into existence and makes it quite clear that in the opinion of the author Melee was a tactic (my bold): "In the Anglo-Dutch Wars, England’s Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, distrusting naval officers as possibly monarchist, sent his generals to sea to command the ﬂeet. The generals introduced the column, or line ahead to replace the earlier bunching of ships that masked broadsides. During the wars also there arose in the English fleet two opposing schools of naval tactics, the Formal School, which favoured retaining the column throughout the battle, and the Melee School, which preferred dispensing with the column at a favourable opportunity.

The formal—melee division of opinion carried over into the long struggle between England and France. During the War of the English Succession, the English in the Battle of Beachy Head (1650) used melee tactics and lost. in the Battle of Barfleur (1692), the French used melee tactics and lost. Understandably, these defeats cast melee tactics into disrepute. In the ensuing War of the Spanish Succession, England captured Gibraltar and defended her conquest in the formal Battle of Malaga (1704). Malaga was in fact a drawn battle, but Gibraltar remained in English hands.

The above three battles established formal tactics in the Royal Navy. They were prescribed by the Admiralty in the Permanent Fighting Instructions, which required British naval commanders not only to fight in column but in column conterminous with that of the enemy. When Admiral Thomas Mathews in the Battle of Toulon (1744) attacked a Franco-Spanish column with which he was not able to make his line conterminous, he was dismissed from the service for nut obeying instructions. Thereafter it was a bold officer indeed who would risk such a fate by failing to conform to the inflexible regulations of the Permanent Fighting Instructions."

What is also interesting was that Nelson and other contemporary Royal Navy commanders of the Napoleonic period were reintroducing tactics which had fallen out of use about 100 years earlier with the dominance of the formal school -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion about a specific debate relating to naval tactics applied to early modern sailing warships (as opposed to oared warships). It's not about a generalized "melee concept". I pointed this out during the AfD when I referred to Jan Glete. I don't know where this maritime history subject would best be described, but an article title like "melee tactics" seems far more relevant than this pseudo-dictionary definition.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Peter Isotalo, I would suggest that you walk away from this page. The term is used to describe a type of fighting that suits some operational commanders under certain conditions not only on sea but also on land. If is because of your persistent deletion of text that the article is so short. There is plenty of information mentioned on this page for battles where melees were deliberately created by commanders because they considered that was the only way they could win a battle of an engagement within a battle. You (Peter Isotalo) seem to have set set you mind that the term can only be a dictionary definition and it seems to me that you are not willing to engage in a good faith editing over this topic, either here on the talk page on in article spacce. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The lack of any coherent definition of "melee" has been argued quite extensively, and not just by me. If you're genuinely interested about describing, for example, the dichotomy of the line of battle vs more individualized ship-to-ship action, there are sources for it. There's even a relevant term for it ("melee tactics"). It's strictly a naval combat term, though. There is no association in any sources to land or air combat other than the word "melee". That's why WP:DICDEF is still considered an issue here.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it a joke ...
... that the link to "Pell mell" redirects back to this, the very same page?

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It will just be a mistake.Charles (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for the original intention, but it seems that the redirect is still in place. Upon further research, it seems that "pell-mell" is a related term with the same root and practically the same meaning. Expanded upon that in this article. References to "pell-mell" should be at home on this page now. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)