Talk:Second Battle of Fort Wagner/Archive 1

Questions about what is allowed here..
I was looking for information on this site about Fort Wagner at Morris Island in SC It is a historical site endanger of being developed. There is an effort to prevent this development and preserve the island. I was wondering if preservation information can be added to the articles listed below.

Fort Wagner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Wagner Battle of Fort Wagner, Morris Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Wagner%2C_Morris_Island Preservation information and articles about the area can be found at: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=20720&folder_id=2887 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporterx (talk • contribs) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think we should merge MOST of the information on this article into this article.

I do not say we should completely remove the Fort Wagner article, just get all of the info from that article about the battle into this article. There's a lot of stuff there that isn't mentioned in this article.

Vote.

I say "in favour".

For
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/54th_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Regiment the battles are closely related and confused me when revising one of them was involved with the 54th Massachusetts infantry if they were merged this would have been more eaisily defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.44.36 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Duke of Battle of Fort Wagner, Morris Island 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hal Jespersen 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Either 1) Battle of Fort Wagner combined or 2) First Battle of Fort Wagner and First Battle of Fort Wagner if both important, or 3) First Battle of Morris Island, etc. if that is to be the name used. Pick one name and use "Battle of" in the title. With dates this close, I support merge. --Kkmurray 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Against

 * From reading the articles, it seems that the two battles were distinct, though related, battles. Just because the first one is far less significant does not mean that it should be swallowed into the article about the second.  --Cjs56 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)