Talk:Van Buren raid

Orphaned references in Battle of Van Buren
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Van Buren's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nps": From Arkansas Militia in the Civil War: National Park Service, Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System, Confederate Arkansas Troops, Thrall's Battery, Arkansas Light Artillery, Accessed Jan 14, 2011, http://www.civilwar.nps.gov/cwss/regiments.cfm From Battle of Prairie Grove: ABPP 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Van Buren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010185724/http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/item-detail.aspx?type=Time+Period&item=Civil+War+through+Reconstruction+(1861+-+1874) to http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/item-detail.aspx?type=Time+Period&item=Civil+War+through+Reconstruction+(1861+-+1874)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move to Van Buren raid. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Van Buren → Van Buren Raid – I've been thinking about this after attending a Civil War Roundtable presentation on this event, which referred to it as the "Van Buren Raid". It's noteworth that of the two principal sources, Bearss 1967 is titled "The Federals Raid Van Buren and Threaten Fort Smith" and the relevant chapter in Shea 2009 is titled "Raid on Van Buren", with the following chapter beginning "The Van Buren raid marked ...". The Encyclopedia of Arkansas refers to this as the "Capture of Van Buren", and never uses the term "battle" to describe this event. I no longer believe the current title is appropriate terminology to refer to this action as a battle. Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It certainly reads like a battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sopport but lowercase A google books search for Battle of Van Buren isn't producing noticeable hits as opposed to Van Buren Raid, where there are hits for "raid on Van Buren" or "Van Buren raid" with a significant number of prose uses using lowercase "raid". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Van Buren raid seems good to me, based on the quoted sources. No reason to cap Raid there. Dicklyon (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, from the description of the battle on the page it sounds like a battle between opposing forces. No need to reclassify this as a raid. But the appropriate WikiProjects should be notified if they haven't been already in order to clarify between "battle" and "raid". Please note that this discussion has been spammed on a page which lists it as a "casing discussion" (arguably an inappropriate use of that section). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It a casing discussion, with regard to the proposed name, and it's entirely appropriate for editors who care about and know a lot about such matters to be aware of the discussion. RM exists to bring more eyes and brains in to article title discussions, not exclude them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree as to the more interested editors reading an RM the better, which is where the canvassing guidelines should be a bit relaxed as they have been at the casing listing. There are quite a few areas of discussion or deletion to keep track of if an editor is so inclined, and even watchlisted things will slip by. Still surprises me how many editors here just go around nomming things or prodding things for deletion, many nice pages slip through this sieve without being seen or commented on by even involved editors (which is why maybe it should be a guideline that when something is nommed for deletion the main editors of the page, or template, or a dozen other things should be directly notified, by bot if need be, so that they can comment on why they believe the topic is of value). As for this one, I wish more American Civil War editors would comment to get a better take on the raid/battle question. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, but lower-case. If this has no provable WP:COMMONNAME at all, then it's not possible for any of these descriptive terms to be proper names (in the sense WP cares about, i.e. that which is provably treated as a proper name by being "capitalized consistently in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" - MOS:CAPS). All of these (at least 4) descriptive phrases are clearly WP:NDESCs. However, if the sourcing clearly shows a preference for referring to this as a raid and not as a battle, then follow the sources as usual. The novel theory above that it somehow cannot be a "raid" and must be a "battle" if any fighting happened is unsustainable WP:OR. PS: There are lots of things that clearly were battles but which do not have "battle" in their article titles here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion.  Robertus Pius  (Talk • Contribs) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They had already been notified when I opened this Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support lowercase I'm not seeing evidence of consistent capitalization in RS (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)