Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Revolutionary War task force/Archive 3

Merge Battle of Vaudreuil into Battle of the Cedars
I've proposed to "merge" (by redirect) Battle of Vaudreuil into Battle of the Cedars (discussion here). The Vaudreuil article is an empty stub, and the action at the Cedars is sufficiently complex that establishing context for the skirmish would mean mostly duplicating the Cedars page. This will also mean updating Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Canada.  Magic ♪piano 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did this.  Magic ♪piano 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:46, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Campaignbox changes
I'd like to propose splitting Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Northern 1777 into two or more campaignboxes. My motivations:
 * it's currently a grab-bag where frequently unrelated events follow one another
 * the events in it cluster somewhat naturally into other groupings
 * I have additional articles in mind

The current contents of the campaignbox, and how I would divide them:

I would add to the above the following events for consideration, some of which do not currently have mention in WP: There is also the possibility to add articles about raids by privateers on Charlottetown, PEI, Lunenburg, NS, and Annapolis, NS, although these may be too minor to warrant their own pages.

This would create two new campaignboxes: The current box would be retitled "Northern frontier 1778-1781" (and have 11 12 events). I'm more than happy to consider better names for these, these names were pretty much off the top of my head. (A few of the groupings are also arguable. e.g. Ridgefield could also be in New York City area.)
 * Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Northern coast 1776-1781 (5-8 events from above, could instead extend Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: American Waters, but that seems to be about mainly naval actions, where some of these are really just land-based actions)
 * Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: New York City area 1778-1781 ( 6 5 events)

Comments?  Magic ♪piano 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good plan. As part of an expedition to the frontier, the Battle of Newtown belongs in the frontier box, rather than the NYC box. —Kevin Myers 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh of course - my bad. Fixed...  Magic ♪piano 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me as well. --dashiellx (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now made these changes.  Magic ♪piano 03:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Action of 11 August 1778
I have proposed deletion of Action of 11 August 1778. If someone here thinks the action is sufficiently distinctive from the Battle of Rhode Island (which it is a prelude to) to warrant a separate page, feel free to de-PROD (and perhaps expand the details in one place or the other). Currently neither page indicates there is much "action" beyond a storm.  Magic ♪piano 02:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary: -- Mr.Z-man 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
 * The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
 * I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - ~alexz/pop/.
 * This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
 * This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
 * There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
 * The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
 * The data is now retained indefinitely.
 * The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
 * Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

Badge of Military Merit
Hi folks, I've been helping work on this Revolutionary-War-related article for some time but I am absolutely not an expert on military history. I think I've gotten it as far as I can using online sources and without some specialized history books or journals. One of the problems with the online refs is that they are becoming circular and using uncited info from the Wikipedia article itself. I've tried to make the article as clear and accurate as I can but I know it's still kind of a mess, so I'm asking for your help.

There are three main problems with the article: 1) Is it the first U.S. military award? The second? The first U.S. military combat award? Is there a difference? 2) Were there two or three awards announced by General Washington? (One badge of merit and one? or two? badges of distinction?) 3) Are all those discharges that say the veteran was awarded the "Badge of Merit" (I have copies of my own ancestor's discharge with that wording) getting a Badge of Military Merit (of which only three were supposedly awarded) or a Badge of Distinction?

According to the sources I've found, most of the answers to these questions are pretty clear, but another editor, Armycaptain (also likely doing most of the IP edits), in my opinion, is putting his personal spin on the available data, to the point where it may be original research. As far as I can tell, the online record is mum on what the wording on the discharges means or whether there has been any discussion or controversy among experts on the matter.

My recommendation is that the speculation be taken out of the article and rock solid military history sources be added to back up what's left. Some of the sources used are from groups whose scholarship may not be the best (even some of the U.S. military sites seem not so great), and with a dash of wishful thinking besides. If this subpage doesn't get much traffic, please link to this note where it may get seen by someone who can help. Several third opinions simply helping keep an eye on things would be great too, since right now it's only been me, the other editor and, and a few passerby working on it. Thanks for your attention! Katr67 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. It's probably quite clear that I think I'm right and the other editor is wrong, but I respect what he is trying to do and hope some additional opinions will shed light on the matters that are controversial. In other words, I don't mind if you tell me I'm wrong! :) Katr67 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

PROD Nathaniel Greenheath
I have proposed deletion of Nathaniel Greenheath, an orphan article created by an anon editor, and lacking in citation for two years. Brief web and other searches turn up nothing of interest.  Magic ♪piano 16:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD John Thornton
I've proposed deletion of John Thornton (colonel), which (like the above article), was created by an anonymous editor, and is uncited. Searches I did only turn up a relatively non-notable (IMHO) individual containing few facts claimed in the article.  Magic ♪piano 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This may refer to John Thornton of Virginia, listed Metcalf's Society of the Cincinnati as a lieutenant colonel under Colonel William Grayson in his "Additional Continental Regiment." (p. 310; no description of service) I'm no expert on King's Mountain, but Thornton's name doesn't appear in Draper's classic on the subject, or anywhere in Boatner's encyclopedia. As I understand it, Patrick Ferguson had eight balls in him before the battle was over, so lots of men could reasonably claim (and even more unreasonably so) to have fired the kill shot. BusterD (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this source, it appears Lt. Col. Thornton may be the subject of this PROD. The claims of relationship to Washington may be indicated by his position under Grayson, himself close to his CO. Even if true, I'm not seeing sufficient notability. BusterD (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably the same individual I've found references to. As you say, not particularly notable.  Magic ♪piano 16:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Sullivan's Island moved
Someone has moved Battle of Sullivan's Island to Action of June 28, 1776. Comment is invited on the talk page. (It is possible the user is a page-move vandal.)  Magic ♪piano 03:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton now open
The peer review for Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Heya Everyone!
I expanded the Pennsylvania in the American Revolution article!  The Doomsday Machine!   (Blastoff!)  02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec now open
The featured article candidacy for Arnold's expedition to Quebec is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island now open
The A-Class review for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Merge 4 project with WikiProject United States
It has been suggested that 4 projects be merged into WikiProject United States due to a long state of inactivity. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island now open
The featured list candidacy for Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured lists; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Magic ♪piano 18:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into WikiProject United States. Although this task force falls under WikiProject Military History and that project would continue to maintain and control of it I thought it would be ok to associate the task force to both WikiProjects Military History and United States. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)