Talk:Battle of Red Bank

Military history: North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

New Jersey Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

It has been suggested that the Red Bank Battlefield article should be merged into this article. They cover the same topic, with only a few different pieces of information that could easily be merged. Truthanado (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. One is about the battle specifically, the other is about the historical site and current use. However, far be it for me to stop you. Be bold. dm (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, too. Antietam, for instance, has separate entries for the battlefield and the battle. The battlefield article could be expanded some, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's just a stub now, but I suspect if we move some of the current day details from the battle article into the battelfield article, it will improve both. dm (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold, I am removing the suggestion to merge these articles. There is sufficient (and quick) consensus to support that decision. And, as pointed out, Antietam establishes valid precedent for two articles. Truthanado (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked out amicably. More importantly, because you noticed the two articles, I've shuffled text around with both of them being better for it: the battle is more concise while the battlefield is fleshed out. Thanks! dm (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Augusta

This source: http://www.ageofnelson.org/MichaelPhillips/info.php?ref=0252 indicates that the Augusta burned accidentally, as does the article on said vessel. The current draft of this article suggests it was intentionally fired by the Americans. I assume there is authority for the latter proposition? -- But|seriously|folks 05:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the ship itself lists four possible causes for the fire. I have not gone into the sources there but this article should be fixed. MB 02:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]