Talk:Siege of Fort Macon

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion 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
	American Civil War task force

Start class

The article has been rewritten, so it is no longer of Stub class. The MILHIST banner has been updated. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?

I've noticed that the Fort Macon Civil War Roundtable site contains some information that is inconsistent with the other three sites listed, for instance listing the Confederate garrison at 400 when the other links (and the article) number Confederate losses at 480 and stating that the battle was a 11-hour bombardment rather than a month-long siege. I think it's pretty safe to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.117.145 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the name of Parke's unit

On 2 April 1862, about midway through the siege, the official name of Burnside's Coast Division was changed to Department of North Carolina, and its three brigades were upgraded in name to divisions. The three brigadier generals became at the same time acting major generals; I do not know when, or if, their appointments were confirmed. Thus, Parke's unit can be referred to as either the Third Brigade of the Coast Division or the Third Division of the Department of North Carolina. I have chosen to go with the initial name, as that is how Battles and leaders lists it, but I will not object if others think the later name is more appropriate. PKKloeppel (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (moving as noncontroversial). Neutrality^talk 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a well written article overall, but I don't understand why the article is titled "battle" rather than siege. This was a classical siege operation and even the title of the definitive work by Branch is "The Siege of Fort Macon" as is a chapter in Sauers "The Burnside Expedition in North Carolina." Red Harvest (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. (Note the first line of the article, which implicitly suggests that renaming is in order.) Will you perform the necessary steps to change the title, or shall we each wait for the other to act? PKKloeppel (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the name change as well but we may want to wait a few more days to let people voice objections if they have any. Most sources at Google books refer to it as "Siege of Fort Macon" and that is particularly true of older contemporary sources. Fwiw, the other two popular names are the "Capture of Fort Macon" & the "Bombardment of Fort Macon" -- not as popular as the Siege but more popular than Battle.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a rush to act on this and want to make sure there are no compelling objections. It doesn't matter to me who makes the change, just so that it is done in a way that preserves talk and revision histories, as well as updates links. (In other words...I'm not sure that I know how to do it without mucking it up.) Red Harvest (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't attracting a lot of activity, so I am going to stir things up a bit by requesting a move:

{{Requested move/dated|Siege of Fort Macon}}

Battle of Fort Macon → Siege of Fort Macon – The rationale for this request is seen in the preceding comments.PKKloeppel (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.