Talk:Stones River National Battlefield

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Memorials / 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 articles

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Tennessee High‑importance

	Tennessee portal Stones River National Battlefield is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tornado Damage

I added a line or two about the extensive damage caused by the 10 April 2009 Tornado. I forgot to sign my edit here is my signature Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what footnotes mean, look at Myrtle Hill Cemetery and I will keep continuing this same until you stop being a dolt. By way this is not a Vulcan. Logicals don't fit in encyclopedia. Check Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Culby (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado damage is unimportant, and Wikipedia:Footnotes specifically allows explanatory matter there. Since there's just two of us, I suggest a Third Opinion. (It violates WP:NPA to call another editor a dolt.) Hi540 (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are disagreed with you about tornado damagael however footnotes isn't allow "long detail", only short summary. I do not see that a "dolt" violate any policies because this is not a personal attack, it is an insult to your intelligence. You brought illogicial sense yourself. I have no respect to rude and illogical Wikipedians. I do not buy that you are graduating from an university anyway. I still continue what I believe is right thing of encyclopedian styles and media universes. I see that you have no senses to leave arguements but you are not bossy of me. Good Day, Dolt. --Culby (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice about your incivility here.Hi540 (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, here's a third opinion from a complete outsider:

You are both slow-edit-warring over this.
The content seems unnotable and unimportant.
The article looks much better with the text in the article's body. It looks ugly with the text in the footnotes.
Calling someone a dolt and claiming that it merely is an insult to their intelligence, is severely violating WP:NPA.
I would remove the entire damage description, and keep the one small referenced sentence, without the details.

Just an opinion. DVdm (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done just that, except I've left one sentence in the footnote to give an idea of the severity of the tornado strike.Hi540 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good now. I made another subtle change. Those who are interested in the details can find all (and perhaps even more than) they need by following the link. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have since retired from activatly editing Wikipedia so I just noticed the above discussion and wonder if I had done something wrong? If I remember I had posted that part about the damage to the park, just a few hours after the Tornado Struck down there in Murfreesboro.( I saw the extent of the damage to the park myself and I am amazed at how quickly the park has since, recovered) I will say that I only expected my comments to remain for a short time until the newness of the event wore off then I expected that someone would re-state my statement on the Tornado and the way the article appears now is very close to what I thought would happen to a comment made in haste after a major disaster. I apologize again if I caused trouble. Thank you now back into retirement for me Magnum Serpentine (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stones River National Battlefield. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]