Affiliation - why the change? Edit

According to Wikipedia, when the Battle of Fort Hindeman occurred in January 1863, the Baron de Kalb had been serving for the United States Navy at least three months. (In October 1862, the ship had been reassigned from the Army to the Navy.)Throwback 13:18, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Er...OK...? I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:11, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Explain the change. Every article for those ships in the photo mistakenly states the ships were working for the US Army. This was true before the battle; however, at the time of the battle, these ships had been re-assigned to the US Navy.Throwback 16:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Then correct them. It's pretty easy really. -- sulfur 17:25, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Too much info in intro paragraph? Edit

Anyone else think there's too much information in the introduction paragraph, considering it open appeared one time in a library computer pic? --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:10, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This could be seen as a similar situation to the issue we had with Cities allegedly seen in maps. I'm wondering if this article, the articles on the other ships in the painting(USS Louisville, USS Cincinnati, and USS Black Hawk), and Fort Hindman should be merged into one article on the painting itself, since that's what was seen; or they could be merged with Battle of Fort Hindman since that is what was depicted in the painting.--31dot 19:28, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
I am formally proposing the latter suggestion from my above post.--31dot 21:08, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
Since these ships aren't identifiable from just the painting alone, merge. - Archduk3 01:10, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm I'm a torn on this. I can see the how each of these ships having a page is a bit excessive. But removing this entry while Battle of Fort Hindman (as contrasted with a page on the actual painting) is still allowed to exist seems arbitrary, as if there's some kind of cut-of point as to what details glimpsed in a painting are still relevant. And as for archduke's argument, would Griselda or Alan Ladd or even Woodrow Wilson still have pages under his argument? -- Capricorn 18:29, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
It is admittedly a bit arbitrary, but I chose the Battle page since that's what was depicted in the painting. If the painting has a title, I could support merging these pages onto such an article(about the painting itself)--31dot 01:32, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
Re Archduk's argument- with articles about real people in the Trek universe, it has been our practice to accept a picture of them at face value unless we are told it is someone different- so Wilson and Ladd are OK. As to Griselda, that would be a fictional character and you might have a point.--31dot 01:35, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
I would actually be fine with a page on the type of ships seen in this painting, but I don't see how that would be much different from the page on the painting itself. We should keep the ship names as redirects either way. - Archduk3 19:38, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should have one article about all this, not several. If the painting itself has a proper title, that would indeed be preferable - but if it hasn't, using the name of the battle itself is OK. Consider it a "placeholder title", if you want. :) -- Cid Highwind 19:50, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
I've completed the merging. The page for the image on this article states the caption of the image to be "Bombardment and capture of Fort Hindman, Arkansas Post, Ark. Jany. 11th 1863", but I don't know if I would consider that the title.--31dot 16:33, October 24, 2011 (UTC)