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.
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
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I'd like to suggest that Rush Creek Battlefield be merged into Battle of Rush Creek. The subject matter of the first article seems to completely overlap the subject matter of the second. I can't think of anything that might be included the in the battlefield article that wouldn't be relevant to the battle article—not physiographic descriptions, not accounts of archaeological work at the site (all of which has apparently been directed toward elucidating the history of the battle), not the National Register of Historic Places nomination (which appears to be connected entirely with the battle).
The current battle article isn't so long that adding the battlefield material would make it excessively so. In view of the relative obscurity of this battle, it's unlikely that it would be expanded to such an extent. Ammodramus (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
A merger is fine with me with a re-direct from Rush Creek Battlefield to the Battle of Rush Creek site. I note that the battlefield site says 2,000 Indians were in the battle. That is probably an over-estimate based on what I've read. The 1,000 estimate on the Battle site seems more realistic. Smallchief (talk 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Support for the reasons given. I don't see anything in the battlefield article that isn't about the battle or its aftermath. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 21:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay by me I created the separate Rush Creek Battlefield article. I think these decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis, as has been consensus in past discussions about NRHP-listed battlefields sites vs. the battles themselves. I appreciate this proposal is limited, it is about one battlefield and no one has been making generalities about all battlefield-battle pairings. This does seem different than same-county, historically connected pairing Mud Springs Station Archeological District vs. the Battle of Mud Springs, where more info seems available about the current site that would probably be inappropriate for the battle article (besides messing up sensible categories, etc.). So, fine, go ahead and merge, anyone. I don't think it is necessary to wait for any more comments, if anyone would like to just go ahead. Thanks for making the proposal and thanks also for not rushing/forcing a decision. sincerely, --doncram 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
