Talk:Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip

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

United States: Louisiana High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as High-importance).

Update

I wish to expand the text considerably, bringing it up to B-class status. I have already gathered much of the material, but it will take a couple of weeks enter it all, given my typing skills. Be patient, but feel free to advise me of errors.PKKloeppel (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consult WP:TMAIN for templates to show you're doing lengthy edits. I corrected a few formatting things in your first round. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you.PKKloeppel (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Question

Sorry if this doesn't belong here, delete at will. New to wikiworld.

I am researching a novel that involves this battle and there is one term used that I can't find a definition for. What the H is a Cottonclad??? Any help would be appreciated.--CancelHoo72 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an informal term. Just as an ironclad is a ship encased in iron armor, and a timberclad is one that has extra wooden protection above the water line (usually multiple layers of thick oak), a cottonclad is nickname for a ship that has bales of cotton stacked up around her superstructure, hoping to provide at least a minor protection from small arms fire and artillery hits. Not too effective, but better than nothing. There is no Wikipedia article directly about cottonclads, but I notice that someone has created a template pointing to articles about them: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:CSN_cottonclad_rams Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, two kinds of cottonclads were used. Most common were those that Hal has just described. Early in the war, however, some rivermen at New Orleans got the idea of protecting the engines of ships being converted into rams with a double bulkhead of heavy timbers, plated with iron, and with cotton rammed into the space between the timbers. Although the cotton was the least important part of the armor, it seemed to tickle the public funnybone, so they became the original cottonclads. See River Defense Fleet. PKKloeppel (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upside down

This map had me confused until I realized that the top of the map has to be south, not north as we take for granted on modern maps. That's why it shows the "Mortar Fleet" (Union) coming from the left, even though they came from the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi flows towards the east at that point. That's also why it shows Fort Jackson on the top and Fort St. Philip on the bottom, but everything else I read says Fort Jackson was on the south side. For instance, the article says "Fort Jackson was on the right (generally west, but here south) bank ..."

I suggest that the caption say "The top of this map is south, not north." Art LaPella (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ORN I, v. 18, p.277.

Revert of move from Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip to Battle of forts Jackson and St. Philip

Sumanuil, you reverted the move here, with the edit summary: Fix grammar. Grammatically, we might apply capitalisation to an attributive descriptor such as for a unitary noun phrase that is treated as a proper name - eg Fort Jackson or Fort St Phillip. However, when the descriptor is pluralised, it is not capitalised. The common noun descriptor is no longer part of the unitary phrase where it might be capitalised. Hence, we would prefer to say the rivers Tigris and Euphrates rather than the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates (see here) or the rivers Rhine and Meuse (see here). Similarly, we might say President Bush and President Obama but presidents Bush and Obama. I am therefore curious as to why you would assert that capitalising Forts would be correct? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it would be correct to say "Fort Jackson and Fort St. Phillip", I don't really see why it should be "forts Jackson and St. Phillip". It's still a proper noun. Nevertheless, I can see an argument for not capitalizing re:unitary nouns. Do what seems right, I only came here in the first place because of a messed-up template. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 19:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - withdrawn by nom. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip → Battle of forts Jackson and St. Philip – When the capitalised form is changed by pluralisation, it is lowercased. Same principle as MOS:JOBTITLES: President of the United States but presidents of the United States or presidents of the United States and France. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the (U.S.) style guides I'm familiar with recommend lowercasing a plural generic term when it follows two or more proper names—thus, "the Mississippi and Missouri rivers", even though "river" is capped in "Mississippi River" and "Missouri River"—but capitalizing a generic term when it precedes proper names, as in "Mounts Whitney and Rainier". That would suggest that "Forts Jackson and St. Philip" is preferable here. Deor (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the sources that mention this in a sentence use "battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip". With lowercase battle, they're clearly not thinking of the whole thing as a proper name, and still they're choosing to cap Forts, probably because they follow styles like what Deor is finding. Sort of like Presidents Bush and Obama; does JOBTITLES say not to do that? Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Forts Jackson and St. Philip" does not mean "the forts named Jackson and St. Philip", it means "Fort Jackson and Fort St. Philip". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per InfiniteNexus and analysis by Dicklyon. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] ORN I, v. 18, p.277.

[1]