This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related 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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can anybody explain the meaning of "refuse" in "he [de Négrier] now decided to refuse his left wing"? I have a feeling this must be some sort of artefact of translation, or such, but no idea what. If it's other than the common meaning of to decline to accept, or reject, etc., is there a more obvious substitute?
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Hello @Dino nam:, that doesn't quite suffice in terms of rationale. The 1885 is currently set up as a primary topic. This would suggest that battle has considerable more historic importance than the one of 1979. It also has more internal wikilinks than the other article. You would need to argument why the 1979 is at least equally important as the 1885 battle. In that case, the page could be moved, and a dab page created. --Midas02 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Actually when I established the article about the 1979 battle, I didn't know how to change names of articles, so I had no other choice but to leave the name of this article like that, and I think that's why it has still been the primary topic until now. I have never seen see any academic RS that says which battle has more historic importance than the other. In fact, when I search for the 1885 battle on Google, there are only about 34,100 results; 193,000 results are detected when I search for the 1979 battle.117.6.88.137 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support making the two base names becoming MILHIST one set index listing all the battles while both articles have years on their names -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.