Talk:Battle of Bunker Hill

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2A00:23EE:1580:369E:DA1E:C57A:DA10:B2D9 in topic Battle result
Good articleBattle of Bunker Hill has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starBattle of Bunker Hill is part of the Boston campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 12, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 17, 2004, June 17, 2005, June 17, 2006, June 17, 2007, June 17, 2008, June 17, 2010, June 17, 2011, and June 17, 2015.
Current status: Good article

Battle result

edit

Was there a previous consensus that the infobox result should be limited to just "See Aftermath" at all? It seems pretty obvious what the result was - a Pyrrhic British victory. It's not as if the result is in question - the British took the ground and drove the colonial forces from the Peninsular, but suffered irreplaceable casualties that prevented them from following-up on their victory. (TomRidley (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC))Reply

Description of the result in the infobox as "See Aftermath" defers to the broad community consensus not to use such terms as "Pyrrhic" in the infobox per WP:MILMOS, noting that MILMOS explicitly defers to the template documentation. Apologies that I did not see this question earlier. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
"see aftermath" in this case makes sense. It was clearly a British victory, as they took the hill, and the numbers of dead weren't that different really, in that the Brits lost about 240 killed, but the US lost 120 or so. That's the sort of number you might expect from taking a fortified position, so its nothing too amazing. However British General Sir Henry clinton refers to it as a Pyrhic victory, so it appears that's how it was percieved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, so Why hasn't it been changed to a "British Victory" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1580:369E:DA1E:C57A:DA10:B2D9 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply