Talk:Battle of Monmouth order of battle

Merge proposal

This seems like it would be more useful as a section in the main article. chrylis (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, many battles have their own order of battle articles. Yorktown order of battle is an example. Trenton order of Battle.-19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually this article should be deleted as it's based on an unreliable source. Unless of course someone can write up a real oob for that battle.--Caranorn (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. The reason Yorktown and Trenton, and some other battles, have separate OOB articles is that they are fairly long, making the parent article unwieldy long. That is not the case here. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• No merge. I think significant battles need a separate orders of battle in order not to belabor the main page size-wise; this is certainly a significant contest (the war's largest by number of participants). My concern is that if we merge this into the main page, eventually it will be separated again per common practice. While I generally agree the source isn't ideal, I also hold that a wargame system is often a very reliable source for orders of battle, especially anything published by Frank Chadwick. IMHO, historical miniatures folks are into infinitely accurate detail, as opposed to mere playability. In this case the source is Dr. Jeff Glasco, a PhD professor of history at Linfield College. BusterD (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• No merge: Monmouth is propably signigicant enough for a seperate oob. (P.S. I can try to get a better source for this article.) Wild Wolf (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent updates (April 2019)

I've taken the liberty of reformatting this page as tables, and have sourced the information to Lender & Stone's Fatal Sunday: George Washington, the Monmouth Campaign, and the Politics of Battle. As the most recent work, with a comprehensive order of battle, it looks to me to be the most authoratative source. Some of the detail that was there before I started this update has been lost, but I believe only that which was unsourced or dubiously sourced. Happy to discuss if anyone has any problems with that. Factotem (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There's still a bit of tidying up to do, but it's mostly there now. I also intend to rewrite the introduction to more accurately summarise the main article. In theory that will need a source, but how do you cite one very general summary paragraph to the 900 or so pages across two major and several more minor sources used for the near 10,000-word main article? Tempted to just leave it unsourced, if anyone has any thoughts on this. Factotem (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Also not sure about having images in an OOB page. I'm tempted to remove them unless anyone objects (some have already gone, but only because my head was too frazzled with table formatting to try and save them). Factotem (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)