Talk:Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That referred to this bot edit, which i just undid, as the bot edit had removed references and direct quotation marks and otherwise hurt the article. In general maybe the copyright-related bot edits are helpful, but not here. --doncram (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Rochambeau route category

I think adding a category, perhaps Category:Rochambeau route to the multiple historic site articles associated with this route, would be beneficial. It would aid navigation by readers who find their way to one of the articles. Any ideas on how this should be named, or otherwise? --doncram 19:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The category is Category:Historic places on the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. --doncram 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed merger; revert is next step in BRD process

I see that, without any proposal or discussion, an editor has proceeded with a merger of List of historic sites preserved along Rochambeau's route into this article. The current article is somewhat bizarre, saying that Rochambeau's divisions marched along modern highways numbered 14a, etc. It seems to mix an accounting of the historical march with the separate subject of what buildings and campgrounds have been preserved until this day, randomly or otherwise, i.e. what artifacts/scenery a modern-day visitor can expect to find still. I know that some of the historic sites along the route are a mix of buildings and other artifacts that were in place when Rochambeau marched plus others which were built later. It comes across as ahistorical now to me. I think that discussion of preservation has been shortchanged now. I am not sure if this criticism by me is completely fair; maybe the separate articles suffered somewhat the same fault. But I am not liking the current state of the article and am somewhat inclined to revert all changes to both articles, per wp:BRD process. --Doncram (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Doncram and Reywas92: I undid the merger. We should discuss it here first. --evrik ^(talk) 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm I think a section of the historic sites can make clear that these are the preserved places today that are not necessarily the same as what was there in 1781. Also with the lead saying "The route is a designated National Historic Trail with interpretive literature, signs..." the article can give some info about what is left of the route now. I'm not sure how anything would be shortchanged since it's all of the same content, but in one place; if anything the split shortchanges the list of sites, with this page getting ~1300 monthly views but the list only ~70 because the link to it is buried in the see also. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I was also going to say that if kept separate the name of List of historic sites preserved along Rochambeau's route neglects that they marched with Washington for most of the route, but the list actually only has 7 sites from New York to Virginia while 29 are in Connecticut and Rhode Island, so it seems rather misbalanced. Guess we can blame Connecticut historians for nominating 17 road segments as separate NRHPs... One solution would be to separate the specific contemporaneous sites from the modern locations. Those 17 could also be combined a la a more comprehensive Camino Real in New Mexico. Reywas92^Talk 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• List of historic sites preserved along Rochambeau's route needs a lot of work and could be definitely improved. I think merging it here doesn't hep either article. --evrik ^(talk) 02:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

7,000 Troops began the march to Yorktown - 4,000 French and 3,000 American soldiers

I added... 4,000 French and 3,000 American soldiers began the march. - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown - 2603:3020:1A16:3E00:5BF:478D:A58E:C4BC (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)