Talk:Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. Thank you.PKKloeppel (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
replies: text: 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:CSN_cottonclad_rams Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Research Question

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526090300/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/ABPP/battles/la001.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/la001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526090300/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/ABPP/battles/la001.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/la001.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Upside down 

message: , you reverted the move here, with the edit summary: .  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)
thread_title:  Revert of move from [[Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip]] to [[Battle of forts Jackson and St. Philip]] 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 January 2024