Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War 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 Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Civil War / Military history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Most books refer to the battle as what is written above, because the battle was really two, one at Fair oaks, the other at seven pines. Also each side gave it a different name so it is a compromise.

Hm. The Library of Congress subject heading "Seven Pines, Battle of, Va., 1862" redirects to "Fair Oaks, Battle of, Va., 1862." so shouldn't the title of this article be "Battle of Fair Oaks" ?

The Library of Congress generally deals with names of books and images and does not play any definitive role in establishing how things are named. We are using the name acknowledged by the [| American Battlefield Protection Program], the effort by the National Park Service to classify battles and battlefields. To address the first question in this section, which I think is about five years old, yes, there were combat activities taking place in two separate locations, about a mile apart, but they are not considered two separate battles, any more than parts of the battle of Gettysburg are considered separate. The reason the two names are being bandied about here is that the Federal and Confederate soldiers tended to refer to the part of the battle they liked best. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the justification listed in the previous paragraph, note that in Wikipedia I do not believe there is any example of a Civil War battle that includes all of the multiple name choices in the title of the article. According to the NPS, the primary name for this battle is Seven Pines, but it is also known as Fair Oaks and Fair Oaks Station. We only acknowledge the first in the title. People referring to this article are free to use a link such as "Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks)" if they want to use both names. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome, these multiple attempts to move away from the name Battle of Seven Pines demonstrate the move to be controversial. Controversial moves should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves for further discussion. BusterD (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Currier and Ives lithograph out of the infobox and replaced with the Waud engraving, which seems more authentic to me, especially since Waud was an eyewitness.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today a new editor twice blanked the sentence about McClellan being down with malaria during the event. The sentence was cited with Eicher, normally regarded as an authoritative source meeting RS standards for citation. If User:Wesn54 wants to make a case for "Bailey's history book" as an alternative or minority source this is the place to discuss it. On the merits, I have no opinion. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]