Talk:Ten Years' War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cuba (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


If we do merge the articles, the Ten Years' War spelling should be used as that is more correct grammatically. Also, I think such a merge should preserve all facts found in each entry. In any case, I will not support merging if the authors of the entries disagree. This wouldn't be too bad as I think both versions have their strengths. The "Ten Years' War" version is my favorite because it contains only the more interesting information about the war. --Primetime 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge even if the authors diagree. That's what editors are for. Use whichever main article whose title best agrees with Wiki naming (should Wiki names have apostrophes?) Thatcher131 08:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, every encyclopedia on earth in English uses them in titles.[1][2][3][4][5] (Although not in the preceding citations, Encyclopedia Americana does it too.) --Primetime 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to question WP naming policy, I was trying to ask what it was regarding these two titles. Thatcher131 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


merge merge merge

Then, with a name decided upon, I can make a category of the same, agreed-upon name and collect all the material about this war into the category. Thanks Hmains 00:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey! All right! Thanks Hmains! Looks great. Is that everything? Can I go ahead and nominate the other article for speedy deletion?--Primetime 07:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • not delete, but re-redirect (as I have done) so that users who type in the name of the other article will get this article. Thanks --Hmains 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


This article will never be merged, it looks like. Some guy named Darwinek added a template on January 29 writing "template" in the edit summary, then left without writing anything else. I think the proposal is making editors reluctant to improve the article for fear of having their contributions lost. Thus, I will remove it. If someone actually intends to try to merge the two, let me know.--Primetime 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment[edit]

Thus far, this article is of fair length, and contains a seemingly thorough treatment of the details. It includes not only elements of the war itself, but the background and aftermath as well. But it doesn't have any pictures nor an infobox. I think the infobox, and the general overall expansion of the article would help it become B-class. LordAmeth 11:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

neutrality tag???[edit]

since nobody has disputed the neutrality on this page since it was installed, i will remove the tag. Sundar1 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation 10 on Conclusion of War[edit]

In the first paragraph on the Conclusion of the War, the source does not fully cover the last sentence in the paragraph.

The US sold the latest weapons to Spain, but not to the Cuban rebels.[1]

I cannot find anything close to this sentence in the source it cites (#10). (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^