Talk:Wars Involving the United States

Why are U.S. border dispute wars such as The Pennamite-Yankee War and the Toledo War not included?

There are quite a number of inter-state wars such as the Pennamite-Yankee War(specifically the Third Pennamite War) between Pennsylvania and Connecticut as well as the Toledo War between Michigan and Ohio. These are just two examples but there are quite a few similar ones so I was wondering if there was any particular reason why they were excluded when other smaller scale conflicts are listed like John Browns Raid on Harper's Ferry or if it would be better to add them. Plugshirt (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

These don't seem so much like Wars involving the United States Military so much as land disputes that got a bit violent between States. Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree but there conflicts listed here such as Bleeding Kansas which is a border war which would fall under that same umbrella. It just seems a bit arbitrary which conflicts are and which are not included. Plugshirt (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned that too at one point when we were considering the coal wars (especially the Battle of Blair Mountain), but the powers at be said that the U.S. military did occupy parts of the area. And some considered it a pre cursor to the Civil war. Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposition to remove the citation needed for number of conflicts.

Unless we wish to sort specifically each source from all 121 conflicts already listed on this list and linked to sources that are already found or linked in each conflict at the end of the section entitle "The United States has been involved in at least 121 military conflicts." I suggest we leave remove the citation needed link. We would just be putting between 1-121 source links based on the conflicts already linked squarely on one specific line which would be both redundant and cumbersome to readers.

After we have reverted this we should simply increase the amount of conflicts upon the discovery or emergence of new conflicts as this page has historically always done. (With the recent edition of the "at least" in the "The United States has been involved in at least 121 military conflicts." section I believe that is a worthy compromise to account for any conflicts not yet listed or that will come about in the future. (Although hopefully not war is terrible.) :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I should add that this is a dynamic list, so again new additions get added all the time and the links them should rely on the sources added already, and not have to all be listed out within the very first line of the first paragraph. Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Pls review WP:SYNTH ...is the plan to list all 400?....i just removed the number. Could you also review WP:LISTVERIFY Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. Moxy🍁 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The plan is to list all of the military conflicts as they happen good sir. Once again please look at the definition of a dynamic list. If a new war occurs or if there was one that was left out it will be added to the list. This is what has been done at the beginning of this list till now.

If you look at the WP:LISTVERIFY it also says that in that section that "It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits, does not require an inline citation."

And there is a link to the guideline that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue section. We have the list there for a reason that links to sources that all 121 of the historical conflicts indeed happened.

If you wish to personally site each and every source already linked either on the list or at the bottom page in there very first line. Then feel free to do so, I'm personally fine with it however please be thorough if you do that and double check for any Wikipedia guidelines on redundancy and ease of readability for readers. Thank you. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relally should not misleading our readers with a random number in the first sentence as if its a fact found in sources WP:Burden. The number has randomly changed many many times every time a new conflict is added despite no sources claiming any of the numbers being presented. Just state its a list - we should not imply that any source defines a number vs its a made up list that needs many many source to make it usable for research. As for WP:LISTVERIFY - clearly many entries on this list are points of contention and need sources...considering many do not match up with the main article. Wikipedia:Purpose " Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a tertiary source and provides overviews of a topic by indicating reliable sources of more extensive information.Moxy🍁 20:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Moxy so this is not guess work as you said before. There are indeed at least 121 conflicts that the United States has been involved it. The number has not been randomly changed they have merely been added as either a new conflict has begun such as the war in Israel or an older conflict has been added that has happened historically, but was never considered by another Wikipedia editor before for example the 1st Battle of Shimonoseki Straits and the following Shimonoseki campaign.

Please tell us which conflicts you do not think historically happened or whose links are not there and then add the links if you want to after letting us know which ones you do not think were conflicts involving the USA. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Will wait for others to explain as in guess i am not clear. On side note again - Is the plan to list all 400 or so? What is the criteria here? Moxy🍁 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough we can wait. Again it's a dynamic list. The plan is to include any U.S. military conflict involving the United States military. Labor wars like the coal wars or rebellions such as the whiskey rebellion do not count just as a couple of examples. We are also not including attacks on the united states that is a separate list currently in its draft phase. So single terrorist arracks, the black tom bombing, or things like the attack on the U.S.S. liberty do not count for the war list, but would count for the attack list. Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Moxy, if we check, for example List of PlayStation 5 games, there is also written - There are currently 828 games on this list. That list is maybe also incomplete, there is no source there was really released 828 games, so why the number is problem only here and not there? I would not call it random number here, all that 121 conflicts are listed in this article. I am glad, that Historyguy1138 updating this incomplete list. Dasomm (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This is an example of a list that needs to be improved..... Should be following the examples of our featured articles that are academic in nature versus pop culture... List of presidents of the United States. Some sort of realistic criteria should be established Operation Ocean Shield was a war?Moxy🍁 22:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how you are defining "academic in nature' versus pop culture. Culture as a branch of pop culture is a sub category of featured topics. And all three of these lists are dynamic lists. The only difference between the presidents list and the Playstation 5 and List of Wars involving the U.S. is that there may be certain conflicts that have not been discovered/ added yet.

"Some sort of realistic criteria should be established Operation Ocean Shield was a war?"

Yes many people have brought this up before and this may merit wider discussion. Technically speaking the United States has only declared war 5 times in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2.

The thread was archived on this talk page, but I once debated here why we should include the coal wars here, but people debated that it would be closer to a rebellion or a case of civil unrest. Even though certain Coal wars or battles in them such as the Battle of Blair Mountain, started to become more civil war like in certain aspects in that they used planes, machine guns, and the U.S. military fought in it. But someone also pointed out that they also brought in the military for the LA riots.

That's why other lists like List of rebellions in the United States, List of massacres in the United States, list of Family feuds in the United States, or attacks on the united states are out there. There's also a list called List of conflicts in the United States, but that list is more of a broad list of any type of violent action in the U.S. larger than a generic murder.

We don't focus on rebellions or single attacks on the U.S.A. as much as military conflicts involving the United States military. Not rebellions (the civil war was a whole other level) and single attacks.

Yes operation Ocean Shield is considered a military conflict. Together the coalition captured or killed hundred of pirates against a foreign adversary.

Honestly I think the criteria that we have is fine at this point, but perhaps we could be a little bit more explicit about what we mean by military conflicts involving the U.S.A. I'm open to working on that and including more qualifiers at the top of the list for that. But if we do that, we should start it as a new topic on this talk page so we can hammer out the bugs and get the wording right. Historyguy1138 (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Moxy. So being that no one else has answered on this except you me and Dasomm I am going to wait two weeks in fairness to you and get rid of the cited needed section. If anyone else chimes in before that, then of course we will continue to discuss it. The only additions that will be made if any is if new conflicts break up or discovered, however if in the unlikely event people on this page find that we should remove the list of conflicts, then of course we can take it down at a later time. Please feel free to let me know your thoughts and thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Niger Intervention

As changed, the Niger Intervention did not lead to a jihadist victory as the jihadists were not successful in defeating american forces, nor did they win attritionally by land capture, but the Junta technically won this conflict as they did not allow the jihadists to gain territory significantly and they expelled americans. BarakHussan (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There should also be noted that just cause the jihadis still exist did not result in Niger conflict to end, but the Junta expelling americans ended the intervention BarakHussan (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Presidents Section dates

I noticed that in the presidents section of the tables, it lists the dates for each president as the beginning to the end of their term even if the war described began/ended part way through their term (example: Joe Biden is listed as president from January 20, 2021 - January 20, 2025 in the entry for the Gaza war, despite the war only starting in October of 2023). Should the table list the dates of the respective president’s term or only the time they were in office during the war (example: Listing Joe Biden as president during the Gaza war from October 7, 2023 - January 20, 2025) Cap8Rob9 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

verifying cleanup after disruptive edits

Another user has made some disruptive edits to this page by copying content from other articles without attributing those sources, but also without straightening out the references used in the copied material. Their edits resulted in more than two dozen referencing errors in this article. I've done work to clean up those problems, including undoing misguided attempts by robots to replace the missing references.

A large volume of material has been copied into this article from other articles, which means that material must be maintained in multiple places. If errors are detected, they must be corrected everywhere -- but no indication of the duplication is traceable to someone who might find a problem and work to correct it.

Combined with the churn caused by my cleanup, I'm concerned about the quality of the article after all this churn and would appreciate a review from someone who's familiar with this subject matter. -- mikeblas (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Message me please I want to know your thoughts. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Your thoughts my friend? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Way too many images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently over 1000 images ......accessibility nightmare!! Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images ". Articles with many images may time out on mobile versions of Wikipedia. Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images (regardless of how small). " MediaWiki:Limit number of images in a page. Moxy🍁 05:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T248796 Moxy🍁 07:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If you feel it necessary Moxy. As it will hurt readers accessibility to view the articles on mobile devices. And this is the reason for removing the images, I see no reason with removing the images in the conflict section of the list. However I would not remove the flags.

|f I make a suggestion to help your case. Wait about 2 weeks since you made this post (February 23rd) and then remove the images in the conflict section. I will even help you if it comes to that.

But I will warn you. I think what might happen is that later we will get a bunch of editors reverting those images, so we may have to reopen the discussion. (Sometimes editors do not pay attention to the talk page until well after the there has been a talk unfortunately). |:

What do you think? Sound reasonable? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The question is are you here to make things pretty or accessible to our readers. If the article times out for a whole bunch of people what's the point of the article to begin with. Try to do what's best for our readers not what's best for aesthetics. Moxy🍁 02:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I care about two things in this context.

1. Accessibility to the readers.

2. Usefulness of the page.

If there is a conflict between sacrifices parts of one for the other, than I might peacefully debate you on that.

Aesthetics is nice, but is secondary.

But in this case I do not mind getting rid of the images in the conflict section, if that is what the majority wants.

Again if we take it out I think we will have to come back to the talk page again, because I think people don't always pay attention to the talk page as much as the article itself.

But (assuming no one gives issue to it while we are here) then after the 2 week framework would it be agreeable to you to take down the images in the conflict section? Like I said if this is satisfactory to you and you believe it will help the accessibility for mobile devices then I will help you.

What do you think? Do you find this proposal agreeable? Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there is too many photos and by time there will be more for sure. Also a lot of wars in this list still missing, so this article will be longer and longer, so other problem is length. But I think, photos are very helpful here, so I recommending to devide this article into four separate articles: List of wars involving the United States in the 18th century, List of wars involving the United States in the 19th century, List of wars involving the United States in the 20th century, List of wars involving the United States in the 21st century or into two separate articles: List of wars involving the United States (1775-1899) and List of wars involving the United States (1900-present). All photos can be kept and articles will be much shorter. Dasomm (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmmmm I would be interested in that. Actually I think I would like this solution better. We should make this a separate discussion point. On the talk page.

Also maybe we create this page and have links to the other articles?

Should we maybe include just one article for the 18th and 19th centuries since the 18th only has 5 conflicts?

Also which conflicts are we currently missing? I know of at least 3, but I am improving those articles, before I add them. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure which conflicts we currently missing, but Moxy wrote United States was involved in over 400 wars, so maybe there will be more to add. To create new pages is better solution for sure, it was just an idea... You can start new discussion about this. New pages will solve Moxy's problem and there will be no problems with number of photos in the future. One article for wars in 18th and 19th c. is good idea. Dasomm (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what the article/Moxy means by that. I can only think of 2 scenarios.

1. The article is talking about some of the Native American small wars. (Perhaps a few are not on the list. We were in a lot of them.
2. Maybe by involved it is saying we supplied funds or provided non direct military aid like South Sudan or the Ukraine war. Cool I will create a talk about this.

Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to Split this page in 4.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So User:Moxy raises the point that there are too many images in the conflicts section of this article which makes it harder for phone users to access the article.

He proposes we get rid of them all. Personally I am not against his idea as long as it does not affect the usefulness of the article and as long as the majority think it's a good idea.

However User:Dasomm, proposes a compromise. We split the article into 4.

1. One article on the U.S. conflicts in the 18th and 19th century. (There were 5 conflicts in the 18th century so we combine the 2.)
2. One article on the U.S. conflicts in the 20th century.
3. One article on the U.S. conflicts in the 21st century.
4. One article connecting the other 3 called "List of wars involving the United States" with a brief explanation of this connector article and a link to the other 3 articles. This would do a few things: 1. It would still allow us to create images if we so want. 2. It would make it so that it will be easier for phone users can read the articles and find the information they need. For at least 2 weeks barring any opposition we will not do the splitting until everyone has had a chance to discuss. If there is not new discussion after 2 weeks we will split up the article.

Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support A split would be best (great idea) - as the pictures are not the main problem - each flag is an image that needs to load from a template that is causing timeout error for some. Most of the world does not get a new phone every year.....in fact the time between buys is getting longer [1]...or internet speeds that will not time out in 10sec.Moxy🍁 18:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. Happy you agree Moxy.

Let's give everyone 2 weeks from the last point of discussion to be fair to the other editors and upon common consensus we make the change. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support As I said, this article is too long with too many pictures and in following years will be even longer (lets hope not). Lets split the article, I am glad Moxy also agree. Dasomm (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Split into the main American eras ? Political eras of the United States Moxy🍁 18:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be also good. Dasomm (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the idea of a further delineation per se Moxy. But I want to be clear in my understanding of your delineation of political era.

You are talking about the 7 party systems in and the pre constitution system of the 2nd Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation yes?

If so we should definitely consolidate the pre constitution system and the 1st party system.

That being said with that delineation, I'm fine breaking it down that way if we get a consensus from others. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear there's only five defined eras.... Just noticing on the linked page that there is a 6th and 7th.... That would be original research in my view. Moxy🍁 02:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just checked it. Yeah makes sense to me. The 6th and 7th have no citations, and 7th in particular seems speculative.

Though I think if we do this we should merge the pre party system revolutionary era, 1789[a]–1801: Federalist Era/1st party system, and the 1801–1861: Democratic Era/2nd part system, since the 1st 2 only have a few wars in them. What do you think? Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of that set up? Under those conditions? That means we would have 5 articles:

1. One article connected the other 4 called "List of wars involving the United States" with a brief explanation of this connector article and a link to the other 4 articles.

2. A combination of 3 eras between :

a. pre partisan era (1775-1788)

b. Federalist Era (1789–1801)

c. Democratic Era (1801–1861)

We would call the Article List of wars involving the United States in the Federalist and Democratic era.

3. Republican Era (1861–1933)

We would call the Article List of wars involving the United States in the Republican Era.

4. New Deal Democratic Era (1933–1969)

We would call the Article List of wars involving the United States in the New Deal Democratic Era.

5. Divided Government Era (1969–Present)

We would call the Article List of wars involving the United States in the New Divided Government Era. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support, splitting this article up into categories help organize the duration and timeline of the wars easier. Rager7 (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Cool. What do you think of the connector article? I think that would be useful as well. Historyguy1138 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, however I feel that the New Deal era time period should go up the the 1980s and then then 5th era could be about the Reagan Era. Rager7 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that per se, but it would depend on 2 things.

1. If everyone else is cool with it.
2. Is that what most historians consider those eras? I don't know personally, I have not formally studied how they categorize them.

Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I say personally, the New Deal Era lasted from 1933-1981 and the Regan Era started from 1981-2016. People debate that we are under a new system under Trump but to be safe. We could say the Reagan Era goes from 1981 to the present. Rager7 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean that's fine by me if we want to do that, but just so it doesn't look like we are organizing these articles arbitrarily do you think you can adjust the Political eras of the United States, so that we have somewhat of a baseline/ precedence for organizing these articles? Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

By adjusting, do you mean by re formatting the time periods in the Political eras of the United States article? Rager7 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. Whatever you feel is necessary to get the message to the readers, as long as it has verifiable citations.

If there is more than one way to categorize these eras that historians have used, then maybe you can create a separate category in that article that shows a different way of organizing American political eras.

However you want to do it. Again I feel you are more knowledgable in this area than I am. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should split it by centuries as I said at the beginnig, will be more easy to understand it for visitors outside the US and for people who lack knowledge or understanding of American eras. Dasomm (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with either as long as we are consistent and clear. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking that for the connector article it should say this:

These are a series of

dynamic list

s and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by

adding missing items

with

reliable sources

.

These are list of military conflicts, that United States have been involved in. There are currently 123 military conflicts on this list, 5 of which are ongoing. These include major conflicts like the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the Gulf War. It also includes US involvement in widespread periods of conflict like the Indian Wars, the Cold War (including the Korean War and the Vietnam War), and the War on Terror (including the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, and others).

Five military engagements encompassing four wars, all of which are interventions, currently involve the US: the Yemeni Civil War, the Somali Civil War, the Syrian Civil War, and the Gaza War.

Then there would be links to each article.

For each article it would say this:

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

This article is part of a wider series of articles concerning the various military conflicts involving the United States.

Then there would be a link to the connector article.

What do you guys think?

Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, good, I agree. Dasomm (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If we do this should we leave this article alone and craft 4 draft articles and then delete this one? Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaza War should be removed

America isn’t directly involved, that’d be like including the war in Ukraine because we gave them money. Nightmarejessie (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

United States deployed 100 soldiers to Israel to operate advanced anti-missile system, it means US is directly involved in this war. There are no US troops (officially) in Ukraine. Dasomm (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus reached on splitting the page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello wiki editors. Thank you all for your input. I think we have so far we have more or less civilly reached a consensus that this article should be split.

Here are some questions to consider on where we go from here and how we should do it?

1. Should we give people more time to respond to this and/or should we put a notification on this page? ----
2. If we do this should we leave this article alone and craft 4 draft articles and then delete this one when we are ready to launch? ----
3. For the split page should we come up with a list of criteria for inclusion on these articles as a guideline for future inclusions? In the past more or less how the criteria as it has been explained to me before is more or less as followed: ----a. Technically speaking the United States has only declared war 5 times in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2. This would leave the Vietnam, Korean, Afghanistan, the Native American Wars, Banana Wars, Civil War, and Iraq wars in addition to other smaller conflicts out of the equation if we went by that criteria. So we focus on military conflicts involving the United States Military, even small ones. ----b. There are other separate, but related articles such as List of rebellions in the United States, List of massacres in the United States, and list of Family feuds in the United States. The User:WeatherWriter is also spearheading a series of draft articles on attacks on the united states. There's also a list called List of conflicts in the United States, but that list is more of a broad list of any type of violent action in the U.S. larger than a generic murder. ----c. Broadly speaking we don't focus on rebellions, single terrorist attacks on the U.S.A., riots, assassinations, labor wars, state wars, gang wars, as much as military conflicts involving the United States military (U.S Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Airforce, Coast Guard (when acting in a military capacity), Space Force, the United States Intelligence Agencies (when acting in a miliary capacity [for instance the Special Activities Center]), the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps, Merchant Marines, and U.S. private military companies (PMCs). ---- ----As a few examples for criteria we do not include: We do not include the Whiskey Rebellion, the Bundy Standoffs, the slave rebellions, the Waco Siege, the Ruby Ridge Siege, or the Bonus Army protest and the Business Plot, (the civil war and Bleeding Kansas taken together were on a whole other level so that is a notable exception) (also territorial rebellions such as the Philippine–American War, Moro War, Mormon Wars, or the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party insurgency are exceptions). No terrorist attacks like the Black Tom Bombing of 1916, the Preparedness Day bombing, Weather Underground bombings, or the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. No riots the L.A. Riots (which including the use of the military, but was a riot, and single attacks) or the Battle of Liberty Place. No labor wars such as the Great Railroad Strike or the Coal Wars which can be considered a type of rebellion, even if the United States military were involved. No state or local wars such as the Toledo War or the Battle of Athens. No Feuds like the Hatfield's and McCoy's. No gang wars like the Tong Wars or the Castellammarese War. ---- ----
4. Should we keep the format the same in terms of the body of the articles (except of course that we are splitting the articles up into centuries)? ----
5. Just to be clear are we are all in agreement to split the article into 4 based on the centuries, combine the 18th and 19th centuries, and create one connecting article that brings the other 3 together? What are your thoughts friends? (:

Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Dasomm, Rager7, .Moxy🍁

What do you guys think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 No.1, I prefer letting others having more to time to fully form their opinions before doing consensus on this article reformatting. Rager7 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

How much time do we give? Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

As much time as possible. Rager7 (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes move forward..... as of now many people can't access the article. Moxy🍁 00:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, as Moxy said, lets move forward, there was enough time for discussion. As you said @Historyguy1138, (4) keep the format same and (5) lets split the article into 4 based on the centuries, combine the 18th and 19th centuries, and create one connecting article that brings the other 3 together. It will be more easy to understand it for visitors outside the US and for people who lack knowledge or understanding of American eras. I think. you also agree with this @Historyguy1138, so you can start with editing. Dasomm (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I do agree yes. But I do suggest we leave this current page up while we are working on the drafts of the other 4 articles.

@Dasomm can you please leave an edit on this page notifying everyone that we are working on splitting the page into 4 and to come to this page so they can get the links to the new draft articles as we build them.

We will archive this article when we are readying to launch all 4 articles. Sounds good?

Also I have created 4 sandboxes that anyone here is welcome to work on with me:

User:Historyguy1138/sandbox4 (Future connection/Main Article for List of wars involving the United States)

User:Historyguy1138/sandbox5 (List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries)

User:Historyguy1138/sandbox6 (List of wars involving the United States from the 20th century)

User:Historyguy1138/sandbox7 (List of wars involving the United States from the 21st century)

I will personally start with the connector article and I will not publish any of them till we reach a general consensus that we are all generally satisfied with the results for those of us who are participating in this enterprise.

Rager7, .Moxy🍁

Thank you guys I think this will both be fun on a personal level, a good compromise that generally meets all of our desires, and will be a useful and perhaps interesting tool for our readers to use. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok guys I think I am more or less finished.

Please review each article and let me know what you think. Please use the articles talk pages if it is about a particular aspect of that article or if it is about this project in general talk about it here.

Let's make sure we are all satisfied before we publish and time it so we try and do everything more or less simultaneously.

Where do we go from here? Do we delete this List first or label the connecting list temporary as (List of wars involving the United States) and then delete the old version? Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy, can you give us the green light? You are the most experienced editor here. I think Historyguy1138 did a good job and he is ready to publish it. Dasomm (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree good job done thumbs up. Moxy🍁 01:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks guys.

Moxy

🍁

Should we publish 1st and then delete the old version? I can just title the connector article List of wars involving the United States (New Version)

Historyguy1138 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's up to you :) Dasomm (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Got it. I will publish them first and then label the new article the (New Version) and then we can delete this article.

If you can though if there is some type of notification or template we can use to let people know this article is going to be deleted soon, please put it there. But I will leave that to your prerogative. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Articles Pending

Here are the New Articles links. Just waiting for approval then we can get rid of this article as it is replaced by the new ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States_from_the_20th_century&redirect=no

Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Want me to move these to main space? Are they ready? Moxy🍁 04:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes please. And yes I believe so. Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)