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.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
Was there a previous consensus that the infobox result should be limited to just "See Aftermath" at all? It seems pretty obvious what the result was - a Pyrrhic British victory. It's not as if the result is in question - the British took the ground and drove the colonial forces from the Peninsular, but suffered irreplaceable casualties that prevented them from following-up on their victory. (TomRidley (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Description of the result in the infobox as "See Aftermath" defers to the broad community consensus not to use such terms as "Pyrrhic" in the infobox per WP:MILMOS, noting that MILMOS explicitly defers to the template documentation. Apologies that I did not see this question earlier. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"see aftermath" in this case makes sense. It was clearly a British victory, as they took the hill, and the numbers of dead weren't that different really, in that the Brits lost about 240 killed, but the US lost 120 or so. That's the sort of number you might expect from taking a fortified position, so its nothing too amazing. However British General Sir Henry clinton refers to it as a Pyrhic victory, so it appears that's how it was percieved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, so Why hasn't it been changed to a "British Victory" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1580:369E:DA1E:C57A:DA10:B2D9 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
