Talk:Skirmish of Chenab (1739)

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 September 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by Asilvering (talk · contribs) on 22 September 2023.

Military history: National / Asian / British / European / Indian / Middle East / South Asia / Early Modern

This redirect 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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Asian military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Battle of chenab ?

The sources cited in this article don't describe this event as a "battle", it seems that it was a skirmish between Sikhs and the rear of Nader's army, the Sikhs fleeing after taking some booty and slaves from the shah's army with the Persians being unable to pursue them because they were heavily loaded with booty. Should be renamed accordingly.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the title of the page should be changed to either sikh raid on nader shah or skirmish of the chenab river Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway to change the name by any chance? I didn't know the difference between battle and skirmishes until now Ronnie Macroni (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was at least a skirmish since they fought a little with a few casualties Ronnie Macroni (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor event, i don't even know if it deserves an article. We have only two reliable western sources in the article (Axworthy and Sage publication), but hard to find any details about this event. As far as i know about Wikipedia, we don't have any other article about a skirmish, but maybe i am mistaken. Better to check if this article meets the criteria in order to be kept.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that skirmishes can have an article in wikipedia. For Example Skirmish of the Brick Church Ronnie Macroni (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i think i was not clear enough, i meant i haven't seen any article about a minor skirmish without any consequences, the one you linked had several notable consequences (first confederate victory in Florida, first field commanders killed there, etc ...).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Shah?

Nader was neither a commander nor a leader in this conflict. Matter fact this is a raid. Not a skirmish. Ajayraj890 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayraj890 A raid is still a military conflict and since when do leaders have to be physically present in a conflict for their name to appear in the infobox. Look at every battle page on WW2 involving the Germans, Hitler's name is listed in the infobox even though he was never physically present in any of the battles (aside from the Battle of Berlin), so leaders do not have to actually be engaged in fighting to be in the infobox. Nader Shah was the leader of the Persian forces so his name should be in the infobox. ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it was a raid. I am even in a confuse that should the infobox be created. It is even misleading that the reader may think Nader Shah fought this as a battle. A raid without casualties should not have a military conflict template. Moreover, the casualties were present in the infobox without citations till few days ago and nobody took any action about it. Nor the article body covered that. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]