Third Battle of Winchester has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 29, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
Third Battle of Winchester ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 5 May 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Third Battle of Winchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comment moved from Hlj's User page to the Talk page:
We generally use the National Park Service CWSAC naming convention for battles unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. This was a convention that was established a few years ago and it has stood up pretty well. It tends to eliminate arguments about how to name battles because, frankly, many Civil War battles have multiple names and different advocates for choosing the "correct" one. However, there are at least two known deviations. The minor case is Battle of Sayler's Creek, which uses the historic name because most historians use it. The major case is First Bull Run and Second Bull Run instead of Manassas. That one is considerably more controversial. There have been multiple requests to rename those two battles for a variety of reasons. When those requests arrive, we generally take a straw poll and the answer has always resulted in "that [Bull Run] is the best-known name for a battle that has a high degree of public awareness."
I do not feel strongly about this particular battle because it is, with all due respect, relatively obscure in comparison to Manassas. However, the anonymous posting makes a reasonable case, so let us do another straw poll. Please add your opinion below about whether we should rename the article. Hal Jespersen 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
With all do respect to Hal, it should be point out that the Battle of Opequon Creek saw a combined casualty tally of a minimum of 8,600 men. First Manassas losses numbered less than 5,000. As for the name, the Third Battle of Winchester is preferred by Southerners and Opequon is the U. S. Army designation. I would prefer the latter for it better identifies the wide ranging landscape of the battle and as we have two other battles of Winchester, lends uniqueness to the name. Third Winchester was the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought in the Shenandoah Valley. The armies at Cedar Creek were smaller and the casualties included much higher percentages of POW's as opposed to K & W. The losses in the Confederate officer corps (from Generals down to NCO's) at Opequon also led to demoralizaton and loss of control that Early experienced at Cedar Creek with the plundering of Yankee camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShenandoahValley ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: To be moved. No formal objections after nine days of listing, and well grounded reasoning in support. Note: I am requesting admin assistance to delete the target page, and the move will be completed once that is done. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 11:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Opequon →
Third Battle of Winchester – The article says this battle is better known as the
Third Battle of Winchester, which seems to be true and has redirected here since February 2005, so why isn't the article using that
WP:COMMONNAME for its title? Note that we have articles named for the
First Battle of Winchester and the
Second Battle of Winchester, but this one is sitting inconsistently at
Battle of Opequon. There was some prior discussion on the Talk page, but the question's been left hanging since February 2007. A formal RM is probably helpful to reach closure one way or the other. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
23:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Third Battle of Winchester has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 29, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
Third Battle of Winchester ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 5 May 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Third Battle of Winchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comment moved from Hlj's User page to the Talk page:
We generally use the National Park Service CWSAC naming convention for battles unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. This was a convention that was established a few years ago and it has stood up pretty well. It tends to eliminate arguments about how to name battles because, frankly, many Civil War battles have multiple names and different advocates for choosing the "correct" one. However, there are at least two known deviations. The minor case is Battle of Sayler's Creek, which uses the historic name because most historians use it. The major case is First Bull Run and Second Bull Run instead of Manassas. That one is considerably more controversial. There have been multiple requests to rename those two battles for a variety of reasons. When those requests arrive, we generally take a straw poll and the answer has always resulted in "that [Bull Run] is the best-known name for a battle that has a high degree of public awareness."
I do not feel strongly about this particular battle because it is, with all due respect, relatively obscure in comparison to Manassas. However, the anonymous posting makes a reasonable case, so let us do another straw poll. Please add your opinion below about whether we should rename the article. Hal Jespersen 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
With all do respect to Hal, it should be point out that the Battle of Opequon Creek saw a combined casualty tally of a minimum of 8,600 men. First Manassas losses numbered less than 5,000. As for the name, the Third Battle of Winchester is preferred by Southerners and Opequon is the U. S. Army designation. I would prefer the latter for it better identifies the wide ranging landscape of the battle and as we have two other battles of Winchester, lends uniqueness to the name. Third Winchester was the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought in the Shenandoah Valley. The armies at Cedar Creek were smaller and the casualties included much higher percentages of POW's as opposed to K & W. The losses in the Confederate officer corps (from Generals down to NCO's) at Opequon also led to demoralizaton and loss of control that Early experienced at Cedar Creek with the plundering of Yankee camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShenandoahValley ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: To be moved. No formal objections after nine days of listing, and well grounded reasoning in support. Note: I am requesting admin assistance to delete the target page, and the move will be completed once that is done. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 11:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Opequon →
Third Battle of Winchester – The article says this battle is better known as the
Third Battle of Winchester, which seems to be true and has redirected here since February 2005, so why isn't the article using that
WP:COMMONNAME for its title? Note that we have articles named for the
First Battle of Winchester and the
Second Battle of Winchester, but this one is sitting inconsistently at
Battle of Opequon. There was some prior discussion on the Talk page, but the question's been left hanging since February 2007. A formal RM is probably helpful to reach closure one way or the other. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
23:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)