Talk:Third Battle of Winchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Battle of Opequon)
Jump to: navigation, search

Third Battle of Winchester - rename?[edit]

Comment moved from Hlj's User page to the Talk page:

There is no literature referring to a "Battle of Opequon" save some esoteric references or Union offical records. The Body of Literature call this the Third Battle of Winchester. NPS has no park, signage or effort in regards to Winchester-III. It is confusing for readers to see the body of books and literature, and then see an entirely different title in Wikipedia. "Battle of Opequon" is strictly an alternative name for a very small, or practically non-existent subset of CW historians and enthusiasts. Local signage and museums in Winchester, VA, where I am a resident, refer to this battle by it's name: Third Battle of Winchester, and it is known by it's part in the series of battles there. [anonymous]

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)

  • Oppose. I am a big advocate of adhering to the NPS guidelines wherever feasible. Hal Jespersen 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent. While I personally use the CWSAC designations in the Civil War miniature wargaming magazine that I edit and publish (as well as when I write on Wikipedia), I don't really have a strong opinion on this one. I had reverted some of the original changes by GrayGhost in order to meet common convention, but as Hal has pointed out, there are exceptions. I strongly disagree that the "Body of Literature" only calls this Third Winchester. Run a search on Microsoft Live Search Books for old regimental histories, and there are dozens of late 1880s books WRITTEN BY UNION VETERANS (and a few from Rebels) that call this Opequon (often with Third Winchester in parentheses). It is true that many modern writers, as wel las the commonwealth of Virginia, calls this Third Winchester, but the veterans (and part of the Official Records) does call this Opequon. So the nomenclature is well mixed if one looks at contemporary sources, not just today's Winchester and local modern naming conventions. Scott Mingus 04:23, 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 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 OpequonThird 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)

I have no theoretical objection to this, but if you do it, you should take the responsibility of going through articles that are linked to this one and search out instances of text like "also known as Third Winchester." Also, don't forget the order of battle articles. The title of this article matches its description by the American Battlefield Protection Program, but we have deviated from that a nontrivial number of times over the past 12 years, so I guess one additional deviation isn't going to hurt anyone. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see a need to change links to the article. Both names already lead to this article, and please see WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:PIPE. Any statement saying "The Battle of Opequon (also known as the Third Battle of Winchester)" will remain true (regardless of which phrases are linked in the statement). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Good catch. Well argued rationale and no opposition that I can see or even imagine. Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)