Talk:Confederate Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is there any serious historical work that has been done on the Arizona Territory?evrik 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


The map, Image:Wpdms arizona new mexico territories 1863 idx.png, is labelled "1863", but by that time the CSA forces had left the territory. The map seems to depict the situation that existed between March 1861 and March 1862. Any other thoughts? Thanks,-Willmcw July 5, 2005 20:52 (UTC)

I've fixed the caption to reflect the context of this image more clearly. Some other fixes to the article help establish dating.--Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The map indicates the Indian Territory to be Union, although it was Confederate.


I have tryed to improve it an remove all the white gappy bits and drew it togeather!--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Is that last image serious? It looks like a hoax! (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Pinos altos.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pinos altos.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Confederate Arizona. The discussion quickly grew somewhat convoluted, but clearly there is support for a move away from the previous title, and to a more concise title, but not for the disambiguator specified in the initial move request. However, Cúchullain has adduced evidence in support of an even more concise alternative (and a brief search of available sources eminently supports that proposed title). It also presents an instance of natural disambiguation, which is a Good Thing. bd2412 T 23:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Arizona Territory (Confederate States of America)Arizona Territory (Confederate States) – This is the only page that uses "Confederate States" or "Confederate States of America" in disambig parentheses. I'm generally in favor of titles matching their parent article's title (in this case Confederate States of America), but we shouldn't put pointless extra words in disambig parentheses. The purpose of disambig parentheses is simply to distinguish multiple articles with the same title. To adapt a quote from Apteva, disambig parentheses don't always need to be as precisely named as article titles, and shorter names are easier to use. "Confederate States" is plenty to disambiguate such articles from others with the same title. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. I don't care what particular disambiguator is chosen but conciseness is good. Red Slash 16:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose In my experience, both "Confederate States of America" an "the Confederacy" are commonly used (the latter possibly more frequently), but "Confederate States" is not used particularly commonly and seems to me to be thus less recognisable. Neljack (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Funny, my belt buckle says "Confederate States Army" and it never seemed ambiguous to me. Besides, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article reads "The Confederate States of America (CSA), commonly referred to as the Confederate States..."  AjaxSmack  03:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Support "Confederate Arizona". Short, sweet and clear. Neljack (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. The current title is not massively overlong, and the proposed one could fail recognisability.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "CSA" and the "Confederacy" are common shorthands for the government; "Confederate States" is not nearly so common. I agree that conciseness is desirable; perhaps just (CSA) would do it.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • "CSA" is less clear than "Confederate States" as it also stands for "Confederate States Army" among other things.  AjaxSmack  03:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
All it needs to do is distinguish the article from Arizona Territory in a recognizable fashion. If we want conciseness "CSA" is the most concise, and it's also a much more common shorthand than "Confederate States".--Cúchullain t/c 06:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I would support Confederate Arizona per below. It's a well established term, see for instance Martin Hall's "The Mesilla Times: A Journal of Confederate Arizona" and this Google Books search.--Cúchullain t/c 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. Arizona Territory (CSA) might be ok as a redirect; note that the Confederacy isn't the primary topic for CSA. --BDD (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. We haven't had much trouble with "United States" as a disambiguator. A reader will likely recognise both "Confederate States of America" and "Confederate States" or neither. —  AjaxSmack  03:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Gut reaction is that this is getting uncomfortably brief, but it seems good. So yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Confederate Arizona per Cúchullain. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2014 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.