A key issue is whether the list should contain only the generals in the class, or all the members. The class itself is notable. All the generals are presumed notable under WP:SOLDIER although not all of them currently have biographies. The question is whether the other non-notable members of the class should be added to the table. The relevant guideline is WP:LISTPEOPLE, which says: in a few cases, such as lists of board members or academics holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness.
Opinions on this matter or assistance on the article is most welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support the reversion. For short lists, including everyone is reasonable, but that isn't the case here. This is the class the stars fell on, not the oak leaves. Plus, if we allowed Major Edwin R. Kimble, we'd have to include pretty much everybody. I could see adding notable non-generals (i.e. with their own articles), but Kimble doesn't seem to qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the idea was to include everybody, so there would be 105 colonels and majors. I think all are non-notable. Kimble is definitely not notable; he might have become a general, but died in the Great War. All the generals are notable. They just don't have articles yet. For example, here is a page on Edwin Albert ZundelHawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Adapting to the article the policy quoted above, "largely made up of" means just over 1/3. I was thinking more like a majority, but that's not what it says. So, it comes down to what "largely" means. The requests for more information at the 2010 featured list review seemed to involve more prefatory and explanatory information, rather than names, especially with regard to education (your use of "prosopographical" implies that you want to focus on their interaction as a cohort within the army, as well). If you go in those directions, you'd be probably talking about the class as a whole, anyway, and wouldn't need an expanded list to do so. It sounds more like a job for an article. In any case, I reverted because you seemed to be trying to re-purpose the list/article (especially by the renaming of the table), and the lone major looked forlorn and out of place (I would suggest a new table for lesser officers, if they were to be added). Dhtwiki (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Rather than explain the trivia that is in the first two sections ("goat"-last place in class, "plebe"-4th year class(wo)man, "Augustine"-can be inferred), as recent templates have requested, we need less, much less, of it. The section on "Class" doesn't say anything about training of the class that produced so many generals: did the training emphasize what turned out to be useful in fighting WW2? Similarly, the "Career" section says little on their being so successful: was it an especially large class?, did a war starting 25 years after graduation find them perfectly placed with regard to seniority?, were they especially cohesive as a class within the army? Dhtwiki (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I have a number of books on the Army education system. I have added a paragraph. How much material is warranted? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)