Talk:Battle of Franklin

Untitled
Not sure it's fair to put this in Category:Union victories of the American Civil War, as the Confederates did succeed in their aims -- at a horrible price. dino 22:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I would classify this as a Confederate phyrric victory. Khan_singh 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, actually, no. The Confederate objective was to prevent Schofield from joining Thomas, not capture Franklin, and it failed twice--the second time at a horrible price. --Buckboard 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tactical victory, strategic loss. -Topcat777 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topcat777 (talk • contribs)

Georgia?
The battle of Franklin occurred in Franklin Tennessee but for some reason it is under wikiproject Georgia. Unless someone gives me a good reason for this I will change it to Tennessee tomorrow. SMBriscoe 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It had a direct affect upon Sherman's Georgia campaing. However, this isn't really relavant, because under that it it could be said that it saved the northern states from invasion, and so fits under, say, Ohio. Randaly 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Randaly

Victory
To the anonymous user who keeps reverting the battle box results field: There is a rule in Wikipedia that you are not allowed to revert more than three times in a single day. For users who choose to identify themselves, violation of this rule can result in temporary suspension of editing privileges. For anonymous users, it means I just get to keep undoing your reversions until you get sick of it.

With very few exceptions, we adhere to the National Park Service battle descriptions when it comes to names of battles, naming the victor, locations, dates, etc. The results of the battle are footnoted in this article. If you disagree with this result, you need to provide citations from secondary sources that can balance the NPS result. This is obviously better as part of the text of the article, not the one-phrase result in the battle box.

In the Battle of Franklin, Hood was attempting to prevent Schofield's army from joining with Thomas's in Nashville. After Hood suffered devastating losses, Schofield continued his movement toward Nashville. There is no way that you can claim this battle was a Confederate victory, Pyrrhic or not. Hal Jespersen 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

word.--Buckboard 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckboard (talk • contribs)
 * There is a way you can justify calling this a Confederate victory, because Hood's army did ultimately end up in possession of the field. But you have to use common sense. Outside of Hood's official dispatch to Richmond, no Confederate tried to claim Franklin as a victory. Only the destruction of Schofield's army would have justified the casualties sustained. It would be like arguing that the Confderates won at Malvern Hill, or that the Union won at Cold Harbor, just because the other side left the place. Jsc1973 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
In correcting the reported Confederate losses in officers, I corrected the information, repeated in many places, about the "65 field grade officers". It was actually much more catastrophic, even with the generals included, than previously reported, because the losses were all commanders. The source is Gen. Cox's monograph on the battle, which used Official Records as its sources. the pertinent passage: ''But this was only a part of the response to his order immediately after the battle, that "Corps commanders will send in at once a list of the division, brigade, and regimental commanders by name and rank, who were killed or wounded so as to be unfit for service, in the engagement of yesterday evening." The complete return is a roll of honor which fills nearly three pages of the published official records, and of which the summary is five general officers killed, six wounded, and one captured; six colonels killed, fifteen wounded, and two missing; two lieutenant colonels killed and nine wounded; three majors killed, five wounded, and two missing; two captains killed, three wounded, and four missing: a total of sixty-five. Remember that none of these were exercising a less command than that of a regiment.'' --Buckboard 11:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

edits of March 12, 2009
I have corrected some of the edits on 3/12. The refs to this article refer to Schofield's command as the Army of the Ohio, which he commanded for much of 1864 and 1865. The notion of Hood wanting to 'punish' his men would need a reliable citation to include. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

edits of December 9, 2009
As I indicated in the edit summary of November 30, I was in the process of expanding this article. Since no one had done any significant editing for many months, I assume that I could do off-line edits and post them later without interference. Now I see that another editor has started to work on the article, so I would ask those who would like to make improvements to this article to state their intentions about their proposed schedules, allowing us to avoid stepping on each other's toes. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, having heard nothing for a few days, I will assume the other edits were a transitory thing and go back to the expansion I mentioned on November 30. If anyone has alternative plans, please communicate with me so we avoid collisions. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Hal: I believe it's just me who's also been working at improving this article too; mainly through some copy-editing and explaining a few interesting points. I like all of the revisions you've made and I have faith in your plans, so don't worry about making the changes you've suggested.  Also I think making this the main Battle of Franklin is a good idea.  Only question I have is about why you removed the "decisive" in the "Union victory" - I would consider this a crippling defeat of the Confederates.  But I assume you view "decisive" as "deciding the campaign" and would save that for the Battle of Nashville which ended it.  I've got no problem with that interpretation, just curious what you define it as.  Anyway, good luck and I probably won't be editing this further now that I see you're actively working on it, at least for a month or two. Wilytilt (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I am planning to do some significant work in the Battle section of the article over the next two weeks (work schedule permitting). As to the decisive issue, this is one that has been argued at length in the talk page for Battle of Gettysburg and I can resume it here if you like, but the short answer is in two parts: (1) we attempt to use the NPS-cited result wherever possible to avoid arguments of this type, and (2) see User:Hlj/Why for my boilerplate description on the subject. In this campaign, Nashville is obviously the most likely candidate to be called decisive. That article is one of the rare exceptions in which I lost the editing battle about using that adjective. However, I have a footnote that indicates the ambiguity of that word, which remains distasteful because having even footnoted ambiguity in the summary box is a bad thing. Franklin shows all of the problem of this adjective: Schofield decisively avoided destruction (no one disagrees with that assessment, so authors sometimes use "decisive" with that meaning--big, unambiguous victory--as they sometimes do with Gettysburg), but Hood was not decisively defeated here in his campaign (because Nashville was the place that happened, although you could argue that he was half decisively defeated at Franklin and the other half at Nashville), and even when he was decisively defeated in his campaign, I cannot think of one historian who describes this campaign as the decisive factor in ending the Civil War. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done some significant updating, but more work remains--better citations and additional maps are coming pretty soon. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

article name
I propose that we rename this article to be Battle of Franklin because it is by far the better known name for this engagement. The current article Battle of Franklin is a disambiguation page and that can be renamed Battle of Franklin (disambiguation); pointers to that article can appear in each of the other battle articles. The article First Battle of Franklin can be renamed Battle of Franklin (1863). Since renaming articles can cause some commotion and are difficult to revert, I wanted to see if anyone objected before I undertake this change. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, please figure out where you want to move it before listing it! — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Battle of Franklin → Battle of Franklin — See the preceding talk section, which has received no objections after a few weeks of posting. I have already moved the article previously titled Battle of Franklin to Battle of Franklin (disambiguation) in preparation for this request. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it is the second battle... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Technically true, but according to WP:COMMONNAME we should use "the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and there is no common usage outside of Wikipedia and its derivatives for anything other than the Battle of Franklin. Furthermore, sources do not agree that the 1863 engagement was actually a "battle." The NPS website on which our original classification is based uses the terms 'engagement' and 'incident', but not 'battle'. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current arrangement of redirecting Battle of Franklin → Second Battle of Franklin currently seems like the most appropriate option. There is after all still an article called First Battle of Franklin. I would likely support the move if there was concurrent consensus to rename First Battle of Franklin. You can't have a Battle of Franklin and a First Battle of Franklin, it just doesn't work.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: As explained in the talk section immediately above ("article name"), I have proposed renaming First Battle of Franklin to Battle of Franklin (1863). I do not require admin assistance for that move, so didn't asked for help with that. (I just completed that move.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would now suggest renaming Second Battle of Franklin → Battle of Franklin (1864). I though you might go with something like, and these are just ideas, 1863 skirmish of Franklin or 1863 engagement at Franklin for First Battle of Franklin. With the renaming of First Battle of Franklin to Battle of Franklin (1863), in my opinion, you need a way to distinguish between the battles that goes beyond one with disambiguation brackets and one without.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been preferable to have this discussion when the topic was originally raised rather than halfway through the move process. I am not overly concerned about the consistency of naming between articles that have dramatically different levels of importance or reader interest. I think you can probably find many examples in Wikipedia of articles with commonly recognized names that have no parenthetical disambiguation, whereas less common variants have them. Stonewall Jackson is an example that immediately comes to mind--the famous Civil War general is named simply that, whereas a less famous guy is named Stonewall Jackson (musician), and the article Stonewall Jackson (disambiguation) handles the other cases, a situation exactly parallel to what I have proposed here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, things have not exactly gone as expected. It is true that you can commonly find recognized names that have no parenthetical disambiguation. However that is when the individuals or topics are in seperate fields or subject area. The current sitaution involves two batles in the same war, one in 1863 and 1864. See Battle of Arras an an example of how this has been delt with. To help here are some ideas that I could support.
 * 1863 engagement at Franklin (this is the one you seem to use in the article) & Battle of Franklin
 * 1863 skirmish at Franklin & Battle of Franklin
 * Battle of Franklin (1863) & Battle of Franklin (1864)
 * But not:
 * Battle of Franklin (1863) & Battle of Franklin
 * Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, either of the first two would be acceptable (engagement is better than skirmish), although those are not typical name formats that we use for ACW articles. The third choice is also better than nothing, as long as the redirect of Battle of Franklin goes to the 1864 battle, not the disambiguation page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (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.

Brig. Gen. Cox
I have reverted a change of Cox from brigadier general to major general. Cox was promoted to MG on October 6, 1862, but this appointment expired on March 4, 1863, and he was a BG until he was promoted again to MG on December 7, 1864. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Kurz and Allison - Battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Kurz and Allison - Battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 30, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Franklin (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 * Added tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409023851/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/tn036.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/tn036.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/franklin/maps/carterhousemap.html'''Battle
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013082634/http://www.tcwpa.org/showphoto.php?id=64 to http://www.tcwpa.org/showphoto.php?id=64

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Franklin (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/tn036.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226190851/http://www.johnbellhood.org/indefense.htm to http://www.johnbellhood.org/indefense.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Battle of Franklin (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705111408/http://www.mcgavockcemetery.net/ to http://www.mcgavockcemetery.net/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Second franklin" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second franklin. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Franklin (1864) → Battle of Franklin – This article is already setup as the primary topic (which I agree with) with a hatnote to the disambiguation page, so this article should exist at the base name without parenthetical disambiguation per WP:QUALIFIER. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Since there is a Wikipedia entry for Battle of Franklin (1863), the base name Battle of Franklin should be the main title header of a disambiguation page listing Battle of Franklin (1863) as well as Battle of Franklin (1864). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with opposing this requested move; multiple battles of Franklin so should exist as it did before Knightoften (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose perfectly good example of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since 2010, not broken don't fix. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – such push toward more ambiguous titles is counter-productive. Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 12 September 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that this battle is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Battle of Franklin". (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

– The requested move in 2021 led to the base name holding the disambiguation page (to address the WP:MISPLACED redirect that existed previously), but that's just the wrong outcome: The 1864 battle is a textbook primary topic. With there being no primary topic for the last ~20 months and the base name hosting the dab page, we can now look at usage. In the last 30 days the 1864 battle has received 7,795 views, while the other entries on the dab page have received 355, 92, 316, and 17 views, for a total of 780 views; the 1864 battle is getting 10 times the views of the other topics combined. A quick Google search brings up only the 1864 battle in the top results. In terms of long-term significance, the 1864 battle was a major battle of strategic importance (essentially resulting in the destruction of Hood's army), eclipsing the other battles in casualties, which were minor actions. Most of the references in the article simply refer to it as "Battle of Franklin", including those from the American Battlefield Trust, and the Kurz and Allison print about the battle is likewise titled "Battle of Franklin" and was featured as the picture of the day on the main page. Our article titled Franklin Battlefield only discusses the 1864 battle. Reliable sources apply primary topic status to the 1864 battle, and qualify the title when there is need to discuss the others, and we should follow suit. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Battle of Franklin (1864) → Battle of Franklin
 * Battle of Franklin → Battle of Franklin (disambiguation)
 * Support per nom's pageview stats, it's the primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I want to disagree, I feel like you should keep the page name in order for it to be distinguished from the smaller conflict in 1863. A redirect is good enough in my opinion. RobloxUser4125 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A redirect from Battle of Franklin (the base name)? That is currently a disambiguation page. It either should host the disambiguation page at it does currently, or host the primary topic article. The 1863 battle can be explicitly mentioned in the hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. RobloxUser4125 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use of anachronistic rank abbreviations which aren't normally used in sources is discouraged
I'm not sure who's been adding these, but the use of all cap rank abbreviations only in use since WWII is not in line with Wikipedia's manual of style. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)