Talk:Battle of Raymond order of battle: Confederate

Requested move 21 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: page moved. (non-admin closure) TribunalMan (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Raymond Confederate order of battle → Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Raymond – Looking at the MILHIST Fls, there seems to be two types of naming - "Order of battle at Battle" when both sides are on the same orbat, or "Faction order of battle at Battle". However, about all the articles in Category:American Civil War orders of battle are in the format of "Raymond Confederate order of battle" or "Camp Wildcat Union order of battle". It makes sense to me to try to get a standardized naming system for these orbats, so its consistent across the encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Support - at least in this case - the meaning of the current title isn't very clear - it isn't apparent that this applies to the Battle of Raymond, rather than to someone with the strange name of Raymond Confederate.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Avoiding the removal of essential information is better: "Confederate order of battle at the Battle of Raymond" is unambiguous and clear even to readers unfamiliar with the topic; as well as being more in line with what you would expect (Since, in some cases - maybe not this one, but for consistency's sake we should try to follow such an unambiguous approach - a place name could refer to both a battle and a larger operation; ex. Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign). Note that Category:Orders_of_battle is also inconsistent, and might need further clean-up after this. If this RM goes ahead I'd suggest a mass-proposal for all of those in the category above to be moved too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Separate from my !vote above: the two orders of battle for this engagement are both rather too short to warrant separate articles: maybe merging them could be considered an option? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that merging both into the parent article would place WP:UNDUE weight on the listing of the individual units. With the sources discussing the component parts of the two sides, it seems that the split-out pages are warranted. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I was thinking of merging the Confederate and Union OOBs together on a new page (Order of battle at the Battle of Raymond), not with the main article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, this is my preferred titling. I also agree that a combined ORBAT for the battle is probably better, this one isn't massive, and I doubt the Union one is either given the size of the engagement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 23 January 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.

Quick look

A few things, nothing of which affects the List-class assessment of the list as it stands:

• In general terms, long before ORBATs get to Featured status, they are generally classed as lists rather than articles. See the eleven FL ORBATs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Showcase/FL. However, it needs an image for b5=y, and if you add one, I'll assess it as BL-class. For this reason, I have assessed it as List-class for now, rather than Start.
• I suggest moving to either Confederate order of battle for the Battle of Raymond (my preference, putting the force first), or Battle of Raymond Confederate order of battle. While I can see the argument for Midway order of battle, that battle is very famous internationally, and Midway is synonymous with the battle. This battle is obscure, and the title needs to clearly explain what the list is about.
• In general, the "lead" of a list should be like the lead of an article, and should only summarise the content of the list. See Yugoslav order of battle prior to the invasion of Yugoslavia for an example from an FL. This means adding any detail to the body (with citations) that you want to include in the lead, then removing the citations from the lead.
• Carrying that point on, you shouldn't rehash the battle article background and body in the lead of the orbat list, the lead of the list should just summarise the order of battle, not the battle itself.

Happy to re-assess as BL as soon as image(s) have been added. Some suggestions include a portrait of Gregg or another a Confederate commander who was an important influence on the outcome of the battle, images of the guns used by the artillery in the battle, a map of the battle etc. See the Yugoslav example for the sort of thing that might work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: - Thanks for taking a look. I've added an 1863 woodcut of the battle itself. The other option would be File:Ag2008 0005 1 02 10 gregg opt.jpg, which probably needs a rename on Commons (I plan on requesting the rename to something more meaningful tomorrow). For the title, I agree that it's probably better to move it, but I'll be opening a RM on it and placing a neutral notice notice at the project talk page, as a move of this would likely be precedent-setting, as it seems that about all of the entries in Category:American Civil War orders of battle are formatted in this way, including incredibly obscure stuff like Carnifex Ferry order of battle. Seems like a more centralized discussion for naming orbats is needed. I'll be opening that RM tomorrow, once I get some sleep. I'll also deal with the other points tomorrow and send it through ACR once I get a nomination cleared through there, as I don't like having more than three ACR noms open at a time, as I feel like I'm overwhelming the process. Hog Farm _Talk 05:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. A central discussion is a good idea. The other ACW ones are equally as problematic in terms of being distinguishable and recognizable per WP:ARTICLETITLE; we should be taking the lead from the existing FL orbats which have been reviewed by a number of experienced Milhist editors rather than how one or two individuals have decided to title ORBAT lists for the ACW. Now BL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)