Talk:Battle of Franklin

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Georgia?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Victory

message: 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)
thread_title: Casualties

message: 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)
thread_title: edits of March 12, 2009

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: edits of December 9, 2009

message: 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)
thread_title: article name

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brig. Gen. Cox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Kurz and Allison - Battle of Franklin, November 30, 1864.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*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.htmlBattle
*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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705111408/http://www.mcgavockcemetery.net/ to http://www.mcgavockcemetery.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Second franklin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11#Second franklin 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)
thread_title:  "Second franklin" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh, okay. RobloxUser4125 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 September 2023