Template talk:American Civil War/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Battle of Mine Run

User:Berean Hunter has added this to the battles list. I reverted it as needing discussion. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind discussion..sorry, I didn't realize there was a problem. What qualifies a battle as a major battle such as to get included in the template? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

During the creation of the template, User:Hlj and I had a fair discussion about what went in and what stayed out. Our primary concern was quantity creep, seeing so many entries added that the template needed its own navigation system. I've been watching the template for almost three years, watching for favorite pet battles and editors' relatives. Thus my "terrible swift sword". I'm not at all saying my reversion was the correct call, but IMHO the inclusion of this entry deserves discussion. It's also possible that when we were originally discussing this subject, the Mine Run pagespace might not have warranted inclusion. Let's see what others have to say. BusterD (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no strictly quantitative guideline. Generally, the community of Civil War editors collectively figures out which ones are important or not. Mine Run is of modest importance as a campaign, but the battle was not particularly interesting. I searched around and found one book devoted to the subject (the campaign, actually) -- which was one more than I expected to find -- and I also notice that the Wikipedia article devotes two paragraphs to the battle itself. Since the intent of the template was to restrict itself to really important topics, and since I can probably name ten unlisted battles of more interest than Mine Run, I would recommend we do not include it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I admit that I'm surprised that the Battle of Harpers Ferry isn't also in the battles list. This was a sweeping Confederate victory with what was probably the most landslide casualty proportion in the whole war. To put it into proportion, Union casualties at Harper's Ferry nearly matched their losses at Sharpsburg. I understand that they didn't die but they were effectively removed from the Army of the Potomac. I know it is a part of the Maryland campaign which is mentioned but this one probably deserves mention by its own merit.
Mine Run, I don't feel that strongly about and placed it in the template matter-of-factly. I didn't realize the specific editing environment called for discussion (my fault, I didn't look at the talk page first). I've been editing other templates and hadn't encountered that yet. I may as well make the case for Mine Run while I'm at it to be objective.
  • 1. Lee halted the Union's major push which would have been catastrophic if Meade would have been successful at stealing the march. Confederate success here has been heavily underrated because Lee lamented not going after them and Longstreet lamented that Meade didn't advance into the Confederate line like Fredericksburg. The Confederates did very well here. Lee checked and repelled every probe & advance.
  • 2. Lee held the ground at the end of the day effectively forcing Meade to withdrawal into Winter quarters. The opposite isn't true.
  • 3. Confederate victory by casualty rate of 2:1 (Union/Confederate) is noteworthy to me.
  • 4. A casualty total comparable to Battle of Corinth and others in the template.
  • 5. Meade's performance at Mine Run coupled with his sluggishness in the Spring led Lincoln to replace Meade with Grant (a rather significant turn of events).
Those factors were what came to mind when I edited the template. Like I said I'm not particularly stuck on it being in there and it won't bother me to not include it. Harper's Ferry, a case can be made for however. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I raised the example of Harper's Ferry previously (now in archive2). Mine Run might eventually make a suitable new campaign entry on the list. It's certainly important, but as a firefight, it doesn't measure up. Probably same issue with Harper's Ferry (not enough dead bodies). Both could find a place on the template eventually. IMHO, one of the most important losses of the war (Norfolk Navy Yard) occurred without a shot fired. Doesn't even merit an article of its own, but should. Mahone should be on the template too (based on merit), but so should a lot of guys. See Template:Gettysburg figures. BusterD (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Christmas in the American Civil War

Very nice new article. First, I'm wondering where this is going to end. Socks in the American Civil War? Skillets? Dentures in the American Civil War? The creation of articles which seem mere collections of trivia troubles me, but (second) the application of such trivial links on this template angers me a tad. This template is not destined to be Template: Gettysburg figures, a laughable place in which to load every conceivable link. This is supposed to a be a screened list of the most essential and important ACW pages. My one opinion is that the link has no business on this template. Discussion, disagreement? BusterD (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was included just for the season, and not meant to be permanent? Just a thought. Kresock (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It is hardly trivial; Christmas is a major day. Topics such as Music and Sex are not trivial as well. Your comments about socks and dentures seem a tad childish.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the comparisons, but I do understand the argument "Where does it end?". Here's a potential test for whether the article should be included -- Was Christmas, as important as it is as a subject, a significant component of the Civil War, or is it a tangential subject? If it's tangential, are there other tangential subjects currently included in the template? If Yes to both, should we keep all these tangential subjects, or scrap them all? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Christmas article as well as the music, sex, pasttimes, etc. fit into the broader subject heading of Camp life (alt. Soldier's life..or something to that effect)....so perhaps a more general single link to either a list or template about those subjects where the Christmas article would be listed could fit the bill? Currently, I see that "Winter quarters" is an article about Mormons but that would be another good article topic for Camp life. Their food, music, letter-writing, etc. have spurred authors to write about these subjects...fwiw
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course I meant my comparisons to be excessively illustrative, but I'm disappointed the colonel has decided to reinsert the article links before consensus has been established in this discussion, as page guidelines have described above. Quoting from Other Topics: "New entries or subcategories should not be added without discussion on the Talk page." Unlike the author of this article, I have no affirmative (or personal) aims in adding or subtracting links to this template. I have instead been involved with this template from before the design process, and continue to watch for insertion of links which degrade the quality of the tool. Bedford also placed an unformatted link to this article on the acw portal last night. Seems like the user is adding to the page's "what links here" list, and chose these two places amongst others. I'm not going to war with anyone, but considering established page guidelines, reinserting the link before consensus is established runs counter to established practice here. Bedford is known and admired for his boldness, but I disagree with this action. BusterD public (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable approach, although I wonder if such a list article would have much filling at this point. Certainly this template should link only to robust articles. The Christmas one is arguably robust enough. Maybe it should be kept until a broader "Soldier's life during the ACW" or "Culture during the ACW" is developed (pardon me if any of these already exist in some form). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to omit it from the template. Of the 2-3,000 ACW articles from which we could choose for the listing of the most important topics that serve to navigate people to a better understanding of the war, this one would not make my list. Perhaps the {{Christmas}} template would be more appropriate for this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one wanting to keep it. I have no strong position on that. I was just coming up with a rationale about why it could be kept. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Christmas is over and I see only one user in this discussion who actively wants this link on the template. Again, I won't war over this, but there's no page consensus for keeping it on the template. I'm pulling it. A much better case for retention should be made before reinsertion. Again, reinsertion without page consensus will be ignoring page guidelines and established practice. I consider that sort of activity to be vandalism, and I'll revert it as such. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Bedford has chosen to throw down the guantlet and reinsert the link. As announced above, I've reverted the action as vandalism. I will continue to do so. I suggest as an alternative, we put the colonel's new effort into a category proposed by User:Berean Hunter above: "Camp life in the American Civil War". I would have zero objections to the insertion of such a category to this template. Again, I hold no personal grudges against Bedford, and have usually been supportive of his boldness. However, the page guidelines above were conceived specifically to defend the template against insertion by someone who wants more traffic to his or her new favorite effort, or pet article. As Hal has said above, there are thousands of more worthy inclusions to this template which aren't on the tool, and can't be for lack of room. I'm willing to accommodate the user by adding a relevant category, but the user can't be too serious if he believes directly linking this new page should have precedence over more worthy and helpful pages. BusterD (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nitty gritty

Camp life is a rather restrictive concept that would not have a lot of unique entries. Since this Christmas article is in Category:Cultural history of the American Civil War, why not just include a pointer to that category in the template? Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw it also in "Social History of the American Civil War" and thought that category addition appropriate. I could endorse the Camp Life category. It might include some social articles already written, sutlers, salt, sex, uniforms, medicine, etc. The subject matter certainly deserves appropriate coverage. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

<== A potential bibliography for just such topics or just fun winter time reading for the ACW buff (most book links are to complete books)...

...tip of the iceberg, lots more like them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, one on baseball is quite tempting. Could prove to be a ball to write and a hit with readers.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC).
I'd love to find something on The Great Dalton Snowball Fight...but no luck so far. That would be a fun one to write if you want it..your Christmas in the Civil War article strikes me that you are in that frame of mind and would maybe make a great winter time article to follow it up..☻...have fun with it if you like.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
See this. As the saying goes, for lesser men it would be impossible, but with Bedford, all things are possible.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 22:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Split template up (NO! Preserve the Union!)

This template is becoming rather cumbersome, regardless of the ensuing edit civil war. It is likely more beneficial to split off the "Related topics" section into its own secondary template anyway. Though, some alterations may be needed. Thoughts? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I would recommend based on my comments above.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to admit to having an almost reflexive resistance to change here in this template space, though I hope I remember to admit when I've learned something new. That personal comment said, I'm thinking this template is getting too long myself, and my solution would be to reduce the number of links, not split the template and increase the number of links. Is there an exemplary template (which covers such a vast subject matter as the ACW) upon which to model a future evolution of this tool? BusterD (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BusterD on this one. If an article isn't important enough to be in the main ACW template, creating another template for it is not the solution. Check out that silly {{Gettysburg figures}} template for an example of what happens. Any template that has hundreds of entries and hopes to include all articles about a topic would be better as a Category instead. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I never before saw that Gettysburg figures one *shudder*. A separate war template isn't without precedent; there is {{Kentucky in the Civil War}} and it looks far better on a page than the main template.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Confederate war finance

I'm working on the article with the above title. While it's still somewhat of a WIP I would like to include it in the template. What's the best place? "Political" or "Other"?radek (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Related Topics, either Political or Other. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to leaders section

Was thinking that List of American Civil War generals could be a useful addition to the Leaders section though with the nested and complicated syntax of the template, I wasn't about to mess things up. :) — MrDolomite • Talk 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsability

Why is the "Combatants · Theaters · Campaigns · Battles · States" section not collapsed like the other ones? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it is because the template uses {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} and it contains this parameter: |selected = {{{expanded|CTCBS}}}. As to why that section was chosen to be expanded over others, I dunno. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, seeing as there isn't apparantly any reason for that one being uncollapsed, it makes the table much messier, and it can be uncollapsed for a specific page if need be, I axed that code. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Civilian leaders

Hey, there seemed to be an imbalance of who was represented in leaders; so I edited it so there's nine for each, including Cabinet, VPs, and congressional leaders. They are:

Union:

Confederate:

You like? Is it too many; should we cut it down to 7 or 8 for each? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Buster's edits/My revert

A few months ago, User:BusterD made this edit, where he removed Hannibal Hamlin, Robert M. T. Hunter, Edward Ord and several other figures without discussing the change here. This amounted to a revert of the changes I laid out in "Civilian leaders" above. He may be right about Hamlin having "zero impact", but I think maintaining parallelism is important, and Alexander Stephens, Hamlin's CSA counterpart, is in the template. Likewise, Robert M. T. Hunter was President Pro Tem of the Confederate States Senate in the Second Confederate Congress, making him both a counterpart to both Seward and Benjamin Wade. He was also the only negotiator at the Hampton Roads Conference not already in the template. He claims in his edit summary that Ord only commanded an Army for a month, actually, according to the Army of the James page and Ord's own page, it was a little closer to seven months. I have added Hamlin, Hunter and Ord back. Any objections? pbp 16:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph E. Brown consideration for civilian leader

I certainly should have read the Template Talk page before trying to insert Joseph E. Brown into the list of (Southern) civilian leaders. I did not realize that there is such an active community here. Given that, the revert is both understandable and appropriate. So, starting over, let me propose Brown for consideration. Yes, he was "only" a governor. But a governor who (because of his strong states' rights beliefs) may not have viewed the national government as the highest or ultimate authority. The model of a weak central government and strong individual state governments would place Brown higher to the top on your list. At least, in the minds of those who thought like Brown. And that number, in the war years, was not inconsiderable. Brown influenced the thoughts and actions of other Southern governors with his stongly-held states' rights actions and beliefs. But you probably know that. So, without haranguing, I'll just submit Brown for your consideration. Gulbenk (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Brown is in a tier with the people we have listed in this template. There are probably a dozen governors we would have to include if we included Brown. pbp 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we have room for individual state governors on the template, but if we included them, I could see an argument for Brown. I appreciate User:Gulbenk's understanding; the danger here is mission creep. If that user would look at Template:Gettysburg figures, the risk of including every possible biography would be made apparent. However, I think a compromise could be made. When Hal Jespersen and I were creating this tool, I announced an aspiration to make this a "two click tool," that is, every important pagespace would either appear on the template, or be linked from a significant survey article or category which did appear on the template. I noticed that there does not exist a category or list for either Confederate States governors or Union state governors. This seems like a serious omission. I propose to create a category for both Union and Confederate governors. Once those categories are filled, two lists could be created (tables of names, states, terms of office and citation). Those two lists would certainly deserve placement on this template, perhaps after the individual civilian leader links. Anybody disagree or see a better way? BusterD (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, BusterD. Hope that it comes to pass. Thanks for hearing me out. I'm not quite sure that Puplebackpack89 caught the full drift of my short soapbox speech. But I think it would be interesting, in your two-click universe, if the Northern politicians were arranged Governors<Federal while Southern politicians were arranged Governors>Federal. It would simply appear to be an error to most folks, I suppose. But it is actually an ideologically-based statement (or perhaps "recognition") of the two opposing governmental models. That may be asking a bit much of one template, so I'll leave it at that. Again, thanks so much for your proposal of a middle ground. Gulbenk (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a very profound idea. Let's gather consensus to see what our community thinks before taking action. Thanks for your good work on Brown. Perhaps you'd be willing to help me when I start accumulating information about governors. When we started the template Wikipedia was very new. Hal and I chose a strategy intended to prevent the template from being overly complex and unstable. I have been accused of carrying a "terrible swift sword" in my defense of the work many users have done in this template space. I hope we can come up with a workable solution to get pages like Brown's better exposure. BusterD (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to help, any way that I can, with your work regarding governors. Just give me a shout when you're ready. Gulbenk (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll start the categorization this weekend. I'm away from my computer until Saturday. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No hurry. I have a similar situation. Away until late Tuesday. Gulbenk (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Add comments below this line

I think the link to CSA General R H Anderson is the wrong one. Brig. General Robert Houstoun Anderson led the 5th Georgia Cavalry in the battle of Browns Mill under Wheeler (he was also wounded there) - his Wiki page is Robert H. Anderson. Thanks! Kevinakling (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The link is the correct one. The link is to Richard Heron Anderson, a West Pointer from South Carolina who had significantly more influential commands than the Georgian User:Kevinakling links. Appreciate the eyes, however. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparent duplicate template

There is also a Template:Events leading to US Civil War. There is a similar list at Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War. There seems to be redundancy. deisenbe (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd take that discussion to the talk pages of those articles/templates. As far as I can see, this template only links to the article. Specific topics might have their own templates; this is where more minor figure could be included, the subjects having specific relevance to the more narrowly focused subject. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Major insertion by User:Deisenbe

Today there have been over a dozen dozens of entry insertions. When I reverted them giving an explanation, I was rebuffed. I'd like to discuss changes, individually if necessary to prevent the template from getting bloated. Historically major changes have been discussed in talk before being made in live template space. Since this is a very frequently used device, it would be well to come up with consensus before wholesale changes are made. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am the one that made these changes, fourteen, not "dozens". Most are additional abolitionists and a few on issues. I was not aware of the statement that changes should be presented on the Talk page before making them (nor do I think that's a good policy; we're supposed to be bold).

The template becoming "bloated"? When it is collapsible, and starts collapsed?

This is o f course a very important topic, and I think more good is done by this expansion than the good would be done by omitting them. deisenbe (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor can indent replies on talk by adding a full colon before the line. This allows for easier to read threading. I'd say we get to bloating when we insert Alexander Hamilton in a template about the American Civil War. Many of the entries added today have this distantly but not directly related quality. I'd like other editors to weigh in on these sorts of changes. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The article on Hamilton says he was a "fervent abolitionist" and president of the Manumission Society. But he died in 1804. I've removed him. deisenbe (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Excessive detail in campaigns and battles sections

Recently an editor has inserted massive amounts of what I consider trivia into this template. We've got very minor battles, duplicate links and now a very arcane and space intensive indexing timeline. As one of the editors who shepherded this template from its first minutes, I feel responsible to help keep it on track. The original idea was to create a quick reference for the most important links, not a comprehensive listing of every minor scrape. We can link to articles which list such skirmishes. I disagree with most of these changes and intend to revert many of them. I'm creating this discussion space for use if/when that editor objects to my reversions. BusterD (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I noticed in passing the addition of "Arkansas 1861–65", shoehorning a whole bunch of conflations into a "Campaign" made up from whole cloth. Mojoworker (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

States

@Anaphysik, The Banner, and BusterD: do/should the states represent the situation at the time of the ACW (as those of us who reverted Anaphysik were thinking), or the current states (which seems to be Anaphysik's view)? Using the modern postal abbreviations for the states seems to point to the latter but I thought it might bear discussion. This whole template is kind of a mess... Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

My own concern was a links to a disambiguation page. That is solved by now. The Banner talk 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Automatic expansion doesn't seem to work anymore

Per headline. Adding in "Origins" as an argument doesn't appear to make the infobox section automatically expand, at least not in Chrome nor Edge. Any idea on what's causing this? SnowFire (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Linking Alaska to the CSS Shenandoah?

After taking this link, and reading through I sort of realize why they did so, but the word "Alaska" isn't anywhere in the article on the CSS Shenandoah, how can we improve this?Naraht (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see neither Alaska nor the CSS Shenandoah in the template ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Under the "Combatants Theaters Campaigns Battles States", the section for involvement by state or territory, as "AK" which is the postal abbreviation for Alaska. Note, at this point Alaska is still Russian, Hawaii has the same issue, but at least that is to an article about Hawaii and the Civil war.Naraht (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Right. As there is no specific article about it and as said Alaska was still Russian I think it shouldn´t be included there. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It's gone. Thanks for the eyes. BusterD (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:American_Civil_War/Archive_3&oldid=1111809282"