Talk:1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment

Merge proposal
I propose to merge 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (3 Months) together with 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (3 Years). While these were separate units with a short gap between the mustering out of the 3-month unit and mustering in of the 3-year unit, the units share the same commander. I think this is a borderline case, similar to the recent merge of the 1st West Virginia Infantry Regiment. If merged, I would move the merged article to the base name by usurping the dab page, as a hatnote would be sufficient to 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898), a unit that did not see any action. If kept separate, should the 3 year unit be the primary topic? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I mildly agree with the merge proposal, and I'd also say we should consider merging in 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898) as well. Obviously the Spanish-American War was decades later, but I think it would be fine to just include the Spanish-American War service as a section of a larger article.  --Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggested merge but don't agree about adding the 1898 organization, the two units alike solely in name and state of origin. I suggest the disambiguator "(1861)" to mirror the 1898 usage. BusterD (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal is that the the two Civil War articles (3 months and 3 years) would be merged together and moved to 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment by usurping the disambiguation page currently there, and the 1898 article would remain separate. I agree the Spanish-American War-era unit should not be merged. The combined Civil War article would be the clear primary topic, as the 1898 regiment did not see any combat. A hatnote to the 1898 article would suffice for disambiguation, and the current disambiguation page would no longer be necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm all for the merge so long as the Spanish-American War unit is not merged. Yungtrotsky   (talk)  14:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Addendum to the merge discussion
I probably should have made a better case for this at the time, but one issue I have with leaving out the 1898 article from the merge is the fact that these regiments existed continuously from the end of the Civil War through the Spanish-American War as militia or national guard regiments. By making the articles specific to only those wars, we're kind of orphaning any of the activity of these regiments (Wisconsin 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) in between the two wars. For example, the Bay View massacre in 1886 was the 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment -- and there's no clear place for that linkage to live since neither the Civil War or Spanish War articles would cover the year 1886. I'm sure I could find other examples where these regiments were involved in notable guard activity in the inter-war period. I'm not going to re-open the merge conversation, but wanted to offer it up if you think it warrants further consideration. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see your point, but there certainly was consensus against merging in the 1898 article, because while sharing a name and a perceived lineage, the units were really different entities. (See the merge discussion about the 12th Indiana, where there was opposition to even merging two units with the same name from the same war.) If the regiment truly existed from 1865 to 1898, there is currently no content about a unit with this name during the interwar period on WP, so it's hard to justify including the 1898 unit with the ACW unit on those grounds. In fact, the way the existing articles are written implies that there wasn't a unit with the same name during the interwar period. I guess my current view is that if versions of the unit with this name during the interwar period were notable, then a stub could be created, the dab page then resurrected at 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (disambiguation)), and then a merge could be reconsidered, though my guess is a merge would be met with some opposition or at least hesitation. Alternatively, I think it would be fine to add a sourced mention at either current article that units using the same name existed after the mustering out of the ACW volunteer unit and before the formation of the 1898 unit (if reliable sources can attest to this). Mdewman6 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)