Talk:List of American Civil War generals (Confederate)

Plan for, progress of article; reorganization, shortening
This article is still a work in progress and I am working on this steadily while still spending some time editing or creating other articles, mainly on the generals who lack articles. All, or at least most, of the basic information for each general on the list is now included in the article in summary form, not always in full sentences. I plan to do the following: finish putting the dates of promotion, rank, confirmation in the column showing the general's grade. Complete putting birth and death dates and places in separate columns. Remove the information about this facts from the notes and further pare down the notes to some basic facts, using standard abbreviations where possible. I have been writing articles on the generals for whom there have been no articles so in the near future the notes will not be the sole source of the details concerning some generals. Ultimately, the notes will be cut to a few basic facts (where applicable) that are not shown in the other columns, such as West Point or college attendance, political office, etc. It will take some time to reorganize and reformat the presentation, check all the entries, abbreviate them and finally cut the information that appears to be extraneous to a good list. I hope readers and editors can be patient with the reorganization. I think it is better for the article to have much good information and to be cut back than to have it incomplete as it was for several years.

I do intend to reduce the length of the article by trimming the notes considerably. I think the reorganization will also help. I might add that the placement of a "too long" tag on the article while understandable, is not necessary because it is not being ignored. Also, since this is a list which is intended for reference and comparative purposes, not necessarily to be read from beginning to end, it should fall within the Wikipedia:Article size category of a list that "may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method," especially because it does not contain statistical or technical material. However, I recognize that even if the length of the article can be justified in something like its current form (although, of course, it is in transition and not in a single, final form), it can be cut back and would be a better list in more abbreviated form.

Two steps would cut the number of kilobytes considerably: Remove the thumbnail pictures and move the last three sections out to a sub-page. I do not think either step will really be necessary when all of the editing is finished, but I would rather see those changes than to have the most basic information in the lists removed and only accessible through comparison of the individual articles on all of the generals.

Of course, I wish I could have seen what a good final version of the list might have been at the outset of my work on it because I probably could have worked more efficiently on it and would have finished it by now. Nonetheless, I do think that it is a better page now than it once was and that a good finished product will result upon its completion. Donner60 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Update on article progress: I have completed moving the dates and places of birth and death, and burial if different, to separate columns. It now is easier to spot this information quickly. The next step will be to complete the dates of rank, nomination, confirmation in the grade or rank column - as already done with some sections of names starting with letters such as "A" and "W". Corresponding information on promotion dates will be removed from the notes column. Then, the notes column entries will be shortened by abbreviation and deletion of some information because the article on the general can be consulted for full details. Donner60 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Birth and death date and place columns are complete. Another too long tag has been placed on the article, perhaps automatically and without reading the introduction or the talk page. In any event, the dates connected with the various grades of general are being added in the rank column and removed from the notes. When that is done the notes will be considerably reduced as fast as reasonably possible. Good progress has been made in the last several weeks (February 3, 2012) so I expect to have a list with good information, brief entries and considerable reduction in size in the next few months. I have also been finishing the brief biography articles for those generals (or other high officers) in the list at the same time, which I think is also important, which will delay completion of the list project by a few weeks, at least. I think the end product for the list and the remaining biographies will be satisfactory. Donner60 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The dates of rank, nomination and confirmation for all the generals' grades have been added in the column showing the grades. The corresponding information that was in the notes has been removed. I have decided to put the colleges, including West Point, from which the generals graduate or which they attended in a separate column. When that is completed, I will reduce the notes as much as possible, keeping such information as Mexican-American War veteran, ranks before general officer promotion, whether killed in action, any high political offices held and a few other categories. Donner60 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Colleges, including USMA, have been moved to a separate column so the information can be found quickly. After a final review and edit to create reasonably comprehensive notes for a page that will be in the article history, the notes will be considerably reduced as fast as reasonably possible. The last review of the notes has been partially completed (February 29, 2012) and the reduction of the size of the article should be accomplished within the next three to ten days, depending on my schedule. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: The last review of and additions to the notes have been completed through part of the list of R surnames so progress has been made toward the version that will be saved in the history but substantially reduced on the main page after I delete much from the notes section. I am finishing this just a little slower than anticipated and hope to finish in the next week unless real life intrudes too much. Donner60 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Completed additions except any needed to notes for the W surnames and some notes for five of the officers appointed by E. Kirby Smith and some or all of the militia general (March 6, 2012). Donner60 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: After a final proof reading review and copy edits to create reasonably comprehensive notes for a page that will be in the article history, the notes will be considerably reduced as fast as reasonably possible. The last review of and additions to the notes has been completed and the last proof reading and minor corrections through the letter G has been completed (March 9, 2012). The reduction of the size of the article should be accomplished soon after this last step is completed over the next few days.


 * Update. I have completed the full version of the notes and a proof reading. I hope that all typos have been fixed but with a page this long and in this format, I suppose I could have missed a few. As noted on the main page and above, as of the date and time (March 10, 2012; 9:14 UTC) of the most recently saved page, the notes contain the maximum amount of information that I intend to put in the notes for small sketches of the officers' biographies. Starting with the next edits, the notes will be considerably reduced to major points of interest to make the length of the article more acceptable. Each full general and many of the others in the final three sections have pages in Wikipedia and the additional details can be found there. Also, this page can be found in the history if anyone wishes to look back at the full information that was on this page. Donner60 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Update. I will be traveling and busy with real life tasks for most of the time between March 24 and April 17. I will be "off line" for much of that time so I will not be editing or contributing much during that period. I will not be able to respond to comments, questions or communications or check my watchlist except on some of the April days. This will mean that it will take me longer to finish the work I am doing on the Confederate generals list and Brevet Union generals list but I will get back to them and finish them as soon as I can after mid-April. Donner60 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Grouped by letter
Grouping these generals by letter means I can't really sort it; for example, by rank. I think to be useful it should be one large table, awkward at that might seem. Paulc206 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually tried a test of that method once back when both armies were on one page; it was far too unwieldy, because you can't index within a table; thus if someone wants to jump to a specific officer, they can't, whereas clicking the appropriate letter essentially gets them there. Were it possible to place the indexing links inside the tables, I might support the idea.  However, speaking as an editor, I have to say I'd probably still be against it.  These are already very large jobs that we're having to work with when we edit one section at a time, and trying to make small edits with the whole thing present at once every time would be prohibitively cumbersome. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to Split Article
Please do not split this article. It will greatly diminish its usefulness by making it more difficult to do comparisons or to find the ranks or other basic information for several generals for articles or other purposes. As I noted above, my plan is to complete a comprehensive set of notes, then to remove most of them, leaving just the basic categories. This is taking a little time because of the need to maintain or edit some other articles which have inaccurate information on generals, Union and Confederate, that require revision. While it seems strange to put a large amount of information in an article, then remove it, there is some method to this. I set out only to put some important information in the notes but I began to add enough points to produce mini-sketches. When I realized the article would likely get too long, I thought I could create a comprehensive short reference page, which would remain in the history, and cut the number of kilobytes back by reducing the article to basic categories. Consider that the thumbnail sketches - which I do not care about but which other interested editors wish to retain - takes some memory, as does the table formatting. Also, many links can be later removed. Readers will not be looking at a list of this type to read it from end to end. Most of them will be looking at it for basic and comparative information. It will be in that shape, and nothing more except for the thumbnail photos, in the near future if a little more patience can be maintained. The end result as a single article should be better and more useful than a number of articles with just a fraction of the list. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: For updates on progess, see first section on plan for article. Donner60 (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Summaries really needed?
As a casual visitor to this page, I feel that the potted biographical summaries are of no use. They are crammed towards to right, too concisely written to comfortably read, and duplicate information given in the main article on each figure. It would be better for the list if these were removed or trimmed to a bare-bones list of each general's major achievements.

Also, the first and third paragraphs of the introduction are totally unencyclopedic. Articles should never talk about themselves, except in hatnotes. These paragraphs should be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've started removing the notes section all together. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 05:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Task complete: notes section terminated with extreme prejudice. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 08:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion needed.
User:IcarusPhoenix and I are in a sort of edit war over the following two revisions, so a third opinion would be appreciated.

Brightgalrs's revision
 * Notes Section totally deleted, information of that nature shouldn't be listed in a list, but can be found in each general's respective article. (This is main change)
 * Removed abbreviations because they were used in the 'notes' section
 * Abbreviations that were used in the college section were replaced in full (USMA=United States Military Academy, VMI=Virginia Military Institute)
 * Moved references from inline citation to the bottom section
 * Removed most breaks except in the rank column, where they are actually needed

Older version
 * Notes section which is very cumbersome, not well organized, and very hard to navigate is present
 * Abbreviations are used in the notes and college sections. So if you would like to know what one means you would need to constantly scroll up/down to figure it out.


 * Binksternet comments:
 * No article of this nature should be hosting 300kb of extra notes that can be found at the individual articles, or taken to those articles if they are not yet written. Who reading this list needs to know that |Raleigh E. "Parlez" Colston was the adopted son of a Virginia doctor? Ridiculously detailed; this should be a textbook case of what not to put into a list article. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was and is absolutely no need to retain the 300k notes information in the 'live' article as it can always be accessed for whatever reason in the article history. That mass of data was greatly limiting access to the article. Consider the reader with poor internet access! Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If User:IcarusPhoenix would like to give his impression on the two revisions he can here:
 * "Third opinion"? Strange.  You never asked for a second opinion.  That being said:  If you had bothered to read Donner60's work above and the article history, you would see that the work was already being done, as most of us agreed with This, that and the other that they were overly cumbersome and redundant.  Without bothering to discuss the matter at all, however, you came along and deleted 300,000 characters of several people's hard work and changed the very nature of the article to suit your personal desires, not the consensus of the whole. In short, the previous revision was a work-in-progress agreed to by several editors with dozens of hours invested into the integrity of these articles; Brightgalrs' version is an amateur hack-job with no consideration for previous work, other editors, or the integrity of the article itself. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the page has been restored to the most recent stable version and protected for a period of one week. Please discuss these changes here on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. If you can come to an agreement before the protection expires, I will be happy to lift it. If, on the other hand, you resume edit-warring after the protection expires, blocks may be issued as necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: IcarusPhoenix's comments are border-line personal attacks, and he is resorting to polemic arguments in order to disqualify Binksternet's edit, rather than actually comment on the contrib. This behaviour needs to stop now. The history of the article is unimportant, and it doesn't matter if one editor or if one-hundred editors contributed towards it in the past, the fact remains that 472,000Kb+ of data is ridiculously long by any standards. This needs cutting back and managing, and Icarus is doing little more than standing in the way of making the article manageable, in a very WP:OWNish fashion, and is not considering the overall slow-loading, over-bearing effect the content has. I agree with Binks that the notes column is too biographical, and does not improve the value of the article with comparative data, which tables generally aim to achieve. I see no way of making the notes more concise, given their unique content per row. I also very much doubt that any reader is ever going to read all these notes, nor search them, not use them in any fashion. The format of the notes appears to amount to little more than trivial scraps in some cases, which, per WP:TRIVIA (see the Example) should not be created. As such, I support removal of notes, also, and to make the page easier to browse. If college abbreviations work better, they should be used, with a clear Key. In-line citations shouldn't generally be removed, but if possible a short reference method should be applied to keep the word count low and to prevent repetitions of sources. Page breaks should be used when required, they are apart of styling, to aid readability, not just webpage layout.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, whether personal or not, they were actually directed not at Binksternet but at Brightgalrs (I think Binksternet and I were commenting simultaneously, which is how my comment appears to be a response to the wrong person). I'm neither claiming ownership nor trying to block progress in condensing a cumbersome article; indeed, had Brightgalrs bothered to look at the edit history and long-standing discussions between several editors, he/she would have noticed that I'm the one who objected to the notes being so overly-inclusive and redundant in the first place... which is why Donner60 was already paring them down to bring the article into line with it's sister article, List of American Civil War Generals (Union), where the notes have very specific standards.  I strongly suggest everyone take a few seconds to scroll up this very page to see Donner60's explanation of just that work, work which Brightgalrs has damaged without once bothering to seek consensus as we have always done in the past with these articles. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Binks.. Bright.. whoever it may be, your comments are bullish, and accusational. Suggest you tone down the "vandal" remarks, completely because such claims are utter bullshit, and childish retorts. Vandals destroy content for the fun and sheer hell of it, the contribs in dispute here were done in good faith, whether you like it or not, I suggest you learn to accept it, or it is you who shall be cast in bad light for your harsh response to their edits, not them.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the clean version is much better. Concur that there's no need to duplicate data that can be found in individual articles about the generals. Marcus has good points as well.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd agree with MarcusBritish's comments above that the article needs cutting back and managing. I'm not a purist on these matters, but the 472K version is far too long. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I too agree that the article is far too large, and I suggested to Donner60 some time ago that he was adding far too much; on the dispute resolution board for this subject, I've made the following suggestion: the notes column should be brought in line with the much-more limited and topically-relevant style set in the sister article List of American Civil War Generals (Union) (which is exactly what was being done, though still not anywhere near as aggressively that I for one felt it should), and that the topically-irrelevant "Date, Place of Birth", "Date, Place of Death", and especially-unnecessary "College" columns should all be eliminated. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have rapidly sandboxed the "A" section of the list to demonstrate my proposal here (note: it's not perfect, but just a rapid demonstration... there are a couple of factual tidbits I'm uncertain about the accuracy of). The first version is it's current appearance after Donner60 eliminated the full-bio notes still visible in letters after "F"; the second is my proposal for revision, maintaining the notes column with only relevant information and eliminating three intervening columns.  Also, I'm not really satisfied with the ranks column; I am of the opinion that nomination dates are unnecessary and that only confirmation dates (in parentheses)  are necessary to indicate seniority.  IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the possibility that the number of Confederate generals is simply too large to handle in one list? One option is to split the list alphabetically, like all of the Iron Cross recipients, for example. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed in the past, and generally has been dismissed - usually out-of-hand - by most participants in the discussion, myself included. Our feelings at the time were that we had already split the article once (all of the generals of both armies were in a single article until about eighteen months back or so when I split the article), so I think we were then generally loath to do so further.  However, with the excellent quality of the similarly-arranged article List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients - which has five pages for just over 1,500 names - I have no real objections to doing much the same here, and splitting both this article and its sister list into two-three pages each.  However, I also think that is something that should wait until after cutting out most of the trivial information and the unnecessary columns, and perhaps even on a decision of whether or not to retain photographs.  That being said, my personal position is that if it comes down to a choice between retention of the photographs column and division of the article, I would rather keep the images and cleanly separate the article into several pages. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just posted a long comment below with proposals for revisions at the end. These are also mentioned in the introduction. I have noted that I agree in general with IcarusPhoenix's response that a reduction in the size of the article should be attempted, although my reductions would be substantial though not quite as draconian as proposed by others, even IcarusPnoenix, at least to start. Then, splitting the article, although it has some drawbacks, might be the better of the remaining alternatives. Donner60 (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Photographs
In the interest of reducing the page load, I suggest removing all images except those belonging to the most important or influential generals. Author George Cantor published a book discussing the top 20: Confederate generals: life portraits. This could be the guideline for which photos to keep. Similarly, Carl R. Green and William R. Sanford published Confederate Generals of the Civil War describing "the lives and military careers of Nathan B. Forrest, William J. Hardee, Ambrose P. Hill, John B. Hood, Stonewall Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, George Pickett, and Jeb Stuart", giving us at least ten top generals who would keep their photos. I suggest going with 10 or 20 photos using either of these books as a guideline, or settling on a number in between. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My objection to that is that it feels rather arbitrary. Neither of the above works is a particularly academic work (in comparison to those works already used as references on this piece), and notability is a pretty subjective.  That being said, if it still seems to big after a major paring-down edit, I would be open to the idea.  However, the edit I'm proposing would lead to an article of about 125,000-140,000 bytes, taking it from the largest article on Wikipedia (seriously, I didn't realize that it had gotten that out of hand) to not even qualifying for the top 1,000 longest. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Each thumbnail image is a load of about 162 kb. There are some 237 images, so the total image load is about 38,000 kb, or 38 Mb. Did you want to have a 38 meg article? Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually hadn't realized that the full load was that large. Personally, I've never had an issue with load-time for the page on any of several operating systems, browsers, devices, or networks on which I've viewed the page, but that's just my experience.  Have other people had problems with unreasonable load-times from the page?  While I am certainly in favor of retaining the images because while they may or may not contribute to load time issues, they do give the article a somewhat more professional appearance and don't actually cause any issues with organization or readability.  That being said, I am definitely against only having some of the pictures based on tenuous "notability" standards; if we end up deciding that the page load is to large and we need to eliminate photos, we should eliminate the whole column.  Just having a few at random makes things look sloppy and uneven, and frankly encourages future editors to track down and re-add all the others. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about future editors trying to add photos back. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Explanations, detailed comments on various points raised, proposals for revisions, possible splitting
I start a new subsection to respond as completely as I can to various points scattered throughout the previous comments. I refer mainly to the Confederate generals list but also will comment on the brevet Union generals list.

I think the Union generals list is fine, although I suggest that the thumbnail photos are not needed and brevet generals who did not achieve full general officer rank could be left to the brevet general list. This list had not been put on line when information on some of the more notable of these officers was added to the Union general list. It seems not to be the subject of much, if any, controversy here but if the debate includes that article, those are my suggestions. The basic information about the substantive Union generals would not be touched at all.

Since I have spent considerable time on the project and such words as "ridiculous" and "crap" have been used to describe it, I hope you will indulge some explanation and defense of the work. Also, this may give some food for thought on what should be or might be profitably retained and what is of lesser value. Admittedly I was doing that by trial and error but I think I had a good reason to do that because the article was already under way when I became interested in turning it into a complete list and resource. I tried to explain this but obviously I ran out of time using the unorthodox approach to developing the article. I would do it differently with a new article or a revised article that is not as lengthy, maybe even with this article. In any event, I have been trying to create a good resource, not just some crap. So at the risk of being boring or (ironically) too detailed, I will make my statement in some detail and hope to avoid further comment or at least any detailed further comment. I won't have much time for it in the next few weeks in any event.

The notes proved to be overdone and other items could be trimmed. Especially with the formatting, and the number of entries, it is difficult if not impossible to complete the article and to see what it would look like in a word processing document. I have such a document, of course, but it is the record of the work and the information, not its base. It also can not be done in a sandbox because categories and other information leak over into the main pages and I know of no way to keep a draft for a long time without this possible disruption.

After commenting on each substantive point, I will end with a proposal as to how I would progress the article to reduce the length of the article. If the consensus is against that, or is in favor of mass deletions without taking time to save some of the material of interest, we will have to decide how to proceed.

After writing this off line, I now note the proposal to possibly split the article and IcarusPhoenix's reply to it. I will say up front that I agree with his response. I would rather see what the length of the articles might be after the proposed reductions and revisions that I propose to make, if accepted, have been made. I might even wish to see what his more drastic reductions might produce, but frankly, I think they could approach the reductions proposed by the mass deletions, which would be somewhat more than I propose. I would not reject the proposal out of hand, as I have done before, if mass deletion is the only alternative. I do think that having the information all on one page would be better for comparative analysis but I also think that keeping most of the information may be better than keeping only one page with mass deletions.


 * TOO LONG. I have worked the most on this article in the past two years. (This does not imply ownership but it does imply familiarity with the subject and how the article has developed.) Before the length of the article became an issue rather than just a point of discussion between a few of us, I acknowledged that it had developed to the point that it consumed too many kbs. I noted (not just on my talk page) that I was working on it in a considered way to produce a good resource of information while cutting the length. I have a few other ideas about cutting it. I may wish the article to contain more than others may wish to include, but I have realized that it should be cut and had begun to do that.


 * TOO LONG TAG; LISTS. The template for the "too long" tag appears to have been developed for use on long, or perhaps long and complicated or multi-faceted, articles. Lists generally are in alphabetical order and have discrete entries. They are not necessarily read, or meant to be read, from end to end or "navigated." Even if someone does "read" it, rather than peruse it, the person is likely interested in comparative information or detail on particular entries or categories or determining whether to look at a full article. Name and rank alone are not likely to serve that purpose. I think the substantive considerations concerning articles that are too long, as contrasted with the kbs used, are less likely to apply to lists. Also, since the lists are in alphabetical order, and these lists are in table grids, they are not difficult to navigate or follow. I submit this for thought, not to take back the acknowledgment of the length of the list.


 * RUSH; PAGE VIEWS. The article has been viewed about 9,500 more times (33,455 total) in the past 90 days than in the first three months of last year when it was shorter. Fewer than 10 people have commented on the length, most of them just recently. I suspect few, if any, would have commented if the article had not been tagged. Two years ago the list was incomplete, had some errors, was disorganized and was of little value until a few editors attempted to complete it and add information of interest and split it along the way. Perhaps I find too much of the information interesting or valuable as a gateway to articles or as a source of individual references to categories of information (e.g. generals killed during the war, West Point graduates, etc.). The organization could be improved, as I believed I was doing. With the lack of complaint and a continuing large number of page views, I thought I had time to do this. But if there is now some urgent need to perform mass deletions to get the article to a certain number of kbs in a hurry, perhaps a different approach is needed. Despite time constraints for the next few weeks, I could delete the photo column and photos easily enough. I have never thought they were necessary and kept them only because of the preference of other editors. If there is otherwise a rush to revise the article wholesale, someone else will need to do it. I suppose that one does not need any interest in or knowledge of the subject or what a previous editor was trying to accomplish to do mass deletions, but I hope some of the following points would be read and even considered.


 * MY AVAILABILITY. I thank the commenter who checked my user page and noted I would either be unavailable and "off line" entirely (which I have been from March 23 until today) or will have very limited time to devote to Wikipedia until about April 17. I have spent quite a lot of time on the American Civil War generals' lists so my absence from the site or this discussion does not indicate a lack of interest. I have spent quite a lot of time on Wikipedia in the past 21 months but I have had a few periods of time when I could not. This is one of them. Again, I will have only short periods of time either to comment further or to edit over the next two or even three weeks.


 * THUMBNAIL PHOTOS. Although I may be alone, or nearly so, among the editors who have worked on these articles, I see no need for the thumbnail photos. Many were in the list articles when I started working on them. Others have been added. So I have not deleted them or pressed for their deletion. This is the one type of information that is in the main articles on the generals. I would prefer that the kbs be used on information and not on the pictures which are (or can be) in the main articles. I agree with IcarusPhoenix that the photos are an all or nothing proposition because use of some photos makes the formatting uneven and would tempt editors to add photos back.


 * TABLE GRID LINES. The table format uses quite a few kbs. Unlike building kbs through more words, the format makes the entries easier to read and navigate, not more difficult. Some columns could be removed, although I would like to preserve some information in the notes as I further explain. The net reduction in the kbs would be substantial. Of course, if almost all of the information is to be deleted and perhaps only the first two columns kept, the table grid might even be removed and even more kbs saved. I don't endorse this.


 * BIOGRAPHY, NOT JUST ACW. While many of the generals certainly are most interesting because of their American Civil War contributions, or in some cases their lack thereof, some have interesting accomplishments that are worthy of note, may pique interest of viewers of the list or be of comparative value for research.


 * AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION IN ARTICLES. I recently finished the last of 34 articles on the Confederate generals not covered by articles. These should have all the information in the notes (or any omissions can be quickly remedied. I used the same seven or eight sources plus an occasional more specific source. All of the articles on the few dozen most prominent generals should be comprehensive. Many of the four hundred or so other articles are stubs or need some further information. Since we seem to have little interest in working on such articles (they are all on my watchlist), it will take some time to review and edit them all. Even if they are all made satisfactorily detailed, it would seem useful to have some hooks in the comprehensive list to draw readers' interest or to provide references to generals who fit certain categories. It would seem easier to find certain information in summary form in discrete entries in a list than to search about 500 articles.


 * ACCESS IN ARTICLE HISTORY. I was interested to see the comment that the additional notes could be accessed in the article history. I had proposed that and may have noted somewhere in the current draft that my "maximum" draft could be found in the article history. I realized that the article on the main page should be reduced but that if someone wanted to see a longer and more detailed version, we could refer to the appropriate previous version. This is perhaps unconventional but I think would work in this case. I would rather do it in the context of the reductions I propose below, but making this reference in the article would make me more enthusiastic about cutting back (not eliminating) some of the notes.


 * GENERAL OFFICER RANKS. I think the most important information may be the details concerning the grades or ranks the general officers held and when they were appointed to those ranks. What rank a general held during a certain battle or at a certain time may be important to authors, researchers and editors as well as readers. I do not agree that the nomination dates are unimportant. The rank date indicates seniority and is often referred to by casual or amateur writers. It often has no relation to the actual date of appointment or the date an officer exercised general officer command. No general actually became a general until his appointment was confirmed and his commission was delivered and accepted. But the nomination date often was the appointment date, or close to it, and was a date when at least temporary command of a general officer position might take place. Early in the war, all of the relevant dates were often close together and some steps in the process even occurred on the same date. In the column, I have shown only one date for two or three steps if that was the case. Later in the war, confirmations were often held up for political reasons or because the Confederate Congress was out of session. Exercise of command under an appointment might have been exercised much earlier. These differences are very instructive. I don't think enough kbs would be saved by eliminating some dates, or some times just "nom." to justify the reduction in information. (Appointment dates, in addition to the other three dates and sometimes coincident with one or more of them, can be found for Union generals but I have no source for separate appointment dates for Confederate generals.) I thought the format looked better and was easier to follow with the general officer ranks in bold font. That, and the fact that I could not bring myself to abbreviate the ranks in this column, adds kbs.


 * ABBREVIATIONS. I almost never use abbreviations except U.S. or occasionally U.S.A. since this is generally discourage and is often confusing. I even have changed abbreviations to full words in some articles. I started using some abbreviations in this article to save kbs. I think most of these are obvious and would not require repetitive reference to keys. I actually would prefer not to use the abbreviations if the extra kbs in spelling out certain words would not result in deletion of more substance. Military rank abbreviations are accepted, even encourage on Wikipedia. Other than those, I think USMA for United States Military Academy, VMI for Virginia Military Institute. Sem. War for Seminole Wars and Mex-Am War for Mexican-American War are not too hard to follow. Nom. for nomination and conf. for confirmation should be easy to follow. I don't object to and might even use KIA and a few similar military abbreviations also used in the Union general article. I have not yet converted all the spelled out words to abbreviations after the "F" section. I could go either way on the use or non-use of some or all abbreviations, especially if information is kept. I would welcome comment if my general approach to revisions is accepted as the way to proceed.


 * UNENCYCLOPEDIC NICKNAMES, ETC.: The nicknames were all taken from the entries in the massive and encyclopedic reference that is a favorite of many Civil War authors and editors, Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8047-3641-3. They are also found in other sources cited in the reference. Some might find these interesting and even look at the article to see how the nickname came about. Others might find them boring and a waste of kilobytes. Since they are used by the Eichers and others, I don't see how they can be considered unencyclopedic. While I may have considered some comments in the text or notes as placeholders or information that could be eliminated when the article was "final," I offer them for what they are worth. Incomplete or missing reference to such topics can invite tags or premature comment.


 * BIRTH DATES AND PLACES: This is the first of three columns that could be eliminated, especially if some information on some generals were transferred to a note point, keeping some pertinent information but saving many kbs. Were any Confederate generals born in the north? Why did they fight for the South? Who were the oldest and youngest? Who were the longest and shortest lived after the war? This column is part of the information that answers those questions, specifically as well as generally, if someone wishes more information on the specific individuals, they know which ones to look at.


 * DEATH DATES AND PLACES; DEATHS DURING WAR: This column obviously is needed to determine the ages at time of death. About 20% of Confederate generals died during the war, most from wounds. The deaths during the war and those with the most notable life spans could be in a note entry for those generals to whom it applies. There is some duplication by noting the battle in which the fatal wound was received already which could be eliminated. Places of burial are given twice in the Eicher book, in the individual entries and in a separate section. Even if this is of some interest to some people, I think elimination of this information from the list would not diminish it much.


 * COLLEGES; PREVIOUS MILITARY TRAINING: Many Civil War generals were trained soldiers, not politicians or amateurs. Reference to those who attended West Point, VMI, the Citadel (predecessor) and a few other military schools shows this, by individual, not just in an aggregate sentence. While alumni of other colleges might disagree, I suppose the references to other colleges could be eliminated although they show that many officers were educated individuals.


 * PRIOR WARS; PREVIOUS MILITARY SERVICE: All Seminole War and Mexican-American War officers and veterans were not graduates of military schools and all did not remain in the U.S. Army after the war. Reference to this service adds more individuals to the list of those with military experience.


 * PRIOR REGULAR ARMY SERVICE, RESIGNATION: Reference is often made to the officers who resigned from the regular army and entered Confederate soldier. This entry identifies the individual officers who defected to the Confederacy. It again adds general officers with military experience to the number of Confederate generals.


 * BROTHER V. BROTHER; RELATIONSHIPS: Some relatives fought for opposite sides; some fought for the same side. These relationships are often commented on in reference to this, and other, civil wars. I did not even list all of the relationships, just many of the ones that seemed most direct or pertinent. On the other hand, I suppose the reference to a general born in France having been adopted by a Southerner as an explanation for how he became a Confederate general might be too insignificant a detail for a list. I might have eliminated that with one last pass through the notes - but it did have a purpose. It's not worth going on at length. There is a very incomplete article on the topic. Perhaps it would be most useful to add some information to that.


 * POLITICAL GENERALS; PRIOR PUBLIC OFFICE: Political offices held by officers before the war are not just as a matter of biography. Much has been written about "political" generals who owed their commissions solely to their political or societal prominence, not to any military experience, training or qualification. Identification of who they were may be of interest. (Every political general was not necessarily incompetent. Union general "Black Jack" Logan is usually considered a good general.)


 * RANKS BEFORE GENERAL OFFICER APPOINTMENT: Many generals were appointed general officers late in the war. To place them in the proper rank at the dates of certain battles and to see their development, an entry for their previous units and ranks completes the time line of their commissions at various times during the war.


 * POST-WAR POLITICAL OFFICE: I think it is of some interest and notability that many of the "Rebels" were reconstructed enough to hold state and federal positions, even elective office. A brief additional reference to these positions where applicable seems interesting and perhaps shows that some individuals may have benefited from Confederate service in the long run.


 * OTHER DETAILS: While I may have kept a few details I thought were interesting in the A to F sections, I would probably eliminate these in limitation of the categories of notes. That might leave a few more entries than IcarusPhoenix would use, but fewer than are currently included.


 * LAST THREE SECTIONS: The last three sections of officers are not unimportant but could be reduced to names and very brief notes. They include individuals who have often been identified as generals or who would have been generals if the process were completed or who were militia generals who may have briefly taken an active role in the war, but who were not regularly appointed and confirmed and commissioned Confederate general officers. They are notable and should receive some recognition. Also, some people might look for these names and try to add them to the article despite their dubious actual status, if they remained unmentioned.


 * PURPOSES: I have been trying to create a list with details that would interest people to click through to the main articles, to note interesting facts about certain generals, to show when they fit in certain categories and to provide dates about ranks and service dates that would be helpful to researchers and those interested in placing the generals in their proper grades as of certain dates and battles. A mere list of names is little more informative or useful than the category list of articles, except the casual reader might find it more easily.


 * BREVET UNION GENERAL LIST: The first section of this list contains the names of the officers who received brevet general appointments. Only about 59 of these were appointed by President Lincoln. A few of these were posthumous appointments in recognition of service. Some exercised command under the brevet appointments. All of the many others received the appointments after the war, most many months or even a few years after the war, in recognition of service. Many of these individuals are erroneously described as "generals" without further explanation that their highest actual rank was colonel or even lower. The date of rank is grossly misleading with respect to all officers not actually appointed as brevet generals by President Lincoln because there was mass backdating of rank dates, often to the arbitrary date of March 13, 1865. Most of these appointments, even if announced some time in 1865 (I have not been able to find exact dates of earlier announcements but I know that any that were made were not made by President Lincoln) were not the subject of nomination and confirmation until some time in 1866 or even later, often after or just immediately before an officer was mustered out. The information in the list is necessary to correct errors or wrong impressions about these officers and the dates and significance of their brevet appointments and, since there are not articles about many of them, to give a bit of information about them. A few entries in the notes sections for the first few letters of the alphabet and for could be removed but some date information needs to be added. I would be willing to remove the entire sections on actual rank generals that received brevet appointments before their promotions to full rank or were brigadier generals who received brevet general appointments. The information could be reworked off line to shorten the entries and to provide information not fully given in the Union general list. IcarusPhoenix has covered much of this information so temporary removal would not be as much of a loss as other removals of information.


 * THANKS TO ICARUSPHOENIX: Thanks to IcarusPhoenix for his contributions including creation of much material and information, his thoughts on saving space and on formatting and for noting my approach, unorthodox as it may have been, to producing an informative but manageable list.


 * SPLITTING THE ARTICLE: I noticed this and IcarusPhoenix's reply just before posting this note. I address this as a possibility, but after other proposals are drafted and reviewed, in the paragraph before the paragraphs with topic headings. I note it here as a possible compromise or second choice so it does not seem to be overlooked, with a little more detailed comment above. I add a brief reply where the comment is made above.


 * PROPOSAL: For the Confederate generals list, to eliminate kbs, I would eliminate the thumbnail photo column and all the photos as well as the columns on birth, death and college. I would add bullet points to the notes on deaths during the war (date, aged, location), officers born in the north and why they fought for the South (moved south as children or married Southern women, mostly), and the youngest, oldest, longest lived officers. This would result in a substantial reduction in kbs while keeping some hooks, the most interesting information and the information needed to put the individuals in certain categories. I would continue my reduction and reorganization of the notes but I would keep the categories of notes I have mentioned above. I would also review the notes a final time to see if more points could be eliminated while keeping the most notable items. I would use the abbreviations I have started using and mentioned above, unless there is a consensus to  not use some or all of them without requiring the elimination of information. I would reduce the text and notes on the final three categories of officers to a very minimum of information. I think this would reduce the kbs considerably and still result in a list with hooks and interesting information that many readers,  researchers and writers on the Civil War would find useful on a single page. I do not agree with, endorse or support a mass deletion of the information that would remain - which anyone could do as I noted above. Also, I can only accomplish this careful revision over the course of several weeks starting a few weeks from now. The line breaks and formatting alone (which add some kbs but are necessary) take considerable time, as I have found out from working on the earlier revisions. The brevet general list has basic information that needs to remain. Many of the officers have no articles and are not likely to have them. Moreover, much misinformation about these officers can be corrected through this list. There are no photos. A few notes on dates, Lincoln appointments may need to be added but a few entries might be reduced. Others have been adding to the notes so these perhaps can not be kept completely clear unless the column is eliminated or changed to cover only one or two specific additional items. I am also willing to remove the sections concerning full rank generals who received brevet appointments (or not, because the others are also listed) and to rework that information to shorten it. I thought it was better to make that information available, although not as completely edited as the first sections, than to hold it until I got around to whittling it down. In the meantime, IcarusPhoenix has added enough information to the Union general list that the temporary removal will not result in the complete disappearance of all such information on Wikipedia. If consensus can not be reached on the approach, I would prefer to have the matter decided by the military history or military biography groups or more neutral administrators - or perhaps to let someone from the majority complete the project. Thanks to all who may read and thoughtfully consider the above.  Donner60 (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft Revision of Article
I have made a copy of the article at User:Donner60/Draft of article. I have made revisions to the section of generals with surnames starting with the letter "A" to show the direction I would go in making revisions to the article. I might consider deleting a few more notes. I think if the line breaks could be deleted without making the formatting look sloppy, that also would result in a considerable reduction in kbs. Unfortunately, I will have very little, if any, time to work on this for the next 12 days or so. After that, I expect to have about the same amount of time for Wikipedia reading, research, writing and editing that I have been spending on Wikipedia for the past 21 months. Donner60 (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I have been time constrained over the past few weeks. Unfortunately, that is going to carry over for about another week. I will be working on some modifications on the article at User:Donner60/Draft of article. I have changed the letter "A" section further in the draft and eliminated the birth, death and college columns. Anything of interest in those columns (not the information for every general) can be put in the notes column. I will change and reduce the notes column and remove the other three columns in the remaining sections. Even greater reductions will be found in the changes to be made in the sections starting with "G" because the notes column had not yet been revised at all starting with that section. I plan to eliminate the thumbnail photos, which also will reduce the total size of the article. Thanks for your patience in giving me time during this unusually busy personal time period to work on this. I will make interim changes and reductions in the article on this page as I get further along in the draft. Donner60 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will appreciate the intended removal of all the images. Perhaps four or nine or sixteen images can be made into a mosaic at the upper right of the article, the usual place for an image. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, images of eight generals could be chosen to surround a Confederate flag to make a mosaic of nine. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually rather like this version - at least for the Confederate page - for one simple reason; eight is actually an historically-perfect number, because it allows us to avoid arguments over notability and simply use the eight men who had permanent or temporary grades of full General; Cooper, A.S. Johnston, Lee, Beaugregard, J.E. Johnston, Bragg, Kirby Smith, and Hood. I'll try to put one together this evening to see how it looks. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good so far. Some ideas:
 * The in-line references should be placed in the references section.
 * Some of those abbreviations should just be spelled out (U.S.A. = U.S. Army), especially ones that are only used once or twice in the whole article.
 * I don't think putting their fate (mortally wounded, killed) in all caps is necessary.
 * Wikifying some of those towns and battles while your in there might be a good idea. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the all caps fates are unnecessary, and I further think that the academically-accepted "KIA" and "DOW" would be perfectly acceptable; I do have to disagree with spelling out certain things that have widely-accepted abbreviations; however, if that is the route taken, make sure to maintain accuracy - for example, it's "U.S. Volunteers" (USV), not "Volunteer Army"; the former is an historically-accurate term, and the latter is a political phrase to refer to the modern draft-free Army of the post-Nixon era. Similar things hold true throughout (United States Military Academy, not "West Point", Provisional Army of the Confederate States and Army of the Confederate States of America, not "Confederate Army" or "Confederate Volunteers", etc.).  This (along with brevity) is why I favor a key of abbreviations at the beginning and a consistent style throughout rather than spelling-and-linking certain items repeatedly. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Split-Apart/Toolong tags
 Comment  - I am going to place "Split-Apart" and "Toolong" tags on the article until the article is shortened or until consensus is reached that shortening the article is not desirable. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can make only one suggestion, and I'm sure it's the exact same one most of my colleagues who have put a great deal of work into this article and its companions will make; go back and look at previous diffs and actually read the conversation above, at which point you'll realize that consensus was reached on the length of these five companion articles eight months ago, which is when the current pared-down version of this article dates from; as such, the toolong tag is officially superfluous. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We reduced the size of this list by at least 40 per cent and reorganized it. Splitting it would make comparisons and cross-references difficult. The intent was to place some information on each general all in one place. Some comparative study, or just reading, could be made and source of basic information on the generals for the writing of other articles could be made. The might have beens and temporary appointments and militia generals were split into a different list. People use and read lists in a different way than they use and read articles; certainly, I do. I think most will not want to read it from top to bottom and would be more put off by having to look at different pages than to scroll down a list. Readers may peruse it or look for something (or someone) specific, not try to absorb it in detail. I think we answered the criticisms earlier through judicious reorganizations and pruning of much detail. After that was completed, those who had originally made these points were apparently satisfied, as they were not heard from further. Of course, anyone can do anything they want to the lists but I think they are fine and very useful as they are, and all in one place. And in fact, if the gridlines were removed, the total number of bytes would be reduced considerably. That would not be useful, however, because the formatting would be awful - at least without turning each entry into a small paragraph. That would be form over substance so I don't think it would really work. Donner60 (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably could have removed quite a few bytes by using the abbreviations that I started to use but I took most of them out as I tended to agree with one commenter that full words were easier to follow when someone was looking at a few entries. That being said, I think the list that has the abbreviations is tidy and well organized and works well. They really don't need to be identically organized even though they give similar information. (I suppose I could reduce the bytes in the article by using abbreviations, as I once started to do, but I am not sure it would be a great improvement in terms of readability. That would shorten it; although it might also bring some criticism.) The one article that does need to be revised is the shortest of all, the introductory article. I have learned enough to know that some information could be added and some of the information in the article could be better organized; some could even be omitted. But that is a different project. Since I wrote almost all of that article, this is self-criticism - or maybe an effort at "continuous improvement", not criticism of anyone else. I do think it is satisfactory enough that it need not be a top priority. Donner60 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The one thing I would be willing to do to reduce the length and number of bytes is to remove the names in the last three sections and simply refer to the fact that "generals" in those three categories are on the other list. I think it makes the list a little less useful to someone who is looking for a particular officer who they think may be a Confederate general, but not so much so that it could not be a partial solution and compromise. Donner60 (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 8 months since the changes in the lists were made, this page has been viewed 82,838 times without apparent problem or complaint. Donner60 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, since Jax 0677 hasn't bothered to reply and there is no further support for the particular dead horse being beaten here, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags. The user's edit history consists almost entirely of dropping into articles with which he/she has no previous contribution history, adding these tags seemingly at random, and then never returning to the conversation (with the exception of one nasty edit war), so I'm just going to go with preexisting consensus that we've created a useful article. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 *  Concur  - Agree with removing the "toolong" and "split-apart" tags. Per the discussion on 2012 in American television, I add the tags, explain my rationale, then allow comment.  I have responded where appropriate, and refrained from splitting where that is appropriate.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I do owe you a bit of an apology, for despite my implication above, I've since looked more closely at the edit war on 2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round and have to say that it doesn't look like you're really at fault there. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unknown General ?
In German literature there is a Confederate General Richard von Manstein (1838-1896). He is named here with familie[http://digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf.de/ihd/periodical/pageview/8305912 Bottom of the page, 1. son of 5.]. It seems he switched the name to Manston(e) when he settled in the US but i found only one vague hint here:: Note: i have no deeper interests here or more information, i am only curious to know: was he actually a general ? -- A1000 (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most likely not. He served as Lieutenant, and probably Captain, in Company F of the 1st (Strawbridge's) Louisiana Infantry. There also was a Sergeant R.V. Manston in Bradford's Battalion. After the war honorary or simply incorrect titles were often transmitted from one author to another and left a real mess. Of course, militia would be a completely other thing ... GELongstreet (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He was a Prussian officer. I do not believe he would join some militia. If he was Captain i can imagine how some wrong translation can make him General. NTL is good to have a second opinion, i will fix that in the de:wikipedia, can you give me a source for Captain, in Company F of the 1st (Strawbridge's) Louisiana Infantry ? It would fit nicely with the second hint i found -- A1000 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He is list as such by the NPS Soldiers and Sailors System right over here... GELongstreet (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of ranks
Per MOS:MILTERMS and MOS:JOBTITLES, ranks are not capitalized except "When followed by a person's name to form a title", such as "General Longstreet". The guideline is absolutely clear. When listing a series of ranks a person has held, capitalization is unwarranted. Chris the speller  yack  23:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the MOS is not clear on that. The MOS speaks about generic use; this isn´t generic use of the ranks within a normal text structure but instead they are the essential part within this bullet-point list. ... GELongstreet (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The MoS is crystal clear, yet you don't seem to know what "generic use" means. In its context, it means any use where the rank is not part of a person's name, that is, when it is not a part of a proper name. Note that Robert E. Lee's entry has "Major general and commander in chief ..."; I did not need to change it because the first words of all the list items are capitalized, as are the first words of sentences, so "Major" is capitalized, but not "general". The MoS clearly gives the cases where upper case is used, but it does not acknowledge being "essential" as qualifying for upper case. It gives no wiggle room, yet you are making up something that does not appear at all in the MoS. Please restore my edits. Chris the speller   yack  06:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing that`s crystal clear is that our definition of generic use differs ... which is quite ironic if we consider the materia. ... GELongstreet (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not clear how you think "they are the essential part within this bullet-point list" makes them not "generic" in the sense that the MOS describes; the non-generic there means attached to a name, as a title. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not wikipedia style to cap things that don't need caps, and these clearly don't. Look at some sources to see how phrases such as "resigned as captain" are typically done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look through a number of wikipedia lists you´ll find that your clearly is clearly wrong. ... GELongstreet (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you specify what those other lists are, I'll clean them up, too, after I finish this one. Chris the speller   yack  17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny. As you´re able to change that one you´ll for sure be able to find them yourself. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny, indeed. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument usually comes with evidence; not this time. But I'll grant you that there is still a ton of over-capitalization in WP, in spite of the efforts of all the gnomes.  I fixed a hundred instances yesterday, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He didn´t ask for evidence, he specifically asked so that he can change them. Not my issue. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I saw that. Still funny that you claim "you´ll find that your clearly is clearly wrong", with not even evidence or example of what you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that we´re talking about it is evidence that it´s apparently not so clear, isn´t it? ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Happy to help. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris the speller and Dicklyon: You are both spot-on here. This should not even be controversial. I applaud you for stemming the tide of over-capitalization! Perhaps you could lend me some support over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unified_Combatant_Command#Caps, where another user (The wolfchild) thinks he can revert my edits without even presenting a counterargument or analysis and application of MOS:CAPS. Thanks! Holy (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That issue seems to be a year old. Let me know if he bothers you again.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dicklyon, I will. Chris made the changes and more. Holy (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So, back to this page and speaking specifically about those ranks in the column "Rank": I´ve changed them all back so both compound word parts are capitalized. As per MOS:CAPS: When an unhyphenated compound title ... is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter. Those ranks are unhyphenated (unlike the British variant), compount titles (e.g. Brigadier and General), and not part of a sentence. And of course the military writes it this way, too, which should make it clear. Therefore back to before as it should be. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * GELongstreet has mis-applied "When an unhyphenated compound title. . . ": That first clause is the key: WHEN the title is capitalized. You have to analyze first whether the title should be capitalized in the first place. That very section explains clearly that the titles are only capitalized in the listed situations. A generic list of titles, or a sentence such as "John Jones achieved the rank of major," requires lowercase. The defense.gov example is irrelevant. It uses "Warrant officer" at the beginning of a sentence. It has simply chosen to use title case in tables, which Wikipedia (and most major publishers) does not do. Also, military and government sources often are very inconsistent in their typography and application of style standards, even violating their own standards (e.g., Navy style manual, U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual)! Holy (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of American Civil War generals (Confederate). 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/20080220100734/http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/jankej/civilwar/generals.htm to http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/jankej/civilwar/generals.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306061229/http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpcongen.html to http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpcongen.html

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) 02:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * General of the Confederacy.jpg

General Andrew Jackson (A.J.) Hansell?
There are numerous references from family-related sources and sources about Mimosa Hall which he built in what is now Roswell Historic District (Roswell, Georgia) at least, about General A.J. Hansell (or try Draft:A.J. Hansell or Andrew Jackson Hansell), being a Confederate general as well as being Adjutant-General of the state of Georgia. He's not in this list-article. Can it be confirmed or not whether he was a general? --Doncram (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hansell did not serve as a Confederate States Army general. If he served as Adjutant-General of Georgia then he, with general rank or not, would be in the militia or the states's volunteer forces, not in Confederate service. However I think Henry C. Wayne did that job for most of the war. Hansell is hardly in any records I can find, the only mention in the ORs are for 1864 as Colonel and aide-de-camp to Governor Brown. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:GELongstreet for that info. I see at State adjutant general article that a state's Adjutant General is an important position, us. the top military person in the state besides the Governor, akin to Secretary of Defense being second in command only to the President.  And for Texas so likely also for Georgia, the person would be cooperating with the Confederate Army to deliver requisitioned troops, etc. So it seems reasonable that Hansell, if he was that, would not separately/also be a Confederate Army general, while he would have worked with the Confederate Army and while family/others could well have not appreciated the distinction.
 * Oh, I see that "OR" means Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, and that there are links there where searching can be done. Offhand, to find the references you found and to look for more about A.J. Hansell for an article on him, is it proper/best for me to chase down "Hansell" within each of 31 hits found by this babel.hathitrust.org search? Searching advice would be appreciated.  Also I see there are Southern Historical Society papers searchable in wikisource.org here but maybe that is only a search within titles or is otherwise specialized?  Any tips searching in Southern Historical Society papers too would be appreciated.  Either way, thank you for your help already! --Doncram (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the Adjutant-Generals of the states were appointed by the states in their militias and not the Confederacy, and therefore are a completely different set. Also they wouldn´t necessarily be generals as they could hold the position of Adjutant-General e.g. with the rank of Colonel (states very much differed in their militia organisations). Meanwhile militia generals are listed at the end of the list but with more details in the list List of American Civil War generals (Acting Confederate). I still have not found any records saying that Hansell really was Adjutant-General or actively served as militia general during the war, only very few very recent books briefly meantion that he was without more information. There are countless cases of family lore and hearsay inflating or mixing up ranks, positions and services etc but records are needed. I am not in the U.S. and therefore don´t have access to the various files in the state libraries which you´d probably need to get more info as most state files are not available digitally, online and/or for free. In regards to the Official Records, until some time ago they were hosted online by the Cornell University and had a great intervolume search mode; however after transfer to Babel/Hathitrust that sadly is not anymore. So if you want to search online you can click on each of those volumes and search again within them though that is some work. Much easier, though likewise only useful if there are comparably few results like with Hansell (and most of them are about other Hansells), is the rough inter-volume search at the Ohio States University right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (ec) UPDATE: Actually, searching on "A.J. Hansell" with quote marks rather than searching on just 'Hansell' yields all or some of the info you cited, and searching on "Andrew Jackson Hansell" yields info about one or two later-born persons, one perhaps a general, but also yields here? the info that:

"The title of 'General' which clung to him through life was acquired by him as a member of the staff of Gov. Joseph E. Brown, the war General of Georgia, when he commanded the state militia."
 * That's exactly what I needed, and along the lines you suggested, so, thanks again User:GELongstreet)! (And, after edit conflict, thanks for further info in your reply; it does seem he was a militia colonel i guess, while referred to as "general".  I was finding the Cornell / Hathitrust interface to be okay but will try the Ohio State University one too, in additional searching for the article.) Thanks!!!--Doncram (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)