User talk:MarcusBritish/ACWR

Missing States
Should we at least note somehow that the list is not comprehensive? Hopefully there will eventually be more people working on this, and they'll probably have the same question. In addition to Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin, Michigan is also missing, as is Dakota Territory. I agree that with ~700 on the list, that's a big task already, but maybe we could put the headings in for the missing states/territories and note that they'll be filled in later. I also have a SQL database with some tables from Dyer's Compendium volume 2 and Fox's Regimenal Losses which I could probably query to automate creation of the missing regiments (or at least make a list of what's missing) if that would be useful. Also, could you give me a quick explanation of the intent of this effort? Is it to get the articles to a certain class, or just fill in any missing information from Dyer's, et. al., or something else? Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Adam raised the concern that there were a load of articles where information had been almost directly copy/pasted from online Dyer's to Wiki. In most cases there has been no formatting, so the Dyer's text is just a block of text, which makes no sense to he average reader, but to the use of abbreviations, etc. So the purpose is to address the overall layout, by adding in an infobox, sub-headers, wikifying the info with links to mentioned battles, commanders, places, etc. Plus adding a footer box, categories, etc so they are all uniform.


 * I'm not fussed about adding in the "missing" regiments to the page. It's just a checklist to help track the progress of what exists, don't really need a bunch of redlinks or blank rows adding confusion to what is already a lengthy page. If anyone finds, or creates new articles, I'd rather they bring it to my attention and I'll update the table as we go along. I don't expect we'll get a big team involved, this is a pretty mundane job.. repetitive formatting and such. We want all these stub/start classes raised up to as high a standard as possible, which in most cases will be C- or B-class. For a small handful, like the 20th Maine, there may be enough extra material to make a more involved article, to A/GA standards. Presentation and accurate referencing are the main things at the moment. Seems that not many of these have had editors show interest in adding more info to them. Perhaps if we bring them all up to a readable standard, others will add new data over time.

Adam and myself are currently discussing a uniform format, sort of a MOS:DYER for how each of these should be formatted. Any ideas welcome. As I've said before, this isn't a priority task, just something that needs doing. If people are happy to do 2 or 3 every time they have a half hour to kill, it's a step in the right direction. As long as they update this table, to help everyone keep tabs on that's done, and what's left to do, it will save time, also. For editors willing to push the boat out and try to make some the the most famous units, and really expand the article, to get them to A, GA or even FA, that would be a good move, also.

I should say, I would prefer editors not create 2,000+ more stub articles for the missing regiments, in the hopes we will add them to this list and get round to updating them also. There's a lot on the plate as it is, and I'd rather see how these go before considering "seconds". Editors taking part would be encourages to fix those listed, maybe create articles for the odd missing regiment in existing tables, if they're willing to complete them, themselves.

 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I've edited some of those stubs on Ohio regiments in the past, so I think I know what you mean. So the main idea is to improve the articles that were created by the editor who originally made the list that are mostly taken verbatim from Dyer's? That makes sense as a place to start. However, I'm a bit confused by "It's just a checklist to help track the progress of what exists". I don't think that there are many of the articles that are missing from the list that don't actually exist already here on Wikipedia and would show up as redlinks or blank rows. See: List of Iowa Civil War units, List of Michigan Civil War units, List of Minnesota Civil War units, and List of Wisconsin Civil War units.  I don't really see a difference between the articles on this list and say 23rd Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment for example. And some of the articles missing from the list, such as  1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry might have enough material out there for A/GA status. Sorry if I'm just not understanding what you're describing. Mojoworker (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I mean I don't want the table this talkpage links to full of rows of "unwritten" articles, i.e. redlinks. All these ones in the, , , and   lists haven't been added because they're not on the editor's list, or on the Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion list. I personally haven't made time yet to search for unlisted states/regiments on Wiki to add, so you're a bit ahead of me there. These all need adding, and their current quality level detailing, but I'll do that in the near-future. Doesn't take me long.. I use regex in Notepad++ to build these tables in quick time.. fortunate that I learned that in my PHP days, otherwise it'd be a slower process.


 * Just for the record, here's the User:Spacini who created many of these. Scroll down the big orange box, and you'll find a substantial list. He is aware that we're looking to improve these from original the MilHist discussion which Adam raised in December. Since that time, we've both got a hard (and pricey) copy of Dyer's Compendium, and the list of what we know exists prepared. It's a start...


 *  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 02:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for clarifying. It's quite possible that, despite the 23rd Iowa example above, many of the articles missing from the list don't use Dyer's as a source. What do you think about a wording change for the CWR template from "This article contains text from a text now in the public domain" to "This article contains text from a work now in the public domain"? I also use Notepad++ &mdash; it's my main tool for editing Javascript. Mojoworker (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at a random few, most do, only they're citing "Civil War Archive" as a reference, which is really just an online Dyer's. We may have to pick up on those, and add the CWR template, and make sure they're uniform with the rest of the regiment articles, in due course. Will Despite being PD, credit where credit's due, and if almost all of Part III of his Compendium is going to be used to give these articles the some structure and such, he really needs to be referenced fully each time. That website is best placed in the External links section, to let people access the data, if they can't get a hard copy. It's very tricky to get it for a good price, whole, esp. outside of the UK. I know Adam got his copy sent to Australia from America.. now, there's dedication for ya! Mine came from a UK seller, so I was lucky, as his was the only complete set on Amazon UK.. everyone else is selling individual volumes at outrageous prices. Typical bloody Brits! Same seller offered me his "Photographic History of..." set, at another good price, so I got extra lucky. They've yet to arrive.. hopefully next week, if all goes to plan, and will be put to good use, over time. Never thought Wiki could be so darn expensive!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

✅ Added tables for Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and also one for the USCT units, as I'm not sure if these ones were "state" units or regiments of the Regular US Army. Dyer seems to have covered the USCT's in his Compendium, as well as several other irregular units, i.e. Indians (ergo Natives), and such.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good Marcus. I noticed there are several more states missing: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and possibly some territories in additional to the Colorado and Nebraska Territories you have in there currently. Sorry to be adding to your workload. Mojoworker (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

✅ Using Category:Union Army regiments as a guide, all states should now be covered.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 14:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)