Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 2

Putting OOBs for all 25 Corps on Wikipedia
Checkout the addition I put for Order of battle for Union forces in Kentucky in the Kentucky in the American Civil War article. I basically copied it from Civil War Battle Flags of the Union Army & Order of Battle, from a copy of an 1887 text I own. It lists every brigade, division, district, department, etc., in all 25 Corps through the entire war.

I'd love to put all the info online since its not copyrighted--the only problem I have is with formatting. I tried to put into a table similar to the one in the book, just as a small example. The basic heirarachy is Corps over division over brigade, with sublevels in each box for the Commander, the date they were assigned, their rank, and the unit they came from. If getting the organization of all 25 corps sounds interesting to anyone that could help me with formatting, perhaps some kind of template, send me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MrPrada 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) now open
The A-Class review for Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ACW Portal active and automated, but could use some suggestions
I especially need suggestions for the Did you know and This week in American Civil War history article queue. I'll be taking the under-construction tags off this week, but I want to get ahead and finish the queue for the year. Any suggestions would be appreciated. BusterD 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you want to see what's queued up, look here. BusterD 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.) now open
The A-Class review for Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Barton S. Alexander now open
The A-Class review for Barton S. Alexander is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Corcoran now open
The A-Class review for Fort Corcoran is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Runyon now open
The A-Class review for Fort Runyon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Jackson (Virginia) now open
The A-Class review for Fort Jackson (Virginia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give the ACW Portal a look this week
I'm particularly proud of the content. Gives me a chance to showcase some very nice TF members' work. BusterD 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists of units
Hi,

I found the two articles Missouri Civil War Confederate Units and Mississippi Civil War Confederate Units on the January backlog of the Notability wikiproject. They had been tagged with notability questions since then. Since they seem to be one of a series, I presume there is an editorial decision that such lists should be kept, and have removed the notability tags. But some points seem still to be unclear: For example, the lists are completely unsourced. Then it is not clear to me whether they serve a useful purpose within the encyclopedia, just listing the names of the units without any background information. Also they were not linked from e.g. Mississippi in the American Civil War (I have added a "see also" now), and not added to the scope of the Military History wikiproject, so I'm not sure whether you actually support these articles. I just wanted to make you aware. --B. Wolterding 20:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Request
Would anyone be willing to have a look at Raid at Combahee Ferry? The current article on this apparently notable topic seems to be a summary of an unpublished manuscript, and needs some serious TLC. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask—I'm unfamiliar with MILHIST's incredible, sprawling structure :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the place. I'll put it on the announcement template. BusterD 21:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes! This one needs some very serious attention, assuming this minor little affair is even worth an article. There are far larger and more strategically important battles that have short little articles, or stubs, but they don't have a champion like this gentleman. I will send him a note and suggest he review the style guidelines at User:Hlj/CWediting. Scott Mingus 01:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Message sent to this gentleman at User talk:Jeff G. Scott Mingus 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it today and did some work on it. I'll do some more on Thursday and Friday. Amishjedi (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ACW Portal up for Portal peer review
Please comment or participate in helping make the portal that features this project's content make it to featured portal status. It's only a good portal because we're churning out great pagespace. BusterD 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions about the American Civil War needs immediate attention before deletion!
This new article written by User:Jimmuldrow has been the heap where controversial and complex subjects landed when Jim was continuing his admirable cleanup of the ACW main page. New article has been proposed for deletion, but I think there must be a better solution. We need project help here. This pagespace (although perhaps not this namespace) should be advanced and supported, IMHO. BusterD 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been moved to Issues of the American Civil War. BusterD 15:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrick's Ford
For those of you who have an interest in the West Virginia campaigns, please see my question at Talk:Battle of Corrick's Ford. Hal Jespersen 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman numerals in battle article names
If one follows the WikiProject Military history/Style guide then some of the names in the list below do not follow those guidelines. Perhaps some of you who is actively involved in this project would like to decide what if anything should be done about the article names and if something is done and if the battles were fought on different years whether to differentiate by year or First/Second etc.


 * Battle of Auburn I October 13, 1863
 * Battle of Auburn II October 14, 1863


 * Battle of Fort McAllister I March 3, 1863
 * Battle of Fort McAllister II December 13, 1864


 * Battle of Franklin I April 10, 1863,
 * Battle of Franklin II November 30, 1864


 * Battle of Fredericksburg I Battle of Fredericksburg from December 11 to December 15, 1862,
 * Battle of Fredericksburg II May 3, 1863


 * Battle of Kernstown I March 23, 1862
 * Battle of Kernstown II July 24, 1864


 * Battle of Lexington I September 13 to September 20, 1861
 * Battle of Lexington II October 19, 1864


 * Battle of Newtonia I First Battle of Newtonia September 30, 1862
 * Battle of Newtonia II October 28, 1864


 * Battle of Memphis I Battle of Memphis called in the text First Battle of Memphsis June 6, 1862
 * Battle of Memphis II Second Battle of Memphis August 21, 1864


 * Battle of Murfreesboro I July 13, 1862,
 * Battle of Murfreesboro II Battle of Stones River December 31, 1862, to January 2, 1863,
 * Battle of Murfreesboro III December 5–December 7, 1864,


 * Battle of Rappahannock Station I August 22 to August 25, 1862,
 * Battle of Rappahannock Station II November 7, 1863,


 * Battle of Springfield I October 25, 1861,
 * Battle of Springfield II January 8, 1863


 * Battle of Saltville I Battle of Saltville 1 October – 3 October 1864,
 * Battle of Saltville II redirect to the same battle

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, a related question arose in Talk:Battle of Petersburg III and I replied in context there. By the way, does anyone know why the section edit links are screwed up in this talk page? Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed; the archive box wasn't aligned correctly. Kirill 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Below discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history:

I came across this article and it seems oddly named. The article is Battle of Petersburg I. I think it should be moved to First battle of Petersburg. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - even the bold text at the top supports the move (I hesitate to call it a lead, since there's not a lot there and it all seems lead at the moment). Carre (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I moved the second battle page as well for comformity's sake. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like the campaignbox could do with tweaking too, although editing solely to resolve redirects isn't really a good idea, generally. Carre (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Battle of Petersburg III it was fought the next year so should we put it under Third Battle of Petersburg or Battle of Petersburg (1865) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See comment on the article's talk page - is this really known as the Third Battle or is it just the assault ending the siege? Neither quoted source calls it the Third Battle. I'm no expert on the Civil War but I've never heard of any battle being called "the Battle of Anytown II". In some cases listed I suspect one of the actions is known as THE battle and the other(s) is/are another action fought near the same place but not known by the name. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The page List of American Civil War battles also indicates that the following problems exist (if we are using WikiProject Military history/Style guide) some of them are redirects so I have put them at the bottom and struck them out. Some of I,II,III are fought on different years so someone needs to decide if disambiguation should be on First/Second/Third or by (Year). This I suppose comes down to if they are on different years what is the common name?


 * As a general rule (outside of the Civil War context) I think battles in the same war tend to be referred to as First, Second etc (or 1st, 2nd) but battles fought at the same place in different wars are not: cf First Battle of St Albans, Second Battle of St Albans but Battle of Fleurus (1690) and Battle of Fleurus (1794) Lexington (in the list below) is further confused by the Revolutionary War battle. I certainly know of the First Battle of Bull Run and the Second Battle of Bull Run, but not Bull Run I and II. Of course one often hopes generals and historians will choose different names to avoid confusion, but sometimes they let us down. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Battle of Auburn I October 13, 1863
 * Battle of Auburn II October 14, 1863


 * Battle of Fort McAllister I March 3, 1863
 * Battle of Fort McAllister II December 13, 1864


 * Battle of Franklin I April 10, 1863,
 * Battle of Franklin II November 30, 1864


 * Battle of Fredericksburg I Battle of Fredericksburg from December 11 to December 15, 1862,
 * Battle of Fredericksburg II May 3, 1863


 * Battle of Kernstown I March 23, 1862
 * Battle of Kernstown II July 24, 1864


 * Battle of Lexington I September 13 to September 20, 1861
 * Battle of Lexington II October 19, 1864


 * Battle of Newtonia I First Battle of Newtonia September 30, 1862
 * Battle of Newtonia II October 28, 1864


 * Battle of Memphis I Battle of Memphis called in the text First Battle of Memphsis June 6, 1862
 * Battle of Memphis II Second Battle of Memphis August 21, 1864


 * Battle of Murfreesboro I July 13, 1862,
 * Battle of Murfreesboro II Battle of Stones River December 31, 1862, to January 2, 1863,
 * Battle of Murfreesboro III December 5–December 7, 1864,


 * Battle of Rappahannock Station I August 22 to August 25, 1862,
 * Battle of Rappahannock Station II November 7, 1863,


 * Battle of Springfield I October 25, 1861,
 * Battle of Springfield II January 8, 1863


 * Battle of Saltville I Battle of Saltville 1 October – 3 October 1864,
 * Battle of Saltville II redirect to the same battle

The page indicated that these were a problem but they do not seem to be
 * Battle of Charleston Harbor I First Battle of Charleston Harbor April 7, 1863
 * Battle of Charleston Harbor II Second Battle of Charleston Harbor late summer of 1863


 * Battle of Chattanooga I
 * Battle of Chattanooga II
 * Battle of Chattanooga III


 * Battle of Corinth I Siege of Corinth
 * Battle of Corinth II Second Battle of Corinth


 * Battle of Donaldsonville I
 * Battle of Donaldsonville II


 * Battle of Independence I
 * Battle of Independence II


 * Battle of Ream's Station I
 * Second Battle of Ream's Station


 * Battle of Sabine Pass I
 * Battle of Sabine Pass II


 * Battle of Winchester I
 * Battle of Winchester II

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [I posted this at Talk:Battle of Petersburg III and was asked to repeat it here.] Virtually none of the Civil War battles that Wikipedia labels as First This and Second That are actually referred to in that way by historians or by contemporaries. There are a few notable exceptions, such as First/Second Bull Run (First/Second Manassas) and First/Second/Third Winchester. Almost all of the Wikipedia battle articles started from the taxonomy of the NPS ABPP, which uses the Roman numerals just to keep them separated in the battle summary. When these articles were turned into stubs in Wikipedia, the Roman numerals were retained. It would probably have been more logical to use parenthesized dates (year--as was done for Battle of Yorktown (1862)--or full date when two occur in the same year), but that is water under the bridge. About two years ago, someone decided that this was incorrect and started renaming some of them as First and Second. So this is simply a small discrepancy between Wikipedia and the world that needs to be tolerated or corrected. I am not volunteering to do the latter and I hope a real discussion will take place before someone charges off renaming articles because the redirects will be a nightmare. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 *  Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Kirill 01:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 

Peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open
The peer review for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil War Regiments Naming Convention
Just a heads-up: there's been a question posed about the best name for ACW regiments at WT:USMIL that's likely to be of interest to editors here. Kirill 22:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this task force's talk page since the article falls under its scope and so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Abraham Lincoln assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I left messages for the other WikiProjects/task forces and the main contributors to the article so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle, Skirmish, Engagement...what scale?
A question that frequently arises (at least in my mind) is how to refer to the many small engagements in the Trans-Mississippi? Battle, skirmish, engagement, other? Numerical strength/scale is a factor, casualties/intensity another, and of course overall impact/importance to either a campaign or the war itself. Some of these engagements had considerable strategic impact, but were of small scale (sometimes only a regiment or battalion on each side.) The current naming convention for articles seems to favor "Battle" and that is how I've proceeded, but that makes for some strange contradictions in the first sentence of some articles. It of course doesn't help that the NPS listing is almost always "Battle." The Battle of Boonville is noted as a "significant skirmish" by historians (but a pivotal strategic one), yet involved only token resistance and small numbers of killed and wounded. The Battle of Cole Camp (1861) was even smaller in terms of the forces engaged, and less signficant strategically, but it was intense and produced proportionately higher casualties while being more decisive tactically. I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with the "battle" name I have given it, particularly since it doesn't make the NPS list. I'm preparing a wiki article for the "Battle/Skirmish" of Island Mound in Western Missouri at present--again small scale, but unusually prolonged. So what is the accepted wisdom/guidance? This is going to become more important as smaller engagements are added. Red Harvest (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We have exceptionally few ACW "conflict" articles that are not classified by the "battles" listed in ABPP/CWSAC. The first question you should ask is whether an action overlooked by that index meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, such as multiple sources and significant coverage. We are not attempting to provide an exhaustive catalog of the 10,000 or so organized occasions in which blood was shed during the war. Probably 9,500+ of them only warrant listings in some larger campaign or battle article or list without their own article, if that much. But if an engagement is notable, if it has a small number of men engaged and light casualties, and in particular if it's a side action not directly related to a movement of significant forces (such as minor cavalry recon actions around the periphery of a campaign, or guerrilla activities), I'd go with something like we did in Skirmish of Sporting Hill. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The smaller engagements I'm thinking of compare favorably or equitably to the skirmish you mentioned.  Time frame in the war certainly has an impact on the perception of the relevance of an engagement.  Speaking for the Trans-Mississippi the majority of where "blood was shed" type engagements were guerrilla/counter guerrilla, or scout/patrol type exchanges.  I agree that those are not notable or would be covered as a subheading in a related article (for example the capture of the company left at Neosho during the Battle of Carthage (1861) would fit well within that article.)  Shelby's celebrated Missouri raid is notable (and apparently missing from Wiki), but the individual engagements clearly are not and would best be covered within an article about the raid.  Many other small engagements however were notable and/or had a direct impact on a campaign.  The skirmish at Dug Springs set the context for the eventual battle at Wilson's Creek.  For these we usually have multiple primary sources, although small scale limits the number--such as the Skirmish at Island Mound.  The decisive skirmish or Battle of Cole Camp (1861) was certainly small but contributed to the campaign, and primary sources are available from both sides.  Several non-extremist, modern authors have attempted to interpret Cole Camp, with Owens going into the most detailed analysis of the primary sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Harvest (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Initial draft of Skirmish at Island Mound is now up. I'm still trying to determine where it would fit campaign wise, looks like it fits with Lone Jack in Operations North of the Boston Mountains.Red Harvest (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Militia, Missouri State Guard, Home Guard, Enrolled MO Militia, Provisional Enrolled MO Militia Articles?
At present there is a single article covering the secessionist Missouri State Guard--and "Missouri State Militia" redirects to this which is only partly accurate. Missouri's militia situation was very complex and confusing. The original militia became the MSG, while the provisional Missouri govt. (Union) and district commanders created the Home Guards, EMM, PEMM as well as various Missouri State Militia regiments. There were also secessionist "Minute Men" formed at local levels, and Unionist "Wide Awakes", etc. How would we be best served to cover all of this in narrative format? One could create a CSA/secession affiliated topic explaining the general relationships before branching, or to cover the shorter lived predecessors to the MSG within the body of that article. The Unionist organizations would then be covered in a similar manner. Suggestions, ideas? Red Harvest (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to send Missouri State Militia to disambigulation among the following Missouri State Militia (Secessionist), Missouri State Guard (where it presently points), Minute Men (Secessionist), Home Guard (Union), Missouri State Militia (Union), Enrolled Missouri Militia, and Provisional Enrolled Missouri Militia. Several of these topics might be combined, with redirects used for the lesser known that are subsections of the better known.  I'm still seeking input as to whether this is a good idea (or if different names are suggested, etc.)  I believe this would improve clarity in the Missouri ACW articles, helping both readers and editors. Red Harvest (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos/images for articles?
There are several articles that I am working on or have contributed to that could benefit from portraits of the subject. While I can easily find such images in books or online, I'm an utter novice as to the public domain aspects and how best to get something appropriate and am respectful of copyright. Is there some place I should be going to make specific requests? (For articles such as James S. Rains, Martin E. Green, Battle of Cole Camp (1861), etc.) Red Harvest (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MILHIST has some useful links. In general, though, almost any image produced before 1921 will be public domain, which should include all contemporary ACW illustrations. Kirill 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but does that apply to 1860's era images republished in more recent works (for example, Green's photo as reproduced in Warner's Generals in Gray?) Red Harvest (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, if the photo had been "published" (this is admittedly a very vague term sometimes) before 1921, it's PD that way; or, if the photographer has been dead for more than 70 years (which should be the case for all but the youngest and longest-lived ACW contemporaries), the photograph is PD anyways, regardless of when it was published. (You can check with Copyright assistance if you'd like a more certain answer.) Kirill 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

USMA maps
I just noticed that the West Point Atlas maps online have been updated and now include PDFs. For those of you with access to Adobe Illustrator (and perhaps other vector editing tools -- don't know), it is pretty simple to make modifications to these maps. Since they are published by the United States Military Academy, they are in the public domain. Some of the maps I have created for Civil War articles were actually traced by hand from earlier versions of these maps. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Having a small problem
I'm working on expanding the page for the XXII Corps (ACW) and am having a problem. There is little history to be found on it thoughout the internet and the books I have. I want to expand it to go from the start of the war through the end of the XXII Corps. This would include the Department of Washington D.C. and the Military District of Washington D.C. Would it be a good idea to expand this?

Also, thanks to Hlj for aid in the clean up. I learned a couple things from what you did. Leobold1 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I find that there is a lot of useful information in this reference:
 * Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., Civil War High Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3641-3.
 * If you do not have access to it, I can scan the 3 pages on the Department of Washington, District of Washington, and XXII Corps, if you will send me your e-mail address. Another reference for the Department/District is
 * Beatie, Russel H., Army of the Potomac: Birth of Command, November 1860 – September 1861, Da Capo Press, 2002, ISBN 0-306-81141-3.
 * Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Review Please
I've expanded the article for XXII Corps (ACW) and would like an idea on how I've done. I know I have to finish the references and do some minor clean-up, my main concern at this moment is about the content of the article. Any advice/ideas would be greatly appreciated. Leobold1 (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fort Hindman or Arkansas Post?
Presently the Battle of Arkansas Post redirects to Battle of Fort Hindman. Since the Arkansas Post name is primary in the NPS summaries, and has been used for the templates shouldn't the name and redirect be reversed? (It's not a big deal of course, just a little suprising.) Or will doing such a move be unduly messy--losing prior edits, discussion, etc? Red Harvest (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be moved. Sometimes an admin is required for a name swap of this type. Any volunteers? (It's important to use the move facilities, not simply copy text over, which would lose the edit histories, as you suspected.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected (and the support.) Assuming that there is not opposition to the swap in the next week or so (and I believe we should give some time for comment/discussion), I think it should be done with the understanding that it will be done carefully by an admin to preserve edit histories, etc.  In the interim I'll do some further checking in my references to determine if the Fort Hindman name should take precedence for some reason. Red Harvest (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Militia/Paramilitaries?
I would appreciate some input on naming articles for the various Missouri militia organizations. I'm having a hard time deciding how to best to keep NPOV names, yet sufficiently precise/descriptive, and also intuitive for searches. Many Missouri Confederate historians will rightly note early official neutrality and that the state govt. was at war with the Union before joining the Confederacy. This makes for naming headaches. It is most problematic with Missouri State Militia since the orignal organization was never technically Confederate, and not officially secessionist, but was in action and sentiment secessionist even though it never actually fought any Federal force--although part of it was captured by one. (Makes your head spin doesn't it?) It was dissolved before actual warfare began in Missouri. There was a Federally funded Missouri State Militia formed in the beginning of 1862.

In appending to shared and opposing state organization names I'm presently using (Unionist) or (Secessionist). I would actually prefer (Union) over (Unionist) if that better fits the Wikipedia tone/structure. I'm leaning toward titling the other outfit Missouri State Militia (Secessionist). Clearly, (Confederate) is incorrect. (Pre-War) is a problem in that things reached a conclusion for the militia a month after Fort Sumter. Missouri State Militia (Pre-Missouri State Guard) might work as it is neutral and precise...but unfortunately verbose. The more I think about it though this latter name seems the best fit.

For the Union states Home Guard article I used Home Guard (Unionist) for consistency with Unionist/Secessionist, but I would personally prefer to rename it with (Union).

This still leaves me with Minutemen (Secessionist)--or other such as (American Civil War)? I know about the St. Louis outfit but information on others, especially in other states appears to be very general. Red Harvest (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If nothing else works, you could use the formation dates as a disambiguator. It'd be admittedly clumsy—you'd wind up with something like Missouri State Militia (1861–1862)—but the name would at least be unambiguous. Kirill 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. For the militia even the dates are tricky because the Missouri state militia existed prior to 1861 and I'm not even sure what year or act of legislature detailed the original formation.  For that reason I'm going to use the verbose Missouri State Militia (Pre-Missouri State Guard) as it provides the sense of continuity and precision, being properly inclusive and exclusive at the same time.  I'm also going with Missouri State Militia (Union) because it just seems cleaner than (Unionist) which sounds more narrative than title like.  To be consistent I'm going to convert to Home Guard (Union) as well.  I am presently planning to use Minutemen (Secessionist) as it appears accurate and was in many cases pre-Confederate.  Hopefully, this will allow a coherent and non-prejudicial roadmap for those trying to navigate Missouri's tangle of military organizations.   Red Harvest (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have converted Missouri State Militia into a disambiguation page (rather than a redirect to the Missouri State Guard). This is the first disambig page I have done, so please let me know if it doesn't properly conform.  I still need to create over half of the new articles.  This should help eliminate the confusion of some articles that included links for Union militia that were ending up on the secessionist MSG page. Red Harvest (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox
I'm working on a new infobox for the Corps for the Union and Confederate Armies and I'm having problems with it. Can anyone help? User:Leobold1/template/ACW Corps Leobold1 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, military formations of all sorts are supposed to use the standard Infobox Military Unit, which is fairly adaptable to almost anything we've thrown at it. If there are specific additions necessary for ACW corps, we can make them; but non-standard infoboxes are something we've been moving away from for several years now, and it wouldn't really be a good idea to go back to that chaos. Kirill 05:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just taken a stab at sticking the data you have into the standard template; it seems to work pretty well. The divisional colors could perhaps be formatted under the identification_symbol fields instead—particularly if you're going to actually have images of the colors somehow—but that's really a stylistic choice more than anything else.  Are there any other fields you can think of that we need to consider? Kirill 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As opposed to a new infobox, I'm working on a Template:Union Army Formations (ACW) to complement the Corps Articles. If anyone wants to help, I'm great at research, OK at code, and awful at layout, so it will probably need some jazzing up once I'm finished. I'm debating whether or not to include the various Departments/Districts, some of them were fluid and swapped between departments and most of them do not have their own articles, but I still think they would belong in a hierarchy navbox. MrPrada (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ACW Corps and succession boxes
Things are getting rather out of hand with the succession boxes in military biographies, particularly where corps organizations are involved. If you will look at the corps articles, you'll find that a number of them describe multiple organizations that had similar names. (This is true most often for the low-numbered corps.) That is because we chose not to have multiple articles that would make linking cumbersome. For example, to be correct, we would need to have the following articles to describe the I Corps:
 * I Corps (Army of the Cumberland)
 * I Corps (Army of the Mississippi)
 * I Corps (Army of the Ohio)
 * I Corps (Army of the Potomac)
 * I Corps (Army of Virginia)

For quite a long time, having the collapsed structure (I Corps (ACW)) was perfectly adequate because you could tell from the context of the article which corps was being described when you followed the link. (I never anticipated there would be much interest in corps articles anyway. If you look at the literature of the Civil War, there are virtually no historical accounts of corps organizations. Books are written about armies, generals, soldier, regiments, and sometimes brigades, but almost never corps. You normally have to go back to a few 19th-century statistical books to find out anything at all about them.)

Recently, however, people have been taking these succession boxes, which I assume were originally designed for politicians, and trying to accurately list all of the corps commander assignments, even the temporary ones of a few days at a time when someone went on leave, which I think is pretty silly. The main (non-boxed) text of the military biographies include the important dates for a military career and the command history tables inside the corps articles indicate all the minutiae of which days which guys were in command. But beyond whether I think this usage is silly or not, there are a couple of problems in using these boxes:
 * 1) When the number of the corps is ambiguous (as in the I Corps example above), the box needs to indicate which Army the corps belongs to.
 * 2) The preceded by and succeeded by boxes should only apply when the organization stays constant and there is no gap. For example, the XX Corps of 1863 was a completely different organization than the XX Corps that was formed six months later in 1864, even though they were in the same Army. Listing the name of a successor in that case makes no sense.

I would personally recommend that these succession boxes be used only for Army commands (Army of the Potomac, Army of the Tennessee, etc.). I can only shudder to think what happens if people decide that divisions, brigades, and regiments need these boxes as well. I don't intend to go out and delete anything because I don't want to disrupt people's well-intentioned work, but perhaps we could have a discussion here of the pros and cons before it goes too much farther. (And I certainly do not want to recommend that the corps articles themselves be split up, which would create a nightmare for people maintaining links.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Going along with this as well, these boxes could also be used for any command level, from Division down to Company (and yes, there are a few people who I've seen that have bios here, that I've read about elsewhere that are a Company Commander). I can see them as commanders of Corps (Hancock, Reynolds, Gordon, Longstreet, Jackson, etc), as long as they were assigned, not temporary commander (Newton (I Corps, AOP, Gettysburg) comes directly to mind).  The only thing is that it would have to give the Corps and Army, with the link to it going to the subhead (i.e. IV Corps (East) and IV Corps (West)), unless it was the only Corps created (XXIII Corps (ACW)).


 * As for lower, only if the commanders were interegal to the unit (Chamberlain, 20th Maine). Not saying this is a great idea either, as it'll leave questions as to what makes a commander or unit so noteworthy.  But at least its a starting place. Leobold1 (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hal, what are your feeling on tabular returns, such as those I added to Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War? It might be a more amiable way to indicate successive organizations such as your XX Corps example, while also providing more intricate detail then just the commander alone. They are a pain to format, and I haven't gotten around to any of them yet, but I do have the data readily available. I had left a comment WAY up at the top of this talk: page asking for feedback, and I never heard anything so I haven't moved forward on it. MrPrada (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to you both: I think the idea about pointing to the subhead in the article is a good one if you disagree with my opinion that the corps commander should not be boxed in the first place. (I simply think that these boxes are not very useful to describe organizations that have overlapping or ambiguous names, changing structure, discontiguous time frames, etc. They are not as well defined as the political positions for which these boxes were designed originally.) Regarding the lower commands, even if the commander is an integral part of the unit, such as Chamberlain, I don't see the point in putting a box at the end of the article that says he was preceded by Ames and followed by (whoever it was -- who cares?). The relevant information is already in the text of the article in context. And if you are going to put in a box for the 20th Maine, does that mean you will have to add boxes for all of his other commands? And then add those boxes for all of the generals who preceded and succeeded him in their biographies? It just turns into a real mess unless you establish really specific guidelines.

Regarding the Kentucky article, my point was that the article describing the organization (or in this case, the state) is the appropriate place for the blow-by-blow command history description; the biographies of the men is not. If some general took over the organization for a weekend while the real commander was on leave, that is not something that demands a fancy tabular description at the end of the biography article. So the Kentucky article meets my criteria, although I think you ought to consider the tabular format that most of the order of battle articles use. For example, Gettysburg Union order of battle. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Charlestown
I just came across this article and found that it is included as the lone article in the Category:Mine Run campaign, instead of the Category:Battles of the Mine Run Campaign of the American Civil War. Since the article says that the battle happened as part of the same campaign as the Battle of Mine Run, should these two categories be merged? Wild Wolf (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I am going to be adding this article to the Mine Run campaign template and battles category. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you do not add it. The Charlestown article is describing a minor cavalry action that is not categorized as a battle by the National Park Service. Despite what the article says, it occurred over a month before the start of the Mine Run Campaign, which was November 26 through December 1 (or December 2 by some accounts). Some citations for the duration of the campaign are:


 * * Eicher, David J., The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War, Simon & Schuster, 2001, ISBN 0-684-84944-5. (p. 618)
 * * Esposito, Vincent J., West Point Atlas of American Wars, Frederick A. Praeger, 1959. Reprinted by Henry Holt & Co., 1995, ISBN 0-8050-3391-2. (map 117)
 * * Kennedy, Frances H., ed., The Civil War Battlefield Guide, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998, ISBN 0-395-74012-6. (p. 255)
 * * Salmon, John S., The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide, Stackpole Books, 2001, ISBN 0-8117-2868-4. (pp. 242-45)


 * The action during which the armies were "slugging it out" -- how's that for encyclopedic? -- at that time was the Bristoe Campaign, but I don't recommend adding Charlestown to that campaign, either. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I had a couple questions concerning the battle categories.

1. Is there any overlap between the battles of the Lower Seaboards Theater (LST) category and the other categories (e.g.: a battle can be included in both categories) or can battles belong to one and only one?

2. I noticed in the LST battles category that there are subcategories covering various portions of the Theater (such as against major Confederate cities in 1862). I was wondering if it would be better to transfer these subcategories to the LST campaigns cat and list the articles individually in the battles cat or to leave this as is. (Or perhaps leave the subcats in the battles cat and add the individual battles.)

Wild Wolf (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed in some others theaters that it would be best to include some battles in more than one theater category. Where I have noticed this most is in the Trans-Mississippi along the Mississippi River.  Several battles that occurred on the West (TMT) side of the river are being included in the Western theater even though they physically occurred in the Trans-Mississippi.  The reason is that they are included as part of campaigns in the other theater.  The Battle of Arkansas Post is an example.  Perspective of one searching and classifying comes into play, because the commands involved in the action could be from both theaters.


 * I have not looked at the LST classification very closely. It is partially geographic but also appears to be used for campaigns involving attacks from Union naval forces and armies detached from the main Western or Eastern theaters.


 * It looks to me like both the both the campaign list and the battles within the LST list should be included. All of the battles in the subcategories (which are in several instances campaigns) should probably also be included under the main LST: Battles_of_the_Lower_Seaboard_Theater_and_Gulf_Approach_of_the_American_Civil_War Red Harvest (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This brings up an intersting aside for me that I've taken notice of during my time with the project. The articles themselves on the Trans-Mississippi theater, battles, commanders, etc. seem to be relatively weak in comparison to the Eastern/Western theaters. Obviously this is due in some part to the (relatively) minimal role the theater played in comparison. That said, there was still a tremendous amount of notable battles/people etc. that occurred. While there are a number of other pressing "to dos" out there right now, I think that a Trans-Mississippi Drive might be a good kickoff project for the Task Force this year. Most of us participate in the overall WP:MILHIST drives but I think there are enough members of the Civil War TF to handle our own. MrPrada (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that a Trans-Mississippi Drive would be a good project. I'm working on filling out a few areas presently--almost exclusively in Missouri for now.  I'm trying to get a decently documented base and timeline in the articles so that we have some solid jumping off points.  There is a strong POV bias in much of the literature, especially any time guerrillas are involved.  With spotty official records, the lack of any sort of regular reporting for irregulars or many militia, and sparse coverage by mainstream historians, writing a verifiable and neutral article is a challenge.  It of course doesn't help that there are quite a few atrocities or at least heavily disputed events to consider. Red Harvest (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The theater classifications that we use now are those from the National Park Service and they generally align with the operations of the armies and navies of the United States, not strictly geographic lines. The most glaring discrepancies that you might cite are in the Western Theater because they cover, as you have noticed, some activities to the west of the Mississippi River in conjunction with the Vicksburg Campaign, and they even follow Sherman all the way through Georgia and the Carolinas, which would hardly be considered geographically west. I recommend that you do not modify these classifications because they make some logical sense if you understand how they are organized. If someone is looking to find all the battles literally within the state of Louisiana, or any other state to the geographic west of the Mississippi River, there ought to be other categories that can be used without disturbing the original NPS categories. (I would point out, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that one of the principal problems the Confederates had in defending their territory was they often divided command responsibility by state lines. So in the Vicksburg campaign, Pemberton was not able to conduct a fully rational defense because Edmund Kirby Smith was responsible for the territory on the other side of the river from the city. Pemberton would have to ask Richmond to get any action taken a mile away. Let's not make the same mistake here.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Brice
I added an article on the Union paymaster Benjamin Brice. It obviously needs a copy-edit. However, I would also like input on my inclusion of the payscale comparison from the Civil War to Vietnam, and the list of staff officers. I'm positive it would be better suited in a list, would anyone care to offer a suggestion? Feel free to merge the information to a new article if you have any ideas.

(copied from article)

Troops in the field were paid by regimental paymasters, on the last day of February, April, June, August, October and December, according to the company muster roll they had signed upon enlistment. In 2000, the Cincinnati Civil War Round Table compared the pay scales of the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War, adjusted for inflation to demonstrate soldiers' compensation on an apples to apples basis:

Brice was among the officers who commanded various staff departments in Washington that have been largely forgotten by modern historians, even though there was a surprisingly low turnover. Other staff department heads from 1861 to 1865 included :


 * Chief of Staff–Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott, later Maj. Gen. Henry Halleck
 * Adjutant General–Brig Gen. Lorenzo Thomas, and later Maj. Gen. Edward D. Townsend
 * Bureau of Military Intelligence–Maj. Gen. George H. Sharpe
 * Secret Service–Brig. Gen. Lafayette Baker
 * Provost Marshal–Brig. Gen. James Fry
 * Commissary General of Prisoners, East–Col. William Hoffman
 * Commissary General of Prisoners, West–Brig. Gen. Henry W. Wessells
 * Chief Engineer–Brig. Gen. Joseph G. Totten and later Brig. Gen. Richard Delafield
 * Signal Bureau–Col. Benjamin F. Fisher
 * Military Telegraph Service– Col. Anson Stager
 * Union Army Balloon Corps–Chief Aeronaut Thaddeus S. C. Lowe
 * Quartermaster General–Brig. Gen. Montgomery Meigs
 * Inspector General–Brig. Gen. Roeliff Brinkerhoff
 * Ordnance Department–Brig. Gen. Alexander B. Dyer
 * Subsistence Department–Brig. Gen. Amos B. Eaton
 * Military Railroad Department–Brig. Gen. Herman Haupt
 * Cavalry Bureau–Brig. Gen. Kenner Garrard and later Maj. Gen. James H. Wilson
 * Surgeon General–Brig. Gen. Joseph K. Barnes
 * Judge Advocate General–Brig. Gen. Joseph Holt
 * Command of the United States Military Academy at West Point–Brig. Gen. Zealous B. Tower, and later Brig. Gen. William B. Cullum
 * Commandant of the United States Marine Corps–Col. John Harris, later Col. Jacob Zeilen
 * Paymaster General–Col. Benjamin F. Larned, Col. Timothy B. Andrews and later Brig. Gen. Benjamin W. Brice


 * The collapsible payscale doesn't belong in a bio--certainly not in the middle of the article. It would be a good List article on its own, although you should expand it to include current salaries. (I'm sure that many Wikipedia readers have never heard of Vietnam. :-))


 * The list of staff officers also does not belong in one of their bios, unless you want to turn it into a navigation template at the bottom of the article. However, once again a List would be more appropriate, particularly because you're showing a only snapshot of officers around 1864. Since you have access to Eicher & Eicher CW High Commands, use that instead of the son's Longest Night. Complete staff lists are in pp. 37-66. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry now open
The peer review for 53rd Pennsylvania Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Benjamin Brice now open
The peer review for Benjamin Brice is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles - cleanup?
Several of the long list of red articles have recently been changed to blue (due to spelling errors, redirects, and a couple of new articles). In perusing the remaining red links, there are a LOT of non-notable people or things still on this list, many of which perhaps do not deserve a Wiki article as they would fail the notability requirement. Some, such as Irish-Americans in the American Civil War are noteworthy additions should they ever be written. However, the vast majority are somewhat obscure topics that perhaps are best removed from the list??? Your thoughts? Scott Mingus (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would this be considered?
Would War Governors' Conference be considered a part of the ACW-TF? The problem I see is that the parent of the TF is Military history and this is actually more political history than military. Would it still be a part? Leobold1 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say it qualifies, since the event was substantially related to military affairs, even if the participants themselves were not military personnel. Kirill 22:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Made the addition.  Leobold1 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Improved stub and to-do list sorting?
The current stub sorting does not appear particularly helpful. When you select "more" it starts with long numeric lists of regiments. Would it be better to subcategorize the stubs into: units, biographies, battles/events, other/misc? Subdividing like this in the to-do list might be useful as well. (The structure of this seems confusing to me as well, it is in between a sort and a generic format so I'm not sure what to make of it.) Perhaps I'm just not looking at it right. Red Harvest (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there an easy way to index the stub page alpha numerically (1-2-3...A-B-C) so that one could skip over the many regimental entries and get to the "meat" of the need for expansion? This might provide a quick shortcut. Red Harvest (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which stub page are you referring to? Kirill 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the main Category:American_Civil_War_stubs list. Is there a way to format this so that the top of the "Pages in category "American Civil War stubs"" has a shortcut index by starting letter or number? The first ~500 entries are all unit numbers so it is not until the third page that biographies and events/battles begin to appear. Red Harvest (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, just add CategoryTOC to the category page. Kirill 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for that instruction. Red Harvest (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested biographies or requested biographies of generals?
When I recently added to the biographies list and updated Template:WPMILHIST_Announcements/American_Civil_War to be more descriptive I failed to notice the description of the "WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Requested biographies" which says: "This is a list of redlinked American Civil War generals in the Union army and the Confederate States Army." Note the word "generals". Is it really intended that the list be for general only, and if so why doesn't the name reflect that? Or should it be subdivided into say: CSA--generals, others; USA--generals, others? And what about naval personnel and perhaps inventors or other notables? (I'm guessing that generals was used as an initial notability threshhold.) There are of course situations where commanders of garrisons, etc. were below general's rank yet their contribution would be notable because of their key role in a campaign or battle, etc. Red Harvest (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there has been no comment I'm assuming that the bio section description should be slightly generalized (bad reverse pun) to make it more inclusive of all CSA/USA figures who are notable from a military perspective. This would include naval officers in key actions, commanders of state militia forces (not strictly USA or CSA), inventors or industrialists who both meet notability criteria and were pertinent to the military history of the ACW. Red Harvest (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems fine to me. Kirill 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Brigade
Could I request some admin help? Someone has renamed the Iron Brigade series of articles and I have been unsuccessful in moving them back. The 3 articles should end up as: Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Iron Brigade -- full-length description of the Western regiments that is popularly known by that name. (Anyone who has read about the Battle of Gettysburg knows this name.) This is the one that was just renamed Western Iron Brigade and I can't rename it because of a redirect.
 * 2) Iron Brigade (disambiguation) -- currently OK.
 * 3) Eastern Iron Brigade -- currently OK.


 * This seems backwards--disambiguation in reverse. The other brigades (such as Shelby's Iron Brigade) are not on the disambiguation page where they should be.  Instead you have to drill down to "wrong" links to find mention of them.  The problem is that "Iron Brigade" itself is not descriptive enough, hence the need for some sort of disambiguation. Red Harvest (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Brigade is perfectly descriptive enough if you subscribe to the Wikipedia philosophy of acknowledging that some names are much more well known than others and deserve to have articles with that name directly, whereas the lesser known variants are the only ones disambiguated. For instance, London goes to the obvious place and it does not have to be named London, England, (except as a redirect) simply because there are other cities with the same name. We had this same argument when someone wanted to rename Robert E. Lee to be Robert E. Lee (Confederate General) because there is an author named Robert Edwin Lee. In the case of the Iron Brigade, the group of eastern regiments that used that name have achieved no comparable recognition, and the construct Western Iron Brigade is a rarity only used by people who are attempting to promote the more obscure Eastern version. Alan Nolan wrote a book called Iron Brigade without saying Western. Michael Shaara used the term in The Killer Angels as well. No one was confused for a second. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a case where one name is not that much more well known than the others (not like the examples you gave)--even the introduction of the new page says the more prominent one has changed from the ACW to present. The term is context dependent depending on time and theater in the ACW and does not appear to fit the Wikipedia philosophy.  It might seem clear to someone who focuses on modern works about the large Eastern battles, but looking at the pages it isn't to me.  Considering how many times I've seen the name used for different brigades, by itself it is ambiguous.  Editing to add the other examples (as you are now doing) will help remove the ambiguity in the disambiguation page. Red Harvest (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open!
An FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open and can be found here if you wish to comment! Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the Civil War is merely an issue of military history
The fact that the project dealing with (supposedly) all aspects of the American Civil War is a subdivision of the military history project is not good. It is distressing and telling that the article on the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is potentially ready for featured status while Kansas-Nebraska Act, for instance, is utterly dreadful. Sigh. john k (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Were the US history project sufficiently active, this task force could be run jointly with them, and would presumably be in a better position to work on those articles; but, given that only the military history project is actually feeding members here, a focus on purely military history must be expected, limiting though it may be. Kirill 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not you guys' fault, certainly, it's just frustrating. john k (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is; it'd certainly be easier to get things done if more projects were active. I don't think anyone's come up with a good approach for getting there, unfortunately. Kirill 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this thing up for A-class review every month? This is strange.  The items from the previous reviews should be FULLY addressed before putting it back up again.  I rewrote substantial sections last time because of problems and finally just left it tagged for neutrality issues.  It would make more sense to fully clean it up THEN resubmit it rather than doing a few changes and resubmitting.  I'll be out of pocket some for a few days or else I would address this more fully. Red Harvest (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A request to ignore all rules
I'd like to seek consensus to award User:Hlj the Wikichevrons with Oak leaves even though Hal isn't a member of this project, and even though he's never received the wikichevrons, though he did receive similar acclaim from Kirill back in 2006. IMHO, he's one of the most consistently fine editors in the ACW cluster, and many of our ACW battles, biographies and theaters articles would be impoverished without the enduring contributions and keen eyes of this retiring yet accomplished editor. BusterD (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Second. MrPrada (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Discusion moved by coordinator to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I have moved your main talk page crosspost to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards, the usual venue for nominations. Although the Chevrons with Oak leaves are generally awarded by consensus of the project coordinators, no rules are set in stone. Please continue any discussion there. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Indiana in the American Civil War
Indiana in the American Civil War is almost a GA, and could easily become A with some fine tuning. I have a hnard time copyeditting myself, so if anyone could help, it'd be appreciated.-- Bedford Pray  00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Need reinforcements on Portal:American Civil War
With a need to attend to real-life matters (I moved), my time on the pedia has been limited severely. I've thrown a wedge or two to keep the portal's appearance okay, but I could use some help with the following subpages: Portal:American Civil War/Did you know, Portal:American Civil War/Selected biography, and especially Portal:American Civil War/This week in American Civil War history. Instructions for article creation are at the top of each page. We are in month 6 and week 25 as of this request, so the pressing need is for work in weeks and months during and after this one. Any assistance would be appreciated. BusterD (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can add some DYK entries. A few questions: (1) Is there any problem if I do not populate all four bullets in a new entry, leaving space for others to contribute? (2) The instructions say that it should be a recently added or expanded article, but I'd like to go back as much as a year ago, so is that a problem? (3) Some of the entries have the notation "(pictured)" and yet there is no picture displayed; is that an error? Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not as discriminating as some portal folks on this DYK stuff. I do not rigidly adhere to the main page DYK guides though I often use them. I regularly remove any pictures in main page DYK entries I use on the portal (just don't have enough room and the portal has plenty of images already). I see that Bedford is helping too with "this date" stuff. Thanks folks... BusterD (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw your request. A lot of the DYKs I do are related to the War (I even did Nevada in the War).  I had hoped to go to the library to read the "This Day in Civil War History" book, but I didn't get there, so I added what I could regarding Gettysburg, Vickburg, and John Hunt Morgan.-- Bedford  Pray  21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added my sources to the "This day" page. I always start with the material the pedia might have available before I scrounge to fill bare days or weeks. See my recent diffs here to see my "This day" process. Thanks for giving this a look. BusterD (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with possible spammer
I recently noticed was adding external links to the site  www.civil-war-journeys.org  to numerous Civil-War-related articles (in fact, that's all that he does). My initial reaction was to revert all his/her edits as spamming, but honestly this isn't my area of expertise, and perhaps these are external links that this Wikiproject finds valuable. He's been warned that what he's doing can be considered spamming, but only once, and the fact that it's gone on so long makes me wonder if people watching our Civil War think the links are suitable ones. Thoughts? Ford MF (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing has in fact happened to me before, over on the battleship pages, where editers will add one particualr site to all the battleship pages. It is technically spamming, but before you elect to revert I would have you answer two questions: is the link actually useful, and can it be used as a source? If the answer to either question is no, then I would see about gaining consensus within the task force to revert the changes. Thats my two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really consider myself qualified to answer either question (I have no particular expertise or special interest in the Civil War), which is the reason I brought them here in the first place. I'd be happy to do the reverting myself, but I was hoping to get an assessment by someone more knowledgeable about the subject.  If it were up to me, I'd revert them all, but what the hell do I know about the Civil War.  Ford MF (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a line on the main coordinator page asking for someone with more experince to reply here, so I would be looking for more input from better qualified people soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've begun reverting these insertions which seem to be good faith additions, but don't meet our normal threshold. I noticed this IP seems to have been doing the same kind of thing recently. I've warned Allen Info using a formal level 1 warning; if the user continues to add these links, we can escalate it from there. Too bad too, he does link to some nifty photography of recent events. BusterD (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't too a bad a link, but I don't think that it meets WP:ELYES given that it's a self-published website with little original content beyond snapshots of battlefields, which are very widely available. I imagine that User:Allen Info is the same person as Allen Mesch who runs the website. If this spamming continues the site can be blacklisted which aparantly makes it impossible to post links to. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User came back this morning, so I reverted his changes as vandalism and applied standard warnings, this time linking to specific insertions. The prefab warnings do a fair job of explaining policy, so if he decides he wants to add another link anytime soon, an AIV report will block him. User was doing this last year with a petroleum industry website. Has zero edits other than linkspam inclusion. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a personal appeal for the user to attempt project participation other than link inclusion. Perhaps he's a potential contributor... BusterD (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the trouble. Ford MF (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good eyes. If this fellow would be willing to submit some of his many photos under GFDL, he could be a valuable contributor in one significant arena. BusterD (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize for the violatation of the Wikipedia rules in attempting to add my links to the external links sections. My only excuse is a lack of knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. This included not checking my talk page which is why I continued to add the links after the first warning. I would like to be able to share my photos, which is the intent of the web page, but I have no idea how to do this. Much as I wish I had the time to read and learn all of the rules and regulations, the reality is that I don't have that much time. I also am somewhat gunshy aftyer this experience to take the time to prepare something for submission only to discover that I have violated the rules again and as a result of the error, am banned for life from editing Wikipedia. Allen Info (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to add any image you yourself took of non-copyrighted material, just click the "Upload file" link to the left in the toolbox. You then follow the steps in choosing a good name for it (they prefer not to have files like DH4851454flf.jpg and such), what file types are currently in use here, the page it is intended for, and most importantly the license/copyright info. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, plus you need to understand the WP:GFDL use of uploads. In short you allow anyone at any time to take, change, unattribute, distribute, etc. your work, for profit or not. Make sure you read everything about the GFDL to know what you're entering into, and remember files are uploaded one at a time. Feel free to ask me or others if you still have questions. Kresock (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, the Wikipedia image gods have been working on alternative licenses to GFDL. (Perhaps they were there all along and I never noticed.) One of the more interesting ones is:


 * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) – This license allows anyone to use the work as long as they credit you and distribute any modifications to the work under the same, similar or a compatible license.


 * I recently uploaded one of my maps, Tullahoma Campaign.png, using that license and according to its terms, anyone using or modifying the map has to attribute it to me using the text that I provided in the license template (Attribution: Map by Hal Jespersen, www.posix.com/CW). That attribution is on the image page, not the text of the articles that display it, but it seems to be a license where you do not give up as many rights as Kresock states for GFDL. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance with Raid at Combahee Ferry Article
I've been working on re-writing most of the article on the Raid at Combahee Ferry. I have not added anything, I have just re-written some of what is there (so far). There are no sources for the information listed by the one user who created it. Today, I have come across a section in the Harriet Tubman article about the raid which is at odds with what is stated in the actual article. The Harriet Tubman article has sources, but could possibly be sources which are slanted to give Tubman more credit then is due. Anything that anyone can contribute or assist me with would be helpful.

Also, any constructive criticism on the changes I have made to the USS Fahkee article are welcome Amishjedi (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a crack at making this more resemble other ACW articles, as well as adding a dozen footnotes. I found that the original writer actually used a lot of material that was available elsewhere on the web and in books, and perhaps not as much is original research as earlier tagged. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Name format?
Amishjedi, I see you have also moved the James Montgomery (colonel) page to Colonel James Montgomery without discussion. I'm not real enthused about moving pages without so much as any input. I'm not sure what form Wiki wants or if there has been a change since the original page was created, but the name would seem to be the relevant primary piece of information with "Colonel", ACW Colonel, etc. being secondary for the purpose of classification. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on the project can comment about what it should be. Red Harvest (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The original name for the page with (colonel) at the end was poor form, not to mention incorrect since Colonel is always capitalized. The better disambiguation is to add a middle name or initial.  Other disambiguations capitalize on proper nouns e.g. Thomas Jackson (English footballer).  I would support your move of the article to James Montgomery (Colonel, ACW) or something like that.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ranks or positions are capitalized only when used as titles: "I knew Colonel Smith before he was promoted to colonel." But I'm surprised you didn't suggest James Montgomery (Colonel, WBTS). :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh in the Civil War
I moved several "{city} in the Civil War" articles to "{city} in the American Civil War" for consistency. Also, I created the initial framework for Pittsburgh in the American Civil War. Please feel free to add information and expand this starter article. Thanks! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New ACW article
I have modeled New York in the American Civil War after the previous articles on other states in the Civil War. Please free free to take a look and edit any errors, or correct any omissions. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could use some more citations. Indiana in the American Civil War is the only state article that's GA (probably close to an A), so be sure to look at that for comparison.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I added a dozen or so more citations, and will further expand this article as I have time. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's time we established a uniform structure for such articles so we can establish goals toward the Indiana in the American Civil War model.  BusterD (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, as there are many different styles and formats in these articles. I created several of them, often using the text of the History of state X or territory Y Civil War section as a starting point, and hoping other editors would take the ball and run (such as the Texas in the American Civil War article. However, none have the same section headings or style. I think the cursory basics should include a discussion of the state's resources to support the war effort (leading factories, industrialists, rail system, water transport, etc.), a section on the politics of the day within the state, a section on key battles or military actions within the state (or involving the state's troops if a Northern state), a gallery of leading war-time personalities from the state, a section on memorialization or modern-day Civil War attractions, and a section on the troops enlisted from the state. Other sections may be more pertinent to a specific state. I was disappointed that a couple stub articles for states and cities I created as frameworks for others to expand were arbitrarily merged back into their original parent articles, which defeats the purpose and discourages editors from expanding these into larger, more informative articles.Scott Mingus (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I created Montana in the American Civil War last night; a personal troll of mine is trying to get it deleted, but it should be able to remain. I think all of the 48 contiguous states can have an article, although the Dakotas should probably remain together in a single one.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have completed the article, with 50 citations / notes. Please feel free to have a look, and let me know what this article further needs to get to GA status. Thanks! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of state involvement infobox contents and format

 * When I was requesting a A-class review for Indiana's (which was mostly ignored), Blnguyen said something about an infobox for it was needed. We need a standard intro infobox for the articles, like how many troops from the state went to each side.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Infobox is a very good standard item to start with. Do have an example of one we like? BusterD (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A common ref used on the ACW pages (Civil War High Commands) lists militia as well as enlistment totals by state, by quota, by enlistment term, etc. and this info could be tabled up for the pages and/or mentioned in the unique infobox for these articles. Just say the word and it'll be done, but remember the militia totals can be out of date for the time (one not updated since 1827!) however still useful. Kresock (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Scott Mingus (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We could modify the box current states use, adjusting spots for no. of soldiers & types, casualties, population breakdown, no. of slaves/free men as appl., economic breakdown, control of as it changed, major garrisons/armories/training camps/prisons/depots that are highly noteworthy, and such. Flags and important people/soldiers will probably inspire lengthy debates; gotta ride herd on them to prevent boxes from getting out of hand. Kresock (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to use flags, but the problem is, which flag do you use? The modern one?  The one from the time period?-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a preliminary infobox at Montana in the American Civil War‎. Tell me what y'all think.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  23:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The boxes for ACW battles make use of the flags at the particular time described. Unless the state/territory flag changed during the conflict, we should use the time-period correct one, if we use any at all (I'm beginning to loathe flag discussions already.) The box in Montana CW is a good start, and I'm sure casualties is another obvious entry. We could simplify the Gov/Str. Opp. sections to one section like Controlled by... and any applicable date(s). I assume the turquoise blue background would be a shade of grey for Confederate cities, correct? Or perhaps a non-descript variety of butternut? Kresock (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at Oklahoma in the American Civil War, you will see what it looks like for Confederate. I did the table to show what it might look like, because I know that action was needed, because after all is said and done, much more is usually said than done.  Plus, I want an agreed upon infobox so Indiana can become FA  (I'd love to see it TFA on Dec 11).-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just made this template from the U. S. State template, for Union states. Confederate one to follow, and colors can be played with later on. Comments? Kresock (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Confederate one done. Kresock (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Applied new template to Florida page with some tweaks. Will not to others until I get some feedback. Kresock (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have concerns with its width being too large; otherwise, not bad.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  08:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I have opened a peer review for Union Brigadier General Thomas Francis Meagher. Any and all comments are appreciated. Mitico (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Montana in the American Civil War
New article Montana in the American Civil War is up for AfD (nominated by me) and/or suggested for merger with History of Montana.

Full disclosure: I have had running disagreements with the article author. It has been asserted by the author in the discussion that "The ACW task force is trying to have as many state articles concerning the war as possible. For consistency, this article should not be merged with the History of Montana article." Comments about the accuracy of that statement and other discussion welcome. doncram (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have learned one lesson in this article creation; IMHO, we should name territory involvement as Indian Territory in the American Civil War, Arizona Territory in the American Civil War, Idaho Territory in the American Civil War, New Mexico Territory in the American Civil War, Utah Territory in the American Civil War, and others. BusterD (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be easier just to use the state names, except maybe Oklahoma and combining the Dakotas.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And you may be right, but it's the exactly right time to make the decision in public, since many of us are thinking about the subject. I'm not wedded to the position, but the renaming does have the advantage of being accurate for the state/territory in question. "Easier" is a weaker argument. BusterD (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree that now is the time to decide before the future articles are written. Why I like to leave the Montana off is for consistency with the states that were already states at the time.  If someone wants to find the right article, he doesn't have to worry whether or not it was a territory at the time and add territory to the search; it is just a matter of placing the state.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the article: I am a strong proponent of having separate articles for individual states, territories, and cities in the Civil War years, as I believe these are quite a bit more useful to readers than the more generic "history of " articles, which usually are relatively weak in Civil War content. I do support this being named the Montana Territory in the American Civil War, which predated statehood by many years.8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Result was keep. BusterD (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discussion for new American Civil War article
I've requested that the newly created article Oklahoma in the American Civil War be moved to the Indian Territory in the American Civil War pagespace. I'm not an expert on Oklahoma History, but it was my impression that "Oklahoma" was a created term for the merging of the Indian Nations with the recently opened run lands. If project members here have any opinion on how best this naming helps WikiProject Military history, this would be a time to offer it up for consensus. BusterD (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you provide at least a redirect for the state name and that point to the state name/abbreviation. This is a courtesy to the modern reader who might not know the sequence of names a state may have had and when. Better yet, keep the state name in the title and explain up front that it had a different name at the time. To give you an example of time-based trouble: What name would the West Virginia article receive under this regime? It wasn't a state by that name for fully half the war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the redirects, as I stated in the article talk. In this diff, I present how I believe such article names should be handled. If a territory became a state before or during the war (like WV and NV), then the form should be: State in the ACW. If the territory became a state after the war, form should be Territory in the ACW (like Nebraska and New Mexico). Dakota Territory was not divided north from south until well after the war, so redirects for both ND in the ACW and SD in the ACW would link to Dakota Territory in the ACW. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Idaho in the American Civil War, and proposal to move
I notice that Bedford is engaging in edit warring with Tinosa over the Idaho in the American Civil War article. There was no state of Idaho during the ACW. Tinosa has pointed out that there was no Idaho Territory until mid 1863 and has noted that the Bear River Massacre (earlier in 1863) was in the Washington Territory then.

I happen to agree with the thrust of Tinosa's edits that it is messed up, and unencyclopedic, to claim by article title and otherwise that Idaho was in the Civil War. Per others' comments in sections above, I think the article would be better moved to Idaho Territory in the American Civil War and revised considerably.

Full disclosure: I have been involved in dispute with Bedford before. Mainly I object to his bullying behavior towards both new and experienced wikipedia editors, and what I perceive as no-holds-bar edit warring to protect his DYK nominations. Bedford nominated this article for DYK, too.

I may or may not edit the Idaho in the Civil War article myself, but I would also appreciate others interested in the ACW intervening sensibly. doncram (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's now a proposal to move the article to Idaho Territory in the American Civil War, and to strip out information about events that occurred before Idaho became a territory in 1863. See the Talk page.  I support this proposal, as it seems absurdly ahistorical to assert a role for Idaho in the American Civil War, when Idaho did not exist. doncram (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CWSAC/ABPP
Does someone in the group have the ability and permissions to create a new template? I have noticed recently and a modification to this would be useful for Civil War battle articles that include as a reference the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission battle summaries (of the American Battlefield Protection Program). What would be nice is to say something simple like and have it generate the equivalent of

Let's discuss this before someone implements it and then rushes to update the 400+ articles that would be affected. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I happen to have been involved in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism and elsewhere, in which the use of a template to indicate "incorporated" text from a PD source such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, instead of treatment of the PD source just like any other source, is generally regretted. If i were you, I'd consider those discussions and be very wary of encouraging/enabling wholesale paste-ups.  Also, by the way, not all material on National Park Service sites is public domain.  Their copyright statements are very clear that (unlike NASA) they use copyrighted photos and perhaps other materials with permission, permission that is not broad enough for wikipedia usage. doncram (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if folks regret the templates, ignore the suggestion. It's often difficult to keep up with evolving WP standards for things like this. Templates appear out of the blue in some article and one might assume they're representative of some emerging official direction. As to the Public Domain status, these are brief text articles that have no copyright notices and are PD because they are the work of the US Government. Almost all WP ACW battle articles started as direct copies of these files, although only a few remain verbatim after 5 years or so. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of such a helper template. The issue of PD is not a great concern here, since as Hal points out, very few use verbatim language these days. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For your information, since noting this discussion, I have edited a large number of articles about historic sites which linked to the NPS.Gov template, stripping out the copied text and removing the PD template link. Currently, there are about 20-30 articles remaining, mostly about battle events.  I may or may not proceed to address those by editing them rather mercilessly, in the same way.
 * It has been discussed extensively, at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism and in previous discussions linked from there, that it is well-justified for any wikipedian to delete copied PD text in favor of other editing which provides or leaves room for wikipedia editor-written text. At least that is a point of view, which I am in favor of;  i don't want to overstate it as there has been disagreement about the appropriateness of such actions.  There are concerns, which I share, that any article with a template stating text is "incorporated" from a PD text is lower quality than otherwise, for various reasons including a) the probable under-crediting of PD text authors, and b) the complications introduced for any reader/user of the wikipedia article in quoting/citing it (Is this a wikipedia-editor-written article?  Is it necessary to evaluate all the sources to establish whether a given passage is other-written or wikipedia-written?  Who should be cited?  Etc.)  Also, there is some building precedent at Featured Article Review that any "incorporated" text needs to be identified and properly quoted, or removed, from articles.  So in my view facilitating/encouraging the introduction of new pasted-in materials with an "incorporation" template is unwise. And certainly, if you use the NPS.Gov template or create a new one, you will red-flag your articles as likely involving plagiarism, at least by a narrow definition of plagiarism as under-crediting authors (e.g. not giving credit for actual wording by other authors, while still giving credit for content).  Sorry for coming on kind of strongly about this topic, but it is one that i have given a lot of thought to, and have been involved in providing legal testimony upon. doncram (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Basil W. Duke now open
The peer review for Basil W. Duke is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 03:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for New York in the American Civil War now open
The peer review for New York in the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Duke: assistance needed
There's a GA review for Basil W. Duke at Talk:Basil W. Duke/GA1. There were a couple issues I could not figure out how to correct, so if someone with more time than I have this week could figure something out, it'd be appreciated.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  03:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just passed GA.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Thomas Hines now open
The A-Class review for Thomas Hines is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Brig. Gen. Henry Gray
Please feel free to edit this new article I started on one of the Confederate generals, Henry Gray (politician), who also served in the Second Confederate Congress at the end of the war. Scott Mingus (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did a few small additions to the page. Anyone got some love for Earl Van Dorn or Turner Ashby? Kresock (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This must be one of the only fat Confederates in the War! :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know! No one has ever accused the Confederate Army of over-feeding their men, have they?Kresock (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See William Raine Peck. I cover him in detail in my new manuscript, A Spirit of Daring: Hays' Louisiana Tigers in the Gettysburg Campaign. Peck was 6 foot 6 and 330 pounds. Scott Mingus (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tossed in a couple PD photos of Peck, but they can't do proper respect for a man of those measurements! Kresock (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates
I see that MOS:SYL has been revised to deprecate the use of auto-formatted dates. I am now going to stop using them and have updated my personal style guide to adjust for the fact. I would like to make two recommendations for people who edit ACW articles: Does anyone disagree with this approach? Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Let us make this a gradual transition and remove the links only in conjunction with making useful, substantive changes to articles. Those of you busy beavers who spend hours sweeping through hundreds of articles at a time to make formatting changes, please avoid doing so in this case. (I would guess there are over 2000 articles in this area that are affected by this and the change is not all that important as to require immediate action.)
 * 2) Let us agree to use a common date formatting style. In the past, I have been content to watch people use multiple styles, even within a single article, because the auto-formatting would correct the appearance for users who knew what they were doing. My proposal is that we use traditional "American-style" dates, such as July 1, 1863, rather than variations such as 1 July 1863, 1 JUL 63, 7/1/63, 1/7/63, or 1863-07-01. There are two reasons for this proposal: (1) I believe the vast majority of existing ACW articles use that format already; (2) It is the style used in the Official Records of the American Civil War and many popular books and magazine articles on the history of the war.
 * Nope. Began doing this when I created S. A. M. Wood's page; saves time and typing  a lot as well. Kresock (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, for those ACW pages with infoboxes, note the template for as well as the one for  will still have the full dates linked. Kresock (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, and I will try to follow this in the future. Go Buckeyes! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)