Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 6

New article Lawrence Pellet Primer System
This was apparently a mechanical priming system for the Sharps rifle, which was discontinued in 1863. I can't find much about it, and the site with public-domain patent photos is copy-protected. Just thought some of you Civil War buffs might find this interesting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New article Samuel Read Anderson
I created this start-class article for Confederate general Samuel R. Anderson. Please add any other information, citations, references, etc. as you see fit. Thanks! 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM • talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open
The peer review for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

statue of Freedom placed by slaves?
a recent edit at Freedom claims that Dan Brown wrote that the statue on top of the capitol dome, placed there in 1863, was so placed by slaves. Can anyone provide any assistance on this? I think it would be a good thing to mention on the page because it has the potential to become a widely held misconception if Dan Brown wrote it and it is not true. 018 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles United States Capitol and Statue of Freedom already mention the involvement of slaves in the construction. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Freedom page only says that the person in charge of casting was a slave freed by Lincoln while working on the project. Nothing about placing the statue, although if one could not be a slave in 1863 in DC, it would be impossible for it to have been placed by slaves. 018 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kelly Lawler: new bio
I'm back to Wikipedia after an extended absence to write a few more Civil War books! I hope to remain more active on Wikipedia this year, although my new novel may take precedence. Anyway, my first contribution to my second stint on Wiki is for Irish-born Civil War general Michael Kelly Lawler, who served in the Army of the Tennessee. Please feel free to edit the new article and improve it in any way you see fit. Scott Mingus (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts in the Civil War
Per the "To do" list, I decided to take on a major expansion of Massachusetts in the American Civil War. Any thoughts, comments, corrections, etc. would be most appreciated. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regiment titles
Looking at our pages on Union ACW regiments, I've noticed they're a bit erratically named. To take Massachusetts as an example, we have pages titled in the form:


 * 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry (mostly like this)
 * 28th Massachusetts Infantry regiment
 * 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

For Rhode Island or Pennsylvania, meanwhile, they're almost all:


 * 9th Rhode Island Infantry

In New York, we get all the above, plus:


 * 71st Infantry Regiment (New York)
 * 32nd Regiment of New York Volunteers

(There's also two with "Veteran" in the title, but I presume they're special cases)

The most common styles seem to be:


 * Nth Regiment State Volunteer Infantry
 * Nth State Volunteer Infantry
 * Nth State Infantry

Is there a preferred style for these? Should there be? Thoughts appreciated... Shimgray | talk | 10:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of those common styles you list, I believe the first is the correct official naming, while the last is the most commonly used in literature nowadays. I use the "Nth State Infantry" style myself. You're right, they should be named to one of those conventions, and over time they would get moved/redirected to something consistent. You may also find this link an excellent guide, and this very subject is discussed there. The "volunteer" part usually gets dropped in the decription, as both armies during the first part of the war were all volunteer regiments. Anyway we've never really concentrated on the fact that the Union Army was the vols/subs/drafts combined around the tiny existing U.S. Regular Army. The bought fellows and draftees came later. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As to your 'anyway' point, Kresock, that's the reason we consistently say Union Army in these articles instead of U.S. Army. Some historians, such as Gary Gallagher, do use the latter. (The term Union Army did not become widely used until after the war, by the way. It was generally called the Federal Army or National Army by the participants.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...well, the Northern participants, anyway. Southern names for this force were not usually so polite with an exception for "Those people" by R.E. Lee. ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This question has certainly been on my mind too. I agree with the guidelines under CW unit names in that "Nth Massachusetts" or "Nth North Carolina" is the most common naming convention today and that pattern should be used within the body of the article.  The rub for me is the title of the article.  As you point out, many states had different naming systems.  Shouldn't the name of the article be what the unit actually called itself?  For instance, most Massachusetts units were quite consistent about calling themselves the "21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry" or "21st Regiment" for short.  I guess it comes down to, should the title be the "official" name (i.e. what the unit was named historically) or should the title be what we most commonly call it today?  I, for one, am a little ambivalent on this.  I lean towards using the "official" name as the title of the article and trying to be consistent about using "Nth State" in the text (which is what I've been doing).  But, I can understand that it would be desirable to have article names conform to a certain pattern.  I'd be interested to hear other thoughts about this. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, the title of the article can be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the titles do not need to be entirely consistent in style. A regiment that only existed in the 1800s should probably have its 1800s style name, if that is how it is most commonly called.  In a current list-article of regiments where disparate styles may be jarring, pipelinks can be used to impose a consistent appearance.  This is like naming of lighthouses or of NRHP-listed places or of train stations or of many other types of place-oriented articles, where there exists one or more official names according to different official systems, sometimes in conflict and sometimes all at variance to current local usage.  The best solution for wikipedia is to allow editors most familiar with the given article to pick the name for the article, although perhaps requiring inclusion of alternate, official names as bolded alternative names in the lede (and perhaps also including the official names in specialized infoboxes).  No one set of official names gets precedence.  It is a relatively common error of editors, which comes across as arrogance sometimes, IMO, to attempt to impose a consistent, "better" naming system on a wildly diverse world out there. :) --doncram (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Review of a user-created book
Hi there. Could anyone please see if User:Buggie111/Books/The Atlanta Campaign is ready for the Book: space? I'd like to know if it it's ready to be sent out. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern v. historic flags for regimental articles
I recently removed the modern Kentucky flag (adopted in 1918 and finalized in 1928) from 5th Kentucky Infantry, and a user added it back in, with an edit summary saying "established format for ACW regimental articles uses the modern flags; I don't like it either, but that's the way it's being done until someone creates historical flag files". Is this really the established format? It seems contrary to WP:MILMOS, which states that "When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones...When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods." This seems even more bizarre in cases where we have an image for the historic flag (e.g., we have Mississippi's Magnolia Flag, but 10th Mississippi Infantry uses the current flag, which was adopted in 1894). cmadler (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any comments on this? I've seen other users adding images of the historical flags only to have them deleted. (See for example.) cmadler (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it's been 3 1/2 months with no comment, I'm assuming there is no argument with 1) removing flags that are inappropriate for the time and/or group and 2) replacing them with historically correct flags, where available. cmadler (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

John A. Logan
I don't know how you guys at MILHIST call attention to worthy subjects for article improvement, but John A. Logan seems to be a pretty important person that you guys might want to get up to your own A-class standards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

American Civil War campaignbox templates
I checked the 102 campaignbox templates in Category:United States Civil War campaignbox templates (already listing for renaming to Category:American Civil War campaignbox templates), with the following results:






 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links


 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link

A campaignbox is a navigational template and, therefore, should exist only when there is content between which readers can navigate. A navigation template with only one link fails completely to fulfill its intended function, one with two links fares poorly (it can be replaced with a "See also" or other in-text link), and one with three or four links may need to be reconsidered.

However, before nominating for deletion tens of templates, I would like to ask someone with more knowledge of the campaigns of the American Civil War to take a look at this issue and share his or her comments. Are there templates which could or should be expanded or combined (e.g., Campaignbox Battles in Confederate Arizona and Campaignbox Military engagements in Confederate Arizona clearly are redundant) instead of merely deleted? Thank you in advance, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Over seven years ago a decision was made to represent the ACW campaigns described in http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm with campaignboxes, regardless of the number of battles in each campaign. Each battle looks the same now because the infobox is followed by a campaignbox. About four years ago some of the one-battle campaigns were rolled into larger categories, although I question whether that helped anyone. My opinion is that I would rather be faced with campaignboxes that sometimes do not have a large number of links than with articles that have arbitrarily different formats. And I do not think editing dozens of articles to react to deleted templates is worth anyone's time. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ACW article in need of some attention
Hi all, I came across Rifles in the American Civil War while tagging articles for the task forces and ended up doing some clean up work. Unfortunately I don't have any knowledge or sources to do it justice, but it is largely uncited so could do with some attention from someone with the know how/sources. Also, it appears to have been tagged with a merge suggestion which might need some looking at. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Basis for spelling of battle name?
I've come across an interesting issue about spelling, in relation to the article Battle of Blountsville. I'm hoping task force members can shed some light on the issue.

The town where this relatively minor battle occurred is named Blountville (and apparently had that name during the Civil War, based on local history information and this fairly contemporary report on the battle), there are numerous sources that call it the "Battle of Blountville", and I get more ghits for "Battle of Blountville" (82 hits) than for "Battle of Blountsville" (59 hits, which includes several hits on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and at least one hit on a different event in a place that is actually named Blountsville). However, it appears that several presumptively authoritative compendiums on the Civil War (Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, CWSAC battle summary from the National Park Service, Civil War Day by Day for September 27, 1863) give the name "Battle of Blountsville" for the battle that occurred in Blountville.

I am convinced that the primary name of this battle is "Battle of Blountville" (and I note that the National Park Service awarded a grant for preservation activities, they used that name, even though their battle summary calls it "Blountsville"). I believe that "Blountsville" is simply a mistaken misspelling that has been propagated by writers who were copying from one another. However, I am not a Civil War buff, and I wonder if there is some sort of a Received Standard List of battle names that will forever in the future require this battle to be called "Blountsville" even though it actually happened at Blountville.

I'd like to rename the article, but I'd like to hear task force members' perspective first. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Seeing no objections (nor any other comments) after almost 57 hours, I'm going to rename the article now -- before I forget... ;-) --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should be a bit more liberal than 57 hours in conjunction with a weekend; I had not noticed your original posting for some reason. Under normal circumstances I would raise an objection about a deviation from the CWSAC battle summary webpage, but I notice that the book that was subsequently published as an expansion of their work (Kennedy, Frances H., ed. The Civil War Battlefield Guide. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998. ISBN 0-395-74012-6.) does spell it without the S (see http://www.bibliobase.com/history/readerscomp/civwar/html/cw_006801_blountvillet.htm), so we are probably dealing with a typo. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, Hal. I knew that 57 hours is fairly short for Wikipedia, but I've seen too many occasions where these kinds of Wikipedia queries are never answered, and I knew that it wouldn't be hard to revert my changes if I had been convinced that such was necessary. Also, since I posted the request during the day on Thursday (a weekday) and was it up all day on Saturday, I figured I had given most regulars a fair chance to see the query. I am relieved, however, to see that The Civil War Battlefield Guide has the S-less spelling. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bentonville now open
The peer review for Battle of Bentonville is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Texas (1861)
FYI, Republic of Texas (1861) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has raised an interesting disambiguation question on Talk:George Sykes (disambiguation)
If nothing else, User:Roman Spinner has developed an interesting list of irregular disambiguation examples (which deserve attention) in the ACW biography content area. User brings an issue which IMHO speaks to inherent WP:BIAS from American editors (the set of which I'm a member): "...there is virtually no Civil War general who is considered important enough to constitute a primary topic..." User concludes: "...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in the case of Civil War generals, the "other stuff" is the norm." I'm not certain of the correct answer myself, but a vigorous discussion might shed needed light. BusterD (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

New article Lawrence Pellet Primer System
This was apparently a mechanical priming system for the Sharps rifle, which was discontinued in 1863. I can't find much about it, and the site with public-domain patent photos is copy-protected. Just thought some of you Civil War buffs might find this interesting. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New article Samuel Read Anderson
I created this start-class article for Confederate general Samuel R. Anderson. Please add any other information, citations, references, etc. as you see fit. Thanks! 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry now open
The peer review for 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

statue of Freedom placed by slaves?
a recent edit at Freedom claims that Dan Brown wrote that the statue on top of the capitol dome, placed there in 1863, was so placed by slaves. Can anyone provide any assistance on this? I think it would be a good thing to mention on the page because it has the potential to become a widely held misconception if Dan Brown wrote it and it is not true. 018 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles United States Capitol and Statue of Freedom already mention the involvement of slaves in the construction. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Freedom page only says that the person in charge of casting was a slave freed by Lincoln while working on the project. Nothing about placing the statue, although if one could not be a slave in 1863 in DC, it would be impossible for it to have been placed by slaves. 018 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kelly Lawler: new bio
I'm back to Wikipedia after an extended absence to write a few more Civil War books! I hope to remain more active on Wikipedia this year, although my new novel may take precedence. Anyway, my first contribution to my second stint on Wiki is for Irish-born Civil War general Michael Kelly Lawler, who served in the Army of the Tennessee. Please feel free to edit the new article and improve it in any way you see fit. Scott Mingus (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts in the Civil War
Per the "To do" list, I decided to take on a major expansion of Massachusetts in the American Civil War. Any thoughts, comments, corrections, etc. would be most appreciated. Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regiment titles
Looking at our pages on Union ACW regiments, I've noticed they're a bit erratically named. To take Massachusetts as an example, we have pages titled in the form:


 * 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry (mostly like this)
 * 28th Massachusetts Infantry regiment
 * 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

For Rhode Island or Pennsylvania, meanwhile, they're almost all:


 * 9th Rhode Island Infantry

In New York, we get all the above, plus:


 * 71st Infantry Regiment (New York)
 * 32nd Regiment of New York Volunteers

(There's also two with "Veteran" in the title, but I presume they're special cases)

The most common styles seem to be:


 * Nth Regiment State Volunteer Infantry
 * Nth State Volunteer Infantry
 * Nth State Infantry

Is there a preferred style for these? Should there be? Thoughts appreciated... Shimgray | talk | 10:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of those common styles you list, I believe the first is the correct official naming, while the last is the most commonly used in literature nowadays. I use the "Nth State Infantry" style myself. You're right, they should be named to one of those conventions, and over time they would get moved/redirected to something consistent. You may also find this link an excellent guide, and this very subject is discussed there. The "volunteer" part usually gets dropped in the decription, as both armies during the first part of the war were all volunteer regiments. Anyway we've never really concentrated on the fact that the Union Army was the vols/subs/drafts combined around the tiny existing U.S. Regular Army. The bought fellows and draftees came later. Hope this helps! Kresock (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As to your 'anyway' point, Kresock, that's the reason we consistently say Union Army in these articles instead of U.S. Army. Some historians, such as Gary Gallagher, do use the latter. (The term Union Army did not become widely used until after the war, by the way. It was generally called the Federal Army or National Army by the participants.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...well, the Northern participants, anyway. Southern names for this force were not usually so polite with an exception for "Those people" by R.E. Lee. ;) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This question has certainly been on my mind too. I agree with the guidelines under CW unit names in that "Nth Massachusetts" or "Nth North Carolina" is the most common naming convention today and that pattern should be used within the body of the article.  The rub for me is the title of the article.  As you point out, many states had different naming systems.  Shouldn't the name of the article be what the unit actually called itself?  For instance, most Massachusetts units were quite consistent about calling themselves the "21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry" or "21st Regiment" for short.  I guess it comes down to, should the title be the "official" name (i.e. what the unit was named historically) or should the title be what we most commonly call it today?  I, for one, am a little ambivalent on this.  I lean towards using the "official" name as the title of the article and trying to be consistent about using "Nth State" in the text (which is what I've been doing).  But, I can understand that it would be desirable to have article names conform to a certain pattern.  I'd be interested to hear other thoughts about this. Historical Perspective (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, the title of the article can be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the titles do not need to be entirely consistent in style. A regiment that only existed in the 1800s should probably have its 1800s style name, if that is how it is most commonly called.  In a current list-article of regiments where disparate styles may be jarring, pipelinks can be used to impose a consistent appearance.  This is like naming of lighthouses or of NRHP-listed places or of train stations or of many other types of place-oriented articles, where there exists one or more official names according to different official systems, sometimes in conflict and sometimes all at variance to current local usage.  The best solution for wikipedia is to allow editors most familiar with the given article to pick the name for the article, although perhaps requiring inclusion of alternate, official names as bolded alternative names in the lede (and perhaps also including the official names in specialized infoboxes).  No one set of official names gets precedence.  It is a relatively common error of editors, which comes across as arrogance sometimes, IMO, to attempt to impose a consistent, "better" naming system on a wildly diverse world out there. :) --doncram (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Review of a user-created book
Hi there. Could anyone please see if User:Buggie111/Books/The Atlanta Campaign is ready for the Book: space? I'd like to know if it it's ready to be sent out. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern v. historic flags for regimental articles
I recently removed the modern Kentucky flag (adopted in 1918 and finalized in 1928) from 5th Kentucky Infantry, and a user added it back in, with an edit summary saying "established format for ACW regimental articles uses the modern flags; I don't like it either, but that's the way it's being done until someone creates historical flag files". Is this really the established format? It seems contrary to WP:MILMOS, which states that "When flag icons are used, they should be historically accurate ones...When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods." This seems even more bizarre in cases where we have an image for the historic flag (e.g., we have Mississippi's Magnolia Flag, but 10th Mississippi Infantry uses the current flag, which was adopted in 1894). cmadler (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Any comments on this? I've seen other users adding images of the historical flags only to have them deleted. (See for example.) cmadler (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it's been 3 1/2 months with no comment, I'm assuming there is no argument with 1) removing flags that are inappropriate for the time and/or group and 2) replacing them with historically correct flags, where available. cmadler (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

John A. Logan
I don't know how you guys at MILHIST call attention to worthy subjects for article improvement, but John A. Logan seems to be a pretty important person that you guys might want to get up to your own A-class standards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

American Civil War campaignbox templates
I checked the 102 campaignbox templates in Category:United States Civil War campaignbox templates (already listing for renaming to Category:American Civil War campaignbox templates), with the following results:






 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links
 * - 3 red links


 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link
 * - 4 red links
 * - 1 red link

A campaignbox is a navigational template and, therefore, should exist only when there is content between which readers can navigate. A navigation template with only one link fails completely to fulfill its intended function, one with two links fares poorly (it can be replaced with a "See also" or other in-text link), and one with three or four links may need to be reconsidered.

However, before nominating for deletion tens of templates, I would like to ask someone with more knowledge of the campaigns of the American Civil War to take a look at this issue and share his or her comments. Are there templates which could or should be expanded or combined (e.g., Campaignbox Battles in Confederate Arizona and Campaignbox Military engagements in Confederate Arizona clearly are redundant) instead of merely deleted? Thank you in advance, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Over seven years ago a decision was made to represent the ACW campaigns described in http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm with campaignboxes, regardless of the number of battles in each campaign. Each battle looks the same now because the infobox is followed by a campaignbox. About four years ago some of the one-battle campaigns were rolled into larger categories, although I question whether that helped anyone. My opinion is that I would rather be faced with campaignboxes that sometimes do not have a large number of links than with articles that have arbitrarily different formats. And I do not think editing dozens of articles to react to deleted templates is worth anyone's time. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ACW article in need of some attention
Hi all, I came across Rifles in the American Civil War while tagging articles for the task forces and ended up doing some clean up work. Unfortunately I don't have any knowledge or sources to do it justice, but it is largely uncited so could do with some attention from someone with the know how/sources. Also, it appears to have been tagged with a merge suggestion which might need some looking at. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Basis for spelling of battle name?
I've come across an interesting issue about spelling, in relation to the article Battle of Blountsville. I'm hoping task force members can shed some light on the issue.

The town where this relatively minor battle occurred is named Blountville (and apparently had that name during the Civil War, based on local history information and this fairly contemporary report on the battle), there are numerous sources that call it the "Battle of Blountville", and I get more ghits for "Battle of Blountville" (82 hits) than for "Battle of Blountsville" (59 hits, which includes several hits on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and at least one hit on a different event in a place that is actually named Blountsville). However, it appears that several presumptively authoritative compendiums on the Civil War (Historical Dictionary of the Civil War, CWSAC battle summary from the National Park Service, Civil War Day by Day for September 27, 1863) give the name "Battle of Blountsville" for the battle that occurred in Blountville.

I am convinced that the primary name of this battle is "Battle of Blountville" (and I note that the National Park Service awarded a grant for preservation activities, they used that name, even though their battle summary calls it "Blountsville"). I believe that "Blountsville" is simply a mistaken misspelling that has been propagated by writers who were copying from one another. However, I am not a Civil War buff, and I wonder if there is some sort of a Received Standard List of battle names that will forever in the future require this battle to be called "Blountsville" even though it actually happened at Blountville.

I'd like to rename the article, but I'd like to hear task force members' perspective first. --Orlady (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Seeing no objections (nor any other comments) after almost 57 hours, I'm going to rename the article now -- before I forget... ;-) --Orlady (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should be a bit more liberal than 57 hours in conjunction with a weekend; I had not noticed your original posting for some reason. Under normal circumstances I would raise an objection about a deviation from the CWSAC battle summary webpage, but I notice that the book that was subsequently published as an expansion of their work (Kennedy, Frances H., ed. The Civil War Battlefield Guide. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998. ISBN 0-395-74012-6.) does spell it without the S (see http://www.bibliobase.com/history/readerscomp/civwar/html/cw_006801_blountvillet.htm), so we are probably dealing with a typo. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, Hal. I knew that 57 hours is fairly short for Wikipedia, but I've seen too many occasions where these kinds of Wikipedia queries are never answered, and I knew that it wouldn't be hard to revert my changes if I had been convinced that such was necessary. Also, since I posted the request during the day on Thursday (a weekday) and was it up all day on Saturday, I figured I had given most regulars a fair chance to see the query. I am relieved, however, to see that The Civil War Battlefield Guide has the S-less spelling. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Bentonville now open
The peer review for Battle of Bentonville is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 07:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Texas (1861)
FYI, Republic of Texas (1861) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has raised an interesting disambiguation question on Talk:George Sykes (disambiguation)
If nothing else, User:Roman Spinner has developed an interesting list of irregular disambiguation examples (which deserve attention) in the ACW biography content area. User brings an issue which IMHO speaks to inherent WP:BIAS from American editors (the set of which I'm a member): "...there is virtually no Civil War general who is considered important enough to constitute a primary topic..." User concludes: "...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in the case of Civil War generals, the "other stuff" is the norm." I'm not certain of the correct answer myself, but a vigorous discussion might shed needed light. BusterD (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.

If you are interested in joining WikiProject United States please add your name under the applicable section here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to help with WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Merge 4 project with WikiProject United States
It has been suggested that 4 inactive or defunct United States related Wikiprojects be merged into WikiProject United States due to long states of inactivity. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into WikiProject United States. Although this task force falls under WikiProject Military History and that project would continue to maintain and control it I thought it would be ok to associate the task force to both WikiProjects Military History and United States. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)