Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force talk page (Discussion page). (October 2008 - December 2008) - Please Do not edit!

Bonnie Blue Barnstar

[[Image:Bonnie Blue Barnstar.jpg|right]] Moved to gallery below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I've attempted to create a barnstar just for this task force, calling it the Bonnie Blue Barnstar. Let me know what you think, as I'd like feedback before giving it out.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 20:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It relies solely on Confederate imagery and therefore sends a partisan message. Perhaps the furled flags of the Union and the Confederacy, with a barnstar superimposed might do it instead? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at the images for the ACW stubs. The left banner above the star represents the Union, and the banner on the right side for the CSA. Both flags had white stars above blue background, and the actually Bonnie Blue was a lighter blue. I didn't see any images of the two flags crossed together, which represented unity. Also, I only have MS Paint to work with. I'd love to see an image of a blue star and a gray star dueling, personally, but that's above MS Paint.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the unfortunate conjunction of name ("Bonnie Blue Barnstar") and graphic that skews the POV. I only have MS Paint nowadays but I'll have a play around and post something. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, you can get a very powerful graphics editor for free (Open source GNU license). GIMP can do probably anything you will want. It is available for most platforms but the Windows versions are addressed here. It's very nice and at the right price, too! ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about an appropriate barnstar for this task force for a long while, and what I liked best was a high-res closeup photo of an embroidered star on a well-made American flag (a photo I don't see in commons, so we'll need to submit a few). One white star on a blue field, a flagstar. Since the white star could appear on the blue field on the stars and stripes AND the stars and bars, it seems a universal image. Similar but simpler than what Bedford has suggested. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bonnie Blue star is not a partisan object. It was first created for the Republic of West Florida near the location where I grew up, decades before the Civil War. The star represents an individual state. Later use of it, such as the "Lone Star" in the Texas flag carries the same meaning. People local to that area created a song about the flag at the outset of the Northern Unpleasantness. Each of the states is a star of that type, and that is what it represents. The CSA flag added a star to the canton for each state, just as the USA flag does. 13 of the same stars represent the first states as shown in the Great Seal on the back of the dollar bill. Since the "BARNSTAR" award is always a single star ... what I'm wondering is how in the world the use of one star of Bonnie Blue fashion could suddenly become the subject of criticism as being partisan. Obviously the suggestion to use a single star is in the spirit of being the BARNSTAR, and that is the only tie I can think of between a single star and the War of Lincoln. Therefore I vote YES, use the Bonnie Blue. If the basis of wiki awards happened to be tall stovepipe hats, I'd be just as amenable to using the obvious image of Lincoln for a Barnstovepipehat award.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayghost01 (talk • contribs)

There's a long tradition of using stars to represent states (and countries, see the flag of Europe, for instance). The question here is why does this need to be overlaid with Southern context? The stars on the flag incidentally are white. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen barnstars with more than one star. If just a blue field and star, it might get confused with the Flag of Somalia, which is similar to the Bonnie Blue Flag. A British Wikipedian designed the two small banners I put on each side; problem is, three bars like that resembles the first Confederate flag.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 05:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an alternative idea, using the stripes and bars on either side of the common element. I've put them into a gallery for easier comparison. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The northeast and northwest star points look odd on yours, but I kinda like it. Should we ask the coordinators outside the TF their opinion, or ask the rest of the WP to submit ideas?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only a rough version at the moment, and dropping in a light shadow to "lift" the star away from the white-on-white bits would probably help. We don't need to submit it to anyone but a note on the main talk page mentioning this discussion is a good idea. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else thinking of Texas? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Flag of Texas was based originally on the Bonnie Blue flag, so your thinking is understandable.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative two Roger just placed has crossed the threshhold of too much white. and looks bland to me.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 13:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bonnie Blue barnstar" Alternative one Alternative two

Barnstar set-2

LtGen Forrest: How about something along these lines? I've done the Bonnie Blue in a way that the field only immediately surrounds the star. Thus it is BOTH a Bonnie Blue AND a 1-of-50 Union-Star-on-Field-of-Blue simultaneously. This eliminates the Neo-Yanks from belly-aching about a white star being "partisan" for some odd reason. To see enough of both the canton and general fields, I made the overall shape a rectangular one, like a flag itself. If you imagined just the white star in the middle but as if the whole background WAS blue, then it WOULD HAVE BEEN a Bonnie Blue. I.e. its like a Bonnie Blue flag, but with the field modified with the US and CS cutouts. The rest is just framing (eye-candy) options.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

Your humble servant, Col Mosby (Grayghost01 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

I very much like what you did. The blue of the central star seems a bit thick. Also, while Stainless Banner was an actual flag for th nation, I'm thinking foregoing the white on the CSA side and just extend the Southern Cross to the bottom. Otherwise, we've got a winner, barring better competition.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I like option. But it would look better with the confederate flag all the way down. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ick! This stuff is way busy and IMHO, embarrassingly unattractive. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar set-3

A few points. First, you cannot take the canton of one flag and extend it all the way down, and not do the same with the other. You would have to do the same to both. So if the canton of the Confederate flag is wanted all the way down, okay, I'll whip out a new version. Here they are:

Option 1a Option 2a Option 3a Option 4a

Grayghost01 (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not have the stars and stripes half of the US flag butting against half the Southern Cross, with a star superimposed? Incidentally, none of these will work well at small sizes (50-60px); the way many people display them for posterity. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Extending the canton of the Stainless banner and you still have an recognizable flag; However, it might be best to just use the US Flag Canton so the stripes don't make it look so busy. Let's see how Option 3a looks at 55px

I'd say 3a looks decent at 55px.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 04:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There are so many options flying around that's probably best to have a vote on preferred choices. Let's leave it for a day or two to see what else turns up and then handle it along the lines of the WP:SHIPS system. Ok? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar set-4

Okay, some options with the cantons center-out:

Option 1b Option 2b Option 3b Option 4b

small:

Option 1b Option 2b Option 3b Option 4b

Regards, Grayghost01 (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to see the stripes in play. The US flag wasn't just stars so the imagery isn't symmetrical. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar set-5

Okay, some options with the FIELD of the US Flag and the CANTON of the CS Flag, plus I added a Lee/Grant thing (which can be taken off):

Option 1c Option 2c Option 3c Option 4c

at width of 60:

Option 1c Option 2c Option 3c Option 4c

Regards, Grayghost01 (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried a picture of Lee when I first created my Barnstar. It's a little busy with the profiles, and shrunk down it doesn't look good at all. Still, we appreciate the effort. Your last set was best, I think.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 11:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar set-6

Three variations using one of the actual barnstar's (the blue-grayish one of course), and with more of the US flag, and only the canton of the CS flag, with the Bonnie Blue set to 40% transparent:

Option 1d Option 3d Option 4d

at width of 75:

Option 1d Option 3d Option 4d

Non-gallery (regular) view:

Grayghost01 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I like this best of all.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like this one as well. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is almost there, though it doesn't work at 50px sizes (which I've just added for comparison). The solution is probably to remove the white border altogether (it serves no purpose); to increase the size of the barnstar by about 15%; and to lighten the shadow behind it to throw the star forward more. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty dubious about this barnstar design concept at first, but this last design is starting to grow on me, mostly because it looks like a classic pedia barnstar. Two requests: Could you try a golden star? Could you post the file without the star? I've been looking for an optimal P:ACW icon, and the flag combination is compelling. BusterD (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Which version of the US flag is this? Seems like it has a lot of stars for 1861-65. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar set-7

Hal has a good point. I've been using the 50-star version. There are 3 U.S. flags from the Civil War era, and this new version uses the one from the end of the war, when the ANV Battle Flag had been incorporated as the canton of the two Stainless Banners.

So here are five raw images, no fancy edging. First is the plain pair of flags, while the others use the bronze and blue-gray actual barnstars. I could not find a "gold" barnstar on the barnstar page.

Last but not least, the Barnstars floating around on wiki are all sized at 100 px and displayed that way, so these files are set to 100, which then shrinks the original barnstar in them down to about 85 pixels I would guess.

The gray border options are there to see if it looks better, particularly for the blue-gray star, whose edges are a bit pixelated.

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Option 7a Option 7b Option 7c Option 7d Option 7e Option 7f

Option 7a Option 7b Option 7c Option 7d Option 7e Option 7f

Added Option 7f, plus miniature row. (Most people with several barnstars display them as miniatures at 50px.)--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think 7e is perfect. Final answer, as it were.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I also like 7e, but prefer 7c. BusterD (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me I'd like to see a drop shadow instead of a gray border. But I'm perfectly happy with 7c for now. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer 7c to 7e too. The gold star option (7f) is a bit lurid (though impeccably heraldic: metal on color). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the gold star, that it is too much and distracts from the rest.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 14:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What I will do is take 7c and 7e and make some variations with things like shadowing on the stars themselves vice the border, and etc. I'll post all that when done. What you might consider is having one color (perhaps blue-gray star) be a junior award and the other color (bronze?) be a senior award. Perhaps we can gin up a titanium or different less lurid gold star for a highest-level award (assuming a satisfactory version of that type of barnstar is found). I would suggest the following ratings, if you had multiple level awards for ACW:

• Private (no star)
• Sergeant (no star but three chevrons on top)
• 1st Sergeant (no star but three chevrons and rocker)
• Company Grade Officer (blue-gray star)
• Field Grade Officer (bronze star)
• Flag Officer (bronze star with oak laurels or "gold" star with oak laurels)
• Lee Award (meritorious for CSA related work)
• Grant Award (meritorious for USA related work)
• Appomattox Award (valorous award for grand level of work)

So keep watching the page, and I'll get something put out tonight or tomorrow.

Grayghost01 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you've done in order to recognize the efforts of fellow wikipedians, but the WikiProject Military history already has a graduated system of recognition. I thought we were agreeing to a barnstar design. Dude! What's up with you and ranking hierarchies? BusterD (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The multiple level awards would be waaaay too much, but a way to switch off between the blue and the bronze wouldn't be bad.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar set-8

Set number 8. Okay, whatever the purpose is for the graphic, I don't really mind. Barnstar, whatever. Also, while the Military History Department may have some of its own salad dressing, there's no reason why the ACW Task Force can't have it's own rewards. So here are the graphics, and some suggested use, but of course the graphics could be used in any desired way. So, three colors of barnstars are there, shadowized. Notice I took a shot at making a "gold" barnstar. Or, I like the ranks, which could be used as ACW-specific awards, given by the Alpha-Males here in the ACW Task Force. I'm also thinking these enlisted chevrons look better than what's in the Wiki articles, so I may go upgrade that page. Regardless ... it's just eye candy and thoughts. I'm simply having some fun making them. But there's no reason that we couldn't have ACW specific awards of some sort.

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

100 px

Private Corporal Sergeant First Sergeant First Sergeant Company Grade Staff Officer Field Grade Flag Grade (Grant) Flag Grade (Lee) Flag Grade (Lee) General-in-Chief

50 px

Private Corporal Sergeant First Sergeant First Sergeant Company Grade Staff Officer Field Grade Flag Grade (Grant) Flag Grade (Lee) Flag Grade (Lee) General-in-Chief

Possible Hoax

I'd like to bring this ANI thread to the attention of the project: [[1]]. (archive link) It appears that the article John R. Smith may be a deliberate hoax article written to get a DYK nomination. However, the user reporting the possible hoax has little experience in American Civil War matters and would like someone with more expertise. Google searches don't seem to support the assertations made in the article, but I'm no ACW expert. I'll copy this to the ACW taskforce as well. Skinny87 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

It appears that the article is gone. In reviewing the discussion, it is said the article talked about a person receiving the Silver Star in the American Civil War. The Silver Star was created in World War II. Therefore the article, whatever it was, did not refer to legitimate awards from the War Between the States. John Smith would have notionally had to have been a Federal as well, since the Confederacy would not have issued a Federal award of any sort.

There are only two awards issued by governments DURING the Great Unpleasantness:

• The Federal Medal of Honor
• The Confederate Southern Cross of Honor for those listed on the Honor Roll, and was given for the same level of valor and gallantry as the Federal Medal of Honor.

There is one official U.S. award given after the war

• The Federal "Civil War Medal"

Interestingly no Wiki article exists for this last award. Perhaps one of the Federal-interest wiki contributors would like to pull that together? This award was retroactively created in 1907 and is a campaign medal, and could have been worn after that point by any FEDERAL (only) veteran soldier. Since units and the services receive awards, it is still seen to this day as a "battle streamer" on the pole of the service colors. I often saw this streamer, since all units in the U.S. Marine Corps carried the streamer on the Marine Corps battle color. The Civil War battle streamer looks similar to the ribbon on the medal, and is half gray and half blue. The gray is in honor of the Confederacy. The USMC streamer has no service stars. This is because most of the U.S. Marine Corps quit and joined the Confederacy, and thus the remaining shell of a "U.S. Marine Corps" did practically nothing of note except, perhaps, to run like scared chickens in an eastward direction during the First Battle of Manassas. Thus the Marines usually start "discussing" their history only a bit with Butler in the Boxer Rebellion, and then mostly from MajGen Elliott onward, when the Southern Boys re-vamped the show, and took LtGen Jubal Early's tactics to Belleau Wood.

The U.S. Navy, too, carries the Civil War battle streamer, but with three silver stars. Only God knows what the three stars were actually for, or how they figured that math, which would have to be some select list of 15 things (one star per five). But this would be my guess on three good reasons for them to get stars which you'll never see on their list:

• (1) For finally taking down Capt Raphael Semmes, thus saving the last 50% of commercial U.S. shipping that was left,
• (2) for selecting the winning lottery ticket with John Ericsson's USS Monitor design, which saved Lincoln's bacon from a purification by fire from the CSS Virginia, and last but not least
• (3) for ADM David Farragut's valuable lesson learned in "damning" the "torpedeos" and subsequent disproportionately heavy losses against overwhelmingly inferior forces, thereby leading the Navy to tell all future Naval Academy graduates to NEVER issue such hare-brained utterances to God like "damn the torpedos", and instead lead to the life saving measure of torpedo belts for the future battle wagons.

Grayghost01 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See Civil War Campaign Medal. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Citation Star, Award star and Service star. If someone could explain all this, I'd be grateful. I've said something back at the ANI thread, but what people missed over at the ANI thread was that awards can be retrospective. I've been lamenting over there that we needed a military historian to pick through the article, but it seems it got deleted before anyone here could comment there or at the AfD. I'm going to point people over there to this discussion. If possible, if a thread like this appears again, could people replying here also watch the ANI thread, as I think what was said here would have helped over there, but it seems that two discussions were going on in parallel, without much cross-communication. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Brother against Brother Barnstar

Using what seemed to be the best solution, I decided to make the templates. The first three works like MILHIST chevrons

{{ACW Barnstar‎}} {{ACW Barnstar‎ 2}} {{ACW Barnstar‎ 3}}

The last can only be given out by the ACW TF coordinators, for the utterly best work for ACW articles.

{{ACW Barnstar‎ 4}}

Probably need to actually mention the war in the barnstar, buyt other than that, what do you think?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually need four barnstars? Why not simply call it the American Civil War barnstar? And this egalitarian coordinator is dead against the principle of #4.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In order...

1. Debatable; if nothing else, give an option for personal aesthetic preferences.
2. Why not a more imaginative name?
3. It's something for future coordinators to think about, at the least.

Regards.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, four barnstars is more than I'm willing to endorse, as a project member. I want one ACW task force barnstar, not four. And this template set does not use the sort of language I'd expect in a project barnstar. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One last comment on this subject. I endorse task force adoption of the version defined by Grayghost01 in the section above as "company grade." We've seen plenty. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar decision time

I have made a template (below) using the most popular of the many designs, combined with a conventional name approach. I suggest we vote either with a simple Support or Oppose. If opposes predominate, or if there's no consensus, I suggest we archive this whole barnstar discussion and do without one. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Support. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - Grayghost01 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't like having a gun to my head telling me I must support something, or else it's shelved.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My proposal was clearly flagged as a suggestion. People don't have to follow it.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have had a gun pointed at my head, and, given the narrow choices at the time, I didn't like it either. However, after the first frightening time, it doesn't bother me nearly as much. This is completely unlike that experience, and it doesn't bother me a bit being forced to make a choice to approve. BusterD (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I kind of like the color of the barnstar, has a rusty "aged" look to it, similar to the 100-year old GAR markers scattered throughout Northern cemeteries. The27thmaine (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I think we have consensus for adopting this. I've added the "subst:" template to WP:ACW#Templates, ready for use. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have awarded this barnstar to Grayghost01 for his efforts in developing and designing it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And, I have awarded the second one to the person who was the guiding force in creating and editing Wikipedia's Civil War articles long before this task force came into existance, and who still is a major contributor of maps, edits, and occasional new articles—Hal Jespersen (User:Hlj). Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! Scott Mingus (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good use for that barnstar...Hal has done and continues to do a very fine job.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he deserves it.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with our interminable discussion of abbreviations, I thank you for the BS. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Marines would abbreviate that as BStar and the Air Force as Bn Star!  ;-) The Gray Ghost tips his hat to you. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Just a note, I think the actual graphic file you may want to use is Barstar Set-8 "Company Grade" from above, in which I made a smooth final version with slight shadowing, and I believe I improved the overlay of the bronze barstar with shadowing, vice the old Bonnie Blue white star underneath it. Thus the graphic, along with my Support. I would also dress up the title in the template with the little stub bunting of USA and CSA that appears on the ACW stub article template, and which was on the very first "Bonnie Blue barnstar" above. Grayghost01 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the image (even though it doesn't work as well at small size). Can you now add either an unconditional support or oppose in the section above. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing states in the American Civil war

There only seem to be three left to do to complete the series:

• North Dakota in the American Civil War
• Washington in the American Civil War
• Wyoming in the American Civil War

Is this right? I'll add them to the "Articles requested" section of our announcements.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just going to be Dakota in the ACW. Also, some of the states are actually redirects.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 05:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. What's the story with the other two? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington was a territory and as far from the conflict a state gets. Wyoming never had much population, and has nothing I've heard about war connections. Too bad; a conflict at Colter's Hell would be interesting.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 15:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Phisterer's Statistical Record of the Armies of the US, pg 20, credits the Dakota Territory with 2 companies of 3-year cavalry, and Washington Territory with 1 regiment of 3-year infantry. The Wyoming Territory didn't exist until 1868; it was part of the territories of Nebraska, Idaho, Dakota during the War. The27thmaine (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I started a page on the 1st Dakota Cavalry, the only Civil War unit raised in the Dakota Territory. Also started List of Dakota Territory Civil War Units, though the page obviously lacks as it has only the one battalion! The27thmaine (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for expansion

Is it worth organizing a task force push to expand some of the articles languishing unloved in our "To do" list? There seem to be a lot of them. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Roger, that short To Do list contains topics that I don't think have much interest with anyone. How did those get requested and put there? Besides, right now there are some major problems with high level mainline articles such as Confederate States of America which have currently been taken over by a group of Carpetbaggers, working in a collective editing pack, who work to maintain a certain POV and tone in the article which is not historically accurate or neutral. These carpetbaggers also seem entranced by the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and routinely patrol and insert extreme Anti-Confederate views into Union (American Civil War), Reconstruction era of the United States, American Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation, Naming the American Civil War, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Flags of the Confederate States of America, Nullification Crisis, Lincoln's second inaugural address and I could go on and on. Furthermore, as a Southern gentleman who happens to be contributing to Wiki, everytime I edit in even some trivial matter, perhaps saying that the Rebs wore gray, I get "citation needed" tags. All in all its made the ACW Task Force a rather unpleasant experience, many of the articles have POV and credibility issues, and there's no good administrator assigned to ACW to help police this area. Additionaly most "southern" ACW articles are constantly vandalized, almost daily. So between the vandalism and the Neo-Yankee POVism, who has time to work on "North Dakota in the American Civil War"? Hell, I'm still trying to put in a little time here and there on my article on the Confederate States Naval Academy, mirror of my alma mater, which is a major topic for the CSA, with many books written ... but non-existant. And I dread the moment I start the page on Wiki (probably in a couple of weeks it'll be done) because the Cloud of Carpetbaggers will descend like vultures. The most benign things will be tagged "POV" by the vultures, any front end intro material will end up being deleted entirely, and I'll need to cite my sources for whether there was really a James River running through Virginia, and ultimately some quotation from Lincoln will be inserted into the article, despite having nothing to do with it, while the other vultures continue editing it back in. ACW needs a leader-administrator. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the encyclopedia needs to be protected from the depredations of carpetbaggers, scallywags and the like but the project needs equally to avoid Confederate POVs. It is not policy for admins to look after specific areas, the usual rule is "uninvolved", but there is recourse via request for comment in content disputes. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to go back to Roger's original request, as a published author, this descendant of a whole bunch of Yankee soldiers from Ohio and West Virginia decided to take up the banner of non-partisanship and expand an article on a Confederate unit, the 35th Battalion of Virginia Cavalry. Of course, I am biased, as I wrote about this unit extensively in an upcoming book. I hope to show that not all Yankee wiki editors are carpetbaggers! More to come later as time allows. Regards from York County, PA Scott Mingus (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Grayghost has announced his intent to resume his edit wars with anyone who dares contribute to articles he "owns". The real problem is that Ghost too often rejects any reliable secondary sources that do not agree with the pro-CSA literature of the late 19th and early 20th Century. He even has problems with Virginian James I. Robertson Jr., arguably the leading biographer of Stonewall Jackson and hardly a "neo-Yankee". Perhaps rather than edit warring on any number of Virginia articles, Ghost should bring his objections over specific sources to this forum where a wider audience can participate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's odd ... having edited nothing that Mr. Northshoreman is working on, I see today that many of the articles which I started on Wiki have been massively edited by Mr. Northshoreman. In the above paragraph, and in the wiki article, Mr. Northshoreman wants to put up one source, written recently, against three sources written in the late 1800's, namely Mr. Imboden, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Hotchkiss, as well as a volume of local materials here at Handley library (news articles, diaries, train records), and against the historical documents of the B&O Railroad, and the transactions of recovery of all the rail bars from Centreville. This is the typical situation. One versus dozens of near-to-the-event sources and records and historians. But thank you for not adding a paragraph on Abraham Lincoln in the Winchester page. But a paragraph long review of how great Robertson is, is completely of track (no pun intended) in the great train raid article. By the way, see Harper's Weekly for the woodcut illustration they made during the war of the locomotives dumped in the gorge and burning. Perhaps the Union journalists were in on the conspiracy with Imboden, Sharp, Garrett, Jackson, Hotchkiss and all the others who completely "fabricated" the train raid? I much prefer dealing with "reconstructed carpetbaggers" such as the distinguished gentleman from PA, Mr. Mingus. It is preferable to agree to the documented facts of the war, and I really hope we can keep the count of ACW articles ranting on Lincoln and slavery to a select few designed to deal with that topic. A bias, in line with the facts, is okay. I, for instance, am completely and totally biased about my Southern-ness. But if I ever stray from the facts in contributing to Wiki ... please call this to my immediate attention. We Southerners admire our heroes for what they did and what they fought for, and are not interested in glazing over reality. A true, but lost cause, is better than no cause. And there's all those requested ACW articles waiting an editor's energy ... northern articles ... needing the attention of a northerner interested in such. Now, back to my confederacy, the Gray Ghost

I invite anybody here to join in the discussion of Great Train Raid of 1861. In fact, Robertson argues, convincingly, that the entire episode was created by John Imboden for an article in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Ghost doesn't realize that twelve secondary sources citing the same original source are only as reliable as the original source. I think most of the serious editors here have read portions of B & L, have probably enjoyed it, but are probably also aware of how actual participants in the events sometimes embellish their exploits and sometimes simply don't have access to all of the materials that historians do. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A group review would be welcome. Don't forget to read all the sources, including Hotchkiss, Henderson, and the B&O history books. Also, it's worthwhile driving through Martinsburg and Winchester and reading the civil war trails signage as well. I.e. do your homework, so that we don't have articles which use only one source, and which treat all the sources in a balanced way. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The chore for us editors is NOT to decide which POV is accurate, but to determine whether ALL POVs presented by reliable sources are represented. Robertson has certainly done his "homework" which is why his biography is considered by most historians of the era to be the definitive biography of Jackson. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) When editing in contentious areas, editors should bear in mind the core principles of wikipedia, here summarized by Kirill Lokshin, a Milhist coordinator emeritus and Wikipedia arbitrator:

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Great Train Raid of 1861

The “debate” that started in the section “Articles for expansion” above has now been submitted for an RFC request. User:Grayghost01 and I both need a third party to help us evaluate the relative weight to be given to various sources. Any folks tired of contentious editoring problems care to get involved in what will surely be a calm, scholarly, and rewarding experience? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Considerably more input from some of the very well informed editors in this task force would be both helpful and expedient. Many thanks in advance for your assistance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Whittling away the Ohio generals!

For the past few months, I have slowly been writing Wiki articles for generals with strong Ohio ties (see List of Ohio's American Civil War generals). There are now only five remaining articles to write, and I will have accomplished my main goal as a Wikipedian. I expect to have the task completed in December, or sooner. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been doing a heck of a job.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words. Just trying to do my part... 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just took a peak at your work as I'm new and want to get a better grasp of the scope of this project. Yours is some impressive work. Tough act to follow. Congrats!Ismaelbobo (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I copied the general style used by Hal Jespersen, BusterD, Scott Mingus, and other relatively early Wiki Civil War contributors whose work provided a framework for recent expansion. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What a nice thing to say. I'll accept those thanks on behalf of all three (now long time wiki-friends). I would also like to endorse the work of the soldiers of the 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry past and present. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to announce that the final biography, Medal of Honor winner and founder of Tacoma, WA, John W. Sprague, has been completed! This completes the effort which began a couple of years ago by Scott Mingus and others. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 21:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Florida Expedition

I was wondering about this campaign, since the two battles in the campaign category, Olustee and Gainsville, don't seem to be related and took place six months apart. Also, should the Battle of Marianna be in the Main Eastern Theater or Lower Seaboard Theater, since all of the other Florida battles are in the LST? Wild Wolf (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission does not list either Marianna or Gainesville as part of the Florida Expedition, or list them at all for that matter. In my opinion, we should stick to their classification wherever possible, although I acknowledge that there are probably a dozen or so "battles" that people have added over the last few years. Also, there was an effort a few years ago to collapse some of the smaller campaigns into larger groups, so the strict classifications have been lost. I merely attempt to keep the really significant campaigns correctly classified and let the fringe campaigns blow in the winds of editors' interests. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review: Basil W. Duke

An article about this Civil War general is currently undergoing an A-Class review. It's a slightly specialist subject and the review has stalled for lack of reviewers. Any editor can, of course, contribute to an A-class review discussion and indeed everyone is welcome to do so. The issue is whether or not this article meets the A-Class criteria and the review page is here. Many thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost again

I see these edits and these as disruptive given that they are against consensus and Ghost insists on his way. He was warned that continuing to edit with his rank styling rather than the conventions would be considered disruptive. RfC. Thanks,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given the user only warning on this subject. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Spell out rank, use last name, use the CSA link

In the usual explanation of half-truth, I see that the links that were going to Union army articles for the CSA ranks were put back that way, deleting my good faith edit which was making them point to the recommended CSA rank page. Of course, that's not mentioned, now is it? I only corrected the links to point to the CSA page, because I just happened to be there for something else. In regards to the abhorrent practice of abbreviation, many folks, including myself, prefer to spell out the rank, or leave it off entirely, so my suggestion for a compromise here is to spell out the rank or leave it off entirely. Use the persons rank (current to the article timeframe) the first time, and then use only the last name for the remainder of the article. And that brings up another bothersome issue on the island, in which the out-of-date ranks are often used. I propse that you all call the person by their rank they held at the timeframe the article addresses. Also using "General" as a title for Brigadiers and etc, is only acceptable as a spoken title, not a written title. Do not write Lieutenant General Jackson as "General Jackson".

Here are the links for rank to the CSA article which is how I've seen this suggested elsewhere (by someone else, perhaps Hal?) I will follow this approach myself, so as not to run into the dilemma of consorting to incorrect rank spellings, that is, full rank once, followed by last name from then on. If you do this, then 20 years from now, when you are all long gone, the next round of folks will not have to go through the same rigamarole. Meanwhile, can someone please return to the aforementioned article and PUT BACK the links to the CSA General article, as is the practice elsewhere? Thanks, Grayghost01 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

CONFEDERATE ARMY Ranks:

[[General (CSA) | General]]                                         (Armies)
[[Lieutenant General (CSA) | Lieutenant General]]                   (Corps)
[[Major General (CSA) | Major General]]                             (Divisions)
[[Brigadier General (CSA) | Brigadier General]]                     (Brigades)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Colonel]]            (Regiments)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Lieutenant Colonel]] (Battalions)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Major]]              (Staff positions)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Captain]]            (Companies)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | First Lieutenant]]   (Asst Company)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Second Lieutenant]]  (Asst Company)

I also like the style of using full rank name or no rank name, but if abbreviations are used, they must adhere to the wikipedia MOS, which draws from the MilHist project MOS. BusterD (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed CSA rank link on Hoke's Run page. Kresock (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, my text search finds zero instantiations of the word "rank" here at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide. Where is this supposed rank-link guidance thing? Does it cover CS Army, Navy and Marine Corps? Grayghost01 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghost, I could not find what you asked for in the MILHIST page, but it is on the ACW task force page in the Tagging and assessment section, recommended for use on bios, and is also linked on the requested biographies subpage: "ALL biographies should follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is incorporated into the excellent guidelines for Civil War bios at User:Hlj/CWediting." Is this what you want? It also is linked on Hal's userpage, and goes into detail there not just for bios, but as guidelines for all ACW-related pages. Most editors go by this style guide, or often their work is converted to it. The question presents itself: Does this task force, or MILHIST in general, suggest this style as intended for all ACW-related pages? From what I've seen, this style is the predominant one in use today. Hope this helps. Kresock (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no conceptual reason that ranks cannot be spelled out in full, although when I designed my style guide, my judgment was that the relatively dense articles we write contain quite a number of general officers in a short space of text, so over use of the full rank names would be excessive. Given that judgment, there were two reasonable courses of action: (1) spell out the rank the first time it is used, but use abbreviations for all subsequent instances; (2) consistently use only the abbreviations throughout. Since the abbreviations are both wiki-linked on first use and are recognized widely in common English usage (like Mr., vs., etc., a.m., km), I use the second style in all of the articles that I edit. To answer the question about the other services, I rarely edit articles about naval or Marine Corps events or people (US or CS), so I did not bother writing down guidelines. If I did so, it would be very similar to the Army instances--use the common English abbreviations (Rear Adm., Capt., Lt. Cmdr., etc.) with the appropriate links on first usage. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, Hal, let me ask that you not yet write any guidelines for my beloved Navy. Never in my lifetime has there been a Lt. Cmdr. (which is a LCDR). Your personal page guideline really only covers the basic Army ranks of officers. Allow me to suggest this guideline, which merely expands on your concept. Note that it does not have enlisted ranks, but those can be added. I suggest on this page to avoid abbreviations all together. If we do add abbreviations, I only draw a line for the Navy to say that LCDRs and CAPTs must carry the day. Also by putting it at that location and advertising it, you can direct future contributors to find it more easily and instinctively. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I must again point out that Wikipedia does not exist to perpetuate the traditions of your or anyone else's navy. It is an encyclopedia aimed at a global audience and is geared towards accessibility. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will leave it to members of the task force to determine whether your creation of a page in the task force namespace with your personal opinions about the ranks has achieved consensus within the task force. Based on the number of articles that use the conventions that I established for the articles I wrote, I would tend to think that it has not. Other opinions are welcome. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it as an {{WPMILHIST Essay}} for the time being. Personally, I'm against the principle of a task force having its own style guide on instruction creep grounds. A lot of this stuff is covered elsewhere though there is an argument for consolidating it into a general MILMOS guideline. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Further suggestion

Roger & Hal: I have combed through all the style guides, MOS thing, and all of that material in the military history WikiProject box. I have not found any guidance therein. See:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Capitalization
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles

(As an asside on the issue of abbreviations, here at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations, it says the same thing I have said earlier, which is to spell something out at first occurrence. Then it adds abbreviations may or may not be closed with a period; a consistent style should be maintained within an article. A period is more usual in American usage (Dr. Smith of 42 St. Joseph St.); no period is commonly preferred in British and other usage (Dr Smith of 42 St Joseph St, although one or other "St" might take a period, in such a case). Some British and other authorities prefer to drop the period from truncated and compressed abbreviations generally (XYZ Corp, ABC Ltd), a practice favored in science writing. Now, I point out here that the practice in the Unites States Military is that no period is used, and User Gwen Gale the arbitrator person also pointed this out to BusterD, which was to get rid of the periods.

This article goes on to point out two more items:

• Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms which is the case in ACW
• Do not use unwarranted abbreviations which is also the case in ACW

This is just a note on abbreviations, because I'm not here to argue about periods and abbreviations for the ACW armies).

So, as far as I can see, there is NO guidance on the names of ranks for the ACW, and suggested links to use for those, beyond a few army ranks Hal has on his personal page. Also, I stated previously my intended practice, which CONFORMS to the abbreviation guidance above to (1) spell out, (2) do not use unwarrantedly (3) do not invent abbreviations. My advice, which I intend to follow myself, is to spell out ranks, and use them at the beginning or minimally. Since there is NO guidance established on NAVY-MARINE CORPS ranks at all, for any military history or military articles that I can find, I further add that it cannot be said that a made up abbreviation, such as "Lieut. Cmdr." or "Lt. Cmdr." or "Lt. Cdr." is supposed to be used in lieu (no pun intended) of LCDR, which has been the Navy practice for so long, I have no clue when it began. The spirit and intent of the abbreviation and honorific titling guidance in the aforementioned link certainly implies to use titles as the way the host country or nation uses them.

So ... for the spelled out rank names, it seems that Kresock summed it up when he said Ghost, I could not find what you asked for in the MILHIST page, but it is on the ACW task force page in the Tagging and assessment section, recommended for use on bios, and is also linked on the requested biographies subpage: "ALL biographies should follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is incorporated into the excellent guidelines for Civil War bios at User:Hlj/CWediting." And so, we circle back to the personal page of just the army ranks, with specific links to USA and CSA locations. Thus Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/American_Civil_War_task_force/ranks merely takes Hals good suggestions and EXPANDS this helpful and friendly list to be all inclusive of all the services (for which there has been NO guidance that I can find). And it has NO abbreviations suggested, so as not to give birth to the thought that "LCDR" is somehow a " personal opinion", as it was not I who made {{US officer ranks}}. Furthermore, may I be so bold as to suggest that the entire collection of ACW pages on ACW-era ranks be possibly summarized by a {{ACW ranks}} navigation and guidance bar? I'd be willing to make it, and had most of the material in the previous table I made elsewhere, likely deleted now. In order for it not to be a Neo-Confederate Lost Cause Don Quixote venture, I further suggest a compromise for such a potential thing, to have the "Lt. Colonel" or whatever the abbreviated items are for the US/CS Army ... and even the US/CS Marines ... but to allow sanity to reign for the Navies.

Regardless, short of such an ironed out approach, I personally plan to spell out and then not use abbreviations, and I see that this approach follows the aforementioned style guide links. Does it not? Grayghost01 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of talk just about ranks! Let me see if I got this straight now; say I do some work to a page, maybe Turner Ashby's for instance, reverting vands or adding content, whatever. Ghost had recently edited the page and while there changed a rank from Brig. Gen. to Brigadier General (keeping the same link), and that's OK now. While editing the article I change it, maybe out of habit, back to Brig. Gen. and that's still OK? Are we to use user preference, keeping use consistent on a particular page? (Ghost, you forgot to capitalize BGen in the lead on Ashby's page!) The advantages of Hal's "system" as I see it are as we go, all ACW pages for both armies start to show a more consistent, easily understandable presentation of ranks. Among the books I have, only the older and century-old ones, like Captain William P. Snow's 1867 Lee and His Generals, use the form Brigadier-general. Although even this work isn't consistent as far as capitalization, it does spell out ranks. Bruce Catton's books from the 1950's and '60's spell out the rank sometimes, other times just General, even for Yanks. In everything else modern, and most of what's online, the abbreviations are used, along with those periods that irritate Ghost to no end. However, he's trying to feel out consensus and offering up compromises as well. Is there to be a style guide or is it left up to us? Kresock (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got my hands rather full for the next few days but I intend proposing a MILMOS amendment to deal with military-related abbreviations in general. In a nutshell, I believe that having a ACW-specific ranks guideline is instruction creep as ACW articles should be broadly consistent with Milhist articles covering other periods and conflicts. Not only would this make them easier to edit but they'd also be easier to understand. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding instruction creep can be achieved with this. I'm looking for this to be incorporated into MILMOS and not an ACW Task Force specific guide. Respectfully, I don't see the problem with instruction creep...I do however see the standing problem that needs resolve. There needs to be a standard to prevent future arguments.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghostly Thoughts of the Lost Cause:

• LINKS to ACW ARMY RANKS - all of my above hot air is to say let's have a page somewhere to what links we want to ranks for the ACW. This is unique to ACW, and only Hal's personal recomendations on the armies exists, which I improved just a tad.
• LINKS TO NAVY/USMC RANKS - I added to the list, wherever it may reside in the future, my recommendations for ACW-unique links for these services, which Hal did not have.
• Clarification of use of Ranks - I recommended spelling out the first time, and then generally use last name. This seems to fit the style guidance recommendation also to not have "unwarranted" use of abbreviations.

So far, that has no creep from the style guide. Now, on abbreviations. I am emphasizing, per the style guide, to minimize that, as metioned. I am also adding Gwen Gale's advice (who is European) that the periods are not good. I am pointing out the style guide which says that British and "other authorities" don't use periods. One of those "other authorities" is the USA, USN, USAF and USMC see {{US officer ranks}}, which correctly captures the deal.

• ABBREVIATIONS - throughout Wiki a Marine BGen, an Army BG and an Air Force Brig Gen will be abbreviated as such. They intionally want the distinction. The Navy is a RDML of course, distinguished from a RADM (a lower half versus upper half thing). These are distinctive abbreviations. They are without periods. They have been this way for a very long time. I merely point all this out, no personal opinion is involved.
• ABBREVIATIONS - throughout ACW, these will be unique to ACW as well, since the ranks used are UNIQUE to that war. You will not find German, Russian or what have you. They were usually abbreviated in particular ways back then, but it widely varied. Hyphens were used a majority of the time for two worded ranks. No where in Wiki or ACW does a guide exist on how to abbreviate ALL the ranks of ALL the services. If it exists, I stand corrected, but I have not seen it yet. Hal's abbreviations were for the Armies only. Therefore, I propose that at least the Navy/Marines follow the current abbreviations of {{US officer ranks}} so that translations of pages in other languages, and international readers can be better accomodated.

Regardless of what course is taken, ranks, links to ranks, abbreviations of ranks are all fairly unique to any military history period, since different nations, forces and non-existent-today ranks are involved. Each military history area should have some flexibility to guide its topical area. One size will not fit all, not even in modern NATO: Ranks and insignia of NATO. ACW does not care what the links OR abbreviation is to a Kapitän zur See or a Schout-bij-Nacht, nor the 19th century versions of Norwegian ranks which do not exist today. What we DO care about is a set of UNIQUE-to-the-ACW set of ranks, links, abbreviations and usage. That use, as it is now, is NOT common to modern U.S. military practice. Nor is it like the 19th century ACW practice either. It is unique, and hobbled together from perhaps Webster's or other various sources. I would PREFER we go one way or the other. I can live with hurting-head of periods, even, as long as we agree upon a US-CS wide all-services guideline for use, spelling, abbreviations, links, when to use last names, the whole nine yards. I'm open. I'm flexible. I'm just saying we need to improve, clarify and even expand our guidance or style for the ACW. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographic History of the Civil War: The Opening Battles

I found a book at the local dump with the subject title, published by The Review of Reviews Company, New York, 1912, so this would all be public domain now. The photographs are, as the title would indicate, extensive, covering the early war period. Lots of ironclad photos, for example, photos of persons involved, famous or common. Unfortunately, there is no index. I may put together a list of photos, and may, as I find time, start to contribute photos to articles. There is also extensive text, quite detailed, with many distinguished contributors. This is Volume 1 of the overall series, which was in ten volumes. A search might be made for some of the others. This is practically an encyclopedia on the topic. In any case, if you are looking for photos or sources on a particular topic within this period, plus there is some general material in the prefaces, ask me. Each part of the book is authored., including the detailed photo captions, which were by James Barnes.

Forewords (includes one from U.S. President William Howard Taft) Prefaces

• Photographing the Civil War (Henry Wysham Lanier)
• The Photographic Record as History (George Haven Putnam)
• The Federal Navy and the South {French E. Chadwick)
• Records of the War Between the States (Marcus J. Wright)
• The Strategy of the Civil War Leaders (Eben Swift)

The First of the Great Campaigns (Henry W. Elson)

• Bull Run

Down the Mississippi Valley (Henry W. Elson, except as noted)

• Fort Henry and Fort Donelson
• Shiloh
• New Madrid and Island Number Ten
• New Orleans (James Barnes)
• Fort Pillow and Memphis

The Struggle for Richmond (Henry W. Elson)

• Yorktown
• Fair Oaks
• The Shenandoah and the Alarm at Washington
• Seven Days -- The Confederate Capital Saved

Engagements of the Civil War up to July, 1862 (George L. Kilmer)

--Abd (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And now I discover that this is on googlebooks, with other volumes. There is a recent edition, 1987. Some copies are available used, for various volumes, on Amazon, for peanuts. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Naval ranks

Should there be some mention of the title Flag Officer? It was a billet, not a rank, but was the title always applied to senior captains who commanded squadrons or major shore installations.

In a somewhat similar vein, before 15 July 1862, lieutenants who commanded ships were addressed as Lieutenant Commanding. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Ranks, which I've turned into a #REDIRECT to keep discussion centralized. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha!! Why just last night I returned and added explanation of the Flag Officer for the CS Navy, explaining some on its use, and to point out why its not in the list. I do believe the US Navy used this also, which is likely what you are referring to, and you are correct. And furthermore, you are correct on the Lieutenant Commanding, for which I believe was only a US Navy use, made into the formal rank at that point in time. Thus, I will add this to the page, so please review my edit, and adjust it yourself if need be. Grayghost01 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A selfish plea for more Featured article-class pages

Since we launched the American Civil War portal back in 2006, I've generally been able to avoid running material more than once, but I've run out of FA's (or will by March 1), unless you ladies and gentlemen build some up before that time. I've already co-opted Medal of Honor, Dixie (song), Gettysburg Address, Harriet Tubman, Ku Klux Klan, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and an Ohio riverboat full of Kentucky politicians (God bless the editors of the Confederate government of Kentucky topic). I'm running out of project stuff, because frankly, we just haven't promoted any in a long while. We've got editors trying, heaven knows, but we now have 20 or so A-class or GA-class pages which are worthy of the ascent to the top (and an entire passel of B-class worthies). I'm doing great with the material you're already doing, but would you folks mind cultivating another dozen or so FA-class pages? Thanks! BusterD (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get some of my GA's into A's and FA's, only to find it was a wasted effort. Therefore, I'm focusing on creating GA's, and calling it a day.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of you specifically when I mentioned editors trying their best. BusterD public (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me call Battle of Hampton Roads to the attention of all members of the Task Force. Once upon a time, it was a Featured Article, but last summer it was busted all the way down to Start class because of a lack of citations. In an effort to restore the article to its past glory, last week I supplied some citations, but my sources don't cover some parts. Presumably, if the article was once of FA quality, it should be fairly easy to make it so again, and I therefore suggest that members of the Task Force look it over and see if it can be pushed over the top. PKKloeppel (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links to CivilWarTraveler.com

I removed several links about Civil War travel added yesterday to Tennessee-related articles, but I thought I would list the related websites here for your expert consideration as to their notability for use as external links in appropriate articles:

civilwartraveler.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

civilwartrails.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

civilwar-va.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is this a recognized authoritative site? Flowanda | Talk 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-commercially oriented travel site that is focused on driving to the historic places of the war (rather than, say, what hotels to stay in when you get there). I would not object to seeing it linked in selected campaign or battlefield national park articles, although I know there are a number of Wikipedians who object on spam-link grounds to widespread linking of such sites. I do think that it's inappropriate to put it into biography articles for the generals or into every single battle article that it mentions; you could theoretically have thousands of cross-links to that site. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)