Template talk:American Civil War
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War template.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject United States / American Civil War / Military history||(Rated Template-class)|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
Rationale and usage guidelines
(Please keep this section at the top of the Talk page and do not archive it.)
This section records the rationale for American Civil War inclusions or omissions. It is obvious that this large menu could become dramatically larger and unusable if new entries are added without discrimination. We would like to establish the precedent that any changes to the menu are discussed in this Talk page prior to implementation.
General Usage: This list is exclusively for active Wikimedia article and category links. Do not include external URLs. Do not include red links (Wikipedia articles that have not been written yet). Links to stubs and multiple redirects to the same article are discouraged.
Rationale for the major headings in the menu:
- Issues & Combatants
- The subcategories Prelude and Slavery should be pretty obvious. The Combatants are intended to be only the "countries" and their highest level armies and navies. We cannot afford to include military units smaller than this (e.g., regional armies, corps, regiments).
- Theaters & Campaigns
- The Theaters are those named by the five articles plus the Union naval blockade. The Campaigns are those that have articles written about them. Since there are no campaign articles describing, say, the Battle of Chancellorsville or the Battle of Fredericksburg, these battles are covered only in the following section. If new campaign articles are written (and they are not simply redirects), they will be legitimate additions to this subcategory.
- Major Battles
- In our judgment, the current list represents the most important battles of the war, with unique strategic or political consequences. Please discuss any proposed changes to this list here in the Talk page, citing your justification, before editing the menu.
- Key CSA Leaders
- The Confederate leaders are listed before the United States leaders because of alphabetical order and to give them a gray background. The Military leaders selected commanded major armies or corps, were cavalry leaders with strategic significance, or in a few cases (Gorgas, Cooper) had important positions in CSA headquarters. There is also the single most important naval captain. This list will quickly become useless if people add their favorite commanders, ancestors, or movie characters at lower levels in the hierarchy.
- Key USA Leaders
- The United States leaders come second so that they can have a blue background. The Military leaders are those with the highest positions in the Army and Navy, with only a few exceptions. Hunt had unique significance as an artillery leader. Meigs is included for the same reason as Gorgas. The same warning about adding favorite commanders applies.
- This row is limited to significant social and political articles about the postbellum era, with demonstrable links to the war.
- Other Topics
- This row is difficult to characterize. New entries or subcategories should not be added without discussion on the Talk page. The State involvement subcategory is intended only for comprehensive articles, such as the current entries.
- This row is intended to include, indirectly, all of the smaller units and biographies not explicitly named above. Please do not include subcategories of categories that are already in this list without discussion on the Talk page.
- Obvious. Please do not change.
Major insertion by User:Deisenbe
Today there have been over a dozen
dozens of entry insertions. When I reverted them giving an explanation, I was rebuffed. I'd like to discuss changes, individually if necessary to prevent the template from getting bloated. Historically major changes have been discussed in talk before being made in live template space. Since this is a very frequently used device, it would be well to come up with consensus before wholesale changes are made. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I am the one that made these changes, fourteen, not "dozens". Most are additional abolitionists and a few on issues. I was not aware of the statement that changes should be presented on the Talk page before making them (nor do I think that's a good policy; we're supposed to be bold).
The template becoming "bloated"? When it is collapsible, and starts collapsed?
- An editor can indent replies on talk by adding a full colon before the line. This allows for easier to read threading. I'd say we get to bloating when we insert Alexander Hamilton in a template about the American Civil War. Many of the entries added today have this distantly but not directly related quality. I'd like other editors to weigh in on these sorts of changes. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- It may be time to spinoff some of the template subjects into their own smaller templates per Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. The Origins as well as the Aftermath may do better as their own templates and not included within this template. This would help reduce bloat. This template, I believe should focus on the war itself and not causative issues or issues related to reconstruction. Perhaps, Template:Slavery and abolition in the United States as a title for a spinoff?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Apparent duplicate template
There is also a Template:Events leading to US Civil War. There is a similar list at Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War. There seems to be redundancy. deisenbe (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd take that discussion to the talk pages of those articles/templates. As far as I can see, this template only links to the article. Specific topics might have their own templates; this is where more minor figure could be included, the subjects having specific relevance to the more narrowly focused subject. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Excessive detail in campaigns and battles sections
Recently an editor has inserted massive amounts of what I consider trivia into this template. We've got very minor battles, duplicate links and now a very arcane and space intensive indexing timeline. As one of the editors who shepherded this template from its first minutes, I feel responsible to help keep it on track. The original idea was to create a quick reference for the most important links, not a comprehensive listing of every minor scrape. We can link to articles which list such skirmishes. I disagree with most of these changes and intend to revert many of them. I'm creating this discussion space for use if/when that editor objects to my reversions. BusterD (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns. I noticed in passing the addition of "Arkansas 1861–65", shoehorning a whole bunch of conflations into a "Campaign" made up from whole cloth. Mojoworker (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anaphysik, The Banner, and BusterD: do/should the states represent the situation at the time of the ACW (as those of us who reverted Anaphysik were thinking), or the current states (which seems to be Anaphysik's view)? Using the modern postal abbreviations for the states seems to point to the latter but I thought it might bear discussion. This whole template is kind of a mess... Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- My own concern was a links to a disambiguation page. That is solved by now. 22:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)