Template talk:American Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.


1 2

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.

Rationale contributed to by Hal Jespersen 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC), ....

I endorse the above strong suggestions as to possible future placement of links here and other comments made by Hlj. I strongly encourage any future contributors to discuss any changes before making them. BusterD 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Add comments below this line

Displayed name

I would suggest the main title of this template be "American Civil War" rather than "American Civil War" to be consistent with other templates of this nature. KellenT 10:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed additions to template

User:Foofighter20x changed the flag and added two items. Because this is an important template which should maintain some stability, I reverted the changes (per the precedent at the top of this talk page), but have offered this discussion on the subject. I disagree with the flag change, but have no difficulty with the addition of States' rights and Lysander Spooner. It may be time for additional intellectual abolition figures, perhaps William Lloyd Garrison. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to the additional articles, but the use of flags needs to be consistent. The US flag that is shown is the one used early in the war, so it is appropriate to show the Stars and Bars across from it, rather than the flag that was introduced in 1865. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was simply trying to maintain consistency with the article Confederate States of America as The Blood Stained Banner" flag displayed on that page was their final flag. That's all. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Note: I only changed the Confederate flag, and not the Union Banner.

How about a compromise of each flag on both sides showing a progression? The U.S. Flag went from 33 to 34 stars on 4 Jul 1861, and then from 34 to 35 on 4 July 1863. That'd be three flags on the Union Side, and then on the Confederate side The Stars and Bars, the Stainless Banner, and then the Blood Stained Banner? Note: the widths of each flag is set to give them all a height of 21px. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Ick! One flag is plenty. BusterD (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate: One flag is plenty. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags). BusterD (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Those large flags are really over the top. Let's stick with zero or one small image per combatant. (I don't really care if they are flags or something else, as long as they are consistently selected.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to refer to the MoS, then enforce it uniformly. Took out the flags since they aren't allowed in the title bar as it is. Added mandatory links in top left corner (see Template:Navbox/doc). Note that the title parameter (under the mandatory heading) only allows text and does not allow images. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the flags already. If you can't get consensus here on talk, don't change the flags. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

B.S. The last change I made was WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Also, I'm dropping the flag issue, but not the placement issue. Look at the other nav boxes for other wars, and you can see that I'm only trying to maintain a consistent style. I only removed the flags from the title bar, where they aren't suppposed to be, and moved them to beside the names of the combatants, where they are placed in EVERY OTHER ARTICLE ABOUT A WAR. Seriously, what's wrong with my last edit, other than the apparent fact that I didn't consult you first? Wikipedia is not owned by either you or me, and my edit is in line with Wikipedia policy. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons are "not recommended" per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS, particularly in those cases, such as this one, where the use of the icons are merely decorative and not informative. Flag icons might make some sense in a complex battle in which multiple nationalities take part, but when there are simply two combatants, the tiny icons add no value at all. When I get around to it, I will also be reverting all of the battle article icon changes you have been making. Our consensus style for ACW articles has been not to use flags. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that today user has made 200 edits to ACW battle infoboxes, in almost all cases adding the flag icons. This amounts to a violation of WP:POINT, IMHO. This is just silly. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL... Sorry, but calling me out on a "point" when the article only tangetially touches on what I've done versus what you've done here...

  • If you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change...
    • do find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise
    • don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"

Also, if you are calling the battle article edits I did disruptive...

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

... Wll, the only discontent seems to be limited to the navbox and not to the articles. Other editors of the battle articles have written saying they like the addition of those flag icons. Therefore, excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing for the inconsistency/inanity of trying to get me in trouble. It's just a difference of opinion, and as each battle article is typically a stand alone article, and not one of any particular series, then each needs to be as informationally robust as possible. Thank you and have a nice day. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I labeled the practice "silly". I've seen far more dramatic uses of WP:POINT in my watchlist in the last 15 minutes than any of this. It is interesting, but not particularly troublesome. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now first off, I think that all of you need to assume good faith in the other editors. Despite the flags being discouraged by the MoS, several users do agree that they add a nice touch to the template and so they should be included. What needs to be discussed is the types of flags used, not the other editor's contributions. Malinaccier (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

!!!! The template is screwed up!!!

I'm not sure who takes care of this template and i will try to locate him/her.. But the template is showing up all screwed up. Looks like an IP is screwing with it. I've reverted it Charles Edward 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the redesign without discussion?

I don't like the change of format, and will revert it unless I hear some reasons why I shouldn't. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the new formet better sorts all the articles on it, but it's still ungainly if you ask me. A discussion of how the template should look would not be out of place.--Bedford Pray 22:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any showstopper objections to it, although I don't care for the colors and trying to determine which of the sub tabs to click will not always be obvious for the average reader. My one specific objection at the moment, which I will let lie until the discussion is completed, is that there is a single pair of order of battle links (mislabeled as "orders") that should be removed because otherwise someone will have to add about 20 other links for other battles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert it yet. This template now utilizes {{Navbox with collapsible sections}} which is the perfect tool for this type of template, but it was not implemented correctly. When implemented properly, each collapsible section is assigned a flag, and when the template is placed on each article you turn on that specific flag. That way only the section of the template appropriate to that article is shown. Unfortunately, the user that is doing this to several templates, User:Sardanaphalus, is a little overzealous and always forgoes discussion. I left a note on his talk page to complete the process on this template and he responded on my talk page he is working on it. So I ask you to sit tight for a day or two. The organization of the template is not a concern for the user who switched it up — he was just focusing on the template design — so feel free to fix the groupings and labels. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I used to be Old Hoss)
  • Perhaps, since he follows WP:BRD, we should invite Sardanaphalus to comment here? I sympathize with his approach, as discussion first tends to prompt people to think up reasons not to try something. At least, that's my experience thus far. There was also nothing incorrect in his implementation of the template per se, just that we'd prefer it to utilize the "auto-expand-a-section" feature. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My basic disagreement is with the use of collapsible sections navbox, which IMHO duplicates the windowshade feature of the navbox header, sort of negates the usefulness of the careful choices and opens the door to runaway potential additions. That many of the most important links are available in one view is exactly the tool's usefulness. Now the template must be opened twice before it's useful. This does not "keep it simple". BusterD (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The new arrangement lengthens the fully expanded template considerably, and in the implementation we've lost links to battles and theaters. BusterD (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
After better implementation, the redesign works pretty well. Thanks for helping. BusterD (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Mine Run

User:Berean Hunter has added this to the battles list. I reverted it as needing discussion. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind discussion..sorry, I didn't realize there was a problem. What qualifies a battle as a major battle such as to get included in the template? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

During the creation of the template, User:Hlj and I had a fair discussion about what went in and what stayed out. Our primary concern was quantity creep, seeing so many entries added that the template needed its own navigation system. I've been watching the template for almost three years, watching for favorite pet battles and editors' relatives. Thus my "terrible swift sword". I'm not at all saying my reversion was the correct call, but IMHO the inclusion of this entry deserves discussion. It's also possible that when we were originally discussing this subject, the Mine Run pagespace might not have warranted inclusion. Let's see what others have to say. BusterD (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no strictly quantitative guideline. Generally, the community of Civil War editors collectively figures out which ones are important or not. Mine Run is of modest importance as a campaign, but the battle was not particularly interesting. I searched around and found one book devoted to the subject (the campaign, actually) -- which was one more than I expected to find -- and I also notice that the Wikipedia article devotes two paragraphs to the battle itself. Since the intent of the template was to restrict itself to really important topics, and since I can probably name ten unlisted battles of more interest than Mine Run, I would recommend we do not include it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I admit that I'm surprised that the Battle of Harpers Ferry isn't also in the battles list. This was a sweeping Confederate victory with what was probably the most landslide casualty proportion in the whole war. To put it into proportion, Union casualties at Harper's Ferry nearly matched their losses at Sharpsburg. I understand that they didn't die but they were effectively removed from the Army of the Potomac. I know it is a part of the Maryland campaign which is mentioned but this one probably deserves mention by its own merit.
Mine Run, I don't feel that strongly about and placed it in the template matter-of-factly. I didn't realize the specific editing environment called for discussion (my fault, I didn't look at the talk page first). I've been editing other templates and hadn't encountered that yet. I may as well make the case for Mine Run while I'm at it to be objective.
  • 1. Lee halted the Union's major push which would have been catastrophic if Meade would have been successful at stealing the march. Confederate success here has been heavily underrated because Lee lamented not going after them and Longstreet lamented that Meade didn't advance into the Confederate line like Fredericksburg. The Confederates did very well here. Lee checked and repelled every probe & advance.
  • 2. Lee held the ground at the end of the day effectively forcing Meade to withdrawal into Winter quarters. The opposite isn't true.
  • 3. Confederate victory by casualty rate of 2:1 (Union/Confederate) is noteworthy to me.
  • 4. A casualty total comparable to Battle of Corinth and others in the template.
  • 5. Meade's performance at Mine Run coupled with his sluggishness in the Spring led Lincoln to replace Meade with Grant (a rather significant turn of events).
Those factors were what came to mind when I edited the template. Like I said I'm not particularly stuck on it being in there and it won't bother me to not include it. Harper's Ferry, a case can be made for however. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I raised the example of Harper's Ferry previously (now in archive2). Mine Run might eventually make a suitable new campaign entry on the list. It's certainly important, but as a firefight, it doesn't measure up. Probably same issue with Harper's Ferry (not enough dead bodies). Both could find a place on the template eventually. IMHO, one of the most important losses of the war (Norfolk Navy Yard) occurred without a shot fired. Doesn't even merit an article of its own, but should. Mahone should be on the template too (based on merit), but so should a lot of guys. See Template:Gettysburg figures. BusterD (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Christmas in the American Civil War

Very nice new article. First, I'm wondering where this is going to end. Socks in the American Civil War? Skillets? Dentures in the American Civil War? The creation of articles which seem mere collections of trivia troubles me, but (second) the application of such trivial links on this template angers me a tad. This template is not destined to be Template: Gettysburg figures, a laughable place in which to load every conceivable link. This is supposed to a be a screened list of the most essential and important ACW pages. My one opinion is that the link has no business on this template. Discussion, disagreement? BusterD (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was included just for the season, and not meant to be permanent? Just a thought. Kresock (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It is hardly trivial; Christmas is a major day. Topics such as Music and Sex are not trivial as well. Your comments about socks and dentures seem a tad childish.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the comparisons, but I do understand the argument "Where does it end?". Here's a potential test for whether the article should be included -- Was Christmas, as important as it is as a subject, a significant component of the Civil War, or is it a tangential subject? If it's tangential, are there other tangential subjects currently included in the template? If Yes to both, should we keep all these tangential subjects, or scrap them all? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 06:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Christmas article as well as the music, sex, pasttimes, etc. fit into the broader subject heading of Camp life (alt. Soldier's life..or something to that effect)....so perhaps a more general single link to either a list or template about those subjects where the Christmas article would be listed could fit the bill? Currently, I see that "Winter quarters" is an article about Mormons but that would be another good article topic for Camp life. Their food, music, letter-writing, etc. have spurred authors to write about these subjects...fwiw
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course I meant my comparisons to be excessively illustrative, but I'm disappointed the colonel has decided to reinsert the article links before consensus has been established in this discussion, as page guidelines have described above. Quoting from Other Topics: "New entries or subcategories should not be added without discussion on the Talk page." Unlike the author of this article, I have no affirmative (or personal) aims in adding or subtracting links to this template. I have instead been involved with this template from before the design process, and continue to watch for insertion of links which degrade the quality of the tool. Bedford also placed an unformatted link to this article on the acw portal last night. Seems like the user is adding to the page's "what links here" list, and chose these two places amongst others. I'm not going to war with anyone, but considering established page guidelines, reinserting the link before consensus is established runs counter to established practice here. Bedford is known and admired for his boldness, but I disagree with this action. BusterD public (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable approach, although I wonder if such a list article would have much filling at this point. Certainly this template should link only to robust articles. The Christmas one is arguably robust enough. Maybe it should be kept until a broader "Soldier's life during the ACW" or "Culture during the ACW" is developed (pardon me if any of these already exist in some form). Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to omit it from the template. Of the 2-3,000 ACW articles from which we could choose for the listing of the most important topics that serve to navigate people to a better understanding of the war, this one would not make my list. Perhaps the {{Christmas}} template would be more appropriate for this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one wanting to keep it. I have no strong position on that. I was just coming up with a rationale about why it could be kept. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Christmas is over and I see only one user in this discussion who actively wants this link on the template. Again, I won't war over this, but there's no page consensus for keeping it on the template. I'm pulling it. A much better case for retention should be made before reinsertion. Again, reinsertion without page consensus will be ignoring page guidelines and established practice. I consider that sort of activity to be vandalism, and I'll revert it as such. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Bedford has chosen to throw down the guantlet and reinsert the link. As announced above, I've reverted the action as vandalism. I will continue to do so. I suggest as an alternative, we put the colonel's new effort into a category proposed by User:Berean Hunter above: "Camp life in the American Civil War". I would have zero objections to the insertion of such a category to this template. Again, I hold no personal grudges against Bedford, and have usually been supportive of his boldness. However, the page guidelines above were conceived specifically to defend the template against insertion by someone who wants more traffic to his or her new favorite effort, or pet article. As Hal has said above, there are thousands of more worthy inclusions to this template which aren't on the tool, and can't be for lack of room. I'm willing to accommodate the user by adding a relevant category, but the user can't be too serious if he believes directly linking this new page should have precedence over more worthy and helpful pages. BusterD (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nitty gritty

Camp life is a rather restrictive concept that would not have a lot of unique entries. Since this Christmas article is in Category:Cultural history of the American Civil War, why not just include a pointer to that category in the template? Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw it also in "Social History of the American Civil War" and thought that category addition appropriate. I could endorse the Camp Life category. It might include some social articles already written, sutlers, salt, sex, uniforms, medicine, etc. The subject matter certainly deserves appropriate coverage. BusterD (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

<== A potential bibliography for just such topics or just fun winter time reading for the ACW buff (most book links are to complete books)...

...tip of the iceberg, lots more like them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, one on baseball is quite tempting. Could prove to be a ball to write and a hit with readers.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC).
I'd love to find something on The Great Dalton Snowball Fight...but no luck so far. That would be a fun one to write if you want it..your Christmas in the Civil War article strikes me that you are in that frame of mind and would maybe make a great winter time article to follow it up.....have fun with it if you like.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
See this. As the saying goes, for lesser men it would be impossible, but with Bedford, all things are possible.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 22:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Split template up (NO! Preserve the Union!)

This template is becoming rather cumbersome, regardless of the ensuing edit civil war. It is likely more beneficial to split off the "Related topics" section into its own secondary template anyway. Though, some alterations may be needed. Thoughts? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I would recommend based on my comments above.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to admit to having an almost reflexive resistance to change here in this template space, though I hope I remember to admit when I've learned something new. That personal comment said, I'm thinking this template is getting too long myself, and my solution would be to reduce the number of links, not split the template and increase the number of links. Is there an exemplary template (which covers such a vast subject matter as the ACW) upon which to model a future evolution of this tool? BusterD (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BusterD on this one. If an article isn't important enough to be in the main ACW template, creating another template for it is not the solution. Check out that silly {{Gettysburg figures}} template for an example of what happens. Any template that has hundreds of entries and hopes to include all articles about a topic would be better as a Category instead. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I never before saw that Gettysburg figures one *shudder*. A separate war template isn't without precedent; there is {{Kentucky in the Civil War}} and it looks far better on a page than the main template.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Confederate war finance

I'm working on the article with the above title. While it's still somewhat of a WIP I would like to include it in the template. What's the best place? "Political" or "Other"?radek (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Related Topics, either Political or Other. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to leaders section

Was thinking that List of American Civil War generals could be a useful addition to the Leaders section though with the nested and complicated syntax of the template, I wasn't about to mess things up. :) — MrDolomite • Talk 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Why is the "Combatants · Theaters · Campaigns · Battles · States" section not collapsed like the other ones? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it is because the template uses {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} and it contains this parameter: |selected = {{{expanded|CTCBS}}}. As to why that section was chosen to be expanded over others, I dunno. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, seeing as there isn't apparantly any reason for that one being uncollapsed, it makes the table much messier, and it can be uncollapsed for a specific page if need be, I axed that code. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Civilian leaders

Hey, there seemed to be an imbalance of who was represented in leaders; so I edited it so there's nine for each, including Cabinet, VPs, and congressional leaders. They are:



You like? Is it too many; should we cut it down to 7 or 8 for each? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Buster's edits/My revert

A few months ago, User:BusterD made this edit, where he removed Hannibal Hamlin, Robert M. T. Hunter, Edward Ord and several other figures without discussing the change here. This amounted to a revert of the changes I laid out in "Civilian leaders" above. He may be right about Hamlin having "zero impact", but I think maintaining parallelism is important, and Alexander Stephens, Hamlin's CSA counterpart, is in the template. Likewise, Robert M. T. Hunter was President Pro Tem of the Confederate States Senate in the Second Confederate Congress, making him both a counterpart to both Seward and Benjamin Wade. He was also the only negotiator at the Hampton Roads Conference not already in the template. He claims in his edit summary that Ord only commanded an Army for a month, actually, according to the Army of the James page and Ord's own page, it was a little closer to seven months. I have added Hamlin, Hunter and Ord back. Any objections? pbp 16:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph E. Brown consideration for civilian leader

I certainly should have read the Template Talk page before trying to insert Joseph E. Brown into the list of (Southern) civilian leaders. I did not realize that there is such an active community here. Given that, the revert is both understandable and appropriate. So, starting over, let me propose Brown for consideration. Yes, he was "only" a governor. But a governor who (because of his strong states' rights beliefs) may not have viewed the national government as the highest or ultimate authority. The model of a weak central government and strong individual state governments would place Brown higher to the top on your list. At least, in the minds of those who thought like Brown. And that number, in the war years, was not inconsiderable. Brown influenced the thoughts and actions of other Southern governors with his stongly-held states' rights actions and beliefs. But you probably know that. So, without haranguing, I'll just submit Brown for your consideration. Gulbenk (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Brown is in a tier with the people we have listed in this template. There are probably a dozen governors we would have to include if we included Brown. pbp 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we have room for individual state governors on the template, but if we included them, I could see an argument for Brown. I appreciate User:Gulbenk's understanding; the danger here is mission creep. If that user would look at Template:Gettysburg figures, the risk of including every possible biography would be made apparent. However, I think a compromise could be made. When Hal Jespersen and I were creating this tool, I announced an aspiration to make this a "two click tool," that is, every important pagespace would either appear on the template, or be linked from a significant survey article or category which did appear on the template. I noticed that there does not exist a category or list for either Confederate States governors or Union state governors. This seems like a serious omission. I propose to create a category for both Union and Confederate governors. Once those categories are filled, two lists could be created (tables of names, states, terms of office and citation). Those two lists would certainly deserve placement on this template, perhaps after the individual civilian leader links. Anybody disagree or see a better way? BusterD (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, BusterD. Hope that it comes to pass. Thanks for hearing me out. I'm not quite sure that Puplebackpack89 caught the full drift of my short soapbox speech. But I think it would be interesting, in your two-click universe, if the Northern politicians were arranged Governors<Federal while Southern politicians were arranged Governors>Federal. It would simply appear to be an error to most folks, I suppose. But it is actually an ideologically-based statement (or perhaps "recognition") of the two opposing governmental models. That may be asking a bit much of one template, so I'll leave it at that. Again, thanks so much for your proposal of a middle ground. Gulbenk (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a very profound idea. Let's gather consensus to see what our community thinks before taking action. Thanks for your good work on Brown. Perhaps you'd be willing to help me when I start accumulating information about governors. When we started the template Wikipedia was very new. Hal and I chose a strategy intended to prevent the template from being overly complex and unstable. I have been accused of carrying a "terrible swift sword" in my defense of the work many users have done in this template space. I hope we can come up with a workable solution to get pages like Brown's better exposure. BusterD (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to help, any way that I can, with your work regarding governors. Just give me a shout when you're ready. Gulbenk (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll start the categorization this weekend. I'm away from my computer until Saturday. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No hurry. I have a similar situation. Away until late Tuesday. Gulbenk (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons License