Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 1

message: I'm kicking off in the most logical place I can find by placing  on Talk:Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War. • CQ 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One minor point: for bookkeeping purposes, it would be good to also add US-task-force=yes on any articles that are missing it, as (just about) everything in the scope of this task force is also in the scope of that one. Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Done. Are we using "importance" criteria or an equivilent? I added importance=Top but saw no change in the banner. CQ 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we're not; the project decided to discontinue importance ratings about a month ago due to there being too much strife over how things should be compared. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't everything fall within the US task force? I'm trying to think if there would be any exceptions. Can't think of any... Unless you're not wanting Confederate stuff under it? plange 21:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of the various negotiations in Europe related to the ACW, actually; I'm not quite sure whether all of them had any American involvement.  It's possibly too minor a point to be worth mentioning, though. Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new here and not very familiar with how the US task force operates. I think that a main reason for starting this taskforce is to scope things chronologically within the Civil War period and geographically to the States. Sure this taskforce should be seen from within as a sub-task-force of the United States military history task force. CQ 21:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This task force is a bit unusual in that the topics it deal with are a subset of those dealt with by another task force, rather than cutting across mulitiple task forces; hence, some of the initial subtleties of wording and inter-task-force relationships that we don't really have experience with.  Having said that, I very much doubt this will be an issue in practice; the wording in the scope is more to stave off the inevitable question of how articles should be tagged than to resolve any significant conflict. Kirill Lokshin 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start 

message: I'm proposing that we begin a timeline along the principles outlined at Grand Unified Timeline of Human History geared to "plug in" to the timeline shown on Portal:United States. This timeline will be grafted onto the Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War.
We have started a micro-version of this sort of timeline at Kentucky in the Civil War/Timeline. I would like to produce a Timeline of the American Civil War as a master document that can include, exclude and transclude elements from smaller, more detailed timelines. There might also be a Timeline of the Aftermath of the American Civil War or Timeline of the Reconstruction (American Civil War) or some such timeline.
I would also like to make a large master map and submaps that show where rivers, railways, forts, battlefields and other geographical points can be seen and expanded or contracted by both readers and editors. This is an ambitious and crazy idea, I know. 
Next, is a comprehensive treatment of personalities, by allegience (North|South|Neutral), by state, unit or whatever from a biographical perspective. The List of American Civil War leaders probably exists in some form that I am not yet aware of.
My philosophy is to find, catalog, expand, contract and refine existing articles and resources before creating new ones that are most likely redundant. Brother against brother is an example of a new article concerning border state issues that is supplimental to Wikipedia's treatment of the American Civil War.
Lots of work is here for this taskforce. I'm interested enough to chip away at it and look forward to collaborative efforts to Git 'er done. • CQ 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting idea with the timelines.  This is probably a good area in which to experiment with such things, as it's more limited in scale than some of the other task forces dealing with particular conflicts; I'm sure that editors working on other periods would be interested in adopting some of these ideas once the actual details of implementation have been worked out. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One minor point to note would be that Kentucky in the Civil War/Timeline should really be moved to something like Timeline of Kentucky in the Civil War, since subpages don't really work properly in the main namespace. Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: see articles marked with the Needed class? I was browsing the new article category and saw the Virginia in the Civil War talk page which was marked as needed. How do I find others marked similarly? plange 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should show up in the :Category:Needed-Class military history articles page once the bot makes its rounds. Oops! Looks like we have not yet implemented this. I've started this. Hope it's OK. Krill? You here? • CQ 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. A :Category:Unassessed-Class articles exists but not a :Category:Needed-Class articles. But that's more of a concern for WP:1. The :Category:Needed-Class military history articles should automatically fill soon. See :Category:Military history articles by quality and the master list. I'm not sure how to work with a list this large. CQ 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The break between :Category:Stub-Class military history articles and :Category:Unassessed military history articles currently happens on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Military history articles by quality/21 (page 21 of the master list). I think the bot needs a master :Category:Needed-Class articles listing to put those in the main bot list, so I may have flubbed up. I don't know how (or even if) they/we do this. We'll have to ask Walkerma or someone at WP:1 unless Krill knows. CQ 08:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, not to rain on anyone's parade, but nobody can actually work with "needed-class" articles: because the talk page wouldn't have an article associated with it, it would be speedy deleteable under WP:CSD G8.  If we're just listing articles that need to be created, we have to go with simply listing them by hand on the task force page (and/or the template box there). Kirill Lokshin 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I... 

message: I marked These pages with the non-implemented "Needed-Class" tag:
*Arkansas in the Civil War - Talk:Arkansas in the Civil War
*Maryland in the Civil War - Talk:Maryland in the Civil War
*North Carolina in the Civil War - Talk:North Carolina in the Civil War
*South Carolina in the Civil War - Talk:South Carolina in the Civil War
*Tennessee in the Civil War - Talk:Tennessee in the Civil War
*Virginia in the Civil War - Talk:Virginia in the Civil War
We should probably discuss if they are "needed" or not. The point to what I was doing was to see what states were using the "[Some State] in the Civil War" naming scheme for separate articles of this type, and if other naming conventions exist. I'm here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states. See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/Matrix. CQ 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I refactored the "States" section on the Project page. The red links tell the story. I think I got all the states in that were involved, except maybe Texas, come to think of it. Idaho seems stange in there, but there was one event there — Bear River Massacre. I went ahead and added a category. Maryland, Tennessee and Virginia are conspicuously missing. Louisiana has been created. I also announced this taskforce at WikiProject U.S. states. • CQ 00:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  States in the Civil War 

message: Just finished populating this category, will turn my attention to Delaware and Minnesota next, then probably Maryland. I have already created and populated 8 Northern states' categories. Scott Mingus 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delaware and Minnesota are finished and populated. Moving on to Maryland. Noticed that CQ set up Louisiana - thanks! Let's help him add articles to that cat. Scott Mingus 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed early work on Texas in the Civil War and created and populated :Category:Texas in the Civil War. Scott Mingus 13:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York in the Civil War 

message: I've created a userbox for this task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/User WPMILHIST American Civil War task force, if anyone would like to use one. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: I saw some comment that Idaho in the Civil War may be a temporary category. I STRONGLY object to eliminating or combining the states categories, as that's the way many people search for information - from their own state, not from a particular campaign. Keep the states. Scott Mingus 23:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, where did you see this?  I don't recall it being mentioned here, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My error - misunderstood comments about removing Civil War category from article...and now back to your regular programming. Scott Mingus 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I totally agree they should be kept, at any rate. :) Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the states categories!!! 

message: Maybe  can be replaced in all instances by .. • CQ 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been researching the portal idea for some time User:BusterD/portal, and have been beefing up the list of topics and acw people and such. The ACW portal is a natural addition, and the menu becomes a wonderful guide as to what sorts of things would be appropriate to portal. We have a number of featured articles, and tons of interest. BusterD 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The Portal is there, at least. BusterD and I have been kicking around some color schemes. Go to Portal:American Civil War/box-header and flip through the revisions and let us know what you like or add your own. Thanks CQ 22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current scheme looks pretty nice (but then again, I'm a big fan of gray colorschemes).  Might I suggest having an outer box (e.g. Portal:War) with some different colors there?  Kirill Lokshin 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, you people work fast! :) Hopefully, there will some attention to providing balanced coverage, that is, giving the Union and Confederates roughly equal coverage.  At any rate, the portal has a great start. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War Portal 

message: I created and populated :Category:Maryland in the Civil War, as well as populating :Category:Tennessee in the Civil War and :Category:Washington, D.C. in the Civil War. I also finished populating :Category:Texas in the Civil War. I normally add the major politicians, generals and naval officers from the state, significant places / battles, and related articles. Scott Mingus 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of hotel time here in rainy Boston (business trip) - created and populated :Category:Colorado in the Civil War and :Category:New Mexico in the Civil War, and created short articles as starting points for others to finish for Colorado in the Civil War and New Mexico in the Civil War. Scott Mingus 10:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work! Kirill Lokshin 11:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kirill! Just knocked off :Category:Georgia in the Civil War and :Category:Arkansas in the Civil War. Will work on more as time allows... Scott Mingus 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much hotel time these days... but I was able to populate :Category:Alabama in the Civil War. Feel free to add anything that I may have missed to any of these state cats. Scott Mingus 02:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work on the state categories 

message: I've been beefing up the list of Task Force requested articles by copying red links from various list pages. I've come acoss a couple of things which bear thought by the community. First is this issue of whether battles should be listed as First Bull Run and Second Bull Run or Bull Run I and Bull Run II. I'm not trying to stir up controversy, and perhaps there's a guideline which no one is using I haven't yet read. Yet before we write a bunch of requested articles, it would be good if at least we knew which direction the community wanted to go. We follow both formats amongst a dozen or so articles. Then we could cleanup pretty quickly. BusterD 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's WP:MILHIST#Naming conventions.  Per that, it definitely shouldn't be "Bull Run I" and "Bull Run II", since that's a convention not followed for any other conflict or country.  The preferred general convention is be "Bull Run (1861)" and "Bull Run (1862)"; but "First Bull Run" and "Second Bull Run" can be used if that's more common in the literature (even though that disambiguation form is typically used only for multiple battles in the same year).  Kirill Lokshin 15:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple battles on same field 

message: I recently started an article on German-Americans in the Civil War and I was curious if it might be useful to create a wider range of articles dealing with ethnic groups (Irish, Scandinavian, etc.) during the period in a similar fashion as states during the Civil War ? MadMax 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Dr. David Valuska's book on the Dutch at Gettysburg... lots of good material on Pennsylvania Germans in the Civil War. Scott Mingus 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic groups during the Civil War

message: Somebody started putting that tag into articles, so I went ahead and made the category page. Feel free to populate. Stilgar135 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Union Army officers

message: Can anyone verify the information added in recent edits to Military history of African Americans#African Americans in the Confederate Military (see ) ? The edits were made by an anonymous user, and parts of the new info are quite different than what was previously there. Also a few NPOV issues, I think. -- Jwillbur 23:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable edits

message: new ACW task force Userbox!
--Fix Bayonets! 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this to my user page. Thanks! Scott Mingus 02:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm using it now too, although it would look better if its height were reduced to be in line with other userboxes, and if the Union and Confederate flags were equivalent in size. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Scott Mingus 02:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you like this ACW task force Userbox?

message: A few of us have been trying to reduce the number of entries into the once overly massive category. It's now been effectively broken into much more specific categories. HMains added :Category:Bushwackers and :Category:Union Marines recently, and I just added :Category:American Civil War industrialists for those arms makers and other business people that were previously merely Civil War people. I also created :Category:Native Americans in the Civil War. As you create biographies in the future, please try to use the specific categories instead of the broader more generic American Civil War or American Civil War people. Thanks! Scott Mingus 12:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do people think of these categories I suggested? --plange 03:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, the general idea seems fine.  The names may need to be changed once the whole :Category:Military personnel tree finally gets a standardized naming scheme; but that may be some time off, so going with the ones you suggested seems as good an approach as any at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, added them-- first time I've done this, so let me know if I did it wrong :-) --plange 03:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further delineated Category:American Civil War people 

message: I have created and populated several Ohio in the Civil War related articles with a new template that I created, Template:Ohio in the Civil War. This is modeled after User:Americasroof's Template:Missouri in the Civil War. I will create a similar one for Pennsylvania (my current state of residence) when I get the time and inclination to do so. Scott Mingus 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template 

message: I added :Category:U.S. cities in the American Civil War to be consistent with the state category. I copied the Civil War text from a few individual city articles into a separate ACW-related article as a starting place for further expansion and text addition. I merely added a header paragaph (for example, see New Orleans in the Civil War). I added similar articles for Savannah, Charleston, Atlanta, Richmond, etc., joining my previous articles on Cleveland and St. Louis, and ones from other folks. Please, please, please add suitable text and edits to these articles to better flesh them out, as this was a mere starting point. Scott Mingus 00:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added a new article I wrote early this morning, New York City in the Civil War. Feel free to check it out and suggest any changes. Scott Mingus 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice!  I'm a bit surpised that there's no Washington in the Civil War yet, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be - it's on my list of [[<City> in the Civil War]] articles to write. Scott Mingus 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Decree: Washington, D.C. in the Civil War shall lead The Grand Parade of the States. 0^#o 22:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, we should add more text to the article and flesh it out more. Please expand this, folks, as you have time. Scott Mingus 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for doing this, and I especially like the cities template you created.  In fact, it makes me think it would be nice if the big ACW menu (as cool as it is) could be broken down into separate templates like this, while relying on Portal:American Civil War to tie everything together (it already includes the big menu). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ACW cat and articles 

message: Due to time constraints and wiki-burnout, I'm withdrawing from this project.  I will continue to watch and develop Louisville in the Civil War (and a couple other Civil War-related articles) however. Good luck for the future, and Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving to concentrate on Louisville-related subjects

message: :Category:Battle Fields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War - not sure why this category was created since we already have a cat for the battles of the campaign. I recommend deletion - any other thoughts? Scott Mingus 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't seem useful unless we're actually categorizing the battlefields (i.e. the related parks) themselves; otherwise, we'll start a not-very-useful trend of tagging cities with an extra category for every war they've been involved in (which, in some cases, will be dozens). Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary category? 

message: I have created a list of some of the leading Confederate generals that still do not yet have articles on Wikipedia. It can be found at User:Scott Mingus/sandbox for now. When I finish the Union list, I will republish these as a separate article / list. Feel free to work on any of these topics, or add generals that I have missed. Scott Mingus 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the comparable list of Union generals has also been generated. Please feel free to write biographies for them, or to add any significant missing generals. Scott Mingus 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate generals that still need biography articles 

message: Re: Battle of Westport, I've boldly asserted that this conflict was the largest single combat engagement west of the Mississippi in American History. Could someone dispute this and prove me wrong? Largest alternate is Battle of Contreras, and that's several thousand short. BusterD 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer depends on the precise meaning of the term "American history." If that means United States history, you may be correct (although I will point out that the entire Pacific theater of World War II is west of the Mississippi :-) ). But if you mean North American, see the discussion at Talk:Battle of Gettysburg#Largest Battle. Hal Jespersen 16:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And since the Battle of the Aleutian Islands was on US territory, it would need to be "the largest battle in the continental United States west of the Mississippi". ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My claim refers to the North American continent, but I'll make sure I list as land action. Thanks. Amazing isn't it? BusterD 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've made a rather controversial assertion at [[Portal:American Civil War/Did you know]] 

message: Anyone have the OR handy? I wanted to see if an individual was in there before I made the trek to the Univerity library that has these. Of course only if you have them at your fingertips... Person is John W. Johnston a.k.a. John Warfield Johnston. Was apparently the Confederate States Receiver? Thanks! --plange 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the index, I see 4 John W.'s: 1) lawyer, series IV, vol. 3;    2) C.S.Artillery, series I, vols 24, 32, 38, 39, 45, 47;    3) from PA; and    4) 12th WV. Which one sounds right? BusterD 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one always has access to OR via Cornell's Making of America. Check out the Official Records article for links. BusterD 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The winner is #1. Series IV, Vol. 3, p. 812. A letter from Henry J. Leory to Confederate Sec of War Seddons briefly refers to "Mr. Johnston, a distinguished lawyer in Abingdon (a nephew to General Joe Johnston), writes to General Echols the secret order is growing fearfully in that part of the country." (referring to the suspension of habeus corpus). No other references to this figure appear in the ArmyOR. I'll have to check navy (which is tougher because of poorer online indexing). Anybody got Dr. Aimone's CD? BusterD 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a bunch!!! No worries about ORN, I have a copy of the set at home (!) so will look him up there. if anyone ever needs an ORN lookup, just let me know... --plange 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR lookup? 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Raymond that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Raymond]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: In looking through a few different category and list pages for Civil War regiments, I noticed that, even within the USA, for example, there is no standard presentation for regiment names.  Does this variation actually reflect variation in how these units were officially designated while in active service during the Civil War?  If not, what would be the most apropos standardized format?  From the USA standpoint, it would probably be however the US Army designated each regiment in official fashion.  For the CSA, either CSA official designation or each individual state's own official designation would suffice, I'd guess.  Any suggestions?Dogface 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time, we were trying to standardize the names used in the articles as xxth State Infantry or yyth State Cavalry. The individual states did have different ways of formally titling their commands (for example, in my native state, it was 8th Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry. For the article, we preferred 8th Ohio Infantry to be consistent. See User:Hlj/CWediting) Scott Mingus 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization of Unit Names? 

message: There's a new peer review request for Coal torpedo that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Coal torpedo]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Union Army Balloon Corps that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Union Army Balloon Corps]] 

message: Fellow ACW editors, I have at the suggestion of Hal Jespersen (User:Hlj) created a new article, Infantry in the American Civil War. Please have a look at this, and feel free to aggressively polish and edit it to improve it. I intended it to be a baseline for further efforts. Thanks in advance! Scott Mingus 01:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infantry in the American Civil War 

message: * One further question - I note several styles for categories. In some articles, they are in chronological order (which I try to follow); in orders (including some recent edits by others) they are in alphabetical order. In some cases, they are random. What is the preferred style for all ACW bios? We should agree and follow that style (minor point I realize, but as a scientist, I like order and consistency. Scott Mingus 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should we handle categories?

message: Hello.  Apparently, members of this WikiProject were unaware of the recent consensus at CFD to rename "U.S. States in the Civil War" categories.  I am alerting you per request of WikiProject member Scott Mingus (talk • contribs).  Any problems, drop me a note on my talk.  --RobertG ♬ talk 17:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a sensible renaming; somebody should probably fix the relevant links on the task force page, though. Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, although we now have a disconnect with the actual articles, which still are CW, not ACW. I have no desire or interest to immediately rename all of them, however. Scott Mingus 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rename 

message: May God Bless You Always!
I need a little help.  I was working with the American Civil War Articles and noticed a probelm.  Kansas was involve in the American Civil War and has and article in Wikipedia discussing its involvment.  Kansas in the Civil War.  However, Kansas is not listed in the American Civil War as a state involved.  I want to edit this and add Kansas, but cannot find the American Civil War Template.  Please help.
Yours in Christ, (Steve 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think. Kirill Lokshin 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May God Bless You Always!
Thanks you for the help.  I was able to make the edit.  Thanks again!
God Bless, (Steve 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those of us who maintain the menu normally require that discussion and consensus occur on the template talk page prior to making a change, but since this was an obvious omission in a very well-defined category, we'll let this one slide. God bless you, too, Mr. Buff. By the way, if you ever wonder how to find a template, select a page that displays it, edit the page, and you will find a list of all the templates used at the bottom, which can then be clicked to edit. Hal Jespersen 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War 

message: The categories for World Wars I and II, Vietnam, and Korea were fairly well filled out, but there was no category for ACW. A handful of general were listed under the parent category :Category:American military personnel killed in action, so I created a new :Category: American Civil War killed in action and began to populate it with the first 90 or so articles. Feel free to add to this cat, and remember to use it for future articles you write or edit if the subject fits. By the way, I did NOT include Stonewall Jackson in this category, as in the opinion of some historians, he died of complications from his wound, not from the wound itself. Hence, I didn't put him in the list (as well as a few others that similarly died of complications). How do you guys feel about Stonewall - KIA??? Scott Mingus 20:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KIA 

message: My article on Thaddeus S. C. Lowe received an A from the Bio Project reviewers. Military gave it a B. Could someone on the force please review it for at least a GA rating. It has all the other qualifications fulfilled. Thank you --Magi Media 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every rating above B-Class needs to go through a formal process of some sort; see WP:MHA#Quality scale.  Pick the one you like and nominate it there. :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thaddeus Lowe 

message: I am in the midst of research on Winchester during the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) in regard to occupation timelines and events.  I came across some errors on the Wikipedia pages regarding events in Winchester, as well as a mis-named battle for the Third Battle of Winchester (erroneously refered to by it's estoeric name of Battle of Opequon).  Subsequently I've been told that local, regional and state naming conventions for this battle are to be disregarded in lieu of a National Park Service so-called convention.
I have double checked, and found no NPS presence in regards to the Battles of Winchester, but could be mistaken.  Ownership of battlefields and forts has been made independently of any NPS involvement.  Therefore, future preservation efforts are very unlikely to refer to this as the Battle of Opequon.
Furthermore, within the Commonwealth of Virginia, home to the majority of the actions of the War of Northern Aggression, the state has generally taken the perogative to name the battles in accord with the records of the Provisional Army of the Confederate States and the CS government.  Thus the First and Second Battles of Manassas are called such.  In regard to battles outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia and outside of the formerly seceded States, such as Maryland, they name their internal battles as they see fit, and so the Battle of Antietam is such, and not the Battle of Sharpsburg.
The "Battle of Opequon" is fairly nonsensical as well for the Northern States name, as the Opequon is not even close to Winchester, and rather forms the eastern boundary of this county, Frederick Co., VA.  The Federals should have named it the Battle of Red Bud Run.  Regardless, all battles in Virginia are not known by water-names (e.g. its the Battle of Fredericksburg, not the Battle of the Rappahannock, and so on).
Therefore, until such time that the NPS decides to spend money and preserve the battlefields of Winchester, the naming convention for battlefields within the Commonwealth (other than NPS sites) generally falls to Virgnia, and even then I don't believe NPS has named any sites against Virginia's tradition, but I could be mistaken.
Furthermore, I suggest that the Wikipedia page for the Third Battle of Winchester be named so, and the virtually unused and unknown name of "Battle of Opequon" be dropped in deference.
Meanwhile, as I can get the free time, I will offer inputs to the pages on Winchester's local battles, to bring them up to snuff and reasonable accuracy, and will try to include Occupation of Winchester history, perhaps which can be made into its own page, covering events such as the oppression suffered under Banks, his subordinates, and later under "My will is absolute law" Milroy and finally under Sheridon and Scott, etc.
These battles in Winchester are very under-rated, but were all crucial battles to overall Lee srategy to extend the war and threaten the Northern States with pathways of counter-invasion.  The Second Battle of Winchester is likely the most lop-sided victory of any battle in the war, and the most brilliantly executed.
Thank you for your consideration
Grahghost01 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:We very much welcome your edits and opinions. However, be very, very careful as you write or edit articles. Wikipedia has a strict policy of maintaining nonpolitical point of views (impartial is preferred), and your writing above is full of pro-Southern sentiment. This must be kept out of articles, just I must suppress my pro-Union or Yankee anti-rebellion feelings and emotions when dispassionately writing objectively about the Civil War / WofNA / WBTS or whatever you wish to call "the late unpleasantness." Winchester articles should not be rewritten or edited from a Virginia viewpoint, but from the military facts. I look forward to your contributions, and welcome aboard! Scott Mingus 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Battle of Winchester 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for American Civil War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[American Civil War]] 

message: See Winchester in the Civil War, a new article just pulled together by User:Grayghost01 from the larger article on the modern city of Winchester, Virginia.
Any other prominent cities that should over time be added? User:Hlj at one time mentioned the possibility of a separate article on Gettysburg in the war (broader than just the 1863 battle), but I have yet to take the time to do so.
Scott Mingus 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vicksburg or Norfolk, perhaps? Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added Columbia, South Carolina, in the Civil War. 8th Ohio Volunteers 21:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another city added to the template 

message: As an ongoing part of my work to expand, improve, and create Ohio-related Civil War articles for Wikipedia, I have recently created Cincinnati in the Civil War. I will continue to polish this article as time allows, but feel free to have a look at it and make suggestions as to further improvements or additions. I grew up in southern Ohio, went to college there, and still spend a few days each month there on business. Scott Mingus 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cincinnati in the Civil War article 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for American Civil War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[American Civil War]] 

message: Permission has been granted by the artist John Paul Strain to use a digital copy of his painting, The Romney Expedition, and it is currently used in the Romney Expedition article.  We graciously thank Mr. Strain for the use of his image.  Anyone who desires to use images of any of Mr. Strain's artwork, please contact him through his website at www.johnpaulstrain.com
Permission has been granted by Paul at www.sonofthesouth.net  to use a reduced (300 pixel wide) version of his digitally mastered scan of his graphic of Winchester, Virginia from page 569 of Harper's Weekly, September 7, 1861, which is found in two articles: Winchester in the Civil War and Romney Expedition. He has not released permission to use any of his high-quality print worthy images located at his website, and asks the help of our Task Force to prevent the unauthorized use of his high quality images.  If you see any of those, please assist by tagging those files for deletion.  Paul's scans and digital mastering is noted by its high quality and sepia-toned false coloring which distinguishes it from other scans of Harper's Weekly. We graciously thank Paul for the use of his image.  Anyone who desires to use images of any of Paul's artwork, please contact him through his website.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayghost01 (talk • contribs) 
:Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force by Kirill Lokshin 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, are these Wikipedia-only releases or general ones?  If it's the former, we can't use the images; we need them to be released under a free content license that allows reuse by other parties, or we need to make fair-use claims for them (in which case the question of permission becomes irrelevant). Kirill Lokshin 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: general releases.Grayghost01 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's very good to hear.  (We've had no end of problems with this issue before, unfortunately.) Kirill Lokshin 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on use of Images

message: Hello,
I just joined the American Civil War task force.
Before I joined this task force, I already made some articles about Civil War soldiers and the wives. 
Here they are:
Soldiers
*Thomas Chamberlain
*TJ Goree
*Leonard A. Abercrombie
*Henry M. Elmore
Wives
*Elizabeth Goree
*Lavinia Chilton
Unfortunately, many of these articles are only stubs. Any additional information in these articles would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Psdubow 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Expand... 

message: New article - feel free to expand... Harrisburg in the Civil War
Scott Mingus 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrisburg in the Civil War 

message: As a first step to expanding a few articles about the defenses of Washington, D.C., I created a little infobox to go at the bottom of the articles. I'm having a problem lining up the information the way I want, however. Is there a way I can force the template to not insert a return in the southeast and northeast quadrant sections? Thanks in advance. JKBrooks85 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil War Defenses of Washington, D.C. 

message: There's a new peer review request for Fort Kearny (Washington D.C.) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Fort Kearny (Washington D.C.)]] 

message: My featured article nomination of Confederate government of Kentucky is off to kind of a rough start. One reviewer has suggested that the lead needs to be reworked and that the prose is "unencyclopedic." Having created the article and done much of the editing on it, I think I'm too close to the prose to see the problems. Could interested editors please help me address the issues? Thanks. Acdixon 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with FA nomination of [[Confederate government of Kentucky]] 

message: In looking through the vast listing of red-linked articles that have been requested, I note that few are really worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia compendium such as Wikipedia. Many are rather trivial, or are better covered as subsets of more general topics. Could this list be pared down to the critical few that folks can really work on, rather than this catch-all list? 8th Ohio Volunteers 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested articles 

message: There's a new peer review request for Hugh Boyle Ewing that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Hugh Boyle Ewing]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for John Watts de Peyster that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[John Watts de Peyster]] 

message: Greetings from Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation!  I just disambiguated partisan.  I did not find an article on Confederate partisans (I looked) so the Confederate uses are now linked to Partisan (military).  That's a generic article, and it's certainly not wrong, but there were so many Confederate references it is clear that "partisan" has a specific meaning in the context of the American Civil War, so there ought to be a specific article. — Randall Bart (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article request: [[Confederate partisan]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Johnston de Peyster that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Johnston de Peyster]]