Template talk:Gettysburg Menu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] 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 Gettysburg Menu 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:

Campaign & Battles
This should not be modified unless new battle articles are written.
Notable CSA Leaders
The Confederate leaders are listed before the United States leaders because of alphabetical order and to give them a gray background. The current list includes Lee and the Confederate corps and division commanders. E.P. Alexander (vs. Pendleton) is also there because he is so well-known. It may be tempting to add some of the brigade commanders, particularly those of Pickett's division, but if too many are added, the list will become unwieldy, so please discuss on this Talk page first.
Notable USA Leaders
The United States leaders come second so that they can have a blue background. The current list includes Meade (and Hooker, who was in the campaign until June 28), the corps commanders, Doubleday (Reynolds's replacement), Hunt (very prominent artillery commander), and three officers who have wide popular fame: Buford, Chamberlain, and Custer. It may seem unfair that we have gone so far down the chain of command here, but not on the Confederate side. Discussions will be entertained on this Talk page, but in general, picking many from below the corps level will result in a huge list.
Other Topics
This row is difficult to characterize. The two Ridge articles are included here because they contain almost no battle information. New entries or subcategories should not be added without discussion on the Talk page.
InterWiki
Obvious. Some of the categories that appear in the related American Civil War Menu are omitted here because they have no meaningful content. That may change in the future.

Hal Jespersen 22:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I did not read your talk page before adding TSS. Feel free to edit this if you do not want to include the game. It's three variations are collectively the most popular Gettysburg game produced. Sorry for charging ahead with the change without reading this first. Scott Mingus 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

<handslap>Naughty. :-) Well, no harm done. I hadn't been aware of that article. Hal Jespersen 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition?

Hal,

You may want to add to the Popular Media section a reference to Cemetery Hill (game), which was one of SPI's best sellers in their folio series back in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It's another classic Gettysburg wargame, as was Devil's Den (game). There are others that I will create over time as part of my role in widening and strengthening the Civil War gaming articles. Cheers!

Scott Mingus 13:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANV

Hal and colleagues, what about adding the Texas Brigade, Stonewall Brigade, etc. to the listing? Eventually when I get time, I want to create a similar article for the Louisiana Tigers, which may arguably be the finest brigade not yet with its own article. Scott Mingus 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since neither of these articles says anything substantive about the battle of Gettysburg, I would mildly oppose. I guess my algorithm for this would be to say that a unit below corps level that made a unique contribution, rather than being one of many units in a particular assault, deserves to be in this list. 20th Maine, 1st Minnesota, Vermont Brigade are all examples of units that made unique contributions and those contributions are well documented in their unit articles. Hal Jespersen 15:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
After I wrote that, I decided to go back and look at the menu and see that the Army of Northern Virginia has no entries! Part of the problem is that there are no corps articles for the Confederates. So my mild opposition continues to be mild, with the hope that if the suggested brigade articles can be improved to be more relevant to Gettysburg (regardless of whether I think the units themselves were relevant), they could be included in the future. Hal Jespersen 16:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. I brought this up since the AOP links to the corps and brigades, but the ANV is vacant, which to me needs corrected. Perhaps I will modify the Texas Brigade and Stonewall Brigade articles to add more Gettysburg information. Scott Mingus 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Battle of Sporting Hill

Added the Battle of Sporting Hill to the index. Wrightchr 20:44 03 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem with this, but PLEASE discuss all changes on this page first to gain consensus. Scott Mingus 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two issues

I have two issues that I need to bring up, so I am splitting each into two sections to facilitate discussion:

[edit] {{Navbox}}

Before the reversion, I have changed the format of the template to {{navbox}}, since it was seriously getting quite large. I have seen quite a few templates using this and other related templates when their content is enormous. These templates should not take up as much room as it is right now when there isn't that much content, unlike {{EMD diesels}}. However, I was indiscriminately asked to get consensus here, which is my next issue.

The indiscriminate change you made seriously degraded the appearance of the menu, removing colors, removing photographs, and misnaming the edited template. (The template is about all Gettysburg related articles, not simply the Battle of Gettysburg.) If you would like to propose a collapsible template that retains the characteristics we agreed on over a number of edits in the past, I recommend that you post it in his talk page for discussion. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If you worry about colours in a template, stop. Navigation templates like this are supposed to be small, which means removing pictures and other content if it gets bigger than without the pictures. As for the consensus stuff, see below, which I will soon post a reply to. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:11, 20 November 2007 (GMT)
  • reset

The colours just don't work. It's nonstandard; even the template documentation says to only use it when it is absolutely necessary. That does not mean keep the old style in a new, standard template, since consensus just changed. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:51, 21 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Being bold, consensus, and ownership

Looking back at this template's edit history, pretty much any change to the template are reverted indiscriminately by one or two editors because they fail to gain consensus. Technically, a consensus isn't needed when a fellow contributor makes a bold edit in good faith, and it is only needed when someone else reverts with a good explanation why. All reversions are carried out without any reasoning whatsoever, except "we do not make any changes to this template without consensus". The thread above this giant section furthers bolsters my point about ownership, which is to get approval for just about all edits before making them. Wikipedia does not allow this kind of bureaucracy anywhere, and it has got to stop by nuking the template guideline section above. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

We do not revert changes because they lack consensus, we revert them when consensus has not been asked for. I think that you will find very few changes that were rejected following a discussion, which is all we are asking for. Since these templates have wide-ranging impacts on a large number of articles, it is reasonable to impose an additional level of review prior to making changes. I think you will find many instances within Wikipedia where templates are protected entirely from editing; in this case, the protection is by the informal agreement of a number of participants in Civil War related articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Protection is only needed when a page is used or linked to on almost every page on almost every namespace, like {{!}} and {{navbox}} itself. The process of consensus is not always get consensus first; sometimes people are bold, and people revert because they don't like it. As for your logic of imposing an additional level of review prior to making changes, look at the history of {{Infobox road}}, a much widely used template. There, however, the process of editing is properly used, and changes are only reverted when someone disagrees with the change for a reason, unlike here with bureaucracy for no reason. Therefore, no consensus is needed when it is the initial proposal, unless somebody reverts it with a good reason. Informal agreements will also change over time. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:20, 20 November 2007 (GMT)
The description of our informal 'process' is at its core merely a courtesy. I could have simply reverted the change with a one-line edit description and then we'd be in exactly the same spot, except now you have some text to read to see the motivation of the editors who contribute in this space. Then a discussion can take place, and, as I said, there have been no instances of reasonable changes being rejected. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
However, nobody has to follow your "informal process". That means that I don't need your approval to even make a minor edit. And when you revert, please use a good reason, like it messes stuff up, unlike what you have already used. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:40, 21 November 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Supplemental Characters Needed

I teach a course on the American Civil War and I would like my students to have access to a site which provides quick access to an index of the unique and noteworthy players of the battle of Gettysburg. This template does a reasonably good job of being a central index of the military leaders of the battle, but the supplementary noteworthy characters, viz., Ginnie Wade, Father Corby, Arthur Fremantle, et al, are glaringly absent from this source. If I cannot modify this template to that effect, I suppose I'll build a site of my own for this purpose. But my humble opinion is that the entire readership of wiki would benefit by a more comprehensive template in this regard.

Based upon what I have read above from other potential contributors, those who "supervise" this template are typical arrogant-minded pseudo-experts who take a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach to wiki. Fortunately most of wiki is far more open to scholarly contribution and expansion, but occasionally some topics (like this one) become the domain of self-appointed wiki-Nazis. The victims are the general readership who could benefit from the contributions.

Hilltoppers, (Ph.D.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I do recall the Nazis, those people who insisted on discussion before making unilateral changes that affected dozens of articles. It seems to me that they had other negative impacts on history, but perhaps I need to be a Ph.D. to understand what they really were.
The template was designed to include the major figures involved in Gettysburg, limiting the people to cited high-level commanders. It was not intended to be an exhaustive list of anyone involved in the battle and the dividing line of what is notable and what is not is a good subject for discussion. Discussions are good because when anyone can include names that interest them, there is no practical way of limiting the size of the template in the future. Anyone with an ancestor in the battle or a favorite regiment could claim justification for adding the name. Your proposed edits include a large number of what I would call "colorful characters" who are famous for one reason or another, but certainly not as notable as commanders such as Meade and Lee. Although I have no particular objection to any of the names that you propose, I think it is important to keep the list of key commanders intact, so interesting people such as Chamberlain and Farnsworth should be in the "other" category, not categorized with the army and corps commanders. Further comments are welcome. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your emphasis and interest is narrowly military. I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are a reenactor, gun collector, or military history buff. But from a professional historians' point of view, the Gettysburg was more than just a military event. The Gettysburg Park reflects this a lot better than your menu. For example, you include General Joseph Hooker in your menu of important Gettysburg figures, when in fact Hooker was not even there, much less memorialized by a statue on the battlefield of Gettysburg, while you omit a figure such as Father William Corby, whose statue on the battlefield is prominent, as was his role in the event. Certainly you'll justify this inconsistency on the grounds that Hooker was military and that qualifies him as important, in spite of the fact that he wasn't present during the battle--further evidence that you see Gettysburg through very narrow lenses--not the proper view of well-balanced historian.
You also say that "people such as Chamberlain should be in the 'other' category," and yet you include Chamberlain among the army and corps commanders. You don't even follow your own guidance. There's no statuary of Chamberlain at Gettysburg either, while the likes of Father Corby, Ginnie Wade, John L. Burns, and Amos Humiston are all featured in bronze. I think Chamberlain definitely belongs on your list, but for Colonel Chamberlain to be considered more of a leader than General David McMurtrie Gregg (whom you omit) doesn't even follow in step with your own military emphasis.
What has been said about you by another above is, in fact, spot on. You engage in indiscriminate and heavy-handed editing based upon your own narrow biases. I believe a moderately-informed fellow like myself might be able to offer some valuable input to this work, but when running into your kind of unscholarly and close-minded editing, I'll gladly make my contributions where they are more welcome.

Hilltoppers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the "Gettysburg Menu," not the "Battle of Gettysburg Menu," so it covers the entire Gettysburg Campaign and other issues regarding Gettysburg, not simply the battle.
LOL. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. If it's really meant to be a comprehensive "Gettysburg" menu, and not just a "battle" menu, why then is there no link to Abraham Lincoln? Did he not have anything to do with Gettysburg? At least as much as Hooker? And you can't even exclude Lincoln on the grounds that he's not military (if you know anything about the U.S. Constitution). Your methodology is quite transparent: you simply want to feature the Generals (and Colonels) that you find most interesting. There's nothing particularly systematic or consistent in your discrimination. You can't include Hooker, while excluding Lincoln and John L. Burns, and seriously say that your template is a "comprehensive" Gettysburg template, not just a template for your pet military leaders.
Therefore, including Joseph Hooker is appropriate because he commanded the Army of the Potomac for the majority of the campaign. The inclusion of Chamberlain in the key military leaders is one of the anomalies of the template that resulted from editing by multiple authors. We discussed it in the Talk page and no one had sufficient arguments to prevent his inclusion.
Then why did you say (above) that he shouldn't be included in the section on Union leaders?
(If you review the editing history of this template and bypass all the vitriol of pointless process arguments, you will see that virtually no recommendations for changes to the template have ever been rejected after they are discussed.) If your suggestion of having some sort of "others" row meets with no objections (and I do not personally object to it), I would recommend that the non-commanders be moved into that row. I don't think anyone has ever brought up the factor of whether a person has a statue or not as being an important consideration. (I know that Humiston has a plaque, but does he have a statue?)
My statement was that Humiston was "featured in Bronze." I can't think of many statues on the Battlefield of persons who do not merit serious consideration for inclusion on a menu like this. As a matter of fact, it seems precisely the reason for a menu like this. I can imagine a tourist traveling around the battlefield and finding a statue of John L. Burns and thinking, "this fellow seems interesting... I think I'll check him out tonight on a wiki page pertaining to Gettysburg... I'm sure to find him there!" When Lincoln came to Gettysburg on November 19, it was Burns, not Meade nor Hancock nor Chamberlain who served as Lincoln's escort. The bottom line: the story of the Battle of Gettysburg is incomplete without reference to John Burns--particularly in comparison to the likes of Pender or Slocum (except maybe to reenactor military enthusiast types). No, John Burns was not significant to military strategy or the outcome of the battle. But he was more than just a "colorful character" as you dubbed him. He was important enough of a symbol that President Lincoln chose to honor him and the National Park Service thought likewise.
Let me make one more statement regarding templates and then you can resume your ad hominem attacks or go to the scholarly and open-minded areas of Wikipedia where you will be more welcome. One of the reasons we have our informal process of discussion before execution is that a template of this type affects dozens of different articles. We have no such constraints on any of the individual articles because people are watching those closely. So we would prefer to be more cautious in making bold changes with such wide ranging impact. Also, a template of this type is not a substitute for a Wikipedia list article, such as List of Gettysburg topics, which you are welcome to create if you think it would be useful. The longer and more complex that a template of this type becomes, the less useful it will be because fewer people will attempt to wade through hundreds of entries to find articles of interest.
That's merely your opinion and I think it is quite erroneous. For example, the Salem Witchcraft Trial template is rather exhaustive list of important figures related to the event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Salem). It is an incredibly useful template. I see no reason why the Gettysburg event does not deserve a similar template.
So it is in the interest of readers to make this list as concise as possible, but comprehensive enough to be useful. Discussions about where that balance lies cannot be handled effectively in the one line edit summary, so we use the Talk page. You are welcome to talk to us. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have talked. I've made my case. Apparently it is your opinion that I don't have a case. I regret this entanglement; my only intention was to be a helpful contributor and to expand the knowledge base for students attempting to find an convenient index of significant participants in the Gettysburg event, much like the Salem template mentioned above.

[edit] Template headline links to disambiguation page

The title line on this template links to Gettysburg, which is a disambiguation page. Links to disambiguation pages are discouraged, and the link is particularly beside-the-point here, since the template itself links to virtually every article listed on the disambig page. The only notable exception is Gettysburg, South Dakota, which I think proves my point: articles are listed on this template becase they are related in some way to the Battle of Gettysburg, not to the name "Gettysburg." I tried to fix this, but my edit was reverted by Hlj. I am therefore posting here to solicit other opinions on whether a change is warranted. --Russ (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I will be the first to admit that no one would ever be interested in Gettysburg if not for the events on July 1-3, 1863, this is not the Battle of Gettysburg Menu, it is the navigation menu for the Gettysburg Campaign (events that occurred over a three state area) and any topic associated with the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. If there is a policy that discourages links to disambiguation pages, it would be preferable to remove the link rather than to change it inappropriately. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As I just did the same thing (pointed the title Gettysburg to Battle of Gettysburg but I reverted it myself), I agree that removing the link would be a sensible solution. Otherwise the link will continue to be flagged as a problem. See WP:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates Tassedethe (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)