User:Hlj/CWediting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

This is a page that I use for common editing style for American Civil War articles. I have written or edited well over 300 articles and try to use consistent punctuation, capitalization, styles of references, etc. Although my choices are not definitive, they are usually based on style guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style or on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In any event, if I need to discuss stylistic matters with new readers, I can always point them at this page and not reinvent the wheel. Comments welcome. Hal Jespersen 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

Wikipedia attempts to use the most popular version of a person's name as the title of his/her article. For instance, Ulysses S. Grant or Stonewall Jackson. I usually do not attempt to fool around with these choices. However, there is the issue of what to call the person within another article. I try to be consistent about this and match the usage patterns of modern Civil War historians:

  1. The first use of the name in an article is usually with the person's first name and middle initial, such as George G. Meade. I almost never refer to a general without the middle initial, such as George Meade, Ulysses Grant, or William Rosecrans. Subsequent uses in the article are usually only his last name and, as discussed in the next section, I do not use ranks repeatedly, such as General This and General That.
  2. It was common in the 19th century to write people's names with only initials. Perhaps this was because printing was expensive and you saved some ink that way. I use this convention only for those men whose names are almost universally portrayed that way today, such as J.E.B. Stuart, A.P. Hill, D.H. Hill, and G.W. Smith. I do not use spaces between the initials.
  3. It was also somewhat common in the 19th century to spell out people's middle names, such as George Gordon Meade and George Henry Thomas, but that has become rather antiquated. In modern usage, universal use of a middle name is generally related to assassins, such as John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald. There are some common exceptions that I tolerate when others use them, but I generally do not originate them myself: George Armstrong Custer and William Tecumseh Sherman.
  4. However, there is a big exception to the previous item. Some men were known primarily by their middle name, not their first, such as W. Dorsey Pender and H. Judson Kilpatrick, and I use that format.
  5. When a man is known universally by a nickname, I try to include both his real name and his nickname in the first instance within an article. Here are some useful name links that use my style:
[[Stonewall Jackson | Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson]]
[[Jubal Anderson Early | Jubal Early]]
[[Edward Johnson (general) | Edward "Allegheny" Johnson]]
[[William Tecumseh Sherman | William T. Sherman]]
[[William Henry Fitzhugh Lee | W.H.F. "Rooney" Lee]]
[[William Farrar Smith | William F. "Baldy" Smith]]
[[Benjamin Franklin Butler (politician) | Benjamin Butler]]
[[Edward Johnson (general) | Edward "Allegheny" Johnson]]
[[William "Bull" Nelson]]
[[William E. Jones | William E. "Grumble" Jones]]
[[John Pope (military officer) | John Pope]]

[edit] Military ranks

  • Use first lieutenant and second lieutenant, not 1st or 2nd (unless abbreviated).
  • Abbreviations should have Wiki links if they are used for the first time in an article. Abbreviations I try to use (outside of Order of Battle pages where space is at a premium) are: Gen., Lt. Gen., Maj. Gen., Brig. Gen., Col., Lt. Col., Maj., Capt., 1st Lt., 2nd Lt., Sgt. Here are the links I use:
[[General (United States) | Gen.]]
[[Lieutenant General (United States) | Lt. Gen.]]
[[Major General#United States | Maj. Gen.]]
[[Brigadier General#United States | Brig. Gen.]]
[[Colonel (United States) | Col.]]
[[Lieutenant Colonel (United States) | Lt. Col.]]
[[Major (United States) | Maj.]]
[[Captain (United States) | Capt.]]
[[First Lieutenant#United States | 1st Lt.]]
[[Second Lieutenant#United States | 2nd Lt.]]
[[brevet (military) | Bvt.]]
[[Regular Army (United States) | regular army]]
(I keep these in a text file on my desktop for easy cut-and-paste. I suppose someone may eventually wake up and notice there is no equivalent set of pages for CSA officers and object to the USA usage, but that's a question for another day.)
  • In my more recent articles, I have established a standard of using the abbreviated ranks consistently, rather than referring over and over again to General Jones, Major General Smith, etc., spelled out, and I also try to always specify the actual rank when an officer is first mentioned in the article. This rank should be the one at the time of the battle, not his highest eventual rank.
  • In keeping with the usage of ranks in most modern ACW histories, and in the spirit of making the articles more readable for the average reader, we do not emphasize the difference between regular army ranks ("permanent" ranks) and volunteer ranks, except in two cases: (1) when the officer has achieved a very high rank in the regular army, or; (2) when the officer has returned to his permanent rank at the end of the war. Therefore, we do not say "he was promoted to brigadier general of volunteers," preferring simply brigadier general. However, we would say he was promoted "to brigadier general in the regular army" if he received a promotion of this type. This sort of promotion was actually pretty rare and is the exception worth noting in these articles.
  • List the rank outside of the link to the officer's name, such as General Robert E. Lee instead of General Robert E. Lee.

[edit] Unit names

  • Units are capitalized only when they are preceded by a name or number:
    • 2nd Division
    • Hoke's Brigade
    • He chased a Union regiment through the woods and was promoted to corps commander.
  • Do not use superscripts for ordinal numbers: 20th Maine, not 20th Maine.
  • Regiments are identified with a number and state, also using the branch of service (infantry, cavalry, etc.) when necessary for clarity. Do not abbreviate the state name using the USPS two-letter abbreviations (like 1st MA). (Exception: In battle maps I draw that go down to the regimental level, I do in fact use the two-letter abbreviations.) It is unnecessary to append the word 'regiment' to each entry. Examples:
    • 20th Maine Infantry
    • 2nd U.S. Cavalry
Despite my predictions in previous versions of this file, quite a large number of regimental articles have been created. Unfortunately many of the authors have chosen alternative naming conventions for these articles, such as 77th Regiment of New York Volunteers or Second Idaho Volunteer Regiment. These names may be historically correct, but I believe it is more useful to have a common naming convention across the articles, so I recode them, such as:
[[77th Regiment of New York Volunteers | 77th New York Infantry]]
[[1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) | 1st U.S. Cavalry]]
  • Brigades are named differently for the two armies:
    • 1st Brigade, 1st Division, I Corps (Union usage)
    • Hood's Brigade or Hood's Texas Brigade (Confederate usage)
    • They ran into a Confederate brigade.
  • Divisions are listed numerically and always need a reference to the corps to which they are assigned:
  • Corps:
    • III Corps (Union usage, coded as [[III Corps (ACW) | III Corps]])
    • First Corps, or Longstreet's Corps (Confederate usage)
    • He assumed command of a corps.
    • They were attacked by two Union corps.
  • Commas: When a multi-name unit is used, commas separate the names and there is always a trailing comma if it's not at the end of the sentence:[1]
    • He joined the 1st Brigade, 2nd Division, at the start of the war.

[edit] Battles

  • In the first sentence, include:
    • Name of battle in bold. If the article name includes a roman numeral, such as Battle of Chattanooga II, describe it as the First, Second, or Third Battle of ...
    • Alternative names, also bold
    • Date(s)
    • Location
    • Name of campaign, if it is a well-known campaign and has (or will have) a campaign overview link
    • during the American Civil War
  • In the remainder of the first paragraph, optionally include the names of the major commanders and describe its context and significance.
  • Example:
  • For all but the most trivial battles, the section headers I try to use are:
    • Background
    • Opposing forces (a highly abbreviated look at the Order of Battle, usually down to corps or division commanders only)
    • Battle
    • Aftermath (this is where the casualties are explained, as well as actions after the battle and any ramifications)
    • References, Notes, External links
  • I try to include coordinates for all battles, using a {{geolinks-US-streetscale}} template in External links.

[edit] Biographies

For the first sentence of a biography:

  • The full name is in bold and does not include titles.
  • The name is followed by dates of birth and death, separated by an en-dash (–) and surrounded by parentheses. Those dates are not repeated in the text of the article. The locations of birth and death are not included in the first sentence.
  • Finish the sentence with a description of his/her role, occupations, etc. Reserve accomplishments and superlatives for the second sentence. Example:

The biography should be in rough chronological sequence after that brief first paragraph. Avoid tabular listings of dates, ranks, assignments, etc. Although reference works and websites often list dozens of dates about a person, don't bore the reader by using them all; pick the significant ones. Try to sprinkle in anecdotes and quotes about the person in the appropriate places; don't put them all at the end. However, one quote "summing up the man" at the end is a nice touch.

The statement about death names the place of death (not the date unless it's something interesting or ironic) and the place of burial.

Only relatively lengthy biographies need subheadings. I believe that subheads that introduce only two or three sentences are a waste of time. Some of the headings I do try to use are:

  • Early life and career
  • Civil War
  • Postbellum activities
  • In memoriam

And ones I avoid:

  • Biography
  • Trivia

[edit] Infoboxes (battle and biography)

I never create these myself because I think they are mostly busy work and an opportunity for the article text and the box to get out of sync, but I find that other industrious people do add them. Stylistically, the question is what information should be repeated in the normal text of the article. For battles, I assume that the article text takes precedence and create links and name dates, units, locations, and commanders as if the box were not there. (For instance, I always ensure that the full name of an individual is listed with a link, not assuming that the reader will go to the box to find the link.) The lone exception to this is that I do not repeat the casualty figures unless there is something particularly interesting to say about them, or if I have to footnote them. For biographies, there are very few boxes currently, but once again, I repeat all of the dates and locations that may be in the box in the text of the article.

For the biography infobox, there is a field used for battles. The stylistic trick here is to select the important battles and campaigns and not provide an exhaustive list. (Some soldiers fought in dozens of battles.) I lean toward using the campaign names instead of individual battles unless the soldier made a particular contribution to (or was killed in) one specific battle. It is possible to use regular Wiki formatting in this field as follows:

|battles=[[Mexican-American War]]<br>[[American Civil War]]
* [[Seven Days Battles]]
** [[Battle of Gaines' Mill]]
* [[Battle of Gettysburg]]
* [[Overland Campaign]]

There is a problem in some articles because of the combination of the Infobox Military Conflict and Campaignbox templates, such as displaced [Edit] links and left-aligned images. I have started using the following formulation to correct this:

{| style="float: right; clear: right; background-color: transparent"
|-
|{{Infobox Military Conflict
|conflict=Battle of Gettysburg
|partof=the [[American Civil War]]
...
}}
|-
|{{Campaignbox XXX}}
|}

An alternative method is described in WP:BUNCH.

[edit] Refs and Links

I find all the References and External links sections in Wiki are confusing and used inconsistently. I try to follow these guidelines:

  • Any article or web site that I use to extract facts for the article goes into References (always plural), not Sources or External links. When referring to the National Park Service battle summaries, I point to the specific article, not the URL for the entire list of campaigns and battles. It may not be overall Wiki policy, but I include both books and websites in this list, sorted by author name, if applicable. I never use raw URLs without descriptive text in this list.
  • I use External links only for web sites that have interesting additional information, or for maps and photographs I cannot guarantee are in the public domain. If the interesting information is not available on the web site, say for a novel, I use the section title Further reading.

Here's a summary:

Type Used as source for article, footnoted or not Additional, interesting information
Books, magazine articles References Further reading
Websites, URLs References External links
  • I avoid the use of a See also section that contains Wiki links used previously in the article.
  • The sequence for these trailing sections should be:
    • See also
    • References
    • Notes (see below)
    • Further reading
    • External links

[edit] Footnotes

Further information: WP:FN

I am a recent user of explicit footnotes, so only a few dozen of my more recent articles use them extensively. (In the early days of Wikipedia, I assumed that any fact or quote in the article can be found in one of the References cited.) My more recent, signature articles, such as George B. McClellan and Battle of Antietam, use extensive footnotes, usually one or more per paragraph. I dislike merely embedding a URL in the main text, which I call a "blind link" because you have to click it to find out what it points to, so I use a footnote.

  1. In the source, code <ref>text of footnote, which may be an explanation of something, a full Reference-style entry, or a page citation to a document already in the References section</ref>. The full citation inside a footnote, should be used for a source that has very few footnotes in the article; if it has more than one or two, put it into References and cite only author/page in the footnote.
  2. If the author has only one book in References, the footnote contains his last name and the page number(s). If multiple books, cite the last name, the italicized title (or a portion of it, enough to be recognizable), and the pages.
  3. For multiple footnotes from the exact same source, we don't use Ibid, as in a book. Use the name= parameter. For instance, the first usage is <ref name=Eicher251>Eicher, p. 251.</ref> and then all subsequent footnotes are simply <ref name=Eicher251/>
  4. After the References section, code
==Notes==
{{reflist}} or {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

The reflist macro does the complete job of formatting the notes. When the |colwidth=30em is included, it displays in multiple columns—usually two, but more in a really wide browser window. I generally use multiple columns only for articles with more than 10 footnotes.

[edit] Editing footnoted paragraphs

As more and more citations are added to Wikipedia articles, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make casual or random edits to those paragraphs that are documented with footnotes. When you make a change, it is unacceptable to add or modify information that is not documented by the cited references for that text unless you adjust the footnotes accordingly. Some Wikipedia articles use footnotes at the sentence or phrase level, but I reserve that practice only for direct quotations within a paragraph or for facts or opinions that could be considered controversial (and thus, the reader may wish to jump directly to the citation). Otherwise, I usually group all of the citations for a paragraph into a single compound footnote, which is a practice that is relatively common with modern Civil War authors.[2] One consequence of paragraph level footnoting is that a paragraph cannot be broken in half easily, unless the paragraph breaker has access to the cited references and can adjust which page citations go with which of the new smaller paragraphs.

Let me use a few examples based on a simple article sentence. In the following list, the notation [FN=] shows what the text of the footnote would look like without going through the actual <ref> mechanism.

Here is current article sentence:

  • Smith was born in New York City.[FN=Eicher, p. 399.]

The following is an invalid modification, because Eicher did not indicate who the parents were:

  • Smith was born in New York City to John and Mary Smith.[FN=Eicher, p. 399.]

One of the following two formats is an appropriate way to make that change:

  • Smith was born in New York City[FN=Eicher, p. 399.] to John and Mary Smith.[FN=Warner, p. 77.]
  • Smith was born in New York City to John and Mary Smith.[FN=Eicher, p. 399; Warner, p. 77.]

Suppose you found another author who disagrees on the birthplace. The following is also an invalid modification:

  • Smith was born in Newark, New Jersey.[FN=Eicher, p. 399.]

Any of the following forms would be appropriate, based on the relative credibility of the various sources:

  • Smith was born in New York City.[FN=Eicher, p. 399. Warner, p. 77, claims that it was Newark, New Jersey.] (In this case, we are relegating the secondary opinion to mere "footnote status" because we do not think it is particularly credible.)
  • Smith was born in New York City[FN=Eicher, p. 399.] or Newark, New Jersey.[FN=Warner, p. 77.]
  • Smith is usually cited as being born in New York City,[FN=See, for instance, Eicher, p. 399, and Tagg, p. 88.] but recent scholarship by military historian Ezra Warner concludes that he was born in Newark, New Jersey.[FN=Warner, p. 77.]

That final format, in which the name of the author is listed in the body of the text, should be reserved for those cases in which a preponderance of the citations—the traditional or conventional view—are being balanced by a fresh interpretation by a well-known and respected author. This kind of usage is more likely when opinions are being expressed, rather than the hard facts in this example.

[edit] Dates

Further information: MOS:SYL

The Wiki date-preference software accommodates a number of date formats. I code American-style dates. By example:

  • [[July 1]], [[1863]] which will display as July 1, 1863 or 1 July 1863 depending on the reader's preferences. (I always wikify the year in each date, even if the year was mentioned earlier in the text. This is for date formatting, not for linking. If the sentence continues, I put a comma after the year.[1])
  • July 1863 (I think Wiki links to month names are useless. See Screwups below.)
  • From 1861 to 1865 ...
  • Try to treat dates as full units because the date-preference software will mangle some combinations.
  • Not:
    • July 1st
    • the 1st
    • 1st of July
    • from 1861-65
    • July of 1863
    • July, 1863
    • [[July 1]]-[[July 3|3]], [[1863]]

[edit] Locations

  • Always spell out state names; foreign readers should not be expected to know U.S. state abbreviations, particularly the 2-letter USPS abbreviations.
  • As with the 15th Chicago footnote above on dates, commas always come in pairs. Example:
    • The suburbs of Baltimore, Maryland, eventually intersect with those of Washington, D.C.
  • I prefer (although not strongly) the style of links that points to a city/state in one link:
    • Preferred: [[Baltimore, Maryland]]
    • Tolerated: [[Baltimore, Maryland | Baltimore]], [[Maryland]]

[edit] Quotations

Quotations should not be rendered in italic text, per the manual of style, although this is widely violated in many Wikipedia articles. If the quotation is only a sentence or two, I generally put it inline with simple quotation marks. For longer quotations, the use of the <blockquote> mechanism is appropriate, but I have just recently found the Quotation template and am starting to use it to good effect. Coding:

{{Quotation|If I was an artist like you, ... Confederate ''gray''.|Robert E. Lee|letter to Markie Williams}}

If I was an artist like you, I would draw a true picture of Traveller; representing his fine proportions, muscular figure, deep chest, short back, strong haunches, flat legs, small head, broad forehead, delicate ears, quick eye, small feet, and black mane and tail. Such a picture would inspire a poet, whose genius could then depict his worth, and describe his endurance of toil, hunger, thirst, heat and cold; and the dangers and suffering through which he has passed. He could dilate upon his sagacity and affection, and his invariable response to every wish of his rider. He might even imagine his thoughts through the long night-marches and days of the battle through which he has passed. But I am no artist Markie, and can therefore only say he is a Confederate gray.

– Robert E. Lee, letter to Markie Williams

There is also the Cquote template, which I used to use for semi-inline (inline but graphically distinct, using large graphic quotation marks), but I now see is deprecated. (Sigh.)

{{Cquote|I, Philip Kearny, an old soldier, ... cowardice or treason.}}
“ I, Philip Kearny, an old soldier, enter my solemn protest against this order for retreat. We ought instead of retreating should follow up the enemy and take Richmond. And in full view of all responsible for such declaration, I say to you all, such an order can only be prompted by cowardice or treason. ”

Instead, use the Quote template, as follows:

{{Quote|I, Philip Kearny, an old soldier, ... cowardice or treason.}}

I, Philip Kearny, an old soldier, enter my solemn protest against this order for retreat. We ought instead of retreating should follow up the enemy and take Richmond. And in full view of all responsible for such declaration, I say to you all, such an order can only be prompted by cowardice or treason.

Another option is the Quote box side-box style. It's a good way for adding a bit of color to a description.

... every stalk of corn in the northern and greater part of the field was cut as closely as could have been done with a knife, and the [Confederates] slain lay in rows precisely as they had stood in their ranks a few moments before.
Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker[3]		 
{{Quote box
|align=right
|width=35%
|quote=... every stalk of corn ... a few moments before.
|source=Maj. Gen. [[Joseph Hooker]]<ref>Bailey, p. 70.</ref>
|}}

[edit] Abbreviations

I think abbreviations without periods are sloppy writing, so use:

  • Washington, D.C.
  • U.S. Army, U.S. Military Academy
  • 8 a.m., 9:30 p.m.
  • I suppose an exception could be made for USA and CSA, but I don't use them

[edit] Colloquialisms

I avoid the colloquialisms Yankees and Rebels (and certainly things like the "horsemen in blue" or the "graybacks") in articles I write from scratch. I normally use Union (coded as [[Union Army|Union]]) instead of Federal, but don't object to the latter.

Colorful colloquialisms should be avoided for a few reasons:

  1. This is an encyclopedia, which uses "formal writing", not a series of stories or magazine articles.
  2. Non-native English speakers should not be unnecessarily disadvantaged.
  3. I have received complaints about the colorful language in some articles that supposedly "glorifies war". I don't see it that way, but like to avoid arguments.

[edit] Dashes

There are two kinds of dashes, neither of which can be a hyphen instead. In both cases, I use the HTML coding shown here instead of using the Unicode characters (because some text editors don't handle those characters well).

  • EN-Dash (&ndash;): Used in numeric or date ranges. I use no surrounding spaces for ranges in which both ends are in the same format, such as 1861–65 or May–June 1864. However, I do use surrounding spaces when the dash would connect ends of different formats, such as this case, where "May 23, 1824–September 13, 1881" just doesn't look right:
[[May 23]], [[1824]] &ndash; [[September 13]], [[1881]]
  • EM-Dash (&mdash;): Used to separate clauses—like this—with no surrounding spaces. Do not use the old typewriter substitution of two hyphens ("--").

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b That conforms with 15th Chicago, which states in http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.html "... there is a general rule of parity: anything that is set off from all or part of a sentence requires two commas, unless the word or phrase being set off is at the beginning or end of the sentence, in which case only one comma is required. Some analogous examples:

    January 4, 1844, was a day like any other.

    Unfortunately, if the paired-comma rule is used, some readers of the European-style dates will sometimes get odd results.

  2. ^ Like this: Smith, p. 21; Jones, pp. 37-38.
  3. ^ Bailey, p. 70.