Talk:List of American Civil War generals (Confederate)

1265:

editors as well as readers. I do not agree that the nomination dates are unimportant. The rank date indicates seniority and is often referred to by casual or amateur writers. It often has no relation to the actual date of appointment or the date an officer exercised general officer command. No general actually became a general until his appointment was confirmed and his commission was delivered and accepted. But the nomination date often was the appointment date, or close to it, and was a date when at least temporary command of a general officer position might take place. Early in the war, all of the relevant dates were often close together and some steps in the process even occurred on the same date. In the column, I have shown only one date for two or three steps if that was the case. Later in the war, confirmations were often held up for political reasons or because the Confederate Congress was out of session. Exercise of command under an appointment might have been exercised much earlier. These differences are very instructive. I don't think enough kbs would be saved by eliminating some dates, or some times just "nom." to justify the reduction in information. (Appointment dates, in addition to the other three dates and sometimes coincident with one or more of them, can be found for Union generals but I have no source for separate appointment dates for Confederate generals.) I thought the format looked better and was easier to follow with the general officer ranks in bold font. That, and the fact that I could not bring myself to abbreviate the ranks in this column, adds kbs.

1390:

why they fought for the South (moved south as children or married Southern women, mostly), and the youngest, oldest, longest lived officers. This would result in a substantial reduction in kbs while keeping some hooks, the most interesting information and the information needed to put the individuals in certain categories. I would continue my reduction and reorganization of the notes but I would keep the categories of notes I have mentioned above. I would also review the notes a final time to see if more points could be eliminated while keeping the most notable items. I would use the abbreviations I have started using and mentioned above, unless there is a consensus to not use some or all of them without requiring the elimination of information. I would reduce the text and notes on the final three categories of officers to a very minimum of information. I think this would reduce the kbs considerably and still result in a list with hooks and interesting information that many readers, researchers and writers on the Civil War would find useful on a single page. I do not agree with, endorse or support a mass deletion of the information that would remain - which anyone could do as I noted above. Also, I can only accomplish this careful revision over the course of several weeks starting a few weeks from now. The line breaks and formatting alone (which add some kbs but are necessary) take considerable time, as I have found out from working on the earlier revisions.

552:

remove most of them, leaving just the basic categories. This is taking a little time because of the need to maintain or edit some other articles which have inaccurate information on generals, Union and Confederate, that require revision. While it seems strange to put a large amount of information in an article, then remove it, there is some method to this. I set out only to put some important information in the notes but I began to add enough points to produce mini-sketches. When I realized the article would likely get too long, I thought I could create a comprehensive short reference page, which would remain in the history, and cut the number of kilobytes back by reducing the article to basic categories. Consider that the thumbnail sketches - which I do not care about but which other interested editors wish to retain - takes some memory, as does the table formatting. Also, many links can be later removed. Readers will not be looking at a list of this type to read it from end to end. Most of them will be looking at it for basic and comparative information. It will be in that shape, and nothing more except for the thumbnail photos, in the near future if a little more patience can be maintained. The end result as a single article should be better and more useful than a number of articles with just a fraction of the list.

1223:

article had not been tagged. Two years ago the list was incomplete, had some errors, was disorganized and was of little value until a few editors attempted to complete it and add information of interest and split it along the way. Perhaps I find too much of the information interesting or valuable as a gateway to articles or as a source of individual references to categories of information (e.g. generals killed during the war, West Point graduates, etc.). The organization could be improved, as I believed I was doing. With the lack of complaint and a continuing large number of page views, I thought I had time to do this. But if there is now some urgent need to perform mass deletions to get the article to a certain number of kbs in a hurry, perhaps a different approach is needed. Despite time constraints for the next few weeks, I could delete the photo column and photos easily enough. I have never thought they were necessary and kept them only because of the preference of other editors. If there is otherwise a rush to revise the article wholesale, someone else will need to do it. I suppose that one does not need any interest in or knowledge of the subject or what a previous editor was trying to accomplish to do mass deletions, but I hope some of the following points would be read and even considered.

1615:

information on the generals for the writing of other articles could be made. The might have beens and temporary appointments and militia generals were split into a different list. People use and read lists in a different way than they use and read articles; certainly, I do. I think most will not want to read it from top to bottom and would be more put off by having to look at different pages than to scroll down a list. Readers may peruse it or look for something (or someone) specific, not try to absorb it in detail. I think we answered the criticisms earlier through judicious reorganizations and pruning of much detail. After that was completed, those who had originally made these points were apparently satisfied, as they were not heard from further. Of course, anyone can do anything they want to the lists but I think they are fine and very useful as they are, and all in one place. And in fact, if the gridlines were removed, the total number of bytes would be reduced considerably. That would not be useful, however, because the formatting would be awful - at least without turning each entry into a small paragraph. That would be form over substance so I don't think it would really work.

1369:

brevet appointments. All of the many others received the appointments after the war, most many months or even a few years after the war, in recognition of service. Many of these individuals are erroneously described as "generals" without further explanation that their highest actual rank was colonel or even lower. The date of rank is grossly misleading with respect to all officers not actually appointed as brevet generals by President Lincoln because there was mass backdating of rank dates, often to the arbitrary date of March 13, 1865. Most of these appointments, even if announced some time in 1865 (I have not been able to find exact dates of earlier announcements but I know that any that were made were not made by President Lincoln) were not the subject of nomination and confirmation until some time in 1866 or even later, often after or just immediately before an officer was mustered out. The information in the list is necessary to correct errors or wrong impressions about these officers and the dates and significance of their brevet appointments and, since there are not articles about many of them, to give a bit of information about them.

331:

summary form, not always in full sentences. I plan to do the following: finish putting the dates of promotion, rank, confirmation in the column showing the general's grade. Complete putting birth and death dates and places in separate columns. Remove the information about this facts from the notes and further pare down the notes to some basic facts, using standard abbreviations where possible. I have been writing articles on the generals for whom there have been no articles so in the near future the notes will not be the sole source of the details concerning some generals. Ultimately, the notes will be cut to a few basic facts (where applicable) that are not shown in the other columns, such as West Point or college attendance, political office, etc. It will take some time to reorganize and reformat the presentation, check all the entries, abbreviate them and finally cut the information that appears to be extraneous to a good list. I hope readers and editors can be patient with the reorganization. I think it is better for the article to have much good information and to be cut back than to have it incomplete as it was for several years.

2500:. I still have not found any records saying that Hansell really was Adjutant-General or actively served as militia general during the war, only very few very recent books briefly meantion that he was without more information. There are countless cases of family lore and hearsay inflating or mixing up ranks, positions and services etc but records are needed. I am not in the U.S. and therefore don´t have access to the various files in the state libraries which you´d probably need to get more info as most state files are not available digitally, online and/or for free. In regards to the Official Records, until some time ago they were hosted online by the Cornell University and had a great intervolume search mode; however after transfer to Babel/Hathitrust that sadly is not anymore. So if you want to search online you can click on each of those volumes and search again within them though that is some work. Much easier, though likewise only useful if there are comparably few results like with Hansell (and most of them are about other Hansells), is the rough inter-volume search at the Ohio States University 1271:

obvious and would not require repetitive reference to keys. I actually would prefer not to use the abbreviations if the extra kbs in spelling out certain words would not result in deletion of more substance. Military rank abbreviations are accepted, even encourage on Knowledge (XXG). Other than those, I think USMA for United States Military Academy, VMI for Virginia Military Institute. Sem. War for Seminole Wars and Mex-Am War for Mexican-American War are not too hard to follow. Nom. for nomination and conf. for confirmation should be easy to follow. I don't object to and might even use KIA and a few similar military abbreviations also used in the Union general article. I have not yet converted all the spelled out words to abbreviations after the "F" section. I could go either way on the use or non-use of some or all abbreviations, especially if information is kept. I would welcome comment if my general approach to revisions is accepted as the way to proceed.

1630:

abbreviations is tidy and well organized and works well. They really don't need to be identically organized even though they give similar information. (I suppose I could reduce the bytes in the article by using abbreviations, as I once started to do, but I am not sure it would be a great improvement in terms of readability. That would shorten it; although it might also bring some criticism.) The one article that does need to be revised is the shortest of all, the introductory article. I have learned enough to know that some information could be added and some of the information in the article could be better organized; some could even be omitted. But that is a different project. Since I wrote almost all of that article, this is self-criticism - or maybe an effort at "continuous improvement", not criticism of anyone else. I do think it is satisfactory enough that it need not be a top priority.

1439:. I have changed the letter "A" section further in the draft and eliminated the birth, death and college columns. Anything of interest in those columns (not the information for every general) can be put in the notes column. I will change and reduce the notes column and remove the other three columns in the remaining sections. Even greater reductions will be found in the changes to be made in the sections starting with "G" because the notes column had not yet been revised at all starting with that section. I plan to eliminate the thumbnail photos, which also will reduce the total size of the article. Thanks for your patience in giving me time during this unusually busy personal time period to work on this. I will make interim changes and reductions in the article on this page as I get further along in the draft. 1393:

be added but a few entries might be reduced. Others have been adding to the notes so these perhaps can not be kept completely clear unless the column is eliminated or changed to cover only one or two specific additional items. I am also willing to remove the sections concerning full rank generals who received brevet appointments (or not, because the others are also listed) and to rework that information to shorten it. I thought it was better to make that information available, although not as completely edited as the first sections, than to hold it until I got around to whittling it down. In the meantime, IcarusPhoenix has added enough information to the Union general list that the temporary removal will not result in the complete disappearance of all such information on Knowledge (XXG).

1194:

lesser value. Admittedly I was doing that by trial and error but I think I had a good reason to do that because the article was already under way when I became interested in turning it into a complete list and resource. I tried to explain this but obviously I ran out of time using the unorthodox approach to developing the article. I would do it differently with a new article or a revised article that is not as lengthy, maybe even with this article. In any event, I have been trying to create a good resource, not just some crap. So at the risk of being boring or (ironically) too detailed, I will make my statement in some detail and hope to avoid further comment or at least any detailed further comment. I won't have much time for it in the next few weeks in any event.

1253:

specific source. All of the articles on the few dozen most prominent generals should be comprehensive. Many of the four hundred or so other articles are stubs or need some further information. Since we seem to have little interest in working on such articles (they are all on my watchlist), it will take some time to review and edit them all. Even if they are all made satisfactorily detailed, it would seem useful to have some hooks in the comprehensive list to draw readers' interest or to provide references to generals who fit certain categories. It would seem easier to find certain information in summary form in discrete entries in a list than to search about 500 articles.

1217:

or "navigated." Even if someone does "read" it, rather than peruse it, the person is likely interested in comparative information or detail on particular entries or categories or determining whether to look at a full article. Name and rank alone are not likely to serve that purpose. I think the substantive considerations concerning articles that are too long, as contrasted with the kbs used, are less likely to apply to lists. Also, since the lists are in alphabetical order, and these lists are in table grids, they are not difficult to navigate or follow. I submit this for thought, not to take back the acknowledgment of the length of the list.

1420:. I have made revisions to the section of generals with surnames starting with the letter "A" to show the direction I would go in making revisions to the article. I might consider deleting a few more notes. I think if the line breaks could be deleted without making the formatting look sloppy, that also would result in a considerable reduction in kbs. Unfortunately, I will have very little, if any, time to work on this for the next 12 days or so. After that, I expect to have about the same amount of time for Knowledge (XXG) reading, research, writing and editing that I have been spending on Knowledge (XXG) for the past 21 months. 2438: 1044:- which has five pages for just over 1,500 names - I have no real objections to doing much the same here, and splitting both this article and its sister list into two-three pages each. However, I also think that is something that should wait until after cutting out most of the trivial information and the unnecessary columns, and perhaps even on a decision of whether or not to retain photographs. That being said, my personal position is that if it comes down to a choice between retention of the photographs column and division of the article, I would rather keep the images and cleanly separate the article into several pages. 378:

from the notes. When that is done the notes will be considerably reduced as fast as reasonably possible. Good progress has been made in the last several weeks (February 3, 2012) so I expect to have a list with good information, brief entries and considerable reduction in size in the next few months. I have also been finishing the brief biography articles for those generals (or other high officers) in the list at the same time, which I think is also important, which will delay completion of the list project by a few weeks, at least. I think the end product for the list and the remaining biographies will be satisfactory.

335:

intended for reference and comparative purposes, not necessarily to be read from beginning to end, it should fall within the Knowledge (XXG):Article size category of a list that "may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method," especially because it does not contain statistical or technical material. However, I recognize that even if the length of the article can be justified in something like its current form (although, of course, it is in transition and not in a single, final form), it can be cut back and would be a better list in more abbreviated form.

1291:. They are also found in other sources cited in the reference. Some might find these interesting and even look at the article to see how the nickname came about. Others might find them boring and a waste of kilobytes. Since they are used by the Eichers and others, I don't see how they can be considered unencyclopedic. While I may have considered some comments in the text or notes as placeholders or information that could be eliminated when the article was "final," I offer them for what they are worth. Incomplete or missing reference to such topics can invite tags or premature comment. 836:: IcarusPhoenix's comments are border-line personal attacks, and he is resorting to polemic arguments in order to disqualify Binksternet's edit, rather than actually comment on the contrib. This behaviour needs to stop now. The history of the article is unimportant, and it doesn't matter if one editor or if one-hundred editors contributed towards it in the past, the fact remains that 472,000Kb+ of data is ridiculously long by any standards. This needs cutting back and managing, and Icarus is doing little more than standing in the way of making the article manageable, in a very 1559:"Volunteer Army"; the former is an historically-accurate term, and the latter is a political phrase to refer to the modern draft-free Army of the post-Nixon era. Similar things hold true throughout (United States Military Academy, not "West Point", Provisional Army of the Confederate States and Army of the Confederate States of America, not "Confederate Army" or "Confederate Volunteers", etc.). This (along with brevity) is why I favor a key of abbreviations at the beginning and a consistent style throughout rather than spelling-and-linking certain items repeatedly. 478:

recently saved page, the notes contain the maximum amount of information that I intend to put in the notes for small sketches of the officers' biographies. Starting with the next edits, the notes will be considerably reduced to major points of interest to make the length of the article more acceptable. Each full general and many of the others in the final three sections have pages in Knowledge (XXG) and the additional details can be found there. Also, this page can be found in the history if anyone wishes to look back at the full information that was on this page.

2213:

situations. A generic list of titles, or a sentence such as "John Jones achieved the rank of major," requires lowercase. The defense.gov example is irrelevant. It uses "Warrant officer" at the beginning of a sentence. It has simply chosen to use title case in tables, which Knowledge (XXG) (and most major publishers) does not do. Also, military and government sources often are very inconsistent in their typography and application of style standards, even violating their own standards (e.g., Navy style manual, U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual)!

1206:

accepted, have been made. I might even wish to see what his more drastic reductions might produce, but frankly, I think they could approach the reductions proposed by the mass deletions, which would be somewhat more than I propose. I would not reject the proposal out of hand, as I have done before, if mass deletion is the only alternative. I do think that having the information all on one page would be better for comparative analysis but I also think that keeping most of the information may be better than keeping only one page with mass deletions.

263: 845:(see the Example) should not be created. As such, I support removal of notes, also, and to make the page easier to browse. If college abbreviations work better, they should be used, with a clear Key. In-line citations shouldn't generally be removed, but if possible a short reference method should be applied to keep the word count low and to prevent repetitions of sources. Page breaks should be used when required, they are apart of styling, to aid readability, not just webpage layout. 1327:

On the other hand, I suppose the reference to a general born in France having been adopted by a Southerner as an explanation for how he became a Confederate general might be too insignificant a detail for a list. I might have eliminated that with one last pass through the notes - but it did have a purpose. It's not worth going on at length. There is a very incomplete article on the topic. Perhaps it would be most useful to add some information to that.

295: 279: 1885:

need to change it because the first words of all the list items are capitalized, as are the first words of sentences, so "Major" is capitalized, but not "general". The MoS clearly gives the cases where upper case is used, but it does not acknowledge being "essential" as qualifying for upper case. It gives no wiggle room, yet you are making up something that does not appear at all in the MoS. Please restore my edits.

1259:

main page should be reduced but that if someone wanted to see a longer and more detailed version, we could refer to the appropriate previous version. This is perhaps unconventional but I think would work in this case. I would rather do it in the context of the reductions I propose below, but making this reference in the article would make me more enthusiastic about cutting back (not eliminating) some of the notes.

1211:

acknowledged that it had developed to the point that it consumed too many kbs. I noted (not just on my talk page) that I was working on it in a considered way to produce a good resource of information while cutting the length. I have a few other ideas about cutting it. I may wish the article to contain more than others may wish to include, but I have realized that it should be cut and had begun to do that.

148: 22: 1229:

American Civil War generals' lists so my absence from the site or this discussion does not indicate a lack of interest. I have spent quite a lot of time on Knowledge (XXG) in the past 21 months but I have had a few periods of time when I could not. This is one of them. Again, I will have only short periods of time either to comment further or to edit over the next two or even three weeks.

1303:

to whom it applies. There is some duplication by noting the battle in which the fatal wound was received already which could be eliminated. Places of burial are given twice in the Eicher book, in the individual entries and in a separate section. Even if this is of some interest to some people, I think elimination of this information from the list would not diminish it much.

220: 209: 198: 187: 1235:

is the one type of information that is in the main articles on the generals. I would prefer that the kbs be used on information and not on the pictures which are (or can be) in the main articles. I agree with IcarusPhoenix that the photos are an all or nothing proposition because use of some photos makes the formatting uneven and would tempt editors to add photos back.

531:

to place the indexing links inside the tables, I might support the idea. However, speaking as an editor, I have to say I'd probably still be against it. These are already very large jobs that we're having to work with when we edit one section at a time, and trying to make small edits with the whole thing present at once every time would be prohibitively cumbersome.

632: 88: 1140:

unreasonable load-times from the page? While I am certainly in favor of retaining the images because while they may or may not contribute to load time issues, they do give the article a somewhat more professional appearance and don't actually cause any issues with organization or readability. That being said, I am definitely against only having

53: 1357:

briefly taken an active role in the war, but who were not regularly appointed and confirmed and commissioned Confederate general officers. They are notable and should receive some recognition. Also, some people might look for these names and try to add them to the article despite their dubious actual status, if they remained unmentioned.

359:

already done with some sections of names starting with letters such as "A" and "W". Corresponding information on promotion dates will be removed from the notes column. Then, the notes column entries will be shortened by abbreviation and deletion of some information because the article on the general can be consulted for full details.

1372:

brigadier generals who received brevet general appointments. The information could be reworked off line to shorten the entries and to provide information not fully given in the Union general list. IcarusPhoenix has covered much of this information so temporary removal would not be as much of a loss as other removals of information.

176: 2548:)! (And, after edit conflict, thanks for further info in your reply; it does seem he was a militia colonel i guess, while referred to as "general". I was finding the Cornell / Hathitrust interface to be okay but will try the Ohio State University one too, in additional searching for the article.) Thanks!!!-- 1392:

The brevet general list has basic information that needs to remain. Many of the officers have no articles and are not likely to have them. Moreover, much misinformation about these officers can be corrected through this list. There are no photos. A few notes on dates, Lincoln appointments may need to

1326:

BROTHER V. BROTHER; RELATIONSHIPS: Some relatives fought for opposite sides; some fought for the same side. These relationships are often commented on in reference to this, and other, civil wars. I did not even list all of the relationships, just many of the ones that seemed most direct or pertinent.

1216:

TOO LONG TAG; LISTS. The template for the "too long" tag appears to have been developed for use on long, or perhaps long and complicated or multi-faceted, articles. Lists generally are in alphabetical order and have discrete entries. They are not necessarily read, or meant to be read, from end to end

870:

Er, whether personal or not, they were actually directed not at Binksternet but at Brightgalrs (I think Binksternet and I were commenting simultaneously, which is how my comment appears to be a response to the wrong person). I'm neither claiming ownership nor trying to block progress in condensing a

494:

Update. I will be traveling and busy with real life tasks for most of the time between March 24 and April 17. I will be "off line" for much of that time so I will not be editing or contributing much during that period. I will not be able to respond to comments, questions or communications or check my

471:

Update: After a final proof reading review and copy edits to create reasonably comprehensive notes for a page that will be in the article history, the notes will be considerably reduced as fast as reasonably possible. The last review of and additions to the notes has been completed and the last proof

421:

Update: Colleges, including USMA, have been moved to a separate column so the information can be found quickly. After a final review and edit to create reasonably comprehensive notes for a page that will be in the article history, the notes will be considerably reduced as fast as reasonably possible.

342:

Of course, I wish I could have seen what a good final version of the list might have been at the outset of my work on it because I probably could have worked more efficiently on it and would have finished it by now. Nonetheless, I do think that it is a better page now than it once was and that a good

2460:

article that a state's Adjutant General is an important position, us. the top military person in the state besides the Governor, akin to Secretary of Defense being second in command only to the President. And for Texas so likely also for Georgia, the person would be cooperating with the Confederate

2421:

Hansell did not serve as a Confederate States Army general. If he served as Adjutant-General of Georgia then he, with general rank or not, would be in the militia or the states's volunteer forces, not in Confederate service. However I think Henry C. Wayne did that job for most of the war. Hansell is

1644:

The one thing I would be willing to do to reduce the length and number of bytes is to remove the names in the last three sections and simply refer to the fact that "generals" in those three categories are on the other list. I think it makes the list a little less useful to someone who is looking for

1554:

I have to agree that the all caps fates are unnecessary, and I further think that the academically-accepted "KIA" and "DOW" would be perfectly acceptable; I do have to disagree with spelling out certain things that have widely-accepted abbreviations; however, if that is the route taken, make sure to

1356:

LAST THREE SECTIONS: The last three sections of officers are not unimportant but could be reduced to names and very brief notes. They include individuals who have often been identified as generals or who would have been generals if the process were completed or who were militia generals who may have

1320:

PRIOR REGULAR ARMY SERVICE, RESIGNATION: Reference is often made to the officers who resigned from the regular army and entered Confederate soldier. This entry identifies the individual officers who defected to the Confederacy. It again adds general officers with military experience to the number of

1308:

COLLEGES; PREVIOUS MILITARY TRAINING: Many Civil War generals were trained soldiers, not politicians or amateurs. Reference to those who attended West Point, VMI, the Citadel (predecessor) and a few other military schools shows this, by individual, not just in an aggregate sentence. While alumni of

1302:

DEATH DATES AND PLACES; DEATHS DURING WAR: This column obviously is needed to determine the ages at time of death. About 20% of Confederate generals died during the war, most from wounds. The deaths during the war and those with the most notable life spans could be in a note entry for those generals

1090:

describing "the lives and military careers of Nathan B. Forrest, William J. Hardee, Ambrose P. Hill, John B. Hood, Stonewall Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, George Pickett, and Jeb Stuart", giving us at least ten top generals who would keep their photos. I suggest going

530:

I actually tried a test of that method once back when both armies were on one page; it was far too unwieldy, because you can't index within a table; thus if someone wants to jump to a specific officer, they can't, whereas clicking the appropriate letter essentially gets them there. Were it possible

400:

The dates of rank, nomination and confirmation for all the generals' grades have been added in the column showing the grades. The corresponding information that was in the notes has been removed. I have decided to put the colleges, including West Point, from which the generals graduate or which they

358:

Update on article progress: I have completed moving the dates and places of birth and death, and burial if different, to separate columns. It now is easier to spot this information quickly. The next step will be to complete the dates of rank, nomination, confirmation in the grade or rank column - as

334:

I do intend to reduce the length of the article by trimming the notes considerably. I think the reorganization will also help. I might add that the placement of a "too long" tag on the article while understandable, is not necessary because it is not being ignored. Also, since this is a list which is

1503:

I actually rather like this version - at least for the Confederate page - for one simple reason; eight is actually an historically-perfect number, because it allows us to avoid arguments over notability and simply use the eight men who had permanent or temporary grades of full General; Cooper, A.S.

1395:

If consensus can not be reached on the approach, I would prefer to have the matter decided by the military history or military biography groups or more neutral administrators - or perhaps to let someone from the majority complete the project. Thanks to all who may read and thoughtfully consider the

1383:

SPLITTING THE ARTICLE: I noticed this and IcarusPhoenix's reply just before posting this note. I address this as a possibility, but after other proposals are drafted and reviewed, in the paragraph before the paragraphs with topic headings. I note it here as a possible compromise or second choice so

1371:

A few entries in the notes sections for the first few letters of the alphabet and for could be removed but some date information needs to be added. I would be willing to remove the entire sections on actual rank generals that received brevet appointments before their promotions to full rank or were

1338:

RANKS BEFORE GENERAL OFFICER APPOINTMENT: Many generals were appointed general officers late in the war. To place them in the proper rank at the dates of certain battles and to see their development, an entry for their previous units and ranks completes the time line of their commissions at various

1332:

POLITICAL GENERALS; PRIOR PUBLIC OFFICE: Political offices held by officers before the war are not just as a matter of biography. Much has been written about "political" generals who owed their commissions solely to their political or societal prominence, not to any military experience, training or

1240:

TABLE GRID LINES. The table format uses quite a few kbs. Unlike building kbs through more words, the format makes the entries easier to read and navigate, not more difficult. Some columns could be removed, although I would like to preserve some information in the notes as I further explain. The net

1234:

THUMBNAIL PHOTOS. Although I may be alone, or nearly so, among the editors who have worked on these articles, I see no need for the thumbnail photos. Many were in the list articles when I started working on them. Others have been added. So I have not deleted them or pressed for their deletion. This

1002:

eliminated the full-bio notes still visible in letters after "F"; the second is my proposal for revision, maintaining the notes column with only relevant information and eliminating three intervening columns. Also, I'm not really satisfied with the ranks column; I am of the opinion that nomination

551:

Please do not split this article. It will greatly diminish its usefulness by making it more difficult to do comparisons or to find the ranks or other basic information for several generals for articles or other purposes. As I noted above, my plan is to complete a comprehensive set of notes, then to

2495:

Well, the Adjutant-Generals of the states were appointed by the states in their militias and not the Confederacy, and therefore are a completely different set. Also they wouldn´t necessarily be generals as they could hold the position of Adjutant-General e.g. with the rank of Colonel (states very

1778:

Most likely not. He served as Lieutenant, and probably Captain, in Company F of the 1st (Strawbridge's) Louisiana Infantry. There also was a Sergeant R.V. Manston in Bradford's Battalion. After the war honorary or simply incorrect titles were often transmitted from one author to another and left a

1677:

hasn't bothered to reply and there is no further support for the particular dead horse being beaten here, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags. The user's edit history consists almost entirely of dropping into articles with which he/she has no previous contribution history, adding these tags

1599:

I can make only one suggestion, and I'm sure it's the exact same one most of my colleagues who have put a great deal of work into this article and its companions will make; go back and look at previous diffs and actually read the conversation above, at which point you'll realize that consensus was

1389:

PROPOSAL: For the Confederate generals list, to eliminate kbs, I would eliminate the thumbnail photo column and all the photos as well as the columns on birth, death and college. I would add bullet points to the notes on deaths during the war (date, aged, location), officers born in the north and

1368:

BREVET UNION GENERAL LIST: The first section of this list contains the names of the officers who received brevet general appointments. Only about 59 of these were appointed by President Lincoln. A few of these were posthumous appointments in recognition of service. Some exercised command under the

1296:

BIRTH DATES AND PLACES: This is the first of three columns that could be eliminated, especially if some information on some generals were transferred to a note point, keeping some pertinent information but saving many kbs. Were any Confederate generals born in the north? Why did they fight for the

1270:

ABBREVIATIONS. I almost never use abbreviations except U.S. or occasionally U.S.A. since this is generally discourage and is often confusing. I even have changed abbreviations to full words in some articles. I started using some abbreviations in this article to save kbs. I think most of these are

1258:

ACCESS IN ARTICLE HISTORY. I was interested to see the comment that the additional notes could be accessed in the article history. I had proposed that and may have noted somewhere in the current draft that my "maximum" draft could be found in the article history. I realized that the article on the

1222:

RUSH; PAGE VIEWS. The article has been viewed about 9,500 more times (33,455 total) in the past 90 days than in the first three months of last year when it was shorter. Fewer than 10 people have commented on the length, most of them just recently. I suspect few, if any, would have commented if the

1205:

After writing this off line, I now note the proposal to possibly split the article and IcarusPhoenix's reply to it. I will say up front that I agree with his response. I would rather see what the length of the articles might be after the proposed reductions and revisions that I propose to make, if

1201:

After commenting on each substantive point, I will end with a proposal as to how I would progress the article to reduce the length of the article. If the consensus is against that, or is in favor of mass deletions without taking time to save some of the material of interest, we will have to decide

1189:

I think the Union generals list is fine, although I suggest that the thumbnail photos are not needed and brevet generals who did not achieve full general officer rank could be left to the brevet general list. This list had not been put on line when information on some of the more notable of these

1144:

of the pictures based on tenuous "notability" standards; if we end up deciding that the page load is to large and we need to eliminate photos, we should eliminate the whole column. Just having a few at random makes things look sloppy and uneven, and frankly encourages future editors to track down

438:

Update: The last review of and additions to the notes have been completed through part of the list of R surnames so progress has been made toward the version that will be saved in the history but substantially reduced on the main page after I delete much from the notes section. I am finishing this

377:

Birth and death date and place columns are complete. Another too long tag has been placed on the article, perhaps automatically and without reading the introduction or the talk page. In any event, the dates connected with the various grades of general are being added in the rank column and removed

1884:

The MoS is crystal clear, yet you don't seem to know what "generic use" means. In its context, it means any use where the rank is not part of a person's name, that is, when it is not a part of a proper name. Note that Robert E. Lee's entry has "Major general and commander in chief ..."; I did not

1264:

GENERAL OFFICER RANKS. I think the most important information may be the details concerning the grades or ranks the general officers held and when they were appointed to those ranks. What rank a general held during a certain battle or at a certain time may be important to authors, researchers and

1197:

The notes proved to be overdone and other items could be trimmed. Especially with the formatting, and the number of entries, it is difficult if not impossible to complete the article and to see what it would look like in a word processing document. I have such a document, of course, but it is the

1193:

Since I have spent considerable time on the project and such words as "ridiculous" and "crap" have been used to describe it, I hope you will indulge some explanation and defense of the work. Also, this may give some food for thought on what should be or might be profitably retained and what is of

1039:

This has been discussed in the past, and generally has been dismissed - usually out-of-hand - by most participants in the discussion, myself included. Our feelings at the time were that we had already split the article once (all of the generals of both armies were in a single article until about

901:

Binks.. Bright.. whoever it may be, your comments are bullish, and accusational. Suggest you tone down the "vandal" remarks, completely because such claims are utter bullshit, and childish retorts. Vandals destroy content for the fun and sheer hell of it, the contribs in dispute here were done in

840:

fashion, and is not considering the overall slow-loading, over-bearing effect the content has. I agree with Binks that the notes column is too biographical, and does not improve the value of the article with comparative data, which tables generally aim to achieve. I see no way of making the notes

587:

As a casual visitor to this page, I feel that the potted biographical summaries are of no use. They are crammed towards to right, too concisely written to comfortably read, and duplicate information given in the main article on each figure. It would be better for the list if these were removed or

1246:

BIOGRAPHY, NOT JUST ACW. While many of the generals certainly are most interesting because of their American Civil War contributions, or in some cases their lack thereof, some have interesting accomplishments that are worthy of note, may pique interest of viewers of the list or be of comparative

1210:

TOO LONG. I have worked the most on this article in the past two years. (This does not imply ownership but it does imply familiarity with the subject and how the article has developed.) Before the length of the article became an issue rather than just a point of discussion between a few of us, I

1106:

My objection to that is that it feels rather arbitrary. Neither of the above works is a particularly academic work (in comparison to those works already used as references on this piece), and notability is a pretty subjective. That being said, if it still seems to big after a major paring-down

972:

too large, and I suggested to Donner60 some time ago that he was adding far too much; on the dispute resolution board for this subject, I've made the following suggestion: the notes column should be brought in line with the much-more limited and topically-relevant style set in the sister article

477:

Update. I have completed the full version of the notes and a proof reading. I hope that all typos have been fixed but with a page this long and in this format, I suppose I could have missed a few. As noted on the main page and above, as of the date and time (March 10, 2012; 9:14 UTC) of the most

1297:

South? Who were the oldest and youngest? Who were the longest and shortest lived after the war? This column is part of the information that answers those questions, specifically as well as generally, if someone wishes more information on the specific individuals, they know which ones to look at.

1228:

MY AVAILABILITY. I thank the commenter who checked my user page and noted I would either be unavailable and "off line" entirely (which I have been from March 23 until today) or will have very limited time to devote to Knowledge (XXG) until about April 17. I have spent quite a lot of time on the

1614:

We reduced the size of this list by at least 40 per cent and reorganized it. Splitting it would make comparisons and cross-references difficult. The intent was to place some information on each general all in one place. Some comparative study, or just reading, could be made and source of basic

1362:

PURPOSES: I have been trying to create a list with details that would interest people to click through to the main articles, to note interesting facts about certain generals, to show when they fit in certain categories and to provide dates about ranks and service dates that would be helpful to

1344:

POST-WAR POLITICAL OFFICE: I think it is of some interest and notability that many of the "Rebels" were reconstructed enough to hold state and federal positions, even elective office. A brief additional reference to these positions where applicable seems interesting and perhaps shows that some

1252:

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION IN ARTICLES. I recently finished the last of 34 articles on the Confederate generals not covered by articles. These should have all the information in the notes (or any omissions can be quickly remedied. I used the same seven or eight sources plus an occasional more

330:

This article is still a work in progress and I am working on this steadily while still spending some time editing or creating other articles, mainly on the generals who lack articles. All, or at least most, of the basic information for each general on the list is now included in the article in

2212:

has mis-applied "When an unhyphenated compound title. . . ": That first clause is the key: WHEN the title is capitalized. You have to analyze first whether the title should be capitalized in the first place. That very section explains clearly that the titles are only capitalized in the listed

1139:

I actually hadn't realized that the full load was that large. Personally, I've never had an issue with load-time for the page on any of several operating systems, browsers, devices, or networks on which I've viewed the page, but that's just my experience. Have other people had problems with

338:

Two steps would cut the number of kilobytes considerably: Remove the thumbnail pictures and move the last three sections out to a sub-page. I do not think either step will really be necessary when all of the editing is finished, but I would rather see those changes than to have the most basic

1629:

I probably could have removed quite a few bytes by using the abbreviations that I started to use but I took most of them out as I tended to agree with one commenter that full words were easier to follow when someone was looking at a few entries. That being said, I think the list that has the

1058:

I have just posted a long comment below with proposals for revisions at the end. These are also mentioned in the introduction. I have noted that I agree in general with IcarusPhoenix's response that a reduction in the size of the article should be attempted, although my reductions would be

401:

attended in a separate column. When that is completed, I will reduce the notes as much as possible, keeping such information as Mexican-American War veteran, ranks before general officer promotion, whether killed in action, any high political offices held and a few other categories.

2526:(ec) UPDATE: Actually, searching on "A.J. Hansell" with quote marks rather than searching on just 'Hansell' yields all or some of the info you cited, and searching on "Andrew Jackson Hansell" yields info about one or two later-born persons, one perhaps a general, but also yields 1314:

PRIOR WARS; PREVIOUS MILITARY SERVICE: All Seminole War and Mexican-American War officers and veterans were not graduates of military schools and all did not remain in the U.S. Army after the war. Reference to this service adds more individuals to the list of those with military

871:

cumbersome article; indeed, had Brightgalrs bothered to look at the edit history and long-standing discussions between several editors, he/she would have noticed that I'm the one who objected to the notes being so overly-inclusive and redundant in the first place... which is why

2461:

Army to deliver requisitioned troops, etc. So it seems reasonable that Hansell, if he was that, would not separately/also be a Confederate Army general, while he would have worked with the Confederate Army and while family/others could well have not appreciated the distinction.

841:

more concise, given their unique content per row. I also very much doubt that any reader is ever going to read all these notes, nor search them, not use them in any fashion. The format of the notes appears to amount to little more than trivial scraps in some cases, which, per

743:

There was and is absolutely no need to retain the 300k notes information in the 'live' article as it can always be accessed for whatever reason in the article history. That mass of data was greatly limiting access to the article. Consider the reader with poor internet access!

1377:

THANKS TO ICARUSPHOENIX: Thanks to IcarusPhoenix for his contributions including creation of much material and information, his thoughts on saving space and on formatting and for noting my approach, unorthodox as it may have been, to producing an informative but manageable

1350:

OTHER DETAILS: While I may have kept a few details I thought were interesting in the A to F sections, I would probably eliminate these in limitation of the categories of notes. That might leave a few more entries than IcarusPhoenix would use, but fewer than are currently

977:(which is exactly what was being done, though still not anywhere near as aggressively that I for one felt it should), and that the topically-irrelevant "Date, Place of Birth", "Date, Place of Death", and especially-unnecessary "College" columns should all be eliminated. 1190:

officers was added to the Union general list. It seems not to be the subject of much, if any, controversy here but if the debate includes that article, those are my suggestions. The basic information about the substantive Union generals would not be touched at all.

1943: 783:

that they were overly cumbersome and redundant. Without bothering to discuss the matter at all, however, you came along and deleted 300,000 characters of several people's hard work and changed the very nature of the article to suit your personal desires, not the

495:

watchlist except on some of the April days. This will mean that it will take me longer to finish the work I am doing on the Confederate generals list and Brevet Union generals list but I will get back to them and finish them as soon as I can after mid-April.

1363:

researchers and those interested in placing the generals in their proper grades as of certain dates and battles. A mere list of names is little more informative or useful than the category list of articles, except the casual reader might find it more easily.

1793:

He was a Prussian officer. I do not believe he would join some militia. If he was Captain i can imagine how some wrong translation can make him General. NTL is good to have a second opinion, i will fix that in the de:wikipedia, can you give me a source for

270: 63: 1198:

record of the work and the information, not its base. It also can not be done in a sandbox because categories and other information leak over into the main pages and I know of no way to keep a draft for a long time without this possible disruption.

2468:, and that there are links there where searching can be done. Offhand, to find the references you found and to look for more about A.J. Hansell for an article on him, is it proper/best for me to chase down "Hansell" within each of 31 hits found by 286: 67: 883:, where the notes have very specific standards. I strongly suggest everyone take a few seconds to scroll up this very page to see Donner60's explanation of just that work, work which Brightgalrs has damaged without once bothering to seek 1848:, ranks are not capitalized except "When followed by a person's name to form a title", such as "General Longstreet". The guideline is absolutely clear. When listing a series of ranks a person has held, capitalization is unwarranted. 1241:

reduction in the kbs would be substantial. Of course, if almost all of the information is to be deleted and perhaps only the first two columns kept, the table grid might even be removed and even more kbs saved. I don't endorse this.

1185:

I start a new subsection to respond as completely as I can to various points scattered throughout the previous comments. I refer mainly to the Confederate generals list but also will comment on the brevet Union generals list.

1107:

edit, I would be open to the idea. However, the edit I'm proposing would lead to an article of about 125,000-140,000 bytes, taking it from the largest article on Knowledge (XXG) (seriously, I didn't realize that it had gotten

2012:

argument usually comes with evidence; not this time. But I'll grant you that there is still a ton of over-capitalization in WP, in spite of the efforts of all the gnomes. I fixed a hundred instances yesterday, for example.

302: 71: 1059:

substantial though not quite as draconian as proposed by others, even IcarusPnoenix, at least to start. Then, splitting the article, although it has some drawbacks, might be the better of the remaining alternatives.

1869:

I think the MOS is not clear on that. The MOS speaks about generic use; this isn´t generic use of the ranks within a normal text structure but instead they are the essential part within this bullet-point list. ...

472:

reading and minor corrections through the letter G has been completed (March 9, 2012). The reduction of the size of the article should be accomplished soon after this last step is completed over the next few days.

1919:

It's not clear how you think "they are the essential part within this bullet-point list" makes them not "generic" in the sense that the MOS describes; the non-generic there means attached to a name, as a title.

1714: 716:

No article of this nature should be hosting 300kb of extra notes that can be found at the individual articles, or taken to those articles if they are not yet written. Who reading this list needs to know that

422:

The last review of the notes has been partially completed (February 29, 2012) and the reduction of the size of the article should be accomplished within the next three to ten days, depending on my schedule.

2480:

but maybe that is only a search within titles or is otherwise specialized? Any tips searching in Southern Historical Society papers too would be appreciated. Either way, thank you for your help already!

817:. If you can come to an agreement before the protection expires, I will be happy to lift it. If, on the other hand, you resume edit-warring after the protection expires, blocks may be issued as necessary. 1081:

In the interest of reducing the page load, I suggest removing all images except those belonging to the most important or influential generals. Author George Cantor published a book discussing the top 20:

1584:- I am going to place "Split-Apart" and "Toolong" tags on the article until the article is shortened or until consensus is reached that shortening the article is not desirable. Thoughts? Suggestions?-- 1276:

UNENCYCLOPEDIC NICKNAMES, ETC.: The nicknames were all taken from the entries in the massive and encyclopedic reference that is a favorite of many Civil War authors and editors, Eicher, John H., and

1678:

seemingly at random, and then never returning to the conversation (with the exception of one nasty edit war), so I'm just going to go with preexisting consensus that we've created a useful article.

1600:

reached on the length of these five companion articles eight months ago, which is when the current pared-down version of this article dates from; as such, the toolong tag is officially superfluous.

455:

Update: Completed additions except any needed to notes for the W surnames and some notes for five of the officers appointed by E. Kirby Smith and some or all of the militia general (March 6, 2012).

932:

As far as I'm concerned, the clean version is much better. Concur that there's no need to duplicate data that can be found in individual articles about the generals. Marcus has good points as well.

1333:

qualification. Identification of who they were may be of interest. (Every political general was not necessarily incompetent. Union general "Black Jack" Logan is usually considered a good general.)

2584: 1435:

I am sorry that I have been time constrained over the past few weeks. Unfortunately, that is going to carry over for about another week. I will be working on some modifications on the article at

2594: 2579: 2537:

The title of "General" which clung to him through life was acquired by him as a member of the staff of Gov. Joseph E. Brown, the war General of Georgia, when he commanded the state militia.

2364: 2589: 1457:

I will appreciate the intended removal of all the images. Perhaps four or nine or sixteen images can be made into a mosaic at the upper right of the article, the usual place for an image.

591:

Also, the first and third paragraphs of the introduction are totally unencyclopedic. Articles should never talk about themselves, except in hatnotes. These paragraphs should be deleted. —

998:(note: it's not perfect, but just a rapid demonstration... there are a couple of factual tidbits I'm uncertain about the accuracy of). The first version is it's current appearance after 2497: 1040:

eighteen months back or so when I split the article), so I think we were then generally loath to do so further. However, with the excellent quality of the similarly-arranged article

2406:), being a Confederate general as well as being Adjutant-General of the state of Georgia. He's not in this list-article. Can it be confirmed or not whether he was a general? -- 2465: 1041: 1021: 2116:: You are both spot-on here. This should not even be controversial. I applaud you for stemming the tide of over-capitalization! Perhaps you could lend me some support over at 161: 138: 100: 1020:

Has anyone considered the possibility that the number of Confederate generals is simply too large to handle in one list? One option is to split the list alphabetically, like

950:: I'd agree with MarcusBritish's comments above that the article needs cutting back and managing. I'm not a purist on these matters, but the 472K version is far too long. 2237: 2295: 2291: 2277: 1125:

Each thumbnail image is a load of about 162 kb. There are some 237 images, so the total image load is about 38,000 kb, or 38 Mb. Did you want to have a 38 meg article?

515:

Grouping these generals by letter means I can't really sort it; for example, by rank. I think to be useful it should be one large table, awkward at that might seem.

2174:

So, back to this page and speaking specifically about those ranks in the column "Rank": I´ve changed them all back so both compound word parts are capitalized. As per

813:- the page has been restored to the most recent stable version and protected for a period of one week. Please discuss these changes here on the talk page, rather than 788:

of the whole. In short, the previous revision was a work-in-progress agreed to by several editors with dozens of hours invested into the integrity of these articles;

147: 2604: 704:

Abbreviations are used in the notes and college sections. So if you would like to know what one means you would need to constantly scroll up/down to figure it out.

2599: 1309:

other colleges might disagree, I suppose the references to other colleges could be eliminated although they show that many officers were educated individuals.

906:, whether you like it or not, I suggest you learn to accept it, or it is you who shall be cast in bad light for your harsh response to their edits, not them. 2391: 2574: 974: 880: 128: 1699:, I add the tags, explain my rationale, then allow comment. I have responded where appropriate, and refrained from splitting where that is appropriate.-- 2527: 95: 58: 2041:

Right, I saw that. Still funny that you claim "you´ll find that your clearly is clearly wrong", with not even evidence or example of what you mean.

2180:

When an unhyphenated compound title ... is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter

1528:

Some of those abbreviations should just be spelled out (U.S.A. = U.S. Army), especially ones that are only used once or twice in the whole article.

683:

Abbreviations that were used in the college section were replaced in full (USMA=United States Military Academy, VMI=Virginia Military Institute)

675:

Notes Section totally deleted, information of that nature shouldn't be listed in a list, but can be found in each general's respective article.

2496:

much differed in their militia organisations). Meanwhile militia generals are listed at the end of the list but with more details in the list

1645:

a particular officer who they think may be a Confederate general, but not so much so that it could not be a partial solution and compromise.

104: 2120:, where another user (The wolfchild) thinks he can revert my edits without even presenting a counterargument or analysis and application of 1905:

The only thing that`s crystal clear is that our definition of generic use differs ... which is quite ironic if we consider the materia. ...

2357: 1813: 1504:

Johnston, Lee, Beaugregard, J.E. Johnston, Bragg, Kirby Smith, and Hood. I'll try to put one together this evening to see how it looks.

1659:

In the 8 months since the changes in the lists were made, this page has been viewed 82,838 times without apparent problem or complaint.

2253: 1713:

Fair enough, and I do owe you a bit of an apology, for despite my implication above, I've since looked more closely at the edit war on

2437: 599: 2273:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1288: 1384:

it does not seem to be overlooked, with a little more detailed comment above. I add a brief reply where the comment is made above.

792:' version is an amateur hack-job with no consideration for previous work, other editors, or the integrity of the article itself. 33: 2422:

hardly in any records I can find, the only mention in the ORs are for 1864 as Colonel and aide-de-camp to Governor Brown. ...

1436: 1417: 2263: 339:

information in the lists removed and only accessible through comparison of the individual articles on all of the generals.

2469: 780: 593: 2009: 2372: 2338: 1763:: Note: i have no deeper interests here or more information, i am only curious to know: was he actually a general ? -- 2557: 2513: 2490: 2473: 2431: 2415: 2376: 2343: 2222: 2203: 2166: 2148: 2133: 2078: 2064: 2050: 2036: 2022: 2003: 1989: 1987: 1969: 1955: 1929: 1914: 1900: 1898: 1879: 1863: 1861: 1825: 1807: 1788: 1772: 1726: 1708: 1696: 1687: 1668: 1654: 1639: 1624: 1609: 1593: 1568: 1547: 1513: 1498: 1484: 1466: 1448: 1429: 1405: 1168: 1154: 1134: 1120: 1100: 1068: 1053: 1033: 1012: 986: 959: 941: 922: 896: 861: 826: 801: 753: 734: 651: 625: 606: 576: 561: 540: 524: 504: 487: 464: 448: 431: 410: 387: 368: 352: 1489:

In the same vein, images of eight generals could be chosen to surround a Confederate flag to make a mosaic of nine.

995: 937: 1086:. This could be the guideline for which photos to keep. Similarly, Carl R. Green and William R. Sanford published 779:

work above and the article history, you would see that the work was already being done, as most of us agreed with

2294:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1003:

dates are unnecessary and that only confirmation dates (in parentheses) are necessary to indicate seniority.

439:

just a little slower than anticipated and hope to finish in the next week unless real life intrudes too much.

39: 2403: 2368: 2329: 2245: 1722: 1683: 1605: 1564: 1509: 1150: 1116: 1049: 1008: 982: 892: 797: 536: 99:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 665:

and I are in a sort of edit war over the following two revisions, so a third opinion would be appreciated.

2509: 2457: 2442: 2427: 2199: 2100: 2060: 2032: 1999: 1975: 1965: 1910: 1886: 1875: 1849: 1821: 1784: 262: 1761: 884: 785: 2313:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2301: 1545: 1494: 1462: 1164: 1130: 1096: 933: 749: 730: 721:

was the adopted son of a Virginia doctor? Ridiculously detailed; this should be a textbook case of what

649: 623: 2244:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2055:

Well, the fact that we´re talking about it is evidence that it´s apparently not so clear, isn´t it? ...

1753: 1181:

Explanations, detailed comments on various points raised, proposals for revisions, possible splitting

1091:

with 10 or 20 photos using either of these books as a guideline, or settling on a number in between.

2254:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080220100734/http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/jankej/civilwar/generals.htm

1960:

If you look through a number of wikipedia lists you´ll find that your clearly is clearly wrong. ...

1942:

It's not wikipedia style to cap things that don't need caps, and these clearly don't. Look at some

1029: 822: 2395: 842: 2399: 2144: 2074: 2046: 2018: 1951: 1925: 1718: 1704: 1679: 1664: 1650: 1635: 1620: 1601: 1589: 1560: 1505: 1480: 1444: 1425: 1401: 1146: 1112: 1064: 1045: 1004: 978: 955: 908: 888: 847: 793: 762: 718: 662: 572: 557: 532: 520: 500: 483: 460: 444: 427: 406: 383: 364: 348: 2298:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1799: 1764: 700:

Notes section which is very cumbersome, not well organized, and very hard to navigate is present

2314: 2027:

He didn´t ask for evidence, he specifically asked so that he can change them. Not my issue. ...

2553: 2545: 2505: 2486: 2453: 2423: 2411: 2209: 2195: 2056: 2028: 1995: 1961: 1906: 1871: 1817: 1780: 1285: 1974:

If you specify what those other lists are, I'll clean them up, too, after I finish this one.

2257: 1535: 1490: 1458: 1160: 1126: 1092: 789: 745: 726: 639: 613: 2321: 1994:

Funny. As you´re able to change that one you´ll for sure be able to find them yourself. ...

903: 837: 2218: 2162: 2129: 1803: 1768: 1277: 2264:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080306061229/http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpcongen.html

814: 2501: 2353:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

2280:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1025: 818: 2320:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2287: 2117: 294: 2568: 2154: 2140: 2113: 2070: 2042: 2014: 1947: 1921: 1845: 1700: 1674: 1660: 1646: 1631: 1616: 1585: 1531:

I don't think putting their fate (mortally wounded, killed) in all caps is necessary.

1476: 1440: 1421: 1397: 1060: 999: 951: 872: 776: 568: 553: 516: 496: 479: 456: 440: 423: 402: 379: 360: 344: 1534:

Wikifying some of those towns and battles while your in there might be a good idea.

2549: 2482: 2407: 2191: 2182:. Those ranks are unhyphenated (unlike the British variant), compount titles (e.g. 1841: 1695:- Agree with removing the "toolong" and "split-apart" tags. Per the discussion on 2544:

That's exactly what I needed, and along the lines you suggested, so, thanks again

1750: 994:: I have rapidly sandboxed the "A" section of the list to demonstrate my proposal 278: 2267: 2477: 2387: 2194:, too, which should make it clear. Therefore back to before as it should be. ... 2286:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2214: 2158: 2125: 689:

Removed most breaks except in the rank column, where they are actually needed

2386:

There are numerous references from family-related sources and sources about

2139:

That issue seems to be a year old. Let me know if he bothers you again.

879:

paring them down to bring the article into line with it's sister article,

2175: 2121: 1717:

and have to say that it doesn't look like you're really at fault there.

1345:

individuals may have benefited from Confederate service in the long run.

567:

Update: For updates on progess, see first section on plan for article.

1946:

to see how phrases such as "resigned as captain" are typically done.

1779:

real mess. Of course, militia would be a completely other thing ...

765:

would like to give his impression on the two revisions he can here:

1796:

Captain, in Company F of the 1st (Strawbridge's) Louisiana Infantry

680:

Removed abbreviations because they were used in the 'notes' section

588:

trimmed to a bare-bones list of each general's major achievements.

87: 52: 2436: 1525:

The in-line references should be placed in the references section.

2472:? Searching advice would be appreciated. Also I see there are 2349:

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

638:

Task complete: notes section terminated with extreme prejudice.

1760:

when he settled in the US but i found only one vague hint here:

1555:

maintain accuracy - for example, it's "U.S. Volunteers" (USV),

1111:

out of hand) to not even qualifying for the top 1,000 longest.

612:

I agree, I've started removing the notes section all together.

1715:

2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round

15: 2118:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Unified_Combatant_Command#Caps

293: 277: 261: 146: 1159:

Good point about future editors trying to add photos back.

686:

Moved references from inline citation to the bottom section

2248:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2190:), and not part of a sentence. And of course the military 1812:

He is list as such by the NPS Soldiers and Sailors System

2258:

http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/jankej/civilwar/generals.htm

326:

Plan for, progress of article; reorganization, shortening

2498:

List of American Civil War generals (Acting Confederate)

887:

as we have always done in the past with these articles.

775:

opinion. That being said: If you had bothered to read

2241: 693: 668: 1798:? It would fit nicely with the second hint i found -- 2466:

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies

1745:

In German literature there is a Confederate General

1042:

List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients

159:

This article has been checked against the following

2585:

North American military history task force articles

2290:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 244: 158: 2595:United States military history task force articles 771:"Third opinion"? Strange. You never asked for a 343:finished product will result upon its completion. 2580:CL-Class North American military history articles 2238:List of American Civil War generals (Confederate) 2590:CL-Class United States military history articles 2363:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 2276:This message was posted before February 2018. 2268:http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/wpcongen.html 8: 2392:Roswell Historic District (Roswell, Georgia) 113:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 2157:, I will. Chris made the changes and more. 1284:Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. 975:List of American Civil War Generals (Union) 881:List of American Civil War Generals (Union) 271:North American military history task force 241: 155: 47: 21: 19: 2236:I have just modified 2 external links on 287:United States military history task force 93:This article is within the scope of the 49: 2605:American Civil War task force articles 2382:General Andrew Jackson (A.J.) Hansell? 1522:Looks pretty good so far. Some ideas: 103:. To use this banner, please see the 1416:I have made a copy of the article at 1088:Confederate Generals of the Civil War 116:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2600:CL-Class American Civil War articles 2476:papers searchable in wikisource.org 2441:About Texas adjutant generals, from 1084:Confederate generals: life portraits 1756:. It seems he switched the name to 38:It is of interest to the following 2575:CL-Class military history articles 14: 2240:. Please take a moment to review 2470:this babel.hathitrust.org search 1754:Bottom of the page, 1. son of 5. 1022:all of the Iron Cross recipients 968:I too agree that the article is 630: 218: 207: 196: 185: 174: 86: 51: 20: 1752:. He is named here with familie 133:This article has been rated as 2390:which he built in what is now 2358:General of the Confederacy.jpg 1437:User:Donner60/Draft of article 1418:User:Donner60/Draft of article 1: 2079:21:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 2065:20:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 2051:20:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 2037:19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 2023:19:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 2004:17:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1990:17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1970:16:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1956:16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1930:16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1915:13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1901:06:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 1880:23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 1864:23:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 1727:21:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 1709:20:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 1688:19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 1669:21:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 1655:09:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 1640:09:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 1625:09:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 1610:06:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 1594:03:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 562:02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 432:07:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 411:08:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 353:09:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) 303:American Civil War task force 725:to put into a list article. 541:18:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 525:06:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 388:11:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 369:04:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) 96:Military history WikiProject 2558:18:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 2514:18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 2491:17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 2474:Southern Historical Society 2432:01:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 2416:01:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC) 1697:2012 in American television 1145:and re-add all the others. 719:Raleigh E. "Parlez" Colston 547:Suggestion to Split Article 2621: 2464:Oh, I see that "OR" means 2307:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2233:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2223:17:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC) 2204:20:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 2167:20:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 2149:01:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 2134:18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 1569:00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 1548:22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1514:18:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1499:06:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1485:06:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1467:22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1449:20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1135:00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 1121:23:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1101:23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 1013:21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 987:19:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 960:19:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 942:21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 923:22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 897:22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 862:21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 827:21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 802:20:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 754:21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 735:20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 652:08:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 626:05:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 607:06:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 505:09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 488:09:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 179:Referencing and citation: 2456:for that info. I see at 2176:MOS:CAPS#Titles of people 1826:15:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 1808:15:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 1789:12:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 1773:12:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 1430:06:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 1412:Draft Revision of Article 1406:06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 1169:01:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 1155:01:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 1069:06:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 1054:04:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 1034:11:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 577:09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 465:09:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 449:09:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 301: 285: 269: 240: 132: 119:military history articles 81: 46: 2394:at least, about General 2377:16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 2344:02:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 1577:Split-Apart/Toolong tags 1282:Civil War High Commands. 781:This, that and the other 583:Summaries really needed? 2229:External links modified 1836:Capitalization of ranks 245:Associated task forces: 190:Coverage and accuracy: 2539: 2458:State adjutant general 2446: 2443:State adjutant general 2404:Andrew Jackson Hansell 815:through edit summaries 669:Brightgalrs's revision 298: 282: 266: 223:Supporting materials: 151: 28:This article is rated 2535: 2440: 2069:Yes. Happy to help. 1339:times during the war. 1321:Confederate generals. 677:(This is main change) 658:Third opinion needed. 297: 281: 265: 150: 32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2288:regular verification 2008:Funny, indeed. The 1747:Richard von Manstein 709:Binksternet comments 2278:After February 2018 2010:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1475:Good idea. Thanks. 1247:value for research. 212:Grammar and style: 165:for B-class status: 2447: 2400:Draft:A.J. Hansell 2369:Community Tech bot 2332:InternetArchiveBot 2283:InternetArchiveBot 2192:writes it this way 763:User:IcarusPhoenix 663:User:IcarusPhoenix 299: 283: 267: 152: 101:list of open tasks 72:American Civil War 34:content assessment 2546:User:GELongstreet 2454:User:GELongstreet 2308: 1741:Unknown General ? 1542:/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ 1202:how to proceed. 646:/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ 620:/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ 603: 511:Grouped by letter 320: 319: 316: 315: 312: 311: 308: 307: 236: 235: 181:criterion not met 137:on the project's 105:full instructions 2612: 2342: 2333: 2306: 2305: 2284: 2110: 2105: 1985: 1980: 1896: 1891: 1859: 1854: 1543: 934:Intothatdarkness 919: 917: 913: 858: 856: 852: 647: 637: 634: 633: 621: 605: 601: 596: 252: 242: 226: 222: 221: 215: 211: 210: 204: 200: 199: 193: 189: 188: 182: 178: 177: 156: 121: 120: 117: 114: 111: 110:Military history 90: 83: 82: 77: 74: 59:Military history 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 23: 16: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2565: 2564: 2502:right over here 2384: 2365:nomination page 2351: 2336: 2331: 2299: 2292:have permission 2282: 2246:this simple FaQ 2231: 2106: 2101: 1981: 1976: 1892: 1887: 1855: 1850: 1838: 1814:right over here 1743: 1579: 1541: 1414: 1278:David J. Eicher 1183: 1079: 1024:, for example. 915: 911: 909: 854: 850: 848: 660: 645: 635: 631: 619: 598: 592: 585: 549: 513: 328: 250: 224: 219: 213: 208: 202: 197: 191: 186: 180: 175: 118: 115: 112: 109: 108: 75: 61: 29: 12: 11: 5: 2618: 2616: 2608: 2607: 2602: 2597: 2592: 2587: 2582: 2577: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530:the info that: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2462: 2435: 2434: 2383: 2380: 2361: 2360: 2350: 2347: 2326: 2325: 2318: 2271: 2270: 2262:Added archive 2260: 2252:Added archive 2230: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1671: 1642: 1627: 1578: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1551: 1550: 1532: 1529: 1526: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1452: 1451: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1394: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1359: 1358: 1353: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1078: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 989: 963: 962: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 865: 864: 830: 829: 807: 806: 805: 804: 759: 758: 757: 756: 738: 737: 713: 712: 710: 706: 705: 702: 691: 690: 687: 684: 681: 678: 659: 656: 655: 654: 628: 584: 581: 580: 579: 548: 545: 544: 543: 512: 509: 508: 507: 491: 490: 474: 473: 468: 467: 452: 451: 435: 434: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 393: 392: 391: 390: 372: 371: 327: 324: 322: 318: 317: 314: 313: 310: 309: 306: 305: 300: 290: 289: 284: 274: 273: 268: 258: 257: 255: 253: 247: 246: 238: 237: 234: 233: 231: 229: 228: 227: 216: 205: 194: 183: 169: 168: 166: 153: 143: 142: 131: 125: 124: 122: 91: 79: 78: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2617: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2591: 2588: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2570: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2538: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2381: 2379: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2348: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2335: 2334: 2323: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2303: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2279: 2274: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2234: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2109: 2104: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1984: 1979: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1895: 1890: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1862: 1860: 1858: 1853: 1847: 1846:MOS:JOBTITLES 1843: 1835: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1748: 1740: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719:IcarusPhoenix 1716: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680:IcarusPhoenix 1676: 1673:Right, since 1672: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1602:IcarusPhoenix 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1576: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561:IcarusPhoenix 1558: 1553: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1539: 1538: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1521: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506:IcarusPhoenix 1502: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1388: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1367: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1336: 1331: 1330: 1325: 1324: 1319: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1300: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1289:0-8047-3641-3 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1263: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1233: 1232: 1227: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1180: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147:IcarusPhoenix 1143: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1113:IcarusPhoenix 1110: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1076: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046:IcarusPhoenix 1043: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005:IcarusPhoenix 1001: 997: 993: 990: 988: 984: 980: 979:IcarusPhoenix 976: 971: 967: 966: 965: 964: 961: 957: 953: 949: 946: 945: 944: 943: 939: 935: 924: 921: 920: 905: 900: 899: 898: 894: 890: 889:IcarusPhoenix 886: 882: 878: 874: 869: 868: 867: 866: 863: 860: 859: 844: 839: 835: 832: 831: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 809: 808: 803: 799: 795: 794:IcarusPhoenix 791: 787: 782: 778: 774: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 764: 755: 751: 747: 742: 741: 740: 739: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 715: 714: 711: 708: 707: 703: 701: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694:Older version 688: 685: 682: 679: 676: 673: 672: 671: 670: 666: 664: 657: 653: 650: 643: 642: 629: 627: 624: 617: 616: 611: 610: 609: 608: 604: 595: 589: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 563: 559: 555: 546: 542: 538: 534: 533:IcarusPhoenix 529: 528: 527: 526: 522: 518: 510: 506: 502: 498: 493: 492: 489: 485: 481: 476: 475: 470: 469: 466: 462: 458: 454: 453: 450: 446: 442: 437: 436: 433: 429: 425: 420: 419: 412: 408: 404: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 389: 385: 381: 376: 375: 374: 373: 370: 366: 362: 357: 356: 355: 354: 350: 346: 340: 336: 332: 325: 323: 304: 296: 292: 291: 288: 280: 276: 275: 272: 264: 260: 259: 256: 254: 249: 248: 243: 239: 232: 230: 225:criterion met 217: 214:criterion met 206: 203:criterion met 195: 192:criterion met 184: 173: 172: 171: 170: 167: 164: 163: 157: 154: 149: 145: 144: 140: 139:quality scale 136: 130: 127: 126: 123: 106: 102: 98: 97: 92: 89: 85: 84: 80: 73: 69: 68:United States 65: 64:North America 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 18: 17: 2536: 2506:GELongstreet 2424:GELongstreet 2396:A.J. Hansell 2385: 2362: 2352: 2330: 2327: 2302:source check 2281: 2275: 2272: 2235: 2232: 2210:GELongstreet 2196:GELongstreet 2187: 2183: 2179: 2173: 2107: 2102: 2099: 2057:GELongstreet 2029:GELongstreet 1996:GELongstreet 1982: 1977: 1962:GELongstreet 1907:GELongstreet 1893: 1888: 1872:GELongstreet 1856: 1851: 1842:MOS:MILTERMS 1839: 1818:GELongstreet 1795: 1781:GELongstreet 1757: 1746: 1744: 1692: 1581: 1580: 1556: 1536: 1415: 1281: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1141: 1108: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1019: 991: 969: 947: 931: 907: 876: 846: 833: 810: 772: 760: 722: 699: 692: 674: 667: 661: 640: 614: 590: 586: 550: 514: 341: 337: 333: 329: 321: 160: 134: 94: 40:WikiProjects 2388:Mimosa Hall 2108:the speller 1983:the speller 1894:the speller 1857:the speller 1749:(1838-1896) 1537:Brightgalrs 1491:Binksternet 1459:Binksternet 1315:experience. 1161:Binksternet 1127:Binksternet 1093:Binksternet 1077:Photographs 790:Brightgalrs 746:Binksternet 727:Binksternet 641:Brightgalrs 615:Brightgalrs 201:Structure: 2569:Categories 2452:Thank you 2339:Report bug 2124:. Thanks! 1758:Manston(e) 904:good faith 777:Donner60's 594:This, that 30:List-class 2322:this tool 2315:this tool 1351:included. 1026:Parsecboy 885:consensus 843:WP:TRIVIA 838:WP:OWNish 819:Parsecboy 786:consensus 600:the other 2398:(or try 2328:Cheers.— 2184:Brigadie 2155:Dicklyon 2153:Thanks, 2141:Dicklyon 2122:MOS:CAPS 2114:Dicklyon 2071:Dicklyon 2043:Dicklyon 2015:Dicklyon 1948:Dicklyon 1922:Dicklyon 1701:Jax 0677 1675:Jax 0677 1661:Donner60 1647:Donner60 1632:Donner60 1617:Donner60 1586:Jax 0677 1582:Comment 1477:Donner60 1441:Donner60 1422:Donner60 1398:Donner60 1396:above. 1061:Donner60 1000:Donner60 992:Addendum 952:Hchc2009 873:Donner60 569:Donner60 554:Donner60 517:Paulc206 497:Donner60 480:Donner60 457:Donner60 441:Donner60 424:Donner60 403:Donner60 380:Donner60 361:Donner60 345:Donner60 162:criteria 135:CL-class 76:CL‑class 2550:Doncram 2483:Doncram 2445:article 2408:Doncram 2242:my edit 2188:General 1944:sources 1693:Concur 948:Comment 877:already 834:Comment 811:Comment 2186:r and 773:second 602:(talk) 597:, and 36:scale. 2528:here? 2504:. ... 2103:Chris 1978:Chris 1889:Chris 1852:Chris 1800:A1000 1765:A1000 1378:list. 2554:talk 2510:talk 2487:talk 2478:here 2428:talk 2412:talk 2373:talk 2219:talk 2215:Holy 2200:talk 2163:talk 2159:Holy 2145:talk 2130:talk 2126:Holy 2112:and 2075:talk 2061:talk 2047:talk 2033:talk 2019:talk 2000:talk 1966:talk 1952:talk 1926:talk 1911:talk 1876:talk 1844:and 1840:Per 1822:talk 1816:... 1804:talk 1785:talk 1769:talk 1723:talk 1705:talk 1684:talk 1665:talk 1651:talk 1636:talk 1621:talk 1606:talk 1590:talk 1565:talk 1510:talk 1495:talk 1481:talk 1463:talk 1445:talk 1426:talk 1402:talk 1286:ISBN 1165:talk 1151:talk 1142:some 1131:talk 1117:talk 1109:that 1097:talk 1065:talk 1050:talk 1030:talk 1009:talk 996:here 983:talk 956:talk 938:talk 914:usBr 893:talk 875:was 853:usBr 823:talk 798:talk 750:talk 731:talk 573:talk 558:talk 537:talk 521:talk 501:talk 484:talk 461:talk 445:talk 428:talk 407:talk 384:talk 365:talk 349:talk 2402:or 2296:RfC 2266:to 2256:to 1557:not 970:far 916:iti 855:iti 761:If 723:not 2571:: 2556:) 2512:) 2489:) 2481:-- 2430:) 2414:) 2375:) 2367:. 2309:. 2304:}} 2300:{{ 2221:) 2202:) 2178:: 2165:) 2147:) 2132:) 2077:) 2063:) 2049:) 2035:) 2021:) 2002:) 1968:) 1954:) 1928:) 1913:) 1878:) 1824:) 1806:) 1787:) 1771:) 1725:) 1707:) 1686:) 1667:) 1653:) 1638:) 1623:) 1608:) 1592:) 1567:) 1512:) 1497:) 1483:) 1465:) 1447:) 1428:) 1404:) 1280:, 1167:) 1153:) 1133:) 1119:) 1099:) 1067:) 1052:) 1032:) 1011:) 985:) 958:) 940:) 918:sh 912:®© 910:Ma 895:) 857:sh 851:®© 849:Ma 825:) 800:) 752:) 733:) 575:) 560:) 539:) 523:) 503:) 486:) 463:) 447:) 430:) 409:) 386:) 367:) 351:) 251:/ 129:CL 70:/ 66:/ 62:: 2552:( 2508:( 2485:( 2426:( 2410:( 2371:( 2341:) 2337:( 2324:. 2317:. 2217:( 2198:( 2161:( 2143:( 2128:( 2073:( 2059:( 2045:( 2031:( 2017:( 1998:( 1964:( 1950:( 1924:( 1909:( 1874:( 1820:( 1802:( 1783:( 1767:( 1721:( 1703:( 1682:( 1663:( 1649:( 1634:( 1619:( 1604:( 1588:( 1563:( 1544:) 1540:( 1508:( 1493:( 1479:( 1461:( 1443:( 1424:( 1400:( 1163:( 1149:( 1129:( 1115:( 1095:( 1063:( 1048:( 1028:( 1007:( 981:( 954:( 936:( 891:( 821:( 796:( 748:( 729:( 717:| 648:) 644:( 636:Y 622:) 618:( 571:( 556:( 535:( 519:( 499:( 482:( 459:( 443:( 426:( 405:( 382:( 363:( 347:( 141:. 107:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index