Talk:54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment/Archives/2022/April

"Members" section is better off as a separate list article ... unwieldy, arbitrary, and difficult to verify?

Historical Perspective 2, I disagree. One can find the regimental rolls and records in various state publications in the Internet Archive. I would like to revert your deletion of the Members section. Boo Boo (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for jumping in, but are there only three on the list? Because those names could easily be incorporated into body text. This being a highly visible page, I have some sympathy for wanting to avoid opening the doors for passersby to add red-linked names willy-nilly. BusterD (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The MOS is pretty clear on having lists inside articles. It is discouraged. In some cases I have seen, these lists can indeed get long and unwieldy--and what does that add, really, to the understand of the subject? Particularly when many, as BusterD points out, would be red-linked and (no disrespect intended) not noteworthy individuals by WP standards. Bear in mind the large number who belonged, at one time or another, to this unit. The most historically important individuals belonging to this unit are already described, and if there are a few more, they should be described in narrative form (and be blue-linked). If there is a strong desire to start a list, one could always start a separate list article. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Roger that. You convinced me. A BusterD, don't worry. I may have addressed Historical Perspective 2 individually, but I did it on the article talk page because I wanted to hear from others, too. Again, you have both convinced me. Good edit. Take care. Boo Boo (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)d

I appreciate your bringing it up here. Cheers, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)