Jump to content

Talk:List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]

I'm proposing that these articles be merged together, since I doubt many of these monuments meet the notability guidelines (especially of the regimental monuments). This looks like a case of inherited notabiliy. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i tend to agree with the merger of markers, but would prefer that notable statuary monuments be separate. i am confused by your assertion that they are not notable, when they have reliable sources, and pictures, especially when they are on the Smithsonian database. some even rise to the level of contributing to the national landmark. some are by notable sculptors. sculptures in public space are a part of american art history. a comprehensive list would be nice too with gps. (might make a nice walking tour) if you put all the articles together they will be too big. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used "notable" as in "significant". I don't see the need to create an article for every marker (like the one for the 11th Mississippi, which is simply a stone slab). I was hesitent to merge the articles for the state monuments until I got some more feed back. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
notability tends to go to a deletion or merger discussion. if they are notable per WP, then they stand on their own. also, check out the lists of public art such as American Revolution Statuary; Civil War Monuments in Washington, DC. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll merge the 44th New York monument article. If no one else comments on the other monuments, then I'll merge those as well. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the merges of three additional monuments for the reasons cited above. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merger was done without any agreement. I'm against a straight merger and will reverse the process. Smallbones (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the merge tag up for the North Carolina Monument up for over a week without any opposition appearing on this page, so I thought that the merge would be fine. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Gettysburg_articles where the proposed merger was generally well received. I am personally in favour of merging the smaller articles such as High Water Mark of the Rebellion Monument. The Eternal Piece monument is more suited to a standalone article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this "merge everything" philosophy goes very much against the whole idea of WP:Public Art - where there are both lists and individual articles. It also goes against some current trends in Wikipedia - that some "small things" like a major sculpture by a famous sculptor can really be considered "major art works" worthy of their own article. For example, how many individual articles are there on paintings? Probably 1,000s if not 10,000s - even though a painting itself is small, the ideas it conveys are often very big. Smallbones (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging all these monuments into a single article is a terrible idea. Some of them are complex and significant works of art. A better solution would be to create a list of all of them, linked to individual articles about the most significant. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge This list is a fine way to do brief write-ups on the two million (or whatever) markers at the battle site, but many of the monuments deserve their own articles. If someone writes an article about a simple marker then we can slide it over here, but several of the monuments deserve their own articles and hopefully someday will have them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, perhaps the "List of" should be droped from the title of this article and have it just be The monuments of Gettysburg Battlefield. Carptrash (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100+ photos available

[edit]

Including 15 or so I took March 1, don't know how I forgot to mention it.

I think I'd keep the "List" in the title and remove some of the text to separate articles. Can we close out the merger stuff now?

The multiple geotemplates probably won't work - they will all display all the coords on this page (BTW #6 is way off in DC somewhere).

Finally - why do we have Confederate ahead of Union in the list? Gettysburg is, after all in Pennsylvania, which is and was part of the United States, and many Pennsylvanians could be greatly offended by this.

Smallbones (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of pics that I took back in the "film" days that I was going to scan and put in a gallery. First come first serve, Go ahead and order the stuff any way that makes sense to you. I've been trying to fill in the Individual Statues section (having started it) - Carptrash (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I get the time

[edit]

I am going to move those first sections and create seperate articles with them. Then start a "State Monuments" section and put them there, in chart form. I feel that each section should have a galley after it. Carptrash (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is the location for lots of pictures not article galleries. They tend to get deleted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about monuments. Images might get defended. Carptrash (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images yes are useful, galleries (plural) of images are considered excessive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see examples like National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia or List of public art in Philadelphia. Do you object to the use of photos in those articles? If so, there are many folks who will disagree with you. Do you object to this list being formatted as a Public Art list? Smallbones (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A full complement of pictures, one per monument is not necessarily required. Under WP:What Wikipedia is not, there is "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Listing every single item with a picture is not a summary, and if the information is held elsewhere at a readily accessible website then wikipedia becomes just a mirror. What is more useful is content about how the monuments relate to each other and the circumstances of their origin. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look at organization

[edit]

I started organizing the list/chart by "equestrian", "individual" and was intending to get to" States, Units, Whatever". Now it seems that the trend is toward two lists, Union and Confederate. Here is the thing (i.e., my opinion). Martin in his book, "Confederate Monuments at Gettysburg" states, "Gettysburg battlefield has over 1300 monuments and memorials." [1] I found this to be a sobering thought. I do not feel that it is my job (or yours for that matter) to decide which memorials are significant enough to be included and which should be tossed in the dust bin. So, some sort of organization is, I believe, called for.
Also, someone has tightened the chart up nicely. leaving, I think, room for an IMAGE column on the far right. What you say we add that column and start slapping in pictures, then join ranks for when the "No pictures" forces arrive and give them the same reception that Pickett got? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Martin, David G., ‘’Confederate Monuments at Gettysburg: The Gettysburg Monuments, Volume 1’’, Longstreet House, Hightstown N.J., 1986 preface

There is something strange happening

[edit]

I created some articles, Alabama State Monuments (Gettysburg), North Carolina State Monument (Gettysburg) and I think another, by moving those sections from this article and creating new articles. Now it seems that some of those articles already existed, so mine got redirected to those. I feel my titles are better because at some time we will have an Alabama State Monument (Vicksburg) and who knows what. I believe that it is important to keep the name of the battle in the title. But worse that that, when you go to Alabama State Monument and click on the TALK tab, you end up here? There is some weird connection between those articles and this that is very (to me) disturbing. Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that this list/article is not being treated in the expected manner. Let's please just resolve any differences according to the usual Wikipedia principles, especially consensus. I'll suggest
  1. spinning off major text sections on individual monuments into their own articles, titled as suggested by Carptrash
  2. using this list for a basic list of the major monuments. Obviously all 1300 monuments can't be listed, but I don't see any problem listing say 200. How to select them? There are several possible sources that list major monuments including the LCS I'll suggest that any editor can add some, and reasonable criteria might include size and placement on the battlefield, sculptor's fame, unit's fame.
  3. Not sure why both MN number and LCS number need to be included in the table.
  4. I'd order the table by Title, Sculptor, photo, numbers, description/"commemorates" (roughly)
If folks really want to rip up this list (don't understand why they would) then we should get comments from related projects, e.g. WP:Public art and WP:NRHP. Is there anybody else that should be contacted? Smallbones (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to the MN number and LCS numbers either. Can we agree that spin off articles should include Gettysburg in their titles? I see no reason not to include all 1300, but whether we do or not, I feel that this list needs better internal organization. I suggest breaking it down into separate STATE lists and then organizing those by unit numbers. Even if we just do 200, by state will help, I think. But keeping all the individual monument s as they are, before the state stuff. PS One way to help pick what to do is to define "monumnets" a bit. Exclude plaques, for example. Oh yes, that Mississippi unit that just here has a picture of a plaque just (2000 or so) added a statue that the local Gettysburg newspaper dubbed the "2nd ugliest monument" on the battlefield. I looked at some pictures and . . ..... probably will let someone else add that. Carptrash (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with Carptrash on the title for the spinoffs. As far as including all 1300 - many of these are just "flank markers" - a couple of words of text like "The 99th (Whatever State) Infantry were located south of here on July 2nd". Also with NRHP lists, they get to be very slow to load after about 200 entries. It's not just photos, but the number of "template calls" or something like that. Of course arranging by state would give us an easy way to break up the article. But frankly, I don't think that we'll ever get close to even 500 - folks will see several problems arise before then. Smallbones (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"folks will see several problems arise before then." Sort of like watching the weather station and seeing a typhoon headed for us? Could be. So I am going to go to the HELP ME page and ask for help getting the Alabama State Monument changed back to Alabama State Monument (Gettysburg. Also the Pennsylvania State Monument (Gettysburg) needs to be spun off. I'm just plugging away at some of the other monuments in the meantime. Carptrash (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pennsylvania State Memorial page at Wikipedia already exists. Perhaps User:Carptrash is not aware that the Multiple Property Submission designated the names of the monuments (including forgetting "General" for Reynolds)? That user also appears to not be aware there are both Wikipedia.en and Wikipedia commons galleries, so the images of more than 1000 monuments are not needed on this page, which will force it to be about 5 times longer (page length) than appropriate. 64.134.153.184 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"appropriate." I'll have to remember to add that to my list of words that mean in my opinion. Carptrash (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to change the name unless there is a conflict with a similar named structure and it is uncertain which is the more well known one. Read WP:Primary Topic and other parts of the MoS for guidance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to which Alabama monument is the best known - it probably depends where you live. Why not get the names in order now, right at the beginning while we are doing the first round? And, when folks link me to rules I rarely if even read them. I want to talk about what makes sense to us, then go from there. What we are doing is creating the path that other folks can follow. Let us mark it clearly. Carptrash (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Format?

[edit]

I noticed that the format has been changed and many photos removed. Can you explain what you're doing and why? Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was done by User:206.18.170.160, and I am trying to get consensus among the other editors involved before reverting to before that edit. I am not happy with this new development, but the point of wikipedia is not just to make me happy. Also I am not very confident about my ability to revert it back that far. There were some good improvements made at that time, I have those, if I can understand them, on my desktop now. Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unproductive to remove the photos from this article. I wish that anon user would have talked more about what was going to be done. In the mean time, I'd like for the article to reverted back to how it was ...--RichardMcCoy (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there. I reverted us back to Richard's last edit. I am going to try and make sense of the good points in User:206.18.170.160 edit, but company arrives very soon, so might not get to it. Other folks who have lost edits - or who want to just leap in, should please do so. Carptrash (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this was reverted. The thumbnail photos are important to understanding the monuments (not that a photo is necessary for every plaque). Incorporating new information from User:206.18.170.160's edit is a welcome idea, but the formatting is a step backward. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

[edit]

I've reorganized the monument tables in an effort to make them more accessible and useful to the reader. "Name - Image - Location" are now first, with other information following. I've also tried to alphabetize the regiments as is done elsewhere – first by state, then by number and type.
For example:

1st NY Artillery (of any sort)
1st NY Cavalry (of any sort)
1st NY Infantry (of any sort)
Other types

This standardizes things, and keeps groups like Artillery and Light Artillery or Infantry and Reserve Infantry together.
-- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it was George Bernard Shaw who said, "If you can't change your mind than you can't change anything." I'm quite sure that this is relevant here. Carptrash (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It seems to me to be wise to tolerate external links in the LCS (List of Classified Structures) column. Doing so may be contrary to Wikipedia's policy for articles, but this is a list, and moving each link to a footnote adds unnecessary steps for the reader. There are more than 1,100 monuments at Gettysburg, each with its own LCS page. Once this list is completely filled in, there would be 1,100 additional (and unnecessary) footnotes.

Similar external links are used on lists such as this: National Register of Historic Places listings in Berks County, Pennsylvania. What would be the advantage of moving each link to its own footnote? -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

The National Park Service seems to have changed its website, altering the URLs of its List of Classified Structures. Many (most?) of the hundreds of LCS links in this table will have to be updated. Of the dozen or so I just checked, only 2 LCS links took you the correct Gettysburg monument. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all fixed now. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality list

[edit]

This is an extremely detailed and quality article. I think it would qualify as a featured list. I will directly ping BoringHistoryGuy and Carptrash into this discussion because they seem to have made the greatest contributions to this list thus far. What more needs to be done? Have you considered nominating this for FL? -- Veggies (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veggies. Thank you for the compliments. Carptrash, Smallbones and I worked on the list, and are pretty pleased with it. It's still missing images for about a dozen monuments and GPS coordinates for others. Maybe it could be nominated as a featured list once its completed. Best, == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Veggies. Thank you for the images you've uploaded. I think we're down to about 7 or 8 monuments without images. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about featured articles and am too old to learn. Carptrash (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like going to Gettysburg on a regular basis. I've got the coordinates of monuments that need images or improved images. I'll try to get them in the coming months. -- Veggies (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Veggies. Thank you. I appreciate it. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all NPS URLs, and seem to be a continuation of NPS updating its website (as discussed above). == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Commemorated

[edit]

The person listed in Commemorated 2000 (Bill Beckworth)[2] has been corrected to Bill Beckwith, the sculptor who created the monument. The referenced article exists.

== MrPrecise (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LCS IDs are dead

[edit]

The article has over 400 links to the LCS (List of Classified Structures). This database is no more. All links dead, most are not salvageable due to login error. The replacement database is CRIS: https://apps.cr.nps.gov/CRIS .. however as of this post, it is private still being data-entryfied. At some point, maybe (?), it will be public. I've added an update tag to remind to keep check on CRIS status. -- GreenC 02:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there a way to automate the conversion once the new URL syntax is available please post at WP:URLREQ for bot help. -- GreenC 02:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_monuments_of_the_Gettysburg_Battlefield&oldid=1216061968"