Talk:Gettysburg campaign

Campaignbox?

Could anybody add a campaignbox to this article? Or is there no available template for the ACW yet?

Map

Map's wrong -- it shows the Virginia part of DC, which had reverted to Virginia IIRC in the 1820s. Bthylafh 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I fixed this problem on March 30, but the Wikipedia thumbnail server kept the old version. I forced it to load the correct version by changing the size from 400px to 399. Should be OK now. Hal Jespersen 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualty Dispute?

Is there any particular reason the Gettysburg Campaign is listed as having 47,000 casualties when the Battle of Gettysburg is recorded as having 51,000??? --Calder 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you see 47,000? The Aftermath section says "Lee suffered over 27,000 casualties during the campaign, a price very difficult for the Confederacy to pay. And the campaign met none of its major objectives. Union campaign casualties were approximately 30,100." Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

partial rewrite, February 25

I am in the process of rewriting this article, expanding it and modifying the format to match some of my more recent campaign articles. The known deficiencies are a temporary paucity of citations and the Retreat section needs a complete rewrite, which I hope to attend to pretty quickly. I had hoped to do this all in one edit, but I decided that cross-referencing from the new Retreat from Gettysburg article needed this article to be at least partially finished and posted. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gettysburg Campaign. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305035134/http://www.nps.gov:80/frsp/brandy.htm to http://www.nps.gov/frsp/brandy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305035134/http://www.nps.gov:80/frsp/brandy.htm to http://www.nps.gov/frsp/brandy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305035134/http://www.nps.gov:80/frsp/brandy.htm to http://www.nps.gov/frsp/brandy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305035134/http://www.nps.gov:80/frsp/brandy.htm to http://www.nps.gov/frsp/brandy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928080034/http://brandystationfoundation.com/pages/battle.htm to http://brandystationfoundation.com/pages/battle.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bibliobase.com/history/readerscomp/civwar/html/cw_000106_entries.htm

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) 08:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gettysburg Campaign. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602043748/http://www.campcurtin.org/campcurtin/reenact/bsh.htm to http://www.campcurtin.org/campcurtin/reenact/bsh.htm

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) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting move

Per WP:BRD I have reverted the move made on 18 July. Gettysburg Campaign was recently moved under the claim "Case norm; overwhelmingly lowercase in sources", and yet even N-grams fields a greater number of results for capitalised Campaign if I search without context and ZERO results for "campaign" if the search is expanded with wildcards. Did the proposer lie or mislead? A simple RM was made, no proof given, no notifications to MilHist, the moving admin did not verify the claim. The process is a shambles and the argument for MOS case normalising invalidated. The use of N-grams is usually what you offer, @Dicklyon but in this case the RM was placed under uncontroversial moves and went unsupported. Using both a non-context and a context-based N-gram search, as you yourself have argued over at Waterloo Campaign, we can plainly see that capitalised Campaign is favoured, in both cases. You asked to be told when you made any mistakes. Here's one. I was not overwhelmed. — Marcus^(talk) 03:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You accidentally put gettysburg in lowercase in your context search. Here it is corrected, showing that there is no context (other than "Gettysburg Campaign _END_) in which caps exceed lowercase. It's pretty clear that I did not lie or mislead, don't you think? You could dig further and try to find out why the big increase in "Gettysburg Campaign and" in recent decades; probably mostly titles like "Gettysburg Campaign and Battle". Or maybe some others. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think this needs a discussion, or will you just move it back? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I was either under the impression the result was not case sensitive, or overlooked the first "G", idk, the new result still isn't overwhelming or definitive. Regardless, I think this proves that without being able to see how Google determined those results we can only guess. You said yourself, "probably mostly titles". Wikipedia doesn't work on assumptions. They "probably" are titles or captions for maps; I expect it says "Gettysburg campaign and Vicksburg campaign" in some results, since they occurred at the same time. But I wouldn't want to write or assess a Featured Articles based upon assuptions drawn from an N-gram chart, it just lacks the quality and proficiency of established creators of military history articles, we don't use such tools, it's not normal. I have many books on the ACW as well as Napoleonic War to consider and weigh viewpoints from. But do you know how hard it is to actally flick through a book and spot one word, i.e. Campaign, and repeat that to see if the author maintained their style throughout, e.g. like David Chandler and his mixed usage; could you find a word used just 3 times amomgst 1,200 pages? I don't mind searching digitised books, PDFs, etc and seeing the results, as I did for that example, but manually, it's very difficult and somewhat tedious, hence why no-one's done it yet – if you read history books, you'll know historians don't say "this Campaign" so often it jumps out of the page, it's something you read unconsciously. And as you said at MilHist, flicking through a selection of owned books and calling that your answer also feels like cherry-picking, but at least it's more reliable than N-grams, because you can read into it more. I have no idea for the increase. Society is stupid. It follows groovy trends instead of academic standards. I hope I'm long dead before society starts putting Twitter style text and emojis in student text books, and calling that modern education. Regardless, I'm drawing up a discussion at WT:MOSCAPS, which I'm sure you'll weigh in on and try to disprove my arguments. At least I can correct and reclarify my Gettysburg one now. But we need a broader discussion on this for the reasons I'm raising, I don't come to Wikipedia to argue with editors, it's counter-productive. But when I do have an issue, it can be hard to let go of without sufficient evidence or a consensus either way, so that's what I'm seeking. — Marcus^(talk) 05:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'll wait and see where that discussion goes, and weigh in at some point. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As for manually searching books, yes, I know how hard it is and do it all the time. Google book search as a supplementary index into each book is often helpful, even if it won't show you the page. I wonder how many of your books they have scanned. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Since that other discussion didn't go anywhere, I'll go ahead and undo this re-capping move that you did based on a research error. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)