Civil War Battle Names: CSA vs. USA

Question

In the Categories arena, what is the protocol for Civil War battle names when the Confederacy called them by one name and the Union another? I almost created another category for a Confederate soldier, but decided to look up the battle on Google and found the Union name for that battle already has a category on WT. This has happened a few times, not for the same battle.

I believe that if the CSA used one name and the USA another, both categories should be present in the category taxonomy. CSA veterans should have a battle name on their profile as they titled it at the time, the way they applied the honors on their battle flags. Also, it's easier for the profile editor who is reading the records to apply categories without having to search for the other side's name.

Or is that too complicated?

And I know some battles had more than two names, but that's another can of worms.

Comments

I think that the individual profile should reflect the name of the battle as the man who fought would have thought of it.  I think that is what you are saying, too.

Even the war has more than one name.

---

Here is what I would do if I had a Confederate soldier to add to WikiTree:.I'd check out what unit they served in, go to records and find out which battles his unit participated in, then go to Wikipedia and find the battles and their alternate names. Yes, it's work, and I'd do this research myself. It gives me some background for the person's profile and I consider it part of writing a biography. I do the same thing no matter what war, using whatever records I can find and then checking National Archives for what's available there.

We don't have categories for every single battle, and we tend not to add categories for smaller skirmishes. The park service site has an extensive database of units, and in those pages, the battles are listed. Most of it is based on National Archives records and Dyer's Compendium. NPS database also includes units that have no description in Dyer's. I don't think it's necessary to repeat this information in WikiTree since it's already widely available, and my focus is the person's life, not the history of what was going on while they lived.

I've considered figuring out a category info box for units which would cover any country, any war, etc, but I'm not sure if it's feasible. In that, the aka could be used to add additional names, just like we do for cemetery categories. This would need to be thought out and discussed. I'm also conflicted about it, because every new template/info box, etc, causes suggestions, even the simplest ones like {{FindAGrave}} or {{CategoryInfoBox Cemetery}}

Answer 1

I think when they were setting up CW categories, they used units/conflicts based on the National Park Service website. This is a good idea, I believe, and prevents confusion and keeps the groupings of the military personnel and units together.

Jimmy is correct, though, in that in the category description, it's perfectly fine to give an AKA name or alternate name.

Comments

What are the implications of renaming a category? If we rename, for example, the Battle of Glendale to the Battle of Glendale / Frayser's Farm or something similar, would that "break" things?

Using the NPS name does not prevent confusion. Obviously, that's why this conversation started. It is confusing when you go to add the battle category to a profile (as you see it in the soldier's record), and it does not show up in the drop-down menu.

Answer 2

While about 15 battles have two names, one name has tended to take precedence, often the Union name, especially in modern references and historical accounts.

If you were to include both names in the naming convention, one must come first, and I believe this would still lead to confusion when trying to find the specific name you're looking for if you're not searching for the Union naming convention.

I think, as a balanced view, the alternate names should be included on the category page. Perhaps the category page could also indicate that we use Union naming conventions.

Comments

Are we, in fact, "using Union naming conventions?" I mean, is that the protocol or guideline? There are some of the CSA-unique battle names in the categories currently.

Is there written guidance?

---

First, I'm one person with an opinion. I'm just pointing out my reason for not using two names, and that most research list those battles with two names with the Union name first. In some cases, Civil War battles are only known by one name, like Gettysburg, Siege of Vicksburg, or Appomattox Court House.

My only intent was to follow modern references and historical accounts the way they are generally listed.

---

Important to note: we are not a history site, but a family history site. To expect us to employ encyclopedic or historical information beyond what is needed to explain the life of the profiled people is a little much, IMO.

---

For me, they are both intertwined, and the history and historical events that they experienced and shaped their lives enrich the understanding of family history. It is what provides meaningful connections, other than just having a biological connection.

A good example is Ancestry's collaboration with PBS through various television specials and series, such as "Finding Your Roots", which exemplifies how genealogy and history can be seamlessly intertwined to create compelling narratives about family connections.

While I get Wikitree may not embrace history and historical events. I can't divorce myself of that connection.

---

Jimmy the category pages for battles that are referred to by different names already show this on the pages.  Whoever designed them originally included that information.

Answer 3

I believe Natalie Trott https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Durbin-702  the leader of the Military and War Project and the expert on the Civil War Categories should give her input on this question before any changes to categories are made.  Although I believe Jimmy Honey's idea of including the explanation of both names on the present category page to be the right approach at this time.  Also, on the CSA soldier's profile an explanation could be given of what that soldier would have called the conflict.

Comments

Good point. I will contact Natalie.

Here's my thought... those of us answering this sound like we have had a lot of experience with Civil War profiles (perhaps what drew you to my question in G2G). But I'm thinking about the many users who are making their family trees and just come across the occasional CW veteran in the family. They pull the sources, and a record states, for example, "wounded at Battle of Frayser's Farm."

That user would look for a category for that battle. There is none, so they skip it or post a question.

It took me a while in the beginning to figure out there were different names for a battle. I work almost exclusively on Confederate vets because I have many in my family. I did not make the connection from FF to the Battle of Glendale until I thought to google it.

The Confederate records say Frayser/Frazier's Farm and that name is on their battle flags from earning the honors.

I don't mean to drag this out, but another advantage of using both names in categories is that it essentially sub-categorizes the troops.

Bottom line, I think we need to have some guidance because the categories are not currently reflecting one or the other, but both.

Another option, simpler, would be to name the category to include both names.

Example... Category:Battle of Glendale / Frayser's Farm.

In fact, I think I like that solution best.

---

I hadn't heard that each side used different names for a conflict before your post.  The simpler the better if possible, categories can be overwhelming to some members.

---

Amen, Pam. It's hard enough for many WT'ers to get the category right. To add confusion is not a goal of mine.

---

The simplest solution is to include both battle names in the category name. This way, anyone using the category search will find the cat.

---

Simple for whom? Renaming takes time and effort from someone or a group of someones. And how much benefit for all of the work? I have not heard anyone express concerns about the battle names in the past.

I don't lead USCW, but Pam does, and I am not sure that I wish to press her on this. I don't feel like it's a broken system; it just requires a little extra effort from a PM.

---

I agree with Natalie, since the categories are based on what the NPS shows on their website, then that would be the norm.  Natalie wouldn't changing the categories create even more errors/work to all the profiles that have the present categories on them?  I'm not willing to go through thousands of profiles to update that change.  So I believe on the person's bio it can be mentioned, but new categories aren't needed.

---

Easier for the thousands of users. Is there no automated way to do a change?

---

It is automated by EditBot, but takes manual input. We rename categories almost every day using EditBot.

I agree to disagree about the numbers of users of USCW battle categories.

We're all volunteers here, remember. These categories were set up by volunteers who did research, took the time to add the information as presented by informative websites, including the National Park Service, and the National Archives. We have English wikipedia as well.  The categories already include the alternate names. All a person has to do is search WikiTree with the alternate name and the correct category will appear.

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-5983849578006601%3A2801067696&ie=UTF-8&textSearchType=on&q=++Battle+of+Pittsburg+Landing&sa=Go#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%20%20Battle%20of%20Pittsburg%20Landing&gsc.page=1 That's for Battle of Shiloh, aka Battle of Pittsburg Landing.

---

Laura... We can't use the character / in category names. It's forbidden, it causes all kinds of problems. Really, ask Ales.

Being non-American I have no horse in this race, but with my experience as former Categories leader, I would strongly advise against super complex and lengthy category names. I would also advise taking a lot of time and thought before changing what has been put there initially by the volunteers who thought hard about the options.

What I'd like though is to see Category Info Boxes for battles and for military units, that would make things much more fluid with Akas.

---

Certainly there is a punctuation we could use, I was just making an example

Answer 4

Okay, looks like I'll have to agree to disagree.

Just know that hundreds or thousands of users will look for a category for the battle, such as Frayser's Farm, not find it, and give up. Even Pam admits she did not know there were two primary names for about 15 Civil War battles.

When I struggle with something, I know many other people will. As a once Process Improvement Specialist, I speak up. See something, say something. I'm the one who speaks up and asks WHY it has to be complicated and/or confusing.

Any leader in WT who is forming opinions needs to remember to think outside the box. Forget what you do for a minute, and think about the thousands of users who aren't as experienced and already struggle with editing and categories. By making things easier for the masses, we get more reliable and complete data.

I'm done now.