The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Page was originally created as a set of links to “(state/territory) in the American Civil War” for entities which actually existed during that time covering that area, and later converted to an article by
Sam1370. Initial impression is that it should be reverted back to its earlier status. --
Finngalltalk18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Union troops were there to guard against Native Americans. There was no fighting against Confederates. So we have non-existent Confederate activity in an as-yet-uncreated territory or state. About as valid as The Beatles in the American Civil War.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and historical reality. There were no actions involving Confederate troops in this region, and if for some unknown reason there were they should be addressed in one of the relevant territorial articles (Nebraska or Colorado). No reason for this article to exist.
Intothatdarkness18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
There was also a small corner that was part of Utah. The territorial history in this part of the country is a touch too convoluted to lend itself to easy linking...
Intothatdarkness16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
In any case, a redirect is misleading. There was no "Wyoming" involvement in the Civil War. Even your own link indicates the majority of Civil War involvement in Dakota Territory (mostly east of what would become Wyoming) was concerned mainly with Indian conflicts.
Intothatdarkness22:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. [Was "Merge" to the appropriate three territory articles, if there is any content worth saving, and "Delete" (do not leave a redirect behind)], but I gather there's nothing worth saving. Inbound links to this article include
Outline of the American Civil War, which needs cleaning up. Other questionable "STATE in the American Civil War"-type article names, where STATE did not then exist, still appear there. I recall objecting to these when they were being manufactured. --
Doncram (
talk)
20:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: Some have been merged/redirected to more appropriate "TERRITORY in the American Civil War" articles or just to a section in the TERRITORY article:
The difference here is that Wyoming Territory didn't exist either and there is no clear redirect target. Keeping the title implies there was any sense of anything by the name of Wyoming involved in the Civil War, which there wasn't. And functionally all the article's content isn't about the Civil War, but about, basically, the American Indian Wars, so there's nothing worth merging. Not to mention that
simply saying other stuff exists is not a convincing reason to keep (or in this case merge)
Eddie891TalkWork20:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, changing to "Delete" as i gather there's nothing to merge. I do not want for "X in the ACW" to appear anywhere in wikipedia, if X did not exist during ACW. Please do note by your reasoning that the other ones I mention are also problematic. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Totally an aside, but I think it has something to do with the time frame and the stated reason for raising Colorado volunteers (Sibley and all that). As I've said elsewhere, the Indian Wars stuff on Wiki is a mess.
Intothatdarkness01:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Page was originally created as a set of links to “(state/territory) in the American Civil War” for entities which actually existed during that time covering that area, and later converted to an article by
Sam1370. Initial impression is that it should be reverted back to its earlier status. --
Finngalltalk18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Union troops were there to guard against Native Americans. There was no fighting against Confederates. So we have non-existent Confederate activity in an as-yet-uncreated territory or state. About as valid as The Beatles in the American Civil War.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and historical reality. There were no actions involving Confederate troops in this region, and if for some unknown reason there were they should be addressed in one of the relevant territorial articles (Nebraska or Colorado). No reason for this article to exist.
Intothatdarkness18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
There was also a small corner that was part of Utah. The territorial history in this part of the country is a touch too convoluted to lend itself to easy linking...
Intothatdarkness16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
In any case, a redirect is misleading. There was no "Wyoming" involvement in the Civil War. Even your own link indicates the majority of Civil War involvement in Dakota Territory (mostly east of what would become Wyoming) was concerned mainly with Indian conflicts.
Intothatdarkness22:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. [Was "Merge" to the appropriate three territory articles, if there is any content worth saving, and "Delete" (do not leave a redirect behind)], but I gather there's nothing worth saving. Inbound links to this article include
Outline of the American Civil War, which needs cleaning up. Other questionable "STATE in the American Civil War"-type article names, where STATE did not then exist, still appear there. I recall objecting to these when they were being manufactured. --
Doncram (
talk)
20:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Note: Some have been merged/redirected to more appropriate "TERRITORY in the American Civil War" articles or just to a section in the TERRITORY article:
The difference here is that Wyoming Territory didn't exist either and there is no clear redirect target. Keeping the title implies there was any sense of anything by the name of Wyoming involved in the Civil War, which there wasn't. And functionally all the article's content isn't about the Civil War, but about, basically, the American Indian Wars, so there's nothing worth merging. Not to mention that
simply saying other stuff exists is not a convincing reason to keep (or in this case merge)
Eddie891TalkWork20:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, changing to "Delete" as i gather there's nothing to merge. I do not want for "X in the ACW" to appear anywhere in wikipedia, if X did not exist during ACW. Please do note by your reasoning that the other ones I mention are also problematic. --
Doncram (
talk)
21:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Totally an aside, but I think it has something to do with the time frame and the stated reason for raising Colorado volunteers (Sibley and all that). As I've said elsewhere, the Indian Wars stuff on Wiki is a mess.
Intothatdarkness01:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.