Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ways to possibly shorten article

Obviously, this article is way too long, but we've failed to come to a consensus about how to split this up. Therefore, I propose 2 ways to reduce the overall size:

  1. For monuments and memorials with their own Wikipedia articles, we should remove descriptions
  2. For monuments and memorials with their own Wikipedia articles, we should remove inline citations

We're approaching 1,000 inline citations, so removing those for topics with their own articles is one way to reduce the References section without taking away too much from the encyclopedia, since readers can simply click on the monument/memorial link for more information. Same with descriptions -- no need to go into detail about memorials with their own articles. Let's leave the descriptions and citations for memorials without articles of their own. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with 1000 cites or discriptions. If we really want to shorten the page I suggest spinning out the states with the longest lists as seperate pages. Put "Main: List of Confederate monummets and memorials in State X" and a couple lines that summarize the material. Like there are 15 schools, 57 statutues and three roads in State X. °Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I’m the only one who has actually done anything about shortening, by removing, not without some resistance, the material on former monuments, moving it over to the Removal article.
It’s not clear to me just what the problem is. It’s “way too long”? Says who? Where is the line between “long”, “too long”, and “way too long”? And what is the problem that its length presents? That it takes too long to load or save? That we have to be thinking of those with slow Internet connections? That it’s too big a load on the servers?
If you remove material for monuments that have their own article, then this article will in consequence be full primarily of information about the less important monuments. I don’t think that would leave a good article.
If it has to be shortened, then I’d be in favor of splitting it into states. But I don’t have a problem with it as it is. deisenbe (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I am also fine with how it is, but if enough editors insist on shortening then I suggest spinning out larger states, but not all states. Washington State for example does not need its own page. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere (it may be in the Help:MOS) it is recommended that the maximum article length is 100,000 bytes. Obviously 500,000 is a lot larger. I agree shortening is a problem. I would focus this article on statues and monuments and separate roads, flags, symbols, buildings, etc. into there own articles. -- User-duck (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That is just a guide and this is a special case. I do not not favor spitting off non-statues. "Functional memorials" became a big thing when money is tight - name a school, road, park etc instead of spending moey on a statue. Spinning out states would be the way to go, starting with the ones with the largest number of items. But it's not needed. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like having the states together. I agree lists are "special cases" but a list this large should be considered for splitting. Spinning off memorials (roads, flags, symbols, buildings, etc.) into a separate article may be the way to go; renaming this article to "List of Confederate monuments and monuments". This may be close to a 50/50 split -- User-duck (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I like the concept of "former" monuments and memorials being a separate article. Has moving the items been completed? -- User-duck (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it’s completed. Not as simple a process as I thought it would be (conflicting information I had to resolve, in some cases). deisenbe (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


I am undoing the splitting done today by @Pigsonthewing. It should be discussed here first. deisenbe (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Another way of doing it is to collapse text into clickable boxes. deisenbe (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
No, that would not fix the problem (in fact, it would make it worse, by increasing the page size further). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no requirement to discuss edits before making them. Do you have a valid reason for reverting (albeit ham-fistedly) my edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I liked seeing the content forked. Perhaps ideally all monuments would be on one page, but if can't come to a consensus about how to reduce the size of this page, then I believe we have no choice but to fork some content out to separate lists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
As Deisenbe has not replied (though they have been editing elsewhere), I have restored the changes. Further splits are still needed, to reduce the article to a more sensible size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

State by State is the only logical way as that is already how we have the data divided. A short summary with links to the state list and State section of the Removals Page. We don't need to spin out all the states only the biggest (Southern) ones until we get the page down to some target size. I don't want to see a separate page for Washington or Idaho. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your work here. These splits are imperfect (a few broken references, formatting needed, etc) but overall I think this is a very helpful step towards creating a collection of lists of monuments. Finally, the parent list is not completely overwhelming, and I think over time all of these lists will be improved so they can include more details and pictures. Long term, this having separate lists is better than having one list. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; my pleasure. I thought I'd caught all the broken refs, but a bot should mop up any remaining, shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Great. Thoughts on splitting Tennessee and Texas, too? Possibly Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Absolutey. The page is still 374,157 bytes long, so several more sections need to be split. I was using "N public spaces" as a yardstick. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever are the longest. I've been against splitting but the opportunity to enhance the new pages with mlre images and refs is compelling. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Yes, I agree. We should not see this as a setback, but rather as an opportunity to make each of these lists better. Multiple better lists > one less-than-ideal list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
What is the target size? deisenbe (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Under 100,000 bytes? Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Two comments: 1) there's a big intro. Could that be made into a standalone article, or moved eslewhere? 2) Some of the entries seem unnecessarily detailed. For example:
  • Confederate Park. It opened in 1907 as Dignan Park, named for a former chairman of the city's Board of Public Works. In 1914, the park was chosen as the location of the annual reunion of the United Confederate Veterans. The UCV chose the park as the location for a new monument to honor the Women of the Southland, and five months after the reunion the city resnamed the park "Confederate Park."
That text is copied from Confederate Park (Jacksonville). Why not delete this duplicated or overlong text and have only minimal entries? Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

To Do

Reminder to fork out the following:

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Troy Confederate Monument

The description for the image of the "Troy Confederate Monument in Troy, Alabama" says, "Confederate flag made out of flowers at the Confederate Statue in Jasper, Alabama". According to the Wikipedia articles for these two cities they are not close to each other. Which description is correct? -- User-duck (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn’t find this. Did someone fix it already? deisenbe (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I just fixed it. I downloaded, converted, uploaded, and cropped an image of the Jasper monument. I then replaced the existing "Troy" image and edited the caption. The referenced source of the Troy monument has images of a similar monument. -- User-duck (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Scope creep

Alaska: "Confederate Gulch" and "Union Gulch" listed as "Confederate monuments and memorials"? The article, Yukon–Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska does not mention either. At this rate General Lee (car) will be added. -- User-duck (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@User-duck: Both of these locations are properly sourced, and "Confederate Gulch"--like so many of the parks, water features, dams and roads in the article--is a geographic feature that is obviously named after the Confederacy. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to the Wikipedia article. The point is that these "memorials" are not important enough to mention in linked article. I changed the referencing, the original cites used the same URL. I "assume" the 1913 report mentions these locations, I did not read it, just found an online copy to correct the cite. -- User-duck (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, most of the items on this list are places or things which were named or created during the "Lost Cause" era, generally by one of the heritage societies. However, during and after the ACW some veterans or sympathizers named things after Confederate (or Union) people or things. An example is the Alabama Hills, also in California, named by miners for the CSS Alabama. Should it, and others like it, be on the list? Mobi Ditch (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be totally consistent with this list. Atlanta, Idaho is a similar example already on the list. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Memoria In Aeterna

Shouldn't Memoria In Aeterna still be in the list? It still exists on display in Brandon, FL. -- User-duck (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It’s been removed from its prominent, public, government-endorsed display in the county seat (city), and moved to a (by comparison) isolated small private cemetery. deisenbe (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of private memorials listed, e.g. "Orlando: Confederate "Johnny Reb" monument, Lake Eola Park (1911, moved to Lake Eola Park 1917, moved to a private cemetery 2017)". Public / private might be a good separation criteria. (Just a thought) -- User-duck (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I’ve taken it out. Let me know if you spot any others. There are definitely others and it’s now on my mental list of things to do.
You can’t use “private” as the criterion. There are monuments newly constructed on private property that are intended for the public to view, like the horrible one of Forrest outside of Nashville, and an increasing number of others. I think the criteria has to be “removed from its original location because of concern/protests over its Confederate link”, and that it is now much less prominent or accessible than it was at its former location. deisenbe (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I was not talking about public/private as a criteria for moving to Removal. I was thinking about it as a criteria for splitting this article into " … public …" and " … private …". This article really needs to be split or trimmed. The size limits are suggested for "accessability", not everyone has high speed access and large screens. The corresponding Union article is only 44K bytes compared to this 564K behemoth.-- User-duck (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that says something, doesn’t it. 44K for Union and 564K for Confederate.
Here’s an interesting list I sumbled upon: Special:LongPages. According to it as of today this article is 34th longest. deisenbe (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA