Slitherine

quote:

Second, don't abbreviate the names of states. Remember that there is a small but substantial number of non-U.S. players, and not all of them will know U.S. postal abbreviations such as ME or AS, or some of the regular abbreviations. So, best to write "Lynchburg, Virginia" rather than "Lynchburg, VA."

quote:

Huh. Isn't "AS" sometimes Arkansas? But you're right -- AR is the postal abbreviation.

quote:

The Heidlers' encyclopedia really is an outstanding work. It's very readable, so it's not some dry reference work. It came out within the last decade, so its info is quite current. But perhaps most importantly, it has an excellent variety of articles -- it's not just bios and battles, but things like the Sanitary Commission, important politicians, civilians like Horace Greeley, etc. etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

Gil,

Should we use Confederate battle names when writing about CSA, and Union names for USA? I was working on one of the Cobb's and one of the sources was talking about his service at Antietam. I thought it should be Sharpsburg, since that is what Cobb would have called it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

Gil,

Should we use Confederate battle names when writing about CSA, and Union names for USA? I was working on one of the Cobb's and one of the sources was talking about his service at Antietam. I thought it should be Sharpsburg, since that is what Cobb would have called it.

I've generally been going with the Union name for Antietam, because I believe that's the more widely known game. Some bio-writers have been giving one name in the main text and another in parentheses, which is okay. It's a tough call in certain cases. But I don't think we need a rigid division so that CSA bios have one, and USA the other

quote:

I prefer Antietam over Sharpsburg. I also prefer Manassas over Bull Run. Certain names just sound better... another example, Shiloh. It's not as much as whether it needs to be the nearest town of nearest stream but rather go with the phonetics of the word. I live here in the Shanandoah Valley and can see Massanutten Mountain out one window and the Allegheny mtns out the back. Opequon Creek is just down the road and that's about all that is left of the real native heritage here in the Valley. I like to use any native language when possible. It usually always sounds better.

Shenandoah

(in reply to Gil R.)

quote:

Gil R.: I have a request that would help tremendously with expediting the project. Right now, when I edit bios about 80% of the time it takes involves adding basic explanatory material, much of which I have to take the time to look up. A typical bio of, say, 3500 words will have a few minor typos and a few sentences that can be rewritten to make them flow better, and could be completely edited in about 10-15 minutes, if not for one recurring problem: I usually have to spend another hour or so on the stuff that needs to be added for the benefit of most readers, who don't know every last fact about the Civil War. Some examples of what I mean:

* Every time mention is made of the Peninsula Campaign, I need to add that it began in March 1862, that it was an attempt to take Richmond by landing amphibiously on the Virginia Peninsula, and/or some other basic piece of information -- all of which takes time. Same goes for First Bull Run, which I usually need to identify as the first major battle of the war, a decisive Confederate victory, etc. Same goes for Vicksburg, the strategic importance of which is often omitted. And so on.
* When less famous battles, campaigns and expeditions are mentioned, I need to spend time reading up on them to refresh my memory, so that I don't write something incorrect. The other day, for example, I had to read up on the Camden Expedition so that I could describe it. If a general's most important moment in the war came at some obscure battle, it's important to say something about that battle -- and 95% of the time this requires me to spend time getting up to speed on it.
* Too often, the significance of significant battles -- or else some other important piece of information about that battle (such as who won) that is relevant to the narrative -- is omitted. This is also true for such key parts of famous battles as Pickett's Charge, Horseshoe Ridge, the Hornet's Nest, etc. If a bio says that a general attacked the Hornet's Nest, I usually end up having to explain what that was.
* While I do not believe that dates should be provided for every single battle, the reader needs to have a sense of the chronology involved, so I often end up having to insert dates, many of which I need to look up. (My preference, instead of just spitting out dates, is to give the reader a sense of time like this: "Though he performed heroically at Second Bull Run on August 29, 1862, just nineteen days later Gen. X made a tactical blunder at Antietam that led him and half of his men to be shot and wounded. He didn't return to action until the Battle of Fredericksburg that December." The date of Fredericksburg isn't that important, so long as the reader knows that the general was recuperating from mid-September until December.)