Talk:Bibliography of American Civil War Confederate military unit histories

Split from Bibliography of the American Civil War‎

This article was split off from Bibliography of the American Civil War‎ which was too long. Only the opening section is identical --that is because it covers general surveys. Likewise Bibliography of American Civil War Union military unit histories has the same origins. Rjensen (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged this article for lacking inclusion criteria. Also, since the members of the list are not independently notable, they should have sources demonstrating that they were taken from the published bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The new criteria are rather odd. If someone challenges an entry, how will you demonstrate that it is "generally available through inter-library loan"? And the No footnotes tag was removed without addressing the problem I described above. I don't expect that all entries should have citations, but there should be enough to demonstrate that the selection criteria work. Instead of restoring the (prematurely removed) article tags, I will test your criteria by tagging a few entries. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Any student knows that the local librarian is the person to ask if a specific book is available ILL. "footnotes" are not needed to explain the content of any of the titles. His statement "there should be enough to demonstrate" --demonstrate to Rock that is, and he will never be satisfied. The article meets all teh Wiki criteria. i think the "enough to demonstrate" crack suggests that he will never stop quibbling instead of helping, and that perhaps Rock is on the verge of being disruptive rather than helpful. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who are being obstructive. I tried a gentler approach - mentioning the issue at the AfD's while voting either to keep the lists or remaining neutral; discussing it at Talk:Bibliography of the American Civil War‎; even providing some examples of suitable selection criteria. But you only seem to respond to tags, and then by doing as little as possible before quickly removing the tag. You are not responding meaningfully to my concern about original research at Talk:Bibliography of the American Civil War‎; the "quibbles" are an attempt to get through to you. It is no wonder that someone considered this list indiscriminate. Nobody but you knows how you chose the books. Can you let the rest of us in on the secret?

I find it odd that someone with your Wikipedia experience considers books.google.com (your edit summary) and "Ask your local librarian" to be examples of reliable sources. Would you accept them as sources in a regular article? The same criteria apply here. I suggested some common selection criteria at Talk:Bibliography of the American Civil War‎. The fourth option (appears in multiple collections) seems quite workable. Then an appropriate citation would simply be a couple of those sources, with page numbers. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

but you're not serious in your objections -- new ones are added every day and old ones are dropped. They are not required by any rules and none of the hundreds of bibliographies I have seen in Wikipedia use them. Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I only appear to be changing my objections because I have overestimated the common ground in our understanding of the rules. Tell you what - I'll ask the people at WikiProject Lists for their opinion and step back from this. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)