Template talk:Confederate States political divisions

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 August 30. The result of the discussion was "keep".

It's redundant to say that these states are "former" Confederate states, since there are no current ones. The CSA is gone; it goes without saying, therefore, that the states that were once a part of it aren't a part of it anymore. As another example, we don't need to say that New York was one of the former 13 Colonies. Kafziel ^Talk 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to appease the person who removed the template from every page, stating that it isn't a "current" designation for any state. I don't think having "former" in it is needlessly redundant, as they most definitely are not "current" ones. If there were a template that appeared on each of the 13 Colonies' pages, I wouldn't find the term "former" to be out of line either. But, as it is, I don't really care enough, so if it makes you feel better to have it this way, whatever you want. Jkatzen 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly didn't do anything terribly out of line by changing the template (although a link to the issue you mentioned would have been good to include in your edit summary or here on the talk page). Anyway, I think the solution you ended up using in the articles - simply replacing the templates - was much better. He can discuss the template use on the appropriate article talk pages; you don't need to appease him by changing the template itself. Kafziel ^Talk 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think, in general, there are a lot of templates that are not necessary or desirable. All US states have a state template and a US template. That is enough. If we put CSA template on southern states, why not a Union Template for northern states? Why not a Thirteen Colonies template? Why not a Western States, Eastern States, Gulf States, template, etc.... All of these things are best handled by categories, not templates. Also there are POV issues with a CSA template, since there are a couple states that may or may not have been a member (e.g. Kentucky and Missouri). I liked the {Template:Confederate} one, but this one is unnecessary. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, I believe former should be part of the template. While it is obvious the states are former Confederate states, I personally (as a Southerner) do not refer to my home state as a Confederate state, but as a former Confederate state. In my opinion, referring to my state as a Confederate state is opinionated; however I'll agreed its a former Confederate state. akuyume^T_C 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, not everyone that speaks English has studied American history. While I'm sure few should lack the knowledge of the failed Confederacy, the assumption all have that knowledge is rather extreme. The precision added by this one word Former will quickly help further one's understanding of the topic. Remember, Wikipedia is about conciseness. Another point, New York is still one of the First 13 Colonies', and always will be. The Confederate states have ceased to be Confederate states. Thus, they are former Confederate states; however they always be Former Confederate states. akuyume^T_C 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the links are presented should be modified. Dustin (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tribes listed on the template are inaccurate. There are three Choctaw (not Choctow tribes), three Cherokee tribes, many Muscogee Creek tribes, and two Seminole tribes. Traditionalists from the Muscogee Creek Nation, such as Opothleyahola and his followers, and Cherokee Nation, such as Lewis Downing and most of the Keetoowahs, fought for the Union against the Confederacy. The tribes' inclusion on the template is uncited and misleading. Ahalenia (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Indeed. On top of that, the five civilized tribes had multiple political distinctions; among them, the recognition of tribes as dependent sovereign nations under Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. For another, many people of these nations had left the south on the Trail of Tears and many settled in Oklahoma, which at the time was designated as Indian Territory. Far too complex a topic for a template like this. Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]