Battle of Old Fort Wayne

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result July 12, 2020 Good article nominee Listed August 28, 2020 WikiProject A-class review Approved November 27, 2020 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 28, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a report that Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment, which was formed in 1864, was armed with lances instead of firearms is likely inaccurate? Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Other talk page banners

Hello. Can you give us a source that the unit was actually called Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• McGhee is set up as each unit having a section. Page 131 of McGhee starts the section for this unit. The section is titled "Slayback's Regiment". The MOS for the MILHIST project inserts the branch and state, so this title. Is there a reason the title is debatable? Hog Farm _Bacon 23:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I do not know who McGhee is. I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history and couldn't find anything that suggests the name of an article should reflect the name of the officer who commanded that unit. Can you point me to it? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: McGhee is one of the sources, his book is considered one of the primary resources for Missouri Confederate units. He's reliable. If you're questioning the name Slayback's being in there, the unit had no official name. Collins, which is an online source in the article, refers to the unit as Slayback's, as do the Official Records, also an online source in the article. It's named after the commander because historically, that was the name of the unit. I can post this at WT:MILHIST, where it can be explained more. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific; I'd like to hear from others. It just seems like a terribly informal name, unless it is used as such by WP:Reliable sources. I'll wait until you make such a post. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: - Done Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#More_ACW_naming_stuff. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was resolved after discussion on the Milhist talk page, no move needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a sentence stating that "Slayback sent a note . . . suggesting that . . . African-American soldiers would be massacred. . ." I checked the source, "The Civil War Battlefield Guide," by Frances H. Kennedy, and could find no listing for "Slayback" at all in the entire book, including this alleged note. Can anybody find another source for this statement? I hope so; it's an interesting sidelight I would like to explore. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found this in Busch's book instead. Did I read the reference wrong? Somebody please check. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: the inline citation is to Busch. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were the blacks soldiers, or were they nonmilitary workers? What does Busch say? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm: Is it appropriate for Slayback's rank to link to Lieutenant colonel (United States)? Surely it should red link to Lieutenant colonel (CSA)? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CSA and Union armies had very similar military structures. General was slightly different, but up to colonel was basically the same. Essentially, both armies were developments of the early 19th-century US Army. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]