Talk:CSS General Sumter

Requested move 10 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to USS Sumter (1862). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

---

USS Sumter (1863) → USS Sumter (1853) – I am completely unsure why this is disambiguated with (1863), as the ship does not seem to have existed in 1863. (1853) would be the best disambiguation, as ships are generally disambiguated by launching year. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 05:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Move to USS Sumter (1862) per WP:NCS: In instances where a ship was captured or otherwise acquired by a navy and the article is placed at that title, use the date of capture or entry to the navy, rather than the date of launch, so the name and prefix are in agreement with the date disambiguation.

So this ship was launched as Junius Beebe in 1853, then became General Sumter in April 1862, and was captured and renamed Sumter in June 1862. The ship was then wrecked in August 1862. Unless the dates in the article are wrong, there is no justification for the 1863 disambiguator. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Moveto USS Sumter (1862) per 162.208.168.92. The ship was began operation as a battleship on April 1862. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to USS Sumter (1862) per 162.208.168.92 and Yoshiman6464. Gnominite (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Sumter (1862)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 00:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 04:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• During the American Civil War, the government Confederate States of America I feel like you meant to do something with "the government"? Also, this section repeats "Confederate" a lot. Is there a need to constantly remind the reader that this relates to the CSA?
  • I've rephrased the badly written part and have removed two of the "Confederate" usages Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• bearing fleet commander J. E. Montgomery upriver with her Should this be bringing?
  • It worked in my mind but that may not be the best barometer of what is grammatical. Changed Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Upon reaching Fort Pillow, the eight vessels combined for two cannons between them. The Confederate commander at Fort Pillow released a 32-pounder smoothbore cannon to arm each of the River Defense Fleet vessels which did not a cannon. I was confused the first time I read this. Perhaps something such as, "The fleet only had two cannons between the eight vessels. Those without armament were equipped with a a 32-pounder smoothbore cannon from Fort Pillow..."
  • Done Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• the Union ram Queen of the West Was Queen of the West never commissioned? Same with Monarch. The inconsistency with prefixes throwed me off, especially as nothing notes Sumter having been commissioned.
  • I've added prefixes for Queen of the West and Monarch, as Gudmestad's recent work on the Mississippi River uses the USS prefix for these ships. The Ram Fleet was a really anomalous entity - existing outside the normal chain of the command for both the army and the navy, and the commander was a civil engineer with no military experience who reported directly to the Secretary of War - which was why I left the prefixes off but RS are using them and the situation really isn't all that different from the River Defense Fleet. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I completely understand. I was scratching my head a while back over whether the Stone Fleet ships were commissioned, and why prefixes were slapped to any ship owned by either Navy. GGOTCC 18:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Is there any useable information from Early American Steamers?
  • To be honest, I haven't been able to get ahold of a copy of the non-PD volumes of Heyl's work - none of the libraries near me have a copy that I'm aware of. I have no idea how reliable this purported index is but there isn't anything about this vessel in there (the Confederate Sumter mentioned is CSS Sumter, a different vessel). I emailed a NPS site out in California to see about getting a scan for USS John P. Jackson a year or two ago and never heard back. Hog Farm _Talk 04:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Since the article focuses on her Confederate service, and her Union service was much less notable and shorter, should the article instead be CSS General Sumter?
  • @GGOTCC: - Based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships_that_changed_name_or_nationality, it probably should be CSS General Sumter. However, I had previously opened Talk:USS Sumter (1862)#Requested move 10 March 2021 to move the article title from USS Sumter (1863) and I'm a bit embarrassed to open yet a second RM for the same article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I was recently obliterated in a requested move and have absolutely no shame. I can propose the move if you like. GGOTCC 18:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'll open an RM in the next day or two. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• The section headers are holdovers from when this article was copied from DANFS. Do you intend on keeping them as they are now?
  • I've changed the first one as it wasn't entirely accurate but I think the second one is fine. Before I worked on this the brief Union service was its own tiny section. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I was surprised to see CSS General Earl Van Dorn mentioned here! Well done on both articles, I love seeing these ships get covered! GGOTCC 05:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I've been slowly working through some of the western rivers ships of both navies for the last 4 or 5 years. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for incorporating the feedback, and congrats on another great GA! As I said above, I can propose a move if you like. GGOTCC 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

---

USS Sumter (1862) → CSS General Sumter – Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ships that changed name or nationality An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name. In this case, the vessel was known as CSS General Sumter for most of her naval career (and fought both of her battles under that name). Comparatively, the vesssel's USN service lasted two months and the most notable thing that happened was a shipwreck. The prior RM from 5 years ago was focused on correcting an error in the disambiguation by year. Hog Farm _Talk 03:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Agree per nom. Regardless of the outcome, the missing "not confuse with" hatnote at CSS Sumter will need attention. - Davidships (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per above, and as David notes, we'll need to pay attention to the various hatnotes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.