Talk:Bailey's Dam

Requested move

The following discussion 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.

---

Bailey's Dam Site → Bailey's Dam — Shouldn't it be that way? Instead of "...Site"? Or am I missing something here... Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think you are, although the article needs to be cleaned up. The dam was built in 1864, broke long ago, and its site, with a few remnants as visible in the picture, was declared historic, apparently after that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There seem to be quite some dam articles (i.e. Teton Dam, Hauser Dam, etc) which its dam has collapsed. Do you think we should move this to a dam name (i.e. Bailey's Dam) and add a history section covering the collapse and declaration of historic site? Or is this a special case and should be left as it is? Or, should it be moved to "Bailey's Dam site" (notice the lowercase s)?. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The entry in the National Register of Historic Places is as Bailey's Dam Site, as a proper noun. There is no evidence presented that it is ever known by any other name. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. Louisiana State calls it Bailey's Dam here. A Google search of Bailey's Dam gives many more returns than Bailey's Dam Site but this is an NHRP article, so we can't deviate. I would recommend putting in the lead: "...also referred to as..." It is a very interesting story though and I would have no problem expanding the article in the next week.--NortyNort (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: NRHP listings don't always use the most common name; we do. And if "site" is kept, it should be lowercase. Powers ^T 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No! It's either Bailey's Dam or Bailey's Dam Site, as both are proper nouns; not one we make up ourselves, whether Bailey's Dam site or Site of Bailey's Dam, which are not even common use. An Advanced Google Search in English for Bailey's Dam including Louisiana, but excluding Bailey's Dam Site and Wikipedia gives 118 hits ; a search for Bailey's Dam Site including Louisiana, but excluding Wikipedia gives 791 hits. As Google doesn't differentiate between upper and lower case letters, you need to look at the actual results to check whether Bailey's Dam Site or Bailey's Dam site is used; when you do it is overwhelmingly capitalised. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Many web sources tend to be pretty lax about capitalization; I wouldn't trust them farther than I can throw them. Especially since many of them are no doubt influenced by the NRHP listing. Powers ^T 13:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: per common use. An advanced search on Google for exactly "Bailey's Dam" excluding "Wikipedia" retrieves ~2,220 results and "Bailey's Dam Site" excluding "Wikipedia" returns ~861 results. Also, a search for exactly "Bailey's Dam" excluding "Wikipedia" and "Site" brings you 1,580 results which shows the difference. Even a search for "Bailey's Dam Site" in general returns results with just "Bailey's Dam" in the title. I support the move but the title in the NHRP_infobox should remain as is.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Examine those results a little more closely, and you will find that many refer to other places referred to as Bailey's Dam. You need to include Louisiana in the search parameters to get any meaningful results. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a search retrieves about 700 for both with about 20 more for Bailey's Dam. I still support the move. After doing some research on the dam, it is a very interesting story and the proposed title would serve an expanded article better. It seems the NHRP labeled it a site because the dam was destroyed. The historical articles and accounts I read refer to the dam as the dam, not the site.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rerun the search I quoted above and get the same figures. Not sure how NortyNort is getting 700 hits for Bailey's Dam unless he is failing to exclude Bailey's Dam Site from the parameters. Even then I only get 547 hits here! Bailey's Dam excluding Bailey's Dam Site and Wikipedia but including Louisiana gets a mere 117 hits here; Bailey's Dam Site excluding Wikipedia but including Louisiana gets 760 hits here. The most common use, by a substantial margin, still appears to be Bailey's Dam Site. And our guidelines mandate that we use the common term unless we need to disambiguate. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We could also add both, {{Infobox dam}} and {{Infobox NRHP}}, to the article. Just like what Bonneville Dam page did. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this article to be about the dam or about the site? As it is now, the two-sentence stub with infobox is about the site, so the current name makes sense. If it's expanded to be primarily about the dam, then its name should be changed. Station1 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the site as it appears now. The problem is that the site was flooded in the late 80's when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a lock and dam downstream. It was added to the NHRP in 1976. So now, all you have is a Louisiana historical marker reading Bailey's Dam by the road, the NHRP calling it a "Site" and memories. The NHRP probably add "Site" because there was no more dam, just the remnants on the site. In 1984 before the lock and dam flooded everything, the dam was excavated and pictures were taken along with a detailed account of what they found. An expanded article, which I have begun a draft on, would work better with "Bailey's Dam" as the title because all the accounts, stories and reports I have read refer to it as that. History recalls the dam as the dam, not a site. I have thought about two different articles but then we would have a merge request. As the article would be on the dam, "Bailey's Dam" would work best.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, now that the article has been expanded (excellent job, btw). Station1 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The article has just now been tremendously expanded and is now clearly primarily about the dam itself and its history, rather than its underwater site. Station1 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, user:NortyNort did a good expanding the site; now covering the dam, with a history section. Suggest we move to "Bailey's Dam". Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 23:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support With the changes to the article I am more than happy to go along with the move. If only we could get all articles improved just by arguing over the article title! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...what a wonderful world it would be. I will take care of the move. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bailey's Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609012948/http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/BAILEYS/BAILEYS.htm to http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/BAILEYS/BAILEYS.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609012948/http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/BAILEYS/BAILEYS.htm to http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/BAILEYS/BAILEYS.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)