Talk:Botany Bay Plantation Wildlife Management Area

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nationalregister.sc.gov/charleston/S10817710051/index.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ammodramus (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio consisted of 11 consecutive sentences taken verbatim from SCDAH site and split into two paragraphs. Source website was cited, but passages weren't put in quotation marks; and in any case, 11 sentences is too much. Source website included a link to this "statement on use and reproduction", allowing use of material for "research, teaching, and private study", but restricting other uses without permission; see WP:NFC on requirement that WP content be altogether free-use, without restrictions on e.g. commercial use. Ammodramus (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Stats

I went ahead and added back the age and area for the property. The age of the buildings and size of the included property is still right. Even though the state owns lots more property which is contiguous to the original property with other buildings, those additions don't change the actual National Register property info. The keeper of the National Register would have to receive an application to amend the original entry. Since the info box concerns only the National Register property and not the larger park that includes the National Register property, I flipped it back to reflect that.ProfReader (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this add-back. Per the article, sourced to the nom form, the buildings are "thought to date from the 1840s". In researching it, I couldn't find any more exact date. Using "1840" in the infobox suggests that the exact year is known.

As to the acreage, per MOS:INFOBOX,

“ [K]eep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. ”

Including the area in the infobox is problematic in two ways. First, the hasty reader glancing over the infobox without reading the entire article might not look at the infobox's NRHP heading, and might conclude that the area of the WMA/HP was five acres. Second, I do not believe that the area of the NRHP property qualifies as a "key fact". I'd include that datum for extensive properties (e.g. historic districts, battlefields, Hohokam villages, and the like) but would default to leaving it out for small sites, unless their very smallness was noteworthy. In this case, I don't believe that we'd regard the area of the site as one of the few crucial facts that we'd want a hasty reader to glean from a quick perusal of the article. Ammodramus (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

But there are almost no historic properties on the National Register in Charleston that have specifically known years. Arnoldus Vander Horst House, Bailey's Store, Brick House Ruins, Brookland Plantation, and most of the others all have that same issue but nevertheless list a date. The same practice is used in entries for National Register properties everywhere. Since the infobox is related only the National Register property and since it claims a general date, I think that stat definitely needs to go back. Although I think the area should stay too, I'm not that worried about that since it's just a ministerial stat about the property included in the Register but isn't really significant to the decision to include the property on the Register in the first place. But, the age of the buildings is really a very important part of their inclusion on the list. Since the entry on the info block is not limited to just numerals, I'm going to just stick in the range of the 1840s. That way, the important info about the property remains, and no one could misunderstand what it recaps.ProfReader (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revision works for me (although I've slightly tweaked it, from "1840-1849" to "1840s"). I agree that the age, or at least the approximate age, is an important figure for many NRHP sites.

The use of exact dates in infoboxes when they aren't actually known is a problem to be remedied, not a precedent to be followed. Unfortunately, the Elkman tool makes it easy to create infoboxes without actually vetting the information that goes into them. The NRIS data is sufficiently error-prone that I'm loath to use any of it, apart from the reference number, without checking it against more detailed sources. Ammodramus (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botany Bay Plantation Wildlife Management Area. 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/20110103020046/http://www.loc.gov/index.html to http://www.loc.gov/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)