Jump to content

Talk:Sayler's Creek Battlefield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photos

[edit]

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

Article name

[edit]

The article currently is written as a description of Sayler's Creek Battlefield, the National Historic Landmark, rather than as a description of Sailor's Creek Battlefield State Park. The area landmarked probably is certainly not the same as the state park. A map linked in the article shows the 4 separated segments that are part of the landmark, including some that were privately owned, and it would not be possible to make a park out of just those separated segments. I think it would be better to move the article back to Sayler's Creek Battlefield name, with mention in the article that part of the landmark may be included in the state park named Sailor's Creek Battlefield State Park.

Or, develop the article to describe the park, what are its recreational facilities, how many picnic tables, whatever, etc., using new sources about the park. I know about NHL articles, not about what makes a proper park article, though. doncram (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed mostly contiguous, so I decided on the page move. After I get back from supper, I'll do some Google Earthing and make sure both belong. I'm used o both State Park and NRHP articls, and can combine the two (My Old Kentucky Home State Park, for example).--Bedford 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i'll defer to you then. The Virginia state park website about the park (which I can't figure out how to link to directly, but get to it by navigating from List of Virginia state parks external link) has some useful description and includes a PDF brochure which i didn't look at but which could be linked in. The List of Virginia state parks gives 321 acres as the park size by the way. That should be worked in. The total acreage of the NHL should be added up and put into the NRHP/NHL infobox. Also "The Lockett house is in its original state. The Christian house is also there." was my lazy writing as placeholder. Something intelligent should be said about each of the houses, instead of that. I added 2 pics, which could be moved around. The wide view of battlefield pic should probably be larger. I'm done for now though. doncram (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move to Sayler's Creek Battlefield

[edit]

The article should be moved to Sayler's Creek Battlefield, which is the common name and the name that will be recognizable for the most readers. Sailor's Creek Battlefield State Park is an obscure or unusual name and should not be the article name, although it can be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead paragraph (as in how i have just revised the article). Even the reference given to support the use of "Sailor's" shows main use of Sayler's instead.

The move requires an administrator's assistance, as it would need to be moved over the redirect that is currently at the preferred article name (in order to preserve the edit history, rather than cutting and pasting this article from here to there). doncram (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Virginia state park is notable, too, of course. I created a separate article for it, now at Sailor's Creek Battlefield State Park (park), linked in the current article. When the current article is moved to Sayler's Creek Battlefield, that should be moved to Sailor's Creek Battlefield State Park. doncram (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this article to Sayler's Creek Battlefield (admin help was not needed), but I really think splitting out the state park as a separate article is a bad idea. We now have 3 articles: one about the battle, one on the battlefield, and another about the state park that encompasses part of the battlefield. There's not enough good content to go around. I'd merge the state park info back into this article (perhaps making it the main focus, with the other sites on the battlefield as their own sections). Brian Powell (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]