Talk:City Market (Charleston, South Carolina)

Aerial View


Is this the right place? Do you already have this image somewhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks like it, in the center. Bms4880 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's good news. Here's a cropped verrsion that may be suitable for the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Added. Great find!  Bms4880 (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, great work, including with the cropping. Definitely helps the article a lot, to see the full extent of the complex, rather than just seeing the front end and some other segment ends. -- do  ncr  am  14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Move?
Would anyone object to moving this article to City Market (Charleston, South Carolina)? Bms4880 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I edited this article back in 2008, adding the NRHP and NHL documents and other info.  I edited it just now to add back use of term Market Hall and Sheds somewhere in the lede, as I believe it is reader-useful to indicate what is the NRHP and NHL name of the site (in addition to that name appearing in the NRHP/NHL infobox).  About the proposed move, I don't have a strong opinion, though I would like for "Market Hall and Sheds" term to continue to be used somewhere in the lede.  Also, "Market Hall and Sheds" is a unique term, not requiring disambiguating phrase as part of the title, so that is one small factor to consider in naming.  But if "City Market" is what is widely commonly used, the proposed move is justified.  Either way, I gather that "City Market" is at least sometimes used, so I will add mention of this site to City Market (disambiguation). -- do  ncr  am  13:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never heard it referred to as "Market Hall and Sheds" outside of NRHP lingo. It's almost always called "City Market" or "Old City Market."  If the article is moved, we will, of course, leave "Market Hall and Sheds" in the infobox.  Bms4880 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't want to represent that the "Market Hall and Sheds" term has to be used in the lede here, nor to imply similar must generally be done for NRHP listing names. I think it often works well to have an NRHP listing name explicitly in the lede.  It also can work well to put it in late in an article at the point chronologically where the NRHP listing event is naturally mentioned.  Perhaps that should be done in this article.  I note the History section of this article skips from 1938 to 1989;  it would be natural to mention the 1973 NHL honor and NRHP listing as part of that history, probably correctly suggesting that the historic complex was appreciated for being historic by at least some parties before the City of Charleston got around to renovating it post-1989.  The term doesn't absolutely have to be used in the article, but for an NHL especially it seems appropriate to mention it.  And if it is not mentioned explicitly in the article, the NRHP infobox usage of the name can be puzzling.  Whatever. -- do  ncr  am  14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support move. [FYI to Doncram: I did not come here with any expectation of running into you. I saw this title on Bms4880's contributions list and thought this might be a topic in Tennessee or Appalachia. I've been to this place in Charleston, but I had no clue that it might be called "Market Hall and Sheds".]
 * The current title is peculiar, IMO, but I am reminded that this is the same city with another peculiarly named NHL called William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures that comprises two very different elements, as well as a National Monument that comprises two separate sites with distinct identities. A bit of Google searching indicates to me that the "Market Hall and Sheds" name is used only by the National Register and others who faithfully follow the National Register's nomenclature. The complex is generally referred to as the "Charleston City Market" or just "City Market". The main building is sometimes also referred to as "City Market", but the name "Market Hall" is preferred (except by the New York Times which called it "Great Hall" ). The three buildings behind Market Hall generally seem to be simply considered part of the City Market; sometimes they are referred to collectively as "sheds"; only when they are discussed individually as historic structures do they get upper case names (Shed A, Shed B, and Shed C). The proposed renaming would make the article title conform with the WP:COMMONNAME. The article lead should prominently indicate that the site is designated a National Historic Landmark with the name "Market Hall and Sheds", but the peculiar nomenclature chosen by the National Register folks does not dictate Wikipedia's article naming and should not block Wikipedia from using the site's most common name, consistent with WP:Article titles. --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I largely support the move, I do have some reservations. First, a fair reading of the nomination (The same document is posted as for the NHL) will show that original name of the nomination was Market Hall. It was hand corrected to read Market Hall and Sheds. A fair reading will show that it is about the architecture and history of Market Hall. The sheds are relegated to one sentence "Originally served as head house for extensive market sheds." Why this change in title occurred after it was typed is not known to me.


 * The South Carolina Encyclopedia by Walter Edgar, has an article "Market Hall," pp. 593-584. The article describes the sheds in one sentence. This shows that "Market Hall" is not unknown in South Carolina.


 * If a name change turns this article into a description of the all the commercial activity and shops in the sheds and in the buildings on either side of the hall and sheds, we will have another discussion on moving the NRHP/NHL material back into an article with the existing name or "Market Hall and Sheds at City Market." Therefore, if the local populace and tourist industry consider "City Market" to be a general term for the area around Market Hall, it would be best not to do it. KudzuVine (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding (and the article states) that the "Charleston City Market" comprises Market Hall and the buildings behind it (which buildings are what the NRHP called "sheds"). There's no disputing that "Market Hall" is a name known and used in South Carolina; it's clearly known by that name as part of the City Market and as the site of the United Daughters of the Confederacy Museum. What I don't see is any evidence that "Market Hall and Sheds" is a name in common use; rather, the group of four buildings discussed in this article is most commonly known as the City Market. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no argument that "Market Hall and Sheds" is a weird name. It was not justified in the nomination in my opinion and is not used elsewhere. The question is does the general public, South of Broad Charlestonians, or the tourist industry consider the buildings adjacent to the Market Hall and Sheds part of the "Charleston City Market?" If they do, we could end up with candy shoppes, ice cream stores, and whatever cluttering the article. Then we will need to extract the important part. This is an NHL whether it is misnamed or not. KudzuVine (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just returned from Charleston, and I noticed they've appended signs on the rear of the last shed and elsewhere inside the sheds with the name "Charleston City Market." The NHL plaque on Market Hall, of course, says "Market Hall and Sheds." Bms4880 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing cites
I've added a cite to the blurb about the proposed redevelopment that happened in 1901. The problem is that the hyperlink LOOKS like it links to the wrong page. When Google scanned all of the old newspapers, they scanned the LAST page of most editions along with the FIRST page of the next day's edition. So, the hyperlink is correct to February 3's newspaper, since page 10 (the last page) of Feb. 2 is actually the first day of that edition. (I hope that makes sense!) Any way, I'm afraid people will not realize what is going on. I have looked around and can't figure out a way to insert a NOTE in the citation to explain this so readers don't get confused. Can anyone take a look at that and help out?


 * It says "February 2" when the link is opened, so I don't think it'll cause confusion, even though the link is technicially to February 3. As long as the cite mentions the date and page, we're ok.  Bms4880 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City Market (Charleston, South Carolina). 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/20110611120011/http://www.cas.sc.edu/anth/ThesesPDF/Isenbarger%2C%20Nicole.pdf to http://www.cas.sc.edu/anth/ThesesPDF/Isenbarger%2C%20Nicole.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)