Talk:Edgefield County, South Carolina

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Edgefield County, 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6962cjXgL?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naco.org%2FCounties%2FPages%2FFindACounty.aspx to http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statelibrary.sc.gov/edgefield-county.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613040500/http://www.edgefieldcounty.sc.gov:80/history/history.htm to http://www.edgefieldcounty.sc.gov/history/history.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Edgefield County, 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://www.webcitation.org/603eQPepG?url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45037.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45/45037.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/FindACounty.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edgefieldcounty.sc.gov/history/history.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/

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) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Content in article
It seems that a user added a lot of content to the "History" section but did not cite any sources. Skimming through, it looks like some of this information will be quite hard to find references for. There is a edit before the user added the content that I can revert the section back to. I might be wrong but it looks like it was copied from the article Edgefield, South Carolina which would also have to be fixed too. What is the opinion on this? DiscoA340 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi DiscoA340. I took down the RFC template per WP:RFCBEFORE. There doesn't seem to be any need for an RFC... at least not yet... if you aren't facing any opposition. I see you're an experienced editor but I'll run though some things you may already know, in case it provides you more clarity or confidence to proceed.
 * I only glanced at the content, but your concerns seem reasonable and supported by policy.
 * All editors are invited and encouraged to WP:Boldly make improvements. You don't need an RFC or permission to trim inappropriate or unsourced content. For any unsourced content that appears reasonable, correct, useful, likely to be sourcable, you may want to consider letting it stay and tagging it as Citation needed. It's not necessary to remove anything you think worth keeping.
 * You might want to see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can just go ahead and edit, if someone reverts (and you don't agree with it) then you can discuss it. If discussion hits a deadlock, then an RFC can resolve the dispute.
 * You suggested possibly reverting back to 07:08, 12 December 2020. That seems to be overkill. The Short description should almost certainly stay, I'm not sure but I think at least some of the infobox changes appeared appropriate, and in general you should see if anything else is worth salvaging. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alsee I understand, I'll look through the section and pare down some of the excessive details. Also, I didn't mean reverting the whole article back to that edit. I would have only taken the "History" section as that was the last edit before the excess details were added to it. Sorry for the confusion, have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)