Talk:Columbia, South Carolina

United States: South Carolina High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina (assessed as Top-importance).

Cities: Regional capitals

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
	This article is supported by the project's regional capital taskforce.

Untitled

FYI to those who disagree. As a Carolina resident and a Carolina alumnus twice over (and possibly thrice), the two college football teams that stand out the most are the Clemson Tigers and the Fighting Gamecocks. Our award winning mascot Cocky MAY back my claim that Columbia is the home of the Fighting Gamecocks. And during the football season, a city-wide broadcast of one of our Fight Songs can be heard on loud speakers each day at 12 noon and at 5 PM. GOooooooo Gamecocks Go!!!!

Whoever took these pictures and uploaded them - did a nice job. I am still learning how to use the tools available on Wikipedia; therefore, formatting would be something I would work on. Paradigmbuff 15:21, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

This is an amazing article, whoever wrote this did a great job describing everything that's going on in Columbia right now. There have been a lot of changes over the past ten years, most all of them good.

Columbia is a fine city, but this article is about twice as long as the entry for Los Angeles CA (for example). This page looks like it was written by the Columbia CoC.--Son of Somebody 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the Los Angeles article and this pales in comparison. There's LA itself, then an article for every designated town or city within the vicinity.--Attitude2000 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)--Attitude2000 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, who cares about LA's article? Shouldn't we be storing as much history as we can while still keeping it manageable? I think that it's a really good, detailed article. It may be in need of a split, but information shouldn't be deleted simply because LA's article is shorter. Clete2 (talk)

Google StreetView

I think someone should add in somewhere that Columbia is now included in Google's StreetView coverage. Clete2 (talk)

Image:Metro.jpg

This image is very much outdated; furthermore, there is no copyright information available for it. I suggest that it be permanently removed.

Image:Fivepoints.jpg does not capture the essesnce of the city. We need a more bold picture to manifest our downtown area. Metro is much more sutiable and efficient at accomplishing this goal. The Fivepoints image is not exciting and does not bring much interest at all to the page. Fivepoints image is also blury and is very complex for the viewer to focus upon. Our city deserves better.

The Five Points aerial shows how dense the city really is and captures a wider scope of the city than Metro.jpg, which only pretty much focuses on Main Street. The Metro.jpg image is also VERY outdated. Where's the Meridian tower? Where's the First Citizens tower? The 1301 Gervais tower doesn't even have "Wilbur Smith" at the top. Furthermore, the copyright info is lacking so the image will be deleted shortly anyway. Akhenaton06 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the new picture work? Akhenaton06 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this one will do. I feel that Columbia is a beautful city and we need much more business attractions to enhance the city. I have researched and a Hiltion Convention center is coming to the downtown area. I believe that move more extensive work is going to be done to the Vista area. But i do feel with our growing population we will soon attract more businesses and receive more recognition. Have you heard anything else about any future developments in the downtown area?

It would take too much time to list them all. But here's the perfect place to learn about all that's going on in Columbia: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showforum=193 Hope to see you over there really soon! Akhenaton06 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any office towers planned to be constructed in the downtown area any time soon?

As of now, no. The Kline Steel project in the Vista is supposed to be a mid-rise (~8 floors) mixed-use development including office space, however. Akhenaton06 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a copyright problem with Image:colaskyline.jpg so I tweaked the original aerial picture. It's not as blurry or as small as the other one and I think it really shows off Columbia well. Akhenaton06 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proud

Kind of off-topic, but as a South Carolinian, I'm very proud of this article. It annoyed me to see extensive articles on all kinds of other places, and not see my own state represented that well. I commend all the people that have come together to expand this article so greatly. Attitude2000 17:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic Center?

Is Columbia located at the geographic center of SC? I know it is a Fall Line city, but it looks really close to the middle as well. Some state capitals where place at the g.c. User:Brando03 functioning as 65.138.71.232 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about 3 miles away, according to [this article].--Attitude2000 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Why not add or do articles on Hopkins, Eastover, Gadsden, and Ft. Jackson here in SC? King Shadeed 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the others, but there is an article for Ft. Jackson.--Attitude2000 20:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uscgamecock.gif

Anyone wanna try to straighen out the USC logo? It's covering part of the text. Zchris87v 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I merged Blythewood Road to Columbia, South Carolina, per WP:LOCAL. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 09:09Z

Nightlife is a part of Columbia!

Pollinator!

The link is not spam. It is not commercial because it doesn't ask for money. It is totally free. There are other commercial links that are considerably less appropriate. I don't see you having a problem with them.

I'm sorry that you harbor negative feelings torwards the nightlife culture, but that doesn't mean you have to be unprofessional.

Well let's see if others see it your way. But you won't be able for awhile, because you've been blocked for repeatedly re-adding the link without following directions to discuss it here first, also for removing the warning from your talk page. If you wish to edit after the ban expires, you are welcome, but please remember to follow the rules. The link you propose may not sell products but it advertises them. BTW, I don't think you mean apart so I edited the title of the section to say a part. Pollinator 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I can wait. If it doesn't, it's merely biased, selective enforcement. There are entire articles dedicated to websites that sell and advertise products on here. The site in question has one sponsor, Miller Lite. Oh wow! There is an article about it. The largest section is about ADVERTISING! And look!!! There is a link to their latest promotional campaign. That is okay, but a link to a subpage of a website that is mostly pictures of people that actually LIVE IN COLUMBIA, and covers nothing but the NIGHTLIFE there is "spam". that is just wonderful!

thanks. yes i meant a part.

No one has supported your link. Do not add it again. Pollinator 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has objected either! I have made a very clear case. Your "advertising" reason is bogus considering all the other links that you allow. Do not delete again!

Spamming is promoting a site that you love, its not always related to money. You seem very insistent with adding this link, perhaps its time to let someone else add it if it is indeed useful? Feel free to point out other promotional links, we will remove them as well if they are not directly related to the subject, and the link fails to have anything to do with the subject. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cityofcolumbiasc seal.jpg

Image:Cityofcolumbiasc seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbiastingers.gif

Image:Columbiastingers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldegrey.jpg

Image:Oldegrey.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ColumbiaBlowfish.jpg

The image Image:ColumbiaBlowfish.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:ColumbiaInferno.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

I don't really know much about Columbia; I just happen to live in the same state and I've been there a few times. That said, could "The Capital City" be a nickname? I hear it in TV ads and on the news a bit, so it kind of seems that way. I didn't want to just slap it up there for someone to take it down a few days later.--Attitude2000 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Columbia and we refer to it as Colatown and The Capital City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.156.101.6 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods

Looking at the Neighborhoods section, most of the links going to external sites of neighborhood associations and the like. This strikes me as being a bit spammy. Maybe pages need to be created for these neighborhoods instead of just linking outside of wikipedia. Also, I kind of think we need to differentiate between older, established neighborhoods like Arsenal Hill or Eau Claire and newer subdivisions and planned communities like Lake Carolina. Can we establish some sort of guideline as to what gets included here (maybe with location in relation to the city so that non-natives can get an idea of where it is) so that it doesn't become an unwieldy list? An list without any detail or citation is pretty suspect for notability.Bacondero (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Columbia, South Carolina

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Columbia, South Carolina's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "weather":

From Washington, D.C.: "Average Weather for Washington, DC — Temperature and Precipitation". The Weather Channel. Retrieved 2008-06-03.
From Atlanta, Georgia: "Monthly Averages for Atlanta, Georgia (30303)" (Table). The Weather Channel Interactive, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-23.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airport

Is there a reference for the statement that Columbia's airport is the fourth busiest in the state behind Greenville-Spartanburg, Charleston, and Myrtle Beach? I find that rather hard to believe. Most people fly out of Columbia, Atlanta, or Charlotte, not the regional airports. --Nelliebellie (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new picture

can we please post a better picture of the downtown skyline for the main picture. thanks

I would like to find out if anyone can tell me the name of the church that had a advertisment on WB between 8:00 pm- 8:30 pm. thank you D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.185.62 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City Nickname

More of a slogan to promote tourism, the "offical" phrase that's being tacked on is now "Famously Hot". I don't really like it myself, but it's better than "A Capital Place to Be". Probably pretty relevant to the article. Rather not promote it myself ref http://www.columbiacvb.com/microsites/index.cfm?action=Cover&meetingid=31 Lime in the Coconut 14:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy Section

The information about SCANA needs to be amended. Unfortunately, they've moved (or are in the process of relocating) to West Columbia, off of 12th St. Ext. Lime in the Coconut 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag changes

While I agree that there should be mention of the Confederate flag flying over the capital, and the controversy around it and eventual removal to the state grounds, the recent edit in "Recent History" seems really out of place. It talks about revitalization, then the flag flag, and then more revitalization. I would think it should either be a separate paragraph - or better yet, a new section after recent history should be added about the (still on-going) controversy. Ward99 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't appropriate for the city article. This is a state matter, and is covered in South Carolina#20th century and beyond, in detail in History of South Carolina#Recent events and in other places like Flags of the Confederate States of America#Display at the South Carolina capitol, and Mark Sanford#Role in 2008 presidential election. Abductive (reasoning) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism--non-documented information--biased, non-neutral information by Columbia1 (who doesn't live in Columbia)

Something needs to be done about this from an administrative point of view. His history on the Columbia page speaks for itself. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest choosing a particular dispute, and explaining why it should be the way you want it. Then other editors can comment here so that a consensus will be reached. Abductive (reasoning) 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, everything Columbia1 edits is negative in nature (which must count for something), but let's start with his edit regarding AgFirst Bank in the Economy section. I believe my edit is objective and succinct; his is pretty overboard, overemphasizing the fact that it is not a commercial bank. Secondly, in the Sports section, under "league" and "venue" headings for the Columbia Inferno, his edits say that the team has not played in two years. That's not appropriate information for those headings whatsoever; maybe for an addendum, but not under those headings. Concerning the airport, he has information there that's really irrelevant. Why do you include airlines that were there but aren't any longer (all airports have airlines that are no longer there) or information about current political infighting in the state? Columbia1 is really from Greenville and that's why the information he includes in his edits is biased against Columbia. The information about the venue for USC's new ballpark in his edits includes some unofficial talks around the time that new locations were being proposed for the new ballpark, but that information is in no way relevant to the basic information concerning the venue right now, and it most certainly isn't the appropriate place to mention the absence of a minor league sport in the city. Couple that with the fact that his edits include absolutely no references, and that should say enough about what this guy's true intentions are. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that these are what is called "content disputes" and are there is a system in place to deal with them. The article is on 38 people's watchlists, but nobody is stepping in because (I think) they are not clear what is going on. Both you guys are WP:Edit warring rather than working out your differences on the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Objectivity isn't Columbia1's goal at all, so I seriously doubt that you'll see that any time soon. Like I said before, look at several instances of his edit history. You'll see what his true intentions are, and it isn't to present unbiased, neutral information. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.24.128.231 is an alias for banned user AKhenaton06 who is on the page of multiple screen name users. AKhenaton was banned for posting photos against copywright rules and now is back as 98.24.128.231 98.24.128.231 is vandalizing the page and presenting incorrect information. How can a banned user come back and start breaking the rules again? Take the Columbia Inferno. This team has not played now in two years and probably will not play again. It is a team in name only. This team does not currently play at any area arena, yet 98.24.128.231 persist in making believe the team exist. This is incorrect information. This link states clearly the Inferno has not played at Carolina Coliseum (or even played period) since 2008, with no future plans to play at Carolina Coliseum. 98.24.128.231 (AKhenaton) continues to edit and make it look as though the team currently plays. http://www.thestate.com/2010/03/04/1185023/lights-still-out-for-inferno.html Columbia1 (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbia1 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that the IP is a blocked user editing again, then you should follow the suggestions on WP:Sock puppetry to get something done about it. Akhenaton06 was blocked for uploading copyvio images, not for edit warring, so perhaps it would be best to address the content disputes about the article here. The IP has accused you of not liking Columbia, which is also not a valid reason for reverting another editor. Abductive (reasoning) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the content disputes, I see little difference between the edits. For example, your difference over the paragraph on the Bull Street Campus could be solved by including both pieces of information. Abductive (reasoning) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have included detailed information in the Bull Street Campus section that goes beyond a negatively simplistic "nothing has been built and nothing has yet materialized" and I also included a footnote about the Inferno's voluntarily suspended seasons. That would be the appropriate thing to do, since "the team hasn't played in two seasons" isn't either a league or a venue. If someone wants to include further detail, they should at least do it appropriately. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm simply trying to make sure all facts are presented and 98.24.128.231 is removing facts they do not personally like. The IP 98.24.128.231 is deleting accurate factual information. I've only reverted a few areas where the IP is not stating the full actual facts and actually misrepresenting the facts. If I hated my hometown, I wouldn't want to see factual information printed. Again, I will report 98.24.128.231 as the dual user they are, AKhenaton. Please keep tabs on the vandalism of this IP user erasing factual info. On transportation, 98.24.128.231 has undone all pertinent info to low fare carriers that have served and are trying to serve the airport. This is an important piece of factual information about the airport. Columbia1 (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the CSA population is discussed in the population figures, I've noted the official South Carolina rank of the CSA as determined by the US Census Bureau 2009. Columbia1 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Columbia1, you are not from Columbia. Your IP address, 66.169.29.19, traces you to Piedmont, SC, which is just outside of Greenville. This is why at least half of your edits contain some sort of reference to Greenville (USC ballpark, airport, CSA, etc.). There is absolutely NO vandalism here on my part. Some of your earlier edits show your bias: [1], [2]. Examples like those are the TRUE definition of vandalism. You also seem to know quite a bit about what goes on at Haywood Mall in Greenville from your previous edits as well; if you are from Columbia and love your "hometown", seems that you would have made a similar article/list for Columbiana Mall. As far as the airport goes, it is only meant to give basic information about the airport and the current carriers that serve the airport, not about airlines that are not there. If you wish to give a history of the airport in that regard, then you should appropriately create an article about it. No other city page has information about airlines that AREN'T at their airports. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of these are vandalism. This is just a disagreement on what level of detal should be in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - can you link to some examples of the other airports? Do it below. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this page was to work out editorial differences, not to be flamed and personally bashed. I am a member of Wikipedia and now being flamed and bashed by a non-member IP. A multiple account sock puppet user at that.Columbia1 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stick to the issues. Having a pro- or anti- Columbia bias is not a problem. Both of you should look at WP:UNDUE and Columbia1 should provide secondary sources for his claims, per WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I simply want accurate facts and they should not be deleted by someone trying to change facts. I have plenty of documentation on the airport and other topics that I will provide per WP: PSTS.71.28.30.237 (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Columbia1 (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a section below for each disputed point and present your interpretation. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airport

Please demonstrate that other city articles do or do not mention airlines that no longer service the airport. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh city page has details about the past US Airways hub.Columbia1 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so former hub status might be considered noteworthy. I don't recall CAE being a hub. Abductive (reasoning) 22:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The vast majority of cities do not have details about airlines that no longer serve their airports in the small section on the city page, and for the ones that do, it was because those airports were hubs for those particular airlines which is very different than an airline simply discontinuing service, an important distinction that Abductive has mentioned as CAE has never been a hub for those airlines; those details (about the latter) are mostly fleshed out in pages dedicated to the airports themselves. I can name several city pages that do not have information about airlines that no longer serve their airport; it seems to be the rule rather than the exception: Charleston, SC ,Jacksonville, FL, Charlotte, Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, Seattle, Memphis, Milwaukee, Baltimore, San Antonio, Tampa, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Phoenix, Richmond, VA, Little Rock, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Des Moines, Birmingham, AL, Boise, Minneapolis, Lexington, KY, Charleston, WV, Fresno, CA, Providence, RI, etc. There's even more, but I got tired and I think these are enough to prove my point. These were relatively easy to find because by and large, it seems to be a generally accepted practice that the city page simply contains basic information about the airport or maybe something in the way of any new construction. Airlines that no longer serve the airport is included in detailed information on a dedicated airport page. It seems appropriate that the same should be done for Columbia. Since Columbia1 is making this an issue when it doesn't appear to be one on any other city page (nor was it one here before mid-April due to political infighting about government money in SC going to support specific airports), instead of making fly-by comments with no references, perhaps he should take the time to create a dedicated CAE page with detailed information and references instead of having every little development and detail clogging up space here on the city page. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abductive. Since there is a Columbia Airport page with a large history section, I'll post the factual history there. It has a link to the city page. Additionally, since hubs are notewrothy, I'll add to the Columbia city page the past failed hub of Air South.Columbia1 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a mention of AirSouth on the CAE page. But I'm sure you'll add to it. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the mention of Air South as brief as possible. Make no mention of airlines discontinuing service to CAE and I think that will be consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 22:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Stadium

The unofficial proposal concerning USC and the Columbia Bombers building a joint-use stadium is more appropriate for the dedicated Carolina Stadium page. The specifics of that, and other, initial proposals are too lengthy for the small section dedicated to the ballpark in the Venues category. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. These details about nothing happening are uninteresting to readers of a summary article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AgFirst Bank

I believe my edit that describes the nature of AgFirst Bank, the largest headquartered in SC by assets, is more succinct and cleaner than Columbia1's. My parenthetical edit states, "the non-commercial bank is part of the Farm Credit System, the largest agricultural lending organization in the United States which was established by Congress in 1916." Columbia1's, I believe, is a bit too lengthy for a parenthetical edit and too verbose: "this organization is not a true commercial bank has no branches, marketing and does not serve the general public. It is part of the Farm Credit System, a government founded organization in the United States which was established by Congress in 1916." "Non-commercial" is a much more succinct way of saying "this organization is not a true commercial bank has no branches, marketing and does not serve the general public." Also, my edit is more detailed in that I mention the nature of the Farm Credit System as an agricultural lending organization. Columbia1's edit says "government-founded organization," which is redundant since the sentence goes on to say that the system was established by Congress. The grammar of that edit is a bit sloppy as well. 98.24.128.231 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- A lot of wording would be saved if it simply said "the largest non commercial, Farm Credit bank based in SC is AgFirst". AgFirst is not a true bank, it is a "Farm Credit Bank". Columbia1 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "true bank," just not a commercial bank. It has a specialized niche customer base, but that doesn't make it a "false bank." 98.24.128.231 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That almost looks like consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past performers for Main Street Jazz

Partial list of renowned jazz performers who have performed at Main Street Jazz:

Stephanie Nakasian Jesse Green Gene Dykes Chris Potter Red Rodney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.126.155 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC) - These people are not WORLD renowned. Columbia1 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an expert on jazz music? A description of a CD on Amazon.com states, "Listen first to world-renowned vocalist Stephanie Nakasian perform these classic tunes..." The bio of Chris Potter states, "For world-renowned saxophonist Chris Potter, the discovery became an acquired taste." It's obvious to someone from a non-biased perspective that Main Street Jazz attracts both world-renowned jazz musicians and those renowned specifically in the world of jazz. 98.24.126.155 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have an article, they don't belong on this page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't advocating that specific individuals be named in that particular section, but that the "world-renowned" phrase is entirely justified. At the very least, "renowned" should be used. 98.24.126.155 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCANA

It is a very common for Wikipedia city pages to include major companies, institutions, etc. located in the immediate suburbs of those cities. Thus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including SCANA on the Columbia Wikipedia page with a mention of its location in a nearby suburb, only about 2 miles from downtown. For instance, the Chicago Wikipedia page states in the Economy section, "In addition, Chicago is home to eleven Fortune 500 companies, while the entire Chicago metropolitan area hosts 32 Fortune 500 companies." Atlanta's states "Other headquarters for some major companies in Atlanta and around the metro area include Arby's, Chick-fil-A, Earthlink, Equifax, Gentiva Health Services, Georgia-Pacific, Oxford Industries, RaceTrac Petroleum, Southern Company, SunTrust Banks, Mirant, and Waffle House." It is common knowledge that the local economy of a city spreads out to the surrounding metropolitan area and is not simply contained within the city limits. Furthermore, the airports of many cities (including Columbia, Greenville, SC, etc.) aren't actually included in city limits; does that mean that those airports should not be listed on those city pages? 98.24.126.155 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCANA is a major employer (if not the major corporate employer) in the city and belongs on the page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia1 is at it again. He removed Michelin from the economy page, saying that it was located in Lexington and not Columbia. Again, Lexington (like Cayce) is in the metro area and it is perfectly normal to list major companies that have a presence not just in the city, but in the metro area. I undid that edit. Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing information citing "no factual proof"

If I'm not mistaken, the correct way to go about this here is not to simply remove information and cite "no factual proof" (unless, of course, something is outlandishly incorrect), but it is to use the "citation needed" tag. Is this correct? If so, Columbia1 needs to follow this rule in his near excessive vandalism of this page. Akhenaton06 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sock puppetry from AKhenaton06 (banned user) also going by 98.24.126.155. Now being reported again. Columbia1 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sock puppetry here. My restriction has been lifted by administrator User:Shell Kinney and that can be verified by looking at my talk page. Go cry and whine to her if you wish, but you have no basis upon which to do it, nor is this even relevant to you deleting information for which you say there is no "factual proof," yet you consistently add information without referencing factual sources. Hypocritical much? Perhaps you should go clean up the Greenville, SC page instead of running and tattling like a child about every little thing. And it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop going through the trouble of capitalizing the "k" in my username. I don't appreciate the implication whatsoever. Akhenaton06 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this subject back up because a lot of information has been removed here over the past few weeks for a supposed lack of citations. Isn't the correct way to handle this is to use the "citation needed" tag and not just delete information? This is bordering on vandalism. Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime

I've noticed most other city pages on wikipedia have a scetion on crime, yet Columbia's page does not. I'll start gathering facts to start a crime section. Feel free to add any statistical facts. Columbia1 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. Looking at other large cities in SC, I see that Charleston has one but the primary city of the state's largest CSA, Greenville, doesn't have one. I'll start making a section for that city's page, which seems to be very neglected overall in many categories. Akhenaton06 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm concerned with the local Columbia crime since this is the Columbia page. Does anyone have any facts to contribute on local Columbia crime? I plan to start imputting information within the next few days. Columbia1 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from MelissainSC, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add a link to the list of private schools in Columbia. The web address for St. Peter's Catholic School is www.stpeters-catholic-school.org Verify by following the link. Thanks.

MelissainSC (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

38th fattest and Michelin

User:Columbia1 edited the article to insert the claim that Columbia is the 38th fattest city according to Mens Health magazine. In my opinion, this was corrected removed by User:Akhenaton06 as trivial. If Columbia was in the top 5, perhaps there would be some value in this. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Akhenaton06 reinserted Michelin as a major manufacturer in the Columbia area. I believe that this source justifies retaining that mention, and urge User:Akhenaton06 to format the source into a proper reference. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Columbia1 added the blurb about 38th fattest city again. User is being a big-time troll here.Akhenaton06 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use secondary sources

Instead of reverting edits back and forth, I recommend that User:Columbia1, User:Akhenaton06 and any other editors interested in improving the article use secondary sources when adding content to the article. For example, this book offers plenty of up-to-date and insightful information on the impact of the latest economic downturn on Columbia. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koger Center

This is starting to get very tiring because it's generally quite unnecessary. For someone who supposedly lives in Columbia, Columbia1 should be quite aware of the fact that the Koger Center does host acts from around the world; just a cursory glance of the facility's history attests to that. But someone who's originally from Alabama and now lives in Greenville wouldn't know that. Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where anybody is from. One can see User:Columbia1's point that the language in the article is a bit too promotional. The article needs work. Abductive (reasoning) 05:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Around the world" isn't promotional in this case, it's fact. The London Philharmonic, among others, have performed at the Koger Center. That is something that's validated in the link I provided, so how can that be viewed as "promotional"? Akhenaton06 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to sound more factual and less "promotional": "from local acts to global acts." Should be satisfactory. Akhenaton06 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Please stop removing content in multiple edits before discussing it on the talk page. It makes it very hard to actually verify information, which should be the primary goal of your edits. Unsourced information doesn't belong, but some of it is very easily sourced and you're doing the article, and indeed wikipedia in general, a great disservice by removing relevant information. If your contention is that the information isn't relevant, then that needs to be the edit summary, not "citation needed for these additional developments". Personally, I would contend that they don't need to be written out and the general phrasing that you removed works better for the article.

In particular this information was removed: " Other notable developments under construction and recently completed include high-end condos and townhomes, hotels, mixed-use structures, and the establishment of a retail corridor along Lady Street. "

I'm not familiar with adding references or links but I'll give it my attempt (something I can't say for the editors removing all this content)

High-end condos and townhomes: Aspyre - (http://www.iaspyre.com/), Adesso (http://www.adesso-columbia.com/), Cooper Beach (http://www.cbeech.com/columbiasc.htm), The Gates at Williams-Brice (http://www.thegatesatwb.com/The_Gates-476.html), Carolina Walk (http://www.carolinawalk.com/). There are more, but you get the picture.

Mixed-use structure: the formerly mentioned Adesso building and the Horizon/Discovery buildings for USC. See Innovista. I would add that this seems like it could be stricken, as what exactly constitutes "mixed-use" ?

Hotels: The Hilton Garden Inn, the Hampton Inn (http://www.hamptoninncolumbia.com/), the renovation of the Mariott on Assembly (http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/caecd-courtyard-columbia-downtown-at-usc)

I'm not sure what kind of citation you'd need for the establishment of a retail corridor on lady street... should I just get a link to several different businesses' websites? Do you need a newspaper article with the exact phrasing "retail corridor"? Can I include a photo showing the streetscaping and business signs? At some point I feel we don't need to prove the existance of buildings along a street... but take a look here if you're really that interested... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+lady+street+columbia+sc&aq=f&aqi=g1g-c1g-m8&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Thanks for wasting my time having to look up references for this information which was totally uncontroversial and really not that important to begin with. You must be proud of your wikipedia editorial campaigns... Lime in the Coconut 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "subjective word" edit summaries, please provide evidence of the subjectivity... we don't have to have citations for every adjective used in the article. "technologically advanced" is subjective but comes directly from the source. However "thriving" is exactly how you would describe an area of town that went from no businesses and low property values to level of development evidenced today. I realize that we don't want to over exaggerate claims, but that doesn't mean that valid claims can't be made. "Distinctive" tower... how praytell can a large tower in the middle of a city not be distinctive? I'm not going to revert every single edit you've made but you have to realize that this isn't productive or constructive at all, in fact, it's quite the opposite (destructive). Lime in the Coconut 16:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's pretty fruitless and at some point motives have to be questioned. At any rate, this video link justifies the adjective "thriving" used to describe the Vista district: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhyQuBjSWZM Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion section

As I've edited it, the religion section starts off by describing Columbia's similarity with the majority of the Bible Belt South in its religious makeup. What's objectionable about that? Seems to me that it is quite relevant. Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. I would suggest that everybody read WP:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader. Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combined statistical area

User Columbia1 (going by IP 71.85.96.214, which traces to Greenville, SC) adds Columbia as being the second-largest CSA in the state in the "Metropolitan area" section, but when I add that it's also the fastest-growing CSA in the state, he erases the latter fact. Seems as though both facts should either be allowed or omitted, but you can't be selective with them as Columbia1 wishes to be. Akhenaton06 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to remove any fact presented in the article unless it violates one of wikipedia's many policies. I can't think of one that would violate. However, removing facts from articles without explaining why or repeatedly removing sourced material sounds a lot like vandalism to me. Lime in the Coconut 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points

User:Columbia1 added info about curfews being enacted in Five Points due to some shootings there earlier this year in the shopping section. I contend that this information is not appropriate for the shopping section; seems pretty irrelevant actually as it really has nothing to do with shopping as Five Points is a nightlife district as well. Akhenaton06 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a nightlife district, then the crime associated with that nightlife is very relevent. It is being called out as a special district, so all activities in that district are relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.7.194 (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the crime is associated with nightlife, then there's absolutely nothing that warrants it being mentioned in the SHOPPING section. Akhenaton06 (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williams-Brice stadium

User:Columbia1 added a statement that Williams-Brice stadium is the second-largest stadium in SC (without linking to a source in the article) and in the comments cited this link: http://majorevents.clemson.edu/general_information/gi_fac.asp#memorial However, that link says nothing about Williams-Brice. It is a link to Clemson's stadium and gives facts about that stadium. This is not the Clemson stadium page. Akhenaton06 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prices at CAE

User:Columbia1 keeps adding information on the sad state of fares at Columbia Metropolitan Airport in West Columbia. This info might be sourced, but the claim as to why the prices there are higher is not in the source. Furthermore, the source do not say the fares are near the highest in the nation, just in airports "-3; less than 500,000 pax". Finally, this sort of info belongs in the CAE article, not in the already overlong Columbia article. Abductive (reasoning) 07:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of Ninety Six?

While copy editing I came across this line in the Early History section: "State Senator John Lewis Gervais of Ninety Six introduced a bill..." I'm not sure what this means, so I didn't change it, because I don't know what it should be changed to. What does "of Ninety Six" mean? Could someone please clarify this? Spock of Vulcan (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ninety Six is the name of a town in South Carolina. Akhenaton06 (talk)

Ninety-Six District was a district during the period before the Revolutionary War, a place where numerous Sephardic Jewish families from London bought land, including one man who died in service to the rebels during the war.Parkwells (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

The accounts of Columbia in the Civil War always accentuate the burning of the city in 1865. But what about the celebrations at the beginning, the rejoicing over secession, the defiance of the Union, the dancing in the street etc.? This might balance the picture. Valetude (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think that "balances" or excuses war crimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.77.10 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this "history" fails to report the horrendous war crimes committed by Sherman's army is all the evidence one needs to understand the biased nature of Wiki. Do not trust everything you read here. WILL20300 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Columbia, South Carolina

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Columbia, South Carolina's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "futuremarket":

From Columbia Inferno: "Future Markets", ECHL. (accessed 24 June 2014).
From ECHL: "Future Markets", ECHL. (accessed 24 June 2014).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of data about black churches

Considering that African Americans make up more than 42% of the city's population, and many are known to be Baptist, it's odd there is no mention of the black congregations of the National Baptist Convention, USA, founded in 1886, or the National Baptist Convention of America, founded in 1897 - two major black Baptist associations.Parkwells (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Columbia, South Carolina

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Columbia, South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150202082408/http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/south_carolina/richland/maps/gsm.pdf to http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/south_carolina/richland/maps/gsm.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Columbia, South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120915014044/http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/417328/rail_transit_study_meetings_this_week_public_invited/ to http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/417328/rail_transit_study_meetings_this_week_public_invited/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Columbia, 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:

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) 16:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Columbia, 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:

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) 08:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Columbia, 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/20161019182931/https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

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) 17:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Columbia, 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:

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) 03:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Columbia, 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/20150506044445/http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/index.php/city-rankings/city-rankings-100 to http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/index.php/city-rankings/city-rankings-100

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) 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Columbia, 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/20120119073104/http://www.nba.com/bobcats/recap_pacers_061024.html to http://www.nba.com/bobcats/recap_pacers_061024.html

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) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]