Talk:Bottle Creek Indian Mounds
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External Link
editThere is an article about the Bottle Creek site on the EncyclopediaofAlabama.org -- http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1160 -- Perhaps it constitutes an external link?
Thanks, Justin --Duboiju (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Coordinate error
edit{{geodata-check}}
The coordinates need the following fixes:
I was there today and located it at +31° 0' 31.69", -87° 56' 26.04"
The location on maps using the old coordinates is too far south. 74.249.121.141 (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bottle Creek Indian Mounds. 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/20090301034212/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1420&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1420&ResourceType=Site
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) 00:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Established and disestablished dates
editThe cited source says, The site is believed to have had its pri[n]cipal occupation between AD 1250 and 1550.
[1] That became The site was occupied between 1250 and 1550, ...
in the article. And yesterday and again today the article was moved from Category:Populated places established in the 13th century to Category:Populated places established in 1250 and from Category:Populated places disestablished in the 16th century to Category:Populated places disestablished in 1550, which is much too specific for dating an archaeological site. I have reverted those changes, and also removed the existing Category:1250 establishments and Category:1550 disestablishments. I understand that editors in good faith see dates in an article and want to brings categories into line with those dates, but that can be a problem if they do not understand that dates for archaeological sites are almost always approximate and often very broad estimates. The point is that we do not know what year, or decade, or maybe even century, in which the site was first and last occupied. All we have are archaeologists' best guesses as to the general period for most of the archaeological evidence of occupation. The is no support in the cited sources for any specific date. - Donald Albury 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)