Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Carbon County, Utah

Reduction of many archeological sites to one line
We always list each individual site separately, whether or not much information is available about it. The NRHP and the Utah SHPO have decided that these many sites in Nine Mile Canyon are fit all to be listed separately, and we need to reflect that fact. Please consider that a historic district nomination was once considered — see here and here for sources. Moreover, there is no National Register listing named "Archeological sites of Nine Mile Canyon", so it's quite incorrect to list one here. Nyttend (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the only ones that got grouped were those listed by Smithsonian trinomial with no English name, which makes no sense. Besides, I'm planning to add photos for as many of these as I can. One line each makes sense to me. Ntsimp (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, if there were other archeological sites listed on the same day besides the numbered ones, I did not understand that. And yes there is no listing of that title.  It was a wp:bold edit [here which I made that has just been reverted.  But, we can "reflect" the fact that a bunch of restricted address sites were listed on the National Register in some other way, besides creating a row for each one.  Perhaps a text list of them all in one paragraph, outside the table, would be better.  I would prefer any option besides ones that call for locals to come forward with information that should not in fact be presented in the wikipedia.  I am unfamiliar with this current situation though, so I am not sure what is appropriate to be presented or not.  Ntsimp, what kind of photos are you talking about, by the way?  But if the National Register is communicating by its NRIS database listing that it does not want these locations to be disclosed, I think we should be a bit careful here.  Perhaps consulting with the National Register before posting some kinds of photos (like ones that would newly identify sites) would be appropriate.  There are several staff at the National Register that we could easily consult, though maybe with some delay due to holidays and all.


 * About "We always list each individual site separately", Nyttend, I want to change that. This has come up before at the list of NRHP sites on the island of Hawaii and in other list articles.  Should the general issue be discussed here or at wt:NRHP?  I did post mention of my edit there, only to find the reaction/discussion here instead. doncram (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire to protect these archaeological sites, and some of them are probably closed to public access. But just which information "should not in fact be presented in the wikipedia"? Although I make it a practice not to add them for "Address restricted" sites, geographic coordinates for most of these are already public, in the book Horned Snakes and Axle Grease and on at least one website I know of. Some of them already have photos in the Nine Mile Canyon article, but I'm not sure which. I don't have a list of the sites with their Smithsonian codes yet. This is a place of great importance to me personally, and I'm proud of the NRHP listings. I think photos of these rock art panels, granaries, and pit-houses belong here just as much as a bunch of old bridges and lighthouses. Ntsimp (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) I suggested at wt:NRHP that we discuss this here for now. Also, I edited the Nine Mile Canyon article to add a section at Nine Mile Canyon which would be complementary to some treatment here.  Ntsimp already deleted the section and I just restored and revised it towards partially addressing some of Ntsimp's concerns.  Ntsimp, can we please let the section exist for a short while, while we discuss the info available and what is appropriate treatment, here?  I do acknowledge that my edits showed a lack of full understanding of this Nine Mile Canyon situation by me, and that some revisions there will be needed.  But perhaps a suitably revised section covering the NRHP listings there will serve well, so I hope we could discuss improving it first.  Okay?


 * I agree that archeological sites like these are important, and, Ntsimp, it is great that you have knowledge of them and interest in presenting about them. My interest here is not to block good contributions to Wikipedia.  I have just had an interest in Wikipedia having appropriate coverage of archeological sites and also I have been involved in our coordination of what we do with the National Register.  I know that staff there are concerned about what Wikipedia editors have done in some other archeological site situations.  It is very relevant if there are in fact already publications showing the locations of some of these and/or other public knowledge of the sites.  There have been other archeological site cases where a site that was once kept secret has been made very public, like by a state opening a museum at the site.  In such cases it is clearly appropriate for Wikipedia to give the location also, and for us to advise the National Register that they should revise their own NRIS database to remove "address restricted" labels for them.  But here they are new listings, so I am less sure what is appropriate, immediately.  I do want, personally, to maintain good relations with the National Register and with state staff and with professional archeologists, and not go against their wishes without good cause.  About the info here, I am not familiar with the sites and what is known about them.  I would be happy to browse in the Nine Mile Canyon article and any of its sources that are online, and to discuss further.  Are there other online sources that are relevant, too? doncram (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)