Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona

locations
I notice that the locations sometimes have a St/Ave/Rd/whatever suffix and sometimes not. Ex. 826 N. Main St. vs. 605 W. Gurley. Should these be changed to be consistent, or are they from a particular source we need to stay true to? If they do need to be consistent, which direction should the changes be made towards, with or without? Lvklock (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Five location corrections
User:Tillman implemented five location corrections into the table, stating has local knowledge. I rather assume Tillman's knowledge is correct, but I would like to capture the information properly to report the corrections to the National Register. User:Nyttend, me, and others have been doing that, first by noting at wp:NRIS info issues with documentation if relevant, and then i have been submitting batches of those items to the National Register. Also i have visited the area and looked for some of these and/or got NRHP application documents already.


 * Mingus Lookout Complex, listed in NRIS as being in Mingus, Arizona, and NRIS gives coordinates. Tillman corrects to being in Jerome, Arizona.  This is a lookout tower complex on the top of Mingus Mountain.  There is no town of Mingus, Arizona, right?  Jerome is a town on the side of Mingus Mountain.  This seems like a good correction to make.  I might have already obtained a copy of the NRHP application for this site, will check what it says if i have it.  Otherwise I can just report this correction to the National Register.


 * Maybe, for our purposes, we should say "near Jerome" (or wherever) for rural sites? Jerome is the nearest town. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fewke's Fort Below Aztec Pass (AR-03-09-06-23), listed in table as Address Restricted, Prescott. Actually a separate NRHP report shows it listed as having nearest_city= Prescott, Arizona, while "nearest city" is dropped in the table generation.  Tillman corrects it to Paulden.  Both Prescott and Paulden are in Yavapai County.  I am not keen on revealing the location of address restricted archeological sites.  If it is or is not widely known publicly, like reported publicly in some state website, we should probably not refine this information.  Tillman, would you mind contacting me by email (there's an email-to-me button at my User page), to discuss the publicness or not of this location, rather than discussing in this likely-to-be-preserved-publicly-forever forum?


 * Perry Mesa Archeological District, listed in the table as being Address Restricted, Black Canyon City and Phoenix. NRIS individual report lists it Address Restricted, nearest_city= Phoenix, Arizona.  Tillman corrects to being in Black Canyon City, only.  I assume Tillman is knowledgeable, and showing a city in Yavapai county is better than Phoenix, which is the closest really big city but in a different county.  I think this change is okay, or perhaps it should show Prescott as the nearest city of largish/moderate size.


 * Perry Mesa Archeological District was the reason Agua Fria National Monument was created. The ruins are all on the mesa-tops (sfaik), and BCC is, indeed, the nearest town. It's not a particularly large district (ims), and PHX is 40 miles south. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Superintendent's Residence, listed at 315 S. Willard, Cottonwood, with coordinates. Tillman adds "Clemenceau" to the "UVX smelter" already mentioned with it.  Clemenceau is apparently a ghost town.  The Superintendent's Residence is in Cottonwood, in a well-populated area, it is not in a ghost town.  The coordinates given in the list article, when you go to Google map satellite view, point just about 30 yards to the right of the actual building.  In fact i have a picture or two of the superintendent's house, will create the article and add the pic.  The UVX smelter mentioned no longer exists, per se, but part of it remains as part of a sort of strip mall or big single store, with big parking lot at the northwest corner of S. 6th Street and 89A in Cottonwood, a block or so from the Superintendent's Residence.  I can see the building in the Google satellite view map.  So on this one I think the mention of Clemenceau is incorrect to add.  Perhaps there was a different UVX smelter at that ghost town, assuming that Clemenceau is somewhere else, not a neighborhood in Cottonwood.


 * Comment for both UVX NRHP's: Clemenceau was the company town for the UVX smelter. It was +/- abandoned when the smelter closed, but old Clemenceau later became part of Cottonwood, as that town boomed. So it's an odd sort of ghost town.


 * Anyway, I changed to Clemenceau because, historically, that's where they were, and I thought that would be a better place to direct the reader. But it's no biggee. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * UVX Smelter Operations Complex, listed at 361 S. Willard, Cottonwood. 34.7325°N, -112.02611°W Tillman changes Cottonwood to Clemenceau.  I also think this change is incorrect.  I believe the complex has been renovated into some stores also, will have to check some notes.  But it is in Cottonwood.

Tillman, would you please comment? (Again about locations of address restricted sites, please do cover that by email, not here.) doncram (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * GNIS gives no community called Mingus — sorry about that, wasn't paying attention. Perry Mesa Archeological District is listed by the NRIS exclusively for Phoenix, but with a BCC boundary increase — I'm assuming that this means that it's a very large district, so BCC alone wouldn't be appropriate.  The two UVX places are clearly located in Cottonwood; why add the name of a neighborhood, since it's in Cottonwood?  As for Fewkes Fort — I just realised the basis for this.  Look at the coords for ; both ends of the pass are clearly closer to Paulden than to Prescott, so it's rather obvious that the fort would likewise be closer to Paulden.  For any unpublished reasons it would be improper to change it, but the name itself betrays its general location.  Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made individual comments above. Sorry for any confusion re these changes, which I thought were pretty minor corrections. Nyttend, you did the same thing I did for Aztec Pass - Yavapai. I looked it up, thinking this was a different Prescott Culture ruin.


 * Doncram, I take it you're a local? I live in Rimrock. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perry Mesa Archeological District
This district is all on (or near) Perry Mesa, in the Agua Fria NM. Monument HQ is in PHX -- I'm guessing this is the source of the confusion re location. Deleted PHX from City column. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? You can see that the entire district was listed for Phoenix until a recent boundary increase, so it can't be just Black Canyon City.  Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The one I've read is Prehistory of Perry Mesa : the short-lived settlement of a mesa-canyon complex in central Arizona, ca. A.D. 1200-1450, by Ahlstrom, Richard V. N. Phoenix, Ariz. : Arizona Archaeological Society, 1995. This covers the PMAD as it was known then.


 * Phoenix is about 40 miles south of the PMAD (and Agua Fria NM). This is simply an error in the document, probably for the reason I've described. It's no big thing, but the PMAD is nowhere near Phoenix, and it seems silly to perpetuate an error. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the book say that the district is entirely on or right around the mesa? These districts can include sites spread out over wide areas — read about the American Falls Archaeological District in Power County, Idaho.  Even the time period covered can range widely, as you can again see with the American Falls district, so it doesn't have to be just 1200-1450.  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I went on an archaeological field trip at Agua Fria NM this morning, and checked with the ranger leading the trip on this point. She said that the Perry Mesa AD now larger than the park with the new addition, but it's all one contiguous area. Definitely does not extend to Phoenix. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever...no complaints with you now. But can you find a source for this?  Any pictures?  Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The book I mentioned above (which I now have out from the library) was written in part to support the original application for NRHP. It has the definition of the (original) PMAD I mentioned above, ie, basically the current boundaries of AFNM. If I'm understanding you correctly, this was "the entire district was listed for Phoenix until a recent boundary increase". Anyway, do you agree we should edit out Phoenix for the location?


 * We did see some cool petroglyphs on the trip. Plus a neat 19th century Basque sheep camp. Interesting place. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Have to run, so I can't answer right now. However, go to http://www.nr.nps.gov/, click the "Name" link, click the "State and Resource Name" link, put AZ and Perry Mesa Archeological District, and you'll see that only the boundary increase has BCC listed. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pete, glad you are working on this. Enough, everyone with the Phoenix business, this is no where near phoenix, phoenix needs to be eradicated from all association here.  Yes, it was apparently mentioned in some application, and it is the nearest large city.  But we don't put Chicago down for all of the midwest historic sites from the Rockies to the appalachians, either.  Even if NRIS data entry people put it in once. doncram (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)