Talk:Painted Rock Petroglyph Site

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Csc622.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move
Painted Rocks (Arizona) → Painted Rock Petroglyph Site &mdash; The article is about a site administered and maintained by the Bureau of Land Management and is officially named, by them, "Painted Rock Petroglyph Site". user:Doncram is insistent upon using the name that shows in the National Register of Historic Places of "Painted Rocks", to the point where s/he continues moving it to a name that requires a parenthetical disambiguator. Even setting aside that "Painted Rock Petroglyph Site" is the official name used by the entity that owns and operates the site, WP:NCDAB dictates that "When there is another term or more complete name that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." If "Painted Rock Petroglyph Site" is not a more complete name, I do not know what is. Shereth 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to moving to that name, honestly in part because of administrator Shereth's minor abuse of administrative tools in edit warring and forcing his/her way. I opened the article at "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)" which is a valid name using the National Register of Historic Places official name for the place, plus adding (City, State) disambiguating phrase to allow for the likelihood that there may be other places of the name "Painted Rocks".


 * Also, the name "Painted Rocks" which is the official name of the National Register program highlights the historic place well. The version of the article as I have just left it, here, highlights the petroglyphs and the simple National Register name for the place.  To use a Bureau of Land Management campground name instead of the natural name for the place, and to focus the article more on describing a campground rather than the ancient petroglyphs, as in Shereth's apparently preferred last version does not seem better to me.  There are two official names for the place.  I object to Shereth's highhanded dismissal "Nonsense" in edit summary of Shereth's last move of the article.  It is not nonsense that I created the article at the National Register name for the place.  It happens that i and others are building articles about NRHP places, and it is generally accepted that these are wikipedia-notable, and they are usually listed at the NRHP name for the place.  And, to convey that this is the article about the NRHP place of that name, it is necessary to include the NRHP name for the place in bold in the article, perhaps along with other alternative, bolded names.


 * Further, Shereth has intervened on this article to remove mention of Theba, Arizona from the title and from the content of the article, apparently because he/she is battling to win an AfD on Theba, Arizona which he/she opened at Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona. I added a note to the AfD to keep the article about Theba, and linked in the Theba article to this new NRHP which I created.  I think it shows poor style for Shereth to engage in edit warring and to fight in the content of other articles apparently towards "winning" an AfD.  I would appreciate if other administrators would call Shereth on his/her minor abuse of the tools in edit warring with the moves, in deleting my work and not giving any notice.  See User talk:Shereth and User talk:Doncram and see Shereth and my contributions about that.


 * I support moving the article back to "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)" which is how I opened the article, and is consistent with NRHP names and disambiguation nation-wide. Finally, I won't necessarily fully oppose a different name for the place if others removed from the Theba, Arizona AFD dispute suggest a different name.  I do often support use of non-NRHP names for places that have other common names, although the NRHP infobox name for a place should show the NRHP name, and the NRHP name should be included in bold in the article.  However, Shereth's behavior is unpleasant and I do think is an instance of minor abuse of the tools.  Thanks for considering this. doncram (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that you accuse me of edit warring, when all I did was make a single revert of your move (you have reverted me twice). All said, that's not really the issue here.  The issue is extremely simple - the BLM is the owner and operator of the site, not the NRHP.  The NRHP may have, at one point, called the place "Painted Rocks" but they do not own and operate the location.  To illustrate the problem of relying on the old NRHP data, it states that the site is governed by the state (and you have decided to revert my correction showing that the BLM now operates the site) because when the site was added to the register, it was governed by the state.  The state handed control to the BLM 20 years ago.  The information that you are stubbornly reverting into the article is out of date and it is honestly mind-boggling that you insist a 30 year old entry in the NHRP should trump current ownership information.  As far as Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona is concerned, I conceded the point and withdrew my nomination this morning and am no longer interested in getting it deleted.  If you had bothered to read the full discussion you would know this. Shereth 23:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that you withdrew the nomination appears to be false, as far as I can tell in the current version of the AFD discussion. It does include a conditional offer that you make to possibly remove your nomination, but it does not look to me like you withdrew the nomination.  In fact, voting and discussion is continuing. doncram (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I stated that I was withdrawing under protest, but did not place any conditions on my withdrawal. The discussion is ongoing because other editors have opined that it should be deleted and the discussion will remain open in spite of the fact that I have withdrawn. Shereth 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually i see now the statement to which you refer, but have to note it is pretty well hidden, far down in the discussion, in what is labelled merely as "Comment". I would think a nominator's intention to withdraw a nomination would be noted at least briefly upfront, with the nomination itself, and perhaps the nominator would strike out what they meant to withdraw.  And then early in the discussion is your conditional offer to withdraw, with no update there, so I interpreted that to be the withdrawal you referred to (and that you had not in fact withdrawn), without my absorbing your separated comment further below.  Without your further discussion here, I think i would still be hard pressed to assess whether the nominator had actually withdrawn or sought to withdraw, because, communication-wise, the prominence of the nomination and of the first discussion of possible withdrawal is not really cancelled by the later comment.  So I think you misjudged the quality of my reading, but I was mistaken also for not finding and interpreting your later comment as you apparently intended it.  Note, I was reading the entire discussion all at once, later;  I imagine that if i was participating in the AfD all along then I would have received and understood your later comment differently, more as you meant it. doncram (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it not amusing that you are taking pleasure of bedeviling someone else who does not have the administrative tools. You made a bold move, i reverted it, conveying adequately that it was a contested to move it from the original name.  It was your job as an administrator to stop there and discuss.  Instead you moved it again, and as you know that prevents me from being able to move it back to the original name, it takes an administrator to do so.  I mainly do object to your highhanded way.  In your revisions of the article you took out stuff such as mention of its location near Theba, Arizona which i consider to be wp:POINTY, and I supposed you were still trying to win the AFD which you had opened.  If you are not trying to win it, why do you remove Theba from the article?  In the process of restoring that and other stuff, I gather that I lost some BLM information which you added and which would be appropriate to restore.  I am sorry for having lost some info.  However i do not think the article should emphasize a BLM campground in lieu of emphasizing the petroglyphs.  And, I think in terms of edit warring that you are one and half steps ahead of me, in effect, and you did force your way successfully in preventing me from returning the article to the original name. doncram (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also find it less than amusing that you are making a continual refusal to assume good faith with my actions and make accusations as to what my motives are while being uninformed as to the situation. You 'supposed' that I modified the references to Theba because I wanted to win an argument; I have made no such assumptions as to your motives as far as why you are so vehement on the article title.  In reality, I was attempting to use a point of reference that is more recognizable; Theba is obscure to the point of being virtually unknown and does nothing to provide a frame of geographical reference for the user.  I frankly don't care if you want to leave something in here about "The nearest settlement is Theba" (it is actually Piedra if we want to be fussy about it).  A better statement to use in the lede would be something readily recognizable, such as "About 90 miles southwest of Phoenix".  A point of contention I have with the infobox wording is that Theba is in no definition a city - but since that's just template boilerplate, I really don't care if that is left as-is.


 * I believe you are also misinterpreting the situation as far as the Historical Site vs. BLM Campground is concerned. I am not trying to de-emphasize the status as a Historical Site.  The rocks that are the historic site are located wholly within the campgrounds - the BLM maintains a walking trail that goes around the rocks and includes historical markers and informative signs for visitors.  This should not be an issue of NRHP vs. BLM, but the historic site is located within and is a part of the BLM establishment, therefore it makes more sense that the article be about the whole establishment, not just the historic site which is a part of it.  Shereth 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should be at Painted Rocks. There is no need for a parenthetical qualifier of any kind. No other article is using the title. Station1 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I believe Shereth and I both think that "Painted Rocks" should be a disambiguation page, covering this Arizona one and also wikipedia-notable Painted Rocks State Park in Montana and Yakima Indian Painted Rocks, as well as other places named "Painted Rock", singular.  I hadn't noticed immediately, earlier, that Shereth had set up this disambiguation page.  I had estimated it would be appropriate to have such a page eventually, though. doncram (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you need a dab page (questionable in my opinion, and redlinks certainly don't belong) it should be at Painted Rock (disambiguation) because no other article is using the precise title Painted Rocks. A dab page takes the unqualified title only if there are two or more articles that would otherwise use the same title and none are the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's funny - not in a funny ha-ha sort of way - how one can get so firmly entrenched into the notion that a debate must be resolved with either X or Y that they fail to consider Z. This is just such a case - there really is no reason that this article can't take the unqualified version and the dab be at Painted Rock (disambiguation) and I would consider that solution to be perfectly acceptable. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 07:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe an administrator like Shereth would go to great lengths in making a point like he/she is doing on this talk page. These articles really are getting lots of hot attencion. In case you didn't know, I was the one that started the article Theba, Arizona; I thought it was notable enough for an article. I just did not have the references at the time, but now thanks to other editors there is sufficient references. I want to thank you Shereth. The AfD tag was the best thing that could have happened to the Theba and Painted Rocks articles. Burningview (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It happens all the time - a poor article gets nominated and comes out the other side as highly improved. However, I wonder what your point here is, except to come and try to get people riled up again?  If you've been paying attention you'd see that tempers are coming down and we're starting to come to a common grounds on how to improve the situation overall.  Zipping in with a snide remark is far from helpful. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the AfD had little to do with bringing people to improve this article (although it was indirectly responsible for its creation by bringing the whole Theba matter to Doncram's attention). As soon as it was created I jumped in here with additional sources and information.  I get irked when people assume all I am trying to do is get something deleted/tear down someone's work, when all I am trying to do is improve the encyclopedia.  When something is real and verifiable, I am only too happy to lend a hand and try to improve articles.  When something lacks sources, I try to get it removed.  When sources are found, I back down.  It's pretty simple. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand Burningview (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shereth for your note (more or less of apology regarding our starting off on wrong foot) at my Talk page. I appreciate that, and that you indeed seem to be just focussing on building, positively. doncram (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Are BLM-administered campgrounds inherently notable? Is the campground itself really that significant? As far as I can see, the only thing of real significance (let alone notability) in this immediate area is the NRHP site. NRHP listings don't always have to go by the NRHP listing name (thus we have Court Avenue instead of "First Concrete Street in U.S."), but when the only thing that's really significant is what's listed, and when we don't appear to have a more common name for the listing itself, we should go with the NRHP listing name. Without any other "Painted Rocks" articles likely to appear, and without articles yet on other notable sites with this as part of the name, I think it best to put this at Painted Rocks, with Painted Rock Petroglyph Site, Painted Rocks (Arizona), and Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona) all as redirects. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, honestly, i don't much care which is the article name, if the redirects are kept, but I sort of don't like to put this at "Painted Rocks" alone. There are other places named that, or named "Painted Rock", some covered in the current disambiguation page which is so far very U.S.-oriented.  I imagine there are other places of this name in Africa, India, elsewhere that will eventually be noted, and it seems mildly wrong to assert, implicitly, that this one, an obscure place, is the primary use for the rather common term.  I actually don't mind the BLM campground name, and am indifferent to that or the (Arizona) or (Theba, Arizona) versions.  The "Painted Rock (Theba, Arizona)" version is what i interpret as the properly expanded out official NRHP name for the place, using the NRHP database-reported location, and it is essentially what is shown in various private websites that mirror the public domain NRHP database (perhaps bringing some future readers looking for it here), so I do wish for at least a redirect from that name to be kept. doncram (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Move, Oppose Choice of Name: Since all, or almost all, painted rocks are either petroglyphic or pictographic sites, I really don't think Painted Rock Petroglyph Site is all that great a title. I note that the plural rocks is more often used about this site.  Painted Rocks Petroglyph Site, Arizona would be better. The BLM seems to use Painted Rocks Petroglyph Site and Campground.  I also like Painted Rocks, Theba, Arizona; I don't care for parentheses in geographic names. --Bejnar (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given this some thought and I am OK with leaving the name as-is, or dropping the parenthesis and going with Painted Rocks, Arizona. I still would oppose any iteration that includes Theba in the title; nearest town notwithstanding, Painted Rocks is most certainly not in Theba. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bottom line is that Painted Rocks is ambiguous and we may well not have a primary use. Then we have two government agencies using different 'official' names.  So for now, I'm going to take the opinion of the NRHP. I'll note that this problem is more widespread then this.  So maybe there should be a discussion on how to deal with these.  If someone one starts this, drop me a note.  In most cases, this is handled by a redirect.  However some of these articles have rather long and odd names. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose move as proposed. The current name is good enough to disambiguate from others. Some of the other Painted Rocks appear to be petroglyph sites as well so adding the state name appears to be the best option. --Polaron | Talk 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I am no longer supporting the move, I am removing the RM tag. Thanks to everyone for your input. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Images or map
I uploaded a couple of images I took from the site and added them to the article; I went ahead and took out the pushpin map as it was visually dominating the article. Hope that's ok with everyone else. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice pics! Fine with me about dropping display of the map, too. doncram (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)