Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85

WP:GEOFEAT applies to heritage-listed buildings
The issue about Notablity was covered in this deletion nomination discussion for Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley. The discussion says: WP:GEOFEAT, which says Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Being on the NRHP, this passes WP:GEOFEAT. This is a Stub and should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - update text
Greg Henderson (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Under the History section, please update the 2nd paragraph for the sentence:
 * "The preliminary results seem to parallel those from CA-MNT-44, featuring components from both the Early and Late periods. Recent acquisition of fiber, cordage materials, wood, flaked stone, shell beads, and feather artifacts from CA-MNT-85 has occurred, originating from a collection amassed by a pot-hunter. The analysis is anticipated to conclude within the year and is expected to significantly contribute to our understanding of the Esselen Native American people."
 * To the following:
 * "According to U.S. Forest Service, the preliminary results seem to parallel those from CA-MNT-44, featuring components from both the Early and Late periods. Recent acquisition of fiber, cordage materials, wood, flaked stone, shell beads, and feather artifacts from CA-MNT-85 has occurred, originating from a collection amassed by a pot-hunter. The analysis was anticipated to conclude in 2002 and was expected to significantly contribute to our understanding of the Esselen Native American people."
 * The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   Cowboygilbert  -  (talk) ♥  16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not make this more clear. I've now added the reliable source.

Greg Henderson (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Greghenderson2006 You should be able to change the year yourself, but why use the tense as if the analysis hasn't been finished yet? First person pronouns should be avoided in general, also. Recon  rabbit  12:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Got it. BTW, I can't changed change the year because of being blocked.
 * How about we say:
 * "According to U.S. Forest Service, recent acquisition of fiber, cordage materials, wood, flaked stone, shell beads, and feather artifacts from CA-MNT-85 has occurred, originating from a collection amassed by a pot-hunter. The analysis is expected to significantly contribute to our understanding of the Esselen Native American people."
 * Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * When is it recent in relation to? 2002? Does the following work for this second sentence: "The analysis was expected to significantly contribute to the historical record of the Esselen Native American people." Recon  rabbit  17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)