Talk:Clemenceau, Cottonwood

Ghost towns Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ghost towns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghost towns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ghost townsWikipedia:WikiProject Ghost townsTemplate:WikiProject Ghost townsGhost town articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Clemenceau is not a ghost town

Clemenceau is not a ghost town, i believe. It is a populated area in Cottonwood, Arizona, I believe. The museum mentioned is in town, not in an abandoned area. I think this should not be identified as a ghost town or included in the Ghost towns wikiproject. doncram (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a previously downloaded copy of the Cottonwood Multiple Resource Assessement document which describes the former Clemenceau. I visited the museum mentioned and other sites there once. The National Park Service server is not working properly now, but at some later time others should be able to get this same PDF document by searching on "Cottonwood" in Arizona at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrcover.htm. I don't think it supports Clemenceau being a ghost town, it is a historic area where there was a smelter, etc., but it is part of a city and the buildings have been reused or torn down. There were former smelters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania but we don't call that a ghost town. :) doncram (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say that it's in Cottonwood—something I'd never noticed before. I've removed the bits that would pertain to ghost towns. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a town or city has been absorbed by another town or city doesn't mean it isn't a ghost town, according to some reliable resources that I have read. I remember reading it in at least two books when I was looking for other information, though I don't recall which books off the top of my head. I'll try to post the citations when I come across them again.

I found these two sites that consider Clemenceau a ghost town, though I don't know if they would be considered reliable. One of the better Arizona ghost town resources, Ghost Towns of Arizona does not include it, though it is not an exhaustive list of the ghost towns of Arizona but is only a list of some of the best-known. I would say it is a hard call and if I had just written the article I might call it a ghost town based on the two resources, but since its in dispute I would personally say it is not a ghost town unless a better resource can be found.Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't claim it's a ghost town, and it doesn't have to be a ghost town in order to be included in WikiProject Ghost towns, whose scope is wider than just ghost towns anyway. Ntsimp (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the debate started the article did state it was a ghost town. The Wikiproject Ghost town's scope includes "any towns or municipalities which were absorbed by another entity", so it certainly belongs in the Wikiproject.Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clemenceau, Cottonwood. 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/20070930155233/http://cip.lib.az.us/index.cfm?event=ViewRepository&oid=121&cid=0 to http://cip.lib.az.us/index.cfm?event=ViewRepository&oid=121&cid=0

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) 07:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]