Talk:Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District

Archaeological or Archeological?

FYI, Google seems to prefer Archaeological but the article uses Archeological and Archaeological. -- Jreferee 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I used Archeological for the title because that is how it is listed at the NRHP documentation. Firefox gives me a spelling error when I use that spelling in a textbox, and I've gotten used to accepting its suggestions. I don't have a preference, but agree that it should be consistent. ~ BigrTex 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The National Park Service used in one place "Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District." See text next to footnote 13 on this page. If the U.S. Congress named the place, we should find out the spelling they used and use that for the article. -- Jreferee 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are multiple references to the Archeological spelling, within the NPS, NRHP, and Texas Historical Commission. Congress is not currently involved in the process, although I don't know what the process was in 1974. The current process (from National Register of Historic Places) requires the State Historic Preservation Office to vet nominations which are then approved or rejected by the NPS. Based on their consistent spelling, I think it makes sense to leave it the way it is. The Wiktionary definition ([1]) is interesting and lists Archeological as a mainly US variant. ~ BigrTex 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

The Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District is had to locate on a map since the map needs land features to locate the Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District. This causes the map to be large. -- Jreferee 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) See

Location of Mansfield Cut Underwater Archeological District

Jreferee 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC):I think the article needs another image to give some reference as to where in Texas this is located. See

That makes sense, especially with the nice picture that you found not having a North reference. I'll change it back. (I can see it, but I have a good head for maps and was at the seashore last week) ~ BigrTex 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be too early for me to get hung up on how it looks, but having your nice image on the left overlaps things funny on my monitor, so I put it back on the right under the infobox. ~ BigrTex 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional sources

My googling this morning brought me three more sources of information:

• "ANTH 313" class notes (from Texas A&M) - not sure if there is anything reliable that isn't found in more reliable places, but was the first source I found.
• PADRE ISLAND SPANISH SHIPWRECKS OF 1554 from the Handbook of Texas Online - I added the link this morning, but there is more information about the history of the ships/fleet that can be worked into the article.
• Padre Island NS Newsletter (Fall 2006) - page 6 has two stories about the shipwrecks, there is information there that I haven't seen elsewhere (i.e., the ships were Naos).

I appreciate any help available in improving this interesting article. ~ BigrTex 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)