Talk:Chucalissa

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennessee Mid‑importance

	Tennessee portal Chucalissa is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name change edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per WP:Bold, I've changed the name of this page to the one used by the National Register of Histoic Places and other such bodies. Per this move, I don't think it needs to be merged with the article about TO Fuller park, as it deserves its own entry. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 05 October 2016 edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Chucalissa. There is more consensus in favour of the title being Chucalissa instead of C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chucalissa Indian Village → C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa – actual accurate business that owns, controls, and maintains the archaeological site. Not just the name of the site because it is unofficial – Chucalissa (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

This needs to be done through RM. The article appears to be primarily about the village itself and the archeological site, which is a historical landmark, not the museum. Also, the user appears to have a close connection with the subject. - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The article is equally about the village and the museum. The historical landmark is for the "chucalissa site" this includes the site and the museum. The site cannot be reached without going through the museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.80.3 (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The term "Indian Village" is also very misleading for visitors, as they expect to see a tribal reservation. The rename will help clarify the museum and site's internet presence.141.225.99.248 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Comment. While I know nothing about the place, so can't comment on its common name, I'm seeing too much here in the vein of "actual accurate business that owns, controls, and maintains the archaeological site", "misleading for visitors" and "help clarify the museum and site's internet presence". Let's be clear that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool or a tourist information website. The site's "official name" and the wishes of the owners/occupiers/managers are irrelevant. All that matters is its WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support as per nom. Filpro (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The most common name is "Chucalissa", not "Chucalissa Indian Village". There is no longer a village at the site, so it does not make sense for this page to be titled "Chucalissa Indian Village". If commenters really take that much of an issue using the official name for the site, "C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa", then the page should be titled simply "Chucalissa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.80.3 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support Chucalissa. That way the article can cover both the archaeological site and the museum there now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Either "Chucalissa" or the actual title of the museum "C.H. Nash Museum at Chucalissa" is the best way to go. The suggestion was put forth not for the sake of the business or tourism, but because if you are searching for the site in other places, you'll often get 3-4 different names. But regardless Chucalissa Indian Village isn't an official name of anything. Plus there is no village anymore so the name is inaccurate and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.80.1 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support Chucalissa. Makes sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support Chucalissa. Personally I'd like it if all of the similar archaeological site articles were named with the name used by the archaeologists and not the local, touristy "Indian Village" names that so many of them have. But per WP:Commonname quite a few others also have this problem. He iro 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chucalissa. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic