Talk:Ometepe (archaeological site)

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 20 January 2016

[Untitled]

edit

Apparently the article is very large. I welcome interested readers and WP editors to reduce it in size as appropriate.

Would also welcome suggestions as to how to break it down into smaller articles, I find the content extremeley interesting. Would like to maintain the entire text, also have pictures to upload. These are in the books, but need to know how to handle permissions, before attempting to upload them.

As soon as it is commented upon, and reduced, I will upload the spanish version. Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

As with Zapatera (archaeological site) a lot of this article (sections 2 and 3) is more suitable for WikiSource than Wikipedia. As for the pictures, if they are from 120+ year old books then they are in the public domain, and so you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. —Joseph RoeTkCb, 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 20 January 2016

edit
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: No consensus after nearly a month and a relisting. Cúchullain t/c 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply



Ometepe (archaeological site)Archaeology of OmetepeOmetepe is a large island, not a single archaeological site. In addition, this article needs a major rework to paraphrase and condense the primary source text into usable paragraphs. Ibadibam (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sources are the key. If you can show that sources do not treat the island as a single archeological site then the move would be reasonable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
The primary sources you and I have removed from the article discuss multiple sites on the island. Are there any sources that treat the island as a single site, that would make it reasonable to keep the article at its current title? Ibadibam (talk) 03:26, 21 January 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.