Talk:Bilbao (Mesoamerican site)

Requested move 24 September 2015

 * 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: not moved. The consensus is that the current title is a more accurate description. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Bilbao (Mesoamerican site) → Bilbao (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you take away the qualifier 'Mesoamerican' the article title will give no hint of the location. There is an archaeological museum in Bilbao, Spain. In fact, the Spanish city is the primary topic of Bilbao. Better disambiguation should be considered. The German Wikipedia calls this site Bilbao (Guatemala) and they don't use 'archaeological site' (Archäologischer Fundplatz) as a disambiguator. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Requests copied over from WP:RMTR
 * The following moves depend on whether 'Mesoamerican site' or 'archaeological site' are appropriate disambiguators. An alternative is to do something like Bilbao (Guatemala), as in the German Wikipedia. A discussion here may be the best way to resolve that. The IP who opened the original request gave as their rationale : "Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites" but did not link to any previous discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose As previously mentioned, the most obvious thing to be looking for when going to "Bilbao (archaeological site)" is Bilbao, in Spain. Mesoamerican site is clear and unambiguous, I really see no reason to move it. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The historic city in Spain is far better known and undoubtedly has plenty of archaeological sites. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * :: Which of these new names are ambiguous? For example Bilbao (archaeological site) :: there is also a Bilbao in Spain. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Bilbao (Mesoamerican site) → Bilbao (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion at Talk:Bilbao (Mesoamerican site). One of the options might be Bilbao (Guatemala), which is how German Wikipedia handles the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cara Sucia (Mesoamerican site) → Cara Sucia (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Castillo de Teayo (Mesoamerican site) → Castillo de Teayo (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Chiapa de Corzo (Mesoamerican site) → Chiapa de Corzo (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cholula (Mesoamerican site) → Cholula (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Tula (Mesoamerican site) → Tula (archaeological site) – Standard format in Category:Mesoamerican sites – 91.9.124.53 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This has the same problems as Bilbao as pointed out by Ed and Anthony, since Tula is also a place in Russia -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

Nuclear Zone
"Nuclear Zone"? Seriously? Isn't there some better way to describe this? Senor Cuete (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how it is referred to in the sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "nuclear" as: 1 of or relating to the nucleus of an atom. • denoting, relating to, or powered by the energy released in nuclear fission or fusion: nuclear energy | nuclear submarines. • denoting, possessing, or involving weapons using nuclear energy: a nuclear bomb | nuclear nations. 2 Biology of or relating to the nucleus of a cell: nuclear DNA. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vocabulary used by Mesoamerican archaeologists is often not "by the dictionary" (for instance, widespread use of the word epicenter to describe the site core). However, "Cotzumalhuapa Nuclear Zone" is the given name for the area, and is used in English language publications (see for example, Chinchilla 2001, for which I've just fixed the link). Whether we like it or not, we must use the names and terminology from the published sources. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When one expresses his opinion, he shouldn't refer to himself as "we". I disagree about slavish devotion to "reliable" sources. In my opinion "we" should be synthesizing the best possible articles from multiple sources when possible. Sometimes the sources disagree. The what do you do? This includes correcting incorrect (or in this case incomprehensible) English. Of course an example of this is my attempt to correct the very wrong information about a 13 bak'tun cycle in the Maya civilization article. I can cite very many reliable sources for my contention that there is no evidence anywhere for a 13 bak'tun cycle but since a "reliable" source says there is, it has to stay. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)