Talk:Ometepe (archaeological site)

[Untitled]
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)


 * 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 Roe Tk • Cb, 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2016

 * 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)

Ometepe (archaeological site) → Archaeology of Ometepe – Ometepe 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)


 * Oppose Ometepe is both an island and an archeological site - that is the reason the current title is "Ometepe (archeological site)". The article about the island is at Ometepe. You are completely right about the overreliance on quotes from primary sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have two established article types: X (archaeological site) for specific sites, and Archaeology of X for discussion of archaeological work in a region. Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should Archaeology of Svalbard be renamed Svalbard (archaeological site)? Ometepe has an area over 100 sqmi. What's to say it's a single site? Ibadibam (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.