This redirect 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 redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I oppose the merging. I find the notion of merging artistic manifestations separated by a distance of kilometres and a time of perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of years via a modern-day heritage classification, to be quite recentist and a bit baffling.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asqueladd: Firstly, you had 8 months to object and didn't do so; secondly, there is clear duplication in scope (Siega Verde in the title of both), and overlap in content discussing the same form of artistic manifestation in the same UNESCO world heritage site, a coherent topic. I know that you have reversed the merge (although you haven't done so fully), and I don't object to further discussion, but I am surprised by the objection given that the case for the merge seems quite clear. Klbrain (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. A specific site is also a (more) coherent topic (than a collection of sites), you know. Not to say that you just clumsily copypasted the content with the awkward result of utter imbalance in the target title, suggesting that, in fact, the separated dealing of the topics could actually just be, you know, a good idea both "as of now" as well as also presumably once that information about other similar sites are expanded. Just for illustrative purposes, there is a collective bid to an Unesco World site for a collection of Romanic buildings from Palencia [1]; yet I do not see any future need to forcibly merge all buildings into a single article shall the bid become a World Site. And the set possibly shares a greater internal coherence set than this one.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge, implying that a few kilometers distance between known sites is a valid reason to block the merge when discussing artifacts that were created over a period of 10–20 millennia by related hominid groups is ludicrous. People move around. Our readers shouldn't have to seek out stub articles when the information can be neatly included and partitioned into a subsection of a single, well-formed article on the subject. Yes, some copy editing may need to take place post merge. We now have a case of duplicated, split articles. The stub can certainly go. GenQuest"scribble"05:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is a valid reason to block the merge when discussing artifacts that were created over a period of 10–20 millennia by related hominid groups is ludicrous Are you trolling? Is this an invitation to play an slippery slope? Because I've not read a more asinine take on this website. By the way, topic amply complies to WP:GNG--Asqueladd (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind remarks. Stand-alone, perma-stubs can be, and quite frequently are, merged into over-arching articles until such a time as the content is expanded, and they can be split out into a proper sized stand-alone. That is a consensus decision we are trying to arrive at here. Meanwhile, I have to say, your takes on acting collegial and AGF are rather interesting. Regards, GenQuest"scribble"07:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: Spare me your patronizing tone. The article has enough coverage in reliable (scholar) sources to support a standalone article, so the "stub" was not a "perma-stub" and there is no WP:DEADLINE on here. Considering the default appropiate state of "cultural artifacts" [sic] separated by perhaps thousands of years and tens of miles of geographical distance mostly joined by a cultural heritage classification dating to the last decade of human history is that of the "merged status" is an astoundlingly myopic take. I stand by this statement.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenQuest: For your consideration, I can only lament not to thank you about anything. I can offer non-thanks for the cursory (non)examination of sources about the topic and (non)evaluation of a presumed abiding of the topic to WP:GNG.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain and GenQuest: These two sites are in different countries, and per Google Directions, about 80 km (an hour and 25 minutes drive) apart. I hear Asqueladd; the issue to me isn't so much that the articles were merged, but how poorly the merge was implemented. Probably better not to merge at all, if nobody wants to take the time to do it right. I've made several edits to clean this up, so that the merged article is at least hopefully acceptable to Asqueladd. I don't want to be too critical, since WikiProject Merge would be a mess without your help, but please try to listen better when a content expert objects to the way a merge was done. Siega Verde content could be expanded by translating the Spanish version of that article (a task for bilingual editors). Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
