Talk:Siega Verde: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::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 ([[User talk:Asqueladd|talk]]) 18:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
::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 ([[User talk:Asqueladd|talk]]) 18:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|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. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 20:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|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. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 20:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::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.--Asqueladd ([[User talk:Asqueladd|talk]]) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
::::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.--Asqueladd ([[User talk:Asqueladd|talk]]) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:36, 19 November 2023
The contents of the Siega Verde page were merged into Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley and Siega Verde#Siega Verde on 19 November 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Archaeology NA‑class | |||||||
|
Spain NA‑class | |||||||
|
Propose merge with Côa Valley
I propose to merge this stub with Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley, following Prehistoric Iberia and because they form together a UNESCO world heritage site. Irecorsan (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)