Talk:Siega Verde

	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
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Spain NA‑class

	Spain portal 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
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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. 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)[]