Talk:Olmecs

Requested move 14 May 2018

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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 05:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Olmec → Olmecs – Per WP:PLURAL articles of this sort should use the plural form and for consistency with other articles such as Saxons or Vikings or Aztecs (which was recently moved under this same rationale. Also, since the article itself uses the plural form with an "s", so too should the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 17:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Invariably seen in the plural when used to refer to the civilisation as a whole. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Drip...drip...drip. First Aztec, now Olmec, next Toltec? —  AjaxSmack  12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I expect so. Rreagan007 doesn't actually, you know, edit articles, but likes to put the world to righrts in this way. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to make a substantive argument as to why this article shouldn't follow Wikipedia's general naming conventions, go right ahead. But it's completely irrelevant to this discussion how I choose to spend my time contributing to Wikipedia. Personal attacks or this sort just make you look petty. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way. But there are several articles of this ilk and I was just wondering if they might be dealt with together. I agree that policy and practice favor the plural here but was waiting for others' input. —  AjaxSmack  22:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to Johnbod with that comment. As far as what articles should be moved, when I come across an article I think should be moved based on the article naming conventions, I propose it. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. As with Aztec/Aztecs, "Olmec" is in wide use as a group noun,[1][2][3] and so either version is perfectly acceptable per WP:ETHNICGROUPS. The key is to be consistent. The article currently uses both, with "Olmecs" in the first sentence; whatever happens, it needs to be cleaned up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "Olmecs" is used as the plural because that's what the average reader would expect to be the plural form. I doubt the average reader would know that "Olmec" can also be used as plural. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. It seems unlikely that a reader familiar with the Olmec would be surprised to see "Olmec" used as a plural any more than, say, the Navajo, Cherokee, or Aztec.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think most people would be surprised to see Aztec (or Olmec, Toltec, etc) used as a plural since it almost never is outside scholarly works. Not the other two so much. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with other culture articles, and per WP:PLURAL, of which this is an obvious qualifying case, and per WP:NOUN. "Olmec" by itself is an adjective meaning "of or relating to the Olmecs", and we don't use adjectival titles. [I can also be a noun in odd cases, e.g., "The excavated skeleton was of an Olmec."; but no such case is anything we'd have an article about titled "Olmec".]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 26 May 2018 (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.

ERA : BCE vs BC
consensus was reached in 2010, a new discussion about why this particular article should change to a new era style will be required to change that
While the page may have started as BC, over the the years the style used had evolved from BC to BCE with new additions, a quick view at versions from December show a preponderance of the BCE style, you had to go literally to the halfway point on the page to find the first instance of BC. In January an editor harmonized all instances to the BCE style, which no one who watches or edits the article seems to have disputed. Another editor has now taken it upon themselves to revert all instances to the BC style, which was originally used for the page. Per WP:ERA: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." By accretion of edits over the years the BCE style seems to have slowly crept in and become the preferred style by most editors. Many other New World archaeology and anthropology pages use this style. Consensus on a date style can and does change on articles. And the provision in WP:ERA saying they must stay with the original style was removed years ago. Is there a preference for a date style among the regular editors and watchers of this page? Should it stay at the current BC version, or should it be changed by consensus to the BCE which seems to be preferred by most editors and was used since January before today edit? I'll probably be off wiki for the rest of the day, so any interested parties should feel free to chime in with their arguments, but RL will probably keep me from responding for the rest of the day at least. One addendum, the user User:NDV135, seems to concentrate on this subject, a virtual SPA for finding articles where the article has changed over time from BC to BCE and changing them back. Heiro 23:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Retain/return to the original BC, per WP:ERA. Creeping changes like this should be firmly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Why should it be "firmly resisted"? There is nothing in ERA policy that mandates a date style can/must not be changed. A majority of editors over the years seem to prefer the BCE version for the page. That would appear to be a consensus for that style over BC. No one even noticed/objected that it had been de facto harmonized to BCE until an SPA changed it back yesterday, after 4 months. Heiro 17:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC) @Johnbod: you know that WP:ERA doesn't use the word "original". Why do you claim this after HR said it was removed? I agree that BCE is more appropriate for this article. That's my opinion for all archaeological articles and for this specific one about a civilization that developed far removed from Abrahamic religions. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Hell, I warned NDV135 about this last year, it might be time for ANI. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC) ??HR said that "the provision in WP:ERA saying they must stay with the original style was removed..." Your comment is odd. As you know, I stand with the British Museum and a long list of others in believing BC is better in most cases for general audiences, not least because everyone understands it, which is absolutely not the case for BCE. There are no devotees of the Olmec religion around to be bothered by it. I don't think you've stated your prejudice here so clearly or frankly before, so thanks for that. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Johnbod, your argument seems to say "We should use BC and not BCE because everyone understands it." That's one of the worst arguments there is, and I'd guess a reason why we have a guideline, ie to use that as an argument. And it's not the Olmec who might be bothered, if you care about who might be bothered I guess it could be the billions of non-Christians, and if you want to use that argument we'd end up with only BCE and I'm not supporting that. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC) I knew this sounded familiar, see Talk:Olmecs/Archive 3#BCE/AD-a question for the community at large-is there a consensus. Consensus to leave this article at the BCE/CE style was discussed in 2010, when it had been stable at that style for 4 years, having switched over soon after the article was created in 2007. User:NDV135 should have checked the talkpage and archives before switching it back, or at the very least started this conversation himself before making his change. Heiro 17:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Legends of the Hidden Temple

The stone head featured in the game show, "Legends of the Hidden Temple", has the name "Olmec". I'm trying to figure out where that would belong on this page. Booger-mike (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)