Talk:Oyapoc

Not Guyana, but maybe French Guiana or Brazil?

I found this stub in the Wikiproject Guyana. The lone source says it was a part of French Guiana, so I changed the categories and location accordingly. I think it may be worth merging into Oiapoque (Brazil) or Saint-Georges de l'Oyapock (French Guiana) because it might just be an early inhabitation of them, and not notable on it's own. The source looks like an individual's webpage. However, I can't quite make the connection to either city and I have a feeling any good RS's will be in French or Portuguese.

Since the only source actually spells it "Oyapock", I considered at least doing a move to honor the spelling, but I'm not sure I want to do as such if it's not really notable/should be merged anyway.

Any ideas? Cheers, Estheim (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged unless you can pinpoint the exact location. Oiapoque/Oyapock probably refers to the river Oyapock. The French and Brazilian towns are named after the river, but that doesn't mean that it is the same location as this short lived colony. It was probably closer to the sea, because St Georges was intentionally more landinwards to prevent the convicts from escaping. KittenKlub (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Estheim:This is not a reliable source, but [1] puts the colony at 3º30’N, and if we feed that into openstreetmap, we get: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=3.5&mlon=-51.614722&zoom=12#map=12/4.2356/-51.6147 we end up at the mouth of the river and a big chance that this colony was located in Brazil. KittenKlub (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@KittenKlub: I think you're right- all sources say it was abandoned, so it couldn't really be considered an origin of those cities. The Oyapock article has a line about it, merging there wouldn't be unreasonable. It's kind of hard to quantify this as a settlement under WP:GEOLAND. It didn't have a name, and legal recognition is blurry for something 500 years ago. GNG demands non-trivial, but the sources all seem to be about the settler/colonists themselves rather than the place. The source you added refers to it as "Wiapoco Colony/Robert Harcourt's Colony. Maybe "Wiapoco Colony" would be a better title if it seems worth keeping? Estheim (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Estheim: I would definitely vote to keep the article. Even though it is uninhabited, it's part of the early history. According to the book I've added, the Leigh expedition was official.

An expression used by John Wilson (Purchas, xvi, p. 340) implies that Leigh had a commission from the King: 'At whose landing according unto the Generall his commission, they were all sworne unto certaine Articles, as that they should acknowledge Captaine Charles Leigh to bee their chiefe Generall of Guiana under King James our King of Great Britaine

— page 32

Jodensavanne was another early colony, and has a big article even though it was abandoned in 1832. I assume Wiapoco is the more correct English name, because Oyapoc sounds French. The real missing is still the location, because the French side of the mouth has a big mountain, and the Brazilian side in Terra Indigena Jumina has savannas and therefore looks more suitable.KittenKlub (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, more bits and bobs are coming to light. The naming conventions made it hard to unravel (related, I don't think I've ever seen as many different spellings of "Orinoco" in my life as I have in the past few hours). Searching for Wiapoco has certainly helped find books about this. I feel bad pestering you out of the blue, but the results are magnificent. Estheim (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Estheim: No, I don't mind; it's a nice puzzle. One thing you have to remember that there was no fixed spelling in English back then. Many villages in the interior of Suriname still have multiple names. KittenKlub (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)