This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article 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
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I'll just note that "Weedon Island Culture" gets 33 google hits while "Weeden Island Culture" gets about 1,880 google hits. AdamWeeden really should have raised this move for discussion back here before making the move. Unless someone can convince me that the archaeological community prefers "Weedon Island Culture" over "Weeden Island Culture", I will move this back. -- Donald Albury13:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I stated on the note you left on my talk page I thought that Weed(e/o)n Island culture is derivative off Weedon Island (which IS spelled that way). If I am incorrect I apologize. Adam Weeden15:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
What counts is what it is called in the archaeological literature. If the name of the island is spelled differently, that should be noted in the article. I notice that all of the sites that use "Weedon Island culture" are Florida related. The spelling "Weeden Island culture" appears to be used universally in the archaeological literature. As the term was established by archaeologists, I would say that "Weedon Island culture" is the incorrect spelling. This has nothing to do with the accepted spelling of the geographical feature. The fact that 'Weeden' has been the spelling used by archaeologists since the 1920s is stated here. While that spelling was a mistake, it is firmly entrenched in the scientific literature. As I said above, it is worth noting in the article but does not justify changing all the references to the archaeological construct. However, as I cannot move the article back without using an admin tool, which I won't do because I'm nvolved in this I askk for an uninvolved admin to look at and do wheteever is appropriate. -- Donald Albury15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Understood and agreed. I sincerely apologize for my hastiness in the move. It's my fault for thinking that this world actually makes sense. ;) Adam Weeden16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe I have at least fixed this page. Can someone confirm? I will fix all the other "weeden island culture" changes I made in other wp articles, though I will let my weedon island changes stay for reference to the actual place. Adam Weeden16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I said on your talk page, I can see why you did it. I changed a couple of instances of 'Weedon' to 'Weeden' and added some more references. I think we're fine. -- Donald Albury23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
