Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Proposed deletion: Samantha Eames

Samantha Eames (via WP:PROD on 3 January 2008)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Celt?

I have used the word celt in the article on Sitakunda Upazila, but it is creating some confusion as the word generally means a group of people, not an implement. If someone can clear this confusion, please, leave a note on Talk:Sitakunda Upazila. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A question

I've started work on the article for the Manis Mastodon site, and one source puts (45CA218) after the name. Can anyone tell me what this means? As well, is there a formatting standard for things like date ranges? Murderbike (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Archeology

Given that the above article was placed in Category:Archeology(sic), I thought it might be appropriate to inform this project of its AFD. --Sturm 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with new article on Palestinian archaeology

Hi there. I just found this Wikiproject right now and I'm not sure where to place this request. I recently created a new article on Palestinian archaeology using reliable, scholarly sources for its basis. However, a fellow editor is challenging the article's legitimacy, arguing that it is merely an overlap of Archaeology of Israel and Biblical archaeology (?!?). I was wondering if the article might be better renamed Syro-Palestinian archaeology, which is often used interchangeably with Palestinian archaeology. Feedback from area specialists here would be greatly appreciated. Tiamut^talk 08:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Peñon Woman III

Geez, I'm shocked to see this doesn't have an article. Anybody looking for a project? Murderbike (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Marmes Rockshelter

FWIW, I've nominated this article for GA if anyone cares to look at it. Murderbike (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Etruscans taskforce

I'm looking into creating a taskforce to improve the quality of articles relating to the Etruscan civilization. Let me you if you'd be interested in joining or you have ideas about which project it would best be organized under. Best wishes/Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy

Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.

In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.

Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Archaeoastronomy

The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's now at NOR/N

The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Urn burial

I was surprised to see that WP coverage has not advanced beyond Sir Thomas Browne - Urn Burial will take you to Hydriotaphia, Urn Burial, or a Discourse of the Sepulchral Urns lately found in Norfolk of 1658. Urn is pretty thin too. Any chance of an article? Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza

I'll add here a version what I just wrote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt

Why was this classified as a 'Good' article? When I first looked at it a few weeks ago it was pretty bad in my opinion, with some very dubious external links and some of the body that was supposed to represent main stream thought in fact biassed against it. It also seems unbalanced. No mention of the Caliph el Ma'mun, John Greaves, Nathaniel Davison, Howard Vyse, etc. I also think that the boats, causeway and temples should be in the article, it wasn't built as an isolated monument but part of a complex. Archaeologists should always be concerned about context. :-) --Doug Weller (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Paisley Caves

A recent news item says that evidence for the earliest humans in North America was found in Paisley Caves, Oregon. Not sure if this wikiproject would be interested, but the article was recently born and could use whatever perspectives apply. —EncMstr 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this to the Paisley (disambiguation) disambiguation page. Have you got the main article? It's been discussed elsehwere, eg the Yahoo HumanMigrations group which often has some useful stuff.Doug Weller (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you mean by "have you got the main article". We (WikiProject Oregon) fashioned a stub article, but none of us are experienced with this type of article. The news (linked to in article) has been a bit sensationalistic—or has it? Someone with depth in the subject would do wonders for balancing perspectives. —EncMstr 19:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories Re-Org

I had a look at the Categories below Category:Archaeology and the look a little bit like a mess. I have some ideas and want to start with a re-org of the categories Category:Archaeological sites, Category:Archaeology by region, Category:Archaeology by country and Category:Archaeological cultures. I propose the following structure

Archaeology by country to be closed, and incorporated into Archaeology by Region

Archaeology by Region

Archaeology of Continent-name

Archaeology of Country-name

Archaeological sites of Country-name(for detailed structure of this, look further down)

Archaeologists of Country

Some more if needed

Archaeological cultures

Archaeology of Culture-name

Culture-name archaeological sites

Culture-name archaeological sites of Country-name

Some more if needed

Archaeological Sites

Culture-name Archaeological sites (same as mentioned above)

Archaeology sites of Continent-name

Archaeological sites of Country-name(same as mentioned above)

Culture-name archaeological sites of Country-name

Archaeological sites of Region-name (if enough sites per country)

Before I start with this, I just wanted to ask if someone objects or proposes a better structure. I'm also looking for some help, as my knowledge outside of Europe and before the Bronze Age is fairly sketchy. --Mdebets (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have started with Category:Archaeological sites in Greece. I intend to do the other country sites first, before deceiding how to link them to categories above. Some feedback would be appreciated. --Mdebets (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New article on chronology of human prehistory

I'm concerned about a new article recently created by User:Das Baz -- Chronology of Human Prehistory -- he isn't sourcing it, there are no criteria, and he is explicitly in favour of putting original research on Wikipedia. I'm thinking of putting it up for deletion.Doug Weller (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology stubs

Hi all - I've just put a proposal in at Wikiproject Stub sorting for a series of new templates for archaeology stubs, on a by-continent basis - the main reason for this method is that stubs are frequently split on this axis, and many of the stubs relate to actual sites (the main archaeology-stub would remain for items not related to specific continents). The proposal is for the templates to be upmerged for now (i.e., all to feed into Category:Archaeology stubs), but to make it easier should there eventually be enough stubs for individual continent-specific categories to be a good idea. Input from this WikiProject would be welcome - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/April#Archaeology_stubs.2C_by_continent. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Artefact vs artifact

I see an 'artifact' template has been added on the main page. Although I know the spellings artifact and archeology are still used in the US, I know that archaeology is the most standard spelling (eg the Society for American Archaeology). Artifact seems to be different, and even the Economist style guide evidently (at least in 2002) used 'artifact'. However, I'm sure that a number of pages use 'artefact', so can we change the info box if it is put on a page that uses that spelling?--Doug Weller (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just switch it to artefact. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We can choose whether we really want to use this new C-class. I'm against it. It adds nothing, but work. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Public domain images and text

The 1883 public domain book, An Illustrated Dictionary of Words Used in Art and Archaeology] has numerous images that would be great in some of the Archaeology articles. GregManninLB (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for expert attention: First Sex

There is currently a flurry of activity on First Sex, especially regarding the influence and current acceptance of the book. [User:Athana|Athana] has made several edits suggesting that Gould Davis's views have become accepted by "countless scholars" and cites texts such as Otterbein's (2004) How War Began. I have no background in archaeology and so cannot tell whether her sources reflect conventional wisdom or minority viewpoints. Could someone a bit more familiar with the state of archaeology drop over to the page and review the history and claims and help evaluate her edits? A good place to start is the recently reverted material, found here. Thanks much. Phiwum (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_25#Broad_homeland_hypothesis

This AfD is up for review. Comments would be appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1402 articles are assigned to this project, of which 242, or 17.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Conservation of Artifacts

I was trying to clarify a paragraph at sodium sesquicarbonate, and found cause to wikilink to archaelogical conservation, but I didn't find a reference to an article on that topic at either conservation (art conservation was the nearest) or archaeology). I presume that such an article does exist somewhere - if someone would care to link it in ... Lavateraguy (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does exist. We used to have an articles wanted list, and this was on it. If we had one, I know of a couple of articles that would link to it Viv Hamilton (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Antikythera mechanism needs cites

Antikythera mechanism has a section "Speculation about its purpose" which consists of ... speculation about its purpose. This info needs good cites or should be removed. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Archaeology

Portal:Archaeology has been nominated at Featured portal candidates Bewareofdog 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for Valley of the Kings

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I am conducting the GA sweeps for Archaeology articles promoted prior to August 2007. The first article I am looking at is Valley of the Kings (which, although it is not listed under the scope of this project, seems to fit well as an archaeology article). I believe that it is close to meeting the GA criteria, but it is lacking a few sources. I have gone through part of the article (and will continue over the next few days) and done some copyediting and added "citation needed" tags. It would be great if editors from this project could help address these tags and/or discuss them on the article's reassessment page (located here. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have completed my review and placed the reassessment on hold for a week to allow for my concerns to be addressed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

This is outside of my area of expertise, but I have noticed this article moving to a less and less neutral state as the days go by. I have not been involved, but it looks like several editors are attempting to paint a rather optimistic picture of the archaeological evidence for the book of Mormon, if someone with some experience in dealing with fringe topics related to archeology could step in it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Leivick (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article sweeps: Great Pyramid of Giza

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Great Pyramid of Giza. I have a few minor concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am the only one who has addressed any of the concerns. There are a couple of minor issues (citing a small paragraph and adding a couple of sentences) remaining, so I am extending the hold because I'm really hoping not to have to delist the article. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deluge (prehistoric)

Can someone look at Deluge (prehistoric)? It's in dire need of improvement. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Archaeology

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I get some help here?

I recently ran across the biography of an archaeologist, Michael Brian Schiffer, that I believe needs some attention. Unfortunately, I am not particularly knowledgeable about archaeology, so I cannot give it this help myself. He's notable, so no problem there, but his article makes little sense because it is essentially a very dense summary of behavioural archaeology, an article that has not yet been written and is definitely necessary to give the page context. If none of you feel like writing a page on behavioural archaeology or cleaning up his bio page to be more accessible, could someone please at least redirect its title to a relevant page? Thank you. --erachima talk 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Avdat article, specifically Image:Avdat view to the Negev.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

And also, Image:Avdat.JPG in the same article.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Olmec

Can someone familiar with Mesoamerican archaeology take a look at the article? It failed two GA, but has potential. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps: Mummy

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Mummy. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Copper Age:Mesoamerica

Can someone please take a look at Copper Age? The article has a section entitled "Mesoamerica" which includes mention of "The Old Copper Complex, located in present day Michigan and Wisconsin in the United States", but which omits any text on Mesoamerica per se. This is quite confusing. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps: Gnezdovo

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Gnezdovo. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If anyone is able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure Key articles?

Surely (some) archaeological organisations should be key articles. I'm thinking Governmental organisations, professional bodies and/or charities? Or am I missing something about the role they play in Cultural Resource Management?Dunk the Lunk (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Request: Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc

Please assess the following archaeology article. Thanks. Geaugagrrl ☎ 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct mathematical notation

In Banc Ty'nddôl sun-disc I changed the first of the following to the second:

8850+/-40

8850 ± 40

The first notation above should not be used, if what is meant is the second. Note: spaces before and after "±", and a minus sign as in "5 − 3" differs from a hyphen, as in "5-3". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). I seem to recall seeing this a month or two ago in another archaeology article. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others, since archaeologists may not be the closest people to the Wikipedia mathematics commuunity. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)