Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Help with Community archaeology

This page is in serious need of attention. I've gutted much of it (though not enough). It looks like it was originally part of a badly written proposal for a project that was simply copy/pasted there. I'll try to put some more work in later but finals are approaching.--Woland (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a paste from somebody's essay as there are indicators of references, without the reference link (and of course not wikified). If we knew where it came from, it might be possible to find the reference list, and add RS. Is this another example of a university project to edit WP? Viv Hamilton (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty positive that it was the background section and possibly significance section for a proposal for a community arch project in Yorkshire. Instead of finding the original sources I think it'd be better to just scrap it and start from the beginning. --Woland (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve significantly revised the community archaeology page. I moved most of the old page to a section titled “Community archaeology in the United Kingdom”. --Postpit (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. Excellent work!--Woland (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to human prehistory. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/PrehistorySearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Eye of Tyr

This article looks like a load of nonsense to me, but I guess it is better to check with some experts. I can not find any reference to the "Eye of Tyr" outside an artifact in the game Baldur's Gate: no Google books results, no Google Scholar results, ... The article provides a few sources, but while e.g. the Michlovic article exists, I can not access it online. Can anyone check whether this article is based on anything, and if it represents the facts accurately? The external link makes me slightly worried about the accuracy of it all (not a very reliable source :-), and as far as I can see it contains no mention of the Eye of Tyr at all!) ... Fram (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The external link was however not added by the creator of the article. Far more worrying is the fact that I have just read the Micholovic article and I see nothing remotely relevant to this. The only thing I can find in that issue of Nature is something about Frank Hibben, but he was associate with at least one fraud to do with Clovis, nothing to do with the Faroes. I haven't actually read the page yet, just searched it. A search on Tyr turns up nothing in that issue. Nor does searching on Tyr and the title of the Gordon article. AfD I think. Shortly. dougweller (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

River delta

I realized that since I worked extensively on this page, it talks about the geology and geography, but not about river deltas and human civilization, and that it has a large enough number of page views each day that that is probably a problematic omission. If anyone would like to help with that, I'd appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Coast Salish defensive sites

This is a problem child, short though it is. I added WPs and stubs and a couple of cats; in my view if it survives at all it can't be single-site specific; it was written up by someone who had worked on the site, apparently not hte main archaeologist. It shouldn't have a "general title" if it's only about one site, in which case it should ahve that site's name, but is the site all that notable? (among many possible sites/types of sites). If it's to retain the general title it needs to have a lot more in it rather than just one site-account. I've notified someone in NorthAmNative, figured it worthwhile to notify your WP as well...Skookum1 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Dan Morse

Dan Morse appears to be notable enough, but could use some copyediting by an expert in the field and is lacking in 3rd party references. Could someone take a look?--RadioFan2 (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive basic cleanup needed

A large number of articles (and sections) on more obscure topics of European prehistory appear to have been machine-translated from Italian, French, German, Spanish and other articles, and as a result are full of impenetrable gibberish, from "a civilization of Prehistoric Italy whom developed from the recent Bronze Age (XIII century B.C.) arriving till to the Iron Age" (in Canegrate culture), to "typical and isolated Canegrate findings do not make to think to a connection with the precedent Polada culture and of a graduated insertion of theirs" (in Celts#Alps and Po Valley). This project's editors can probably just start with those two links and revise away, following links to additional badly-written articles as they come across them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Helladic period

See question at Talk:Helladic period, thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures

Please see the talk page - an ip editor called it (but then deleted their edit) a "slightly mad table of inaccurate and seemingly randomly chosen historical events " - other than pointing out that this is prehistory, I more or less agree with this and have started a discussion on the talk page. It doesn't define culture, it seems a random hodgepodge of events, periods, cultures, etc. It's pretty dire and not helpful. I think the only solution is a redirect to Prehistory, but other comments would be helpful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich Schliemann

(A) I just now added the template of WikiProject Archaeology to Heinrich Schliemann -- you may have heard of him.
(B) Anybody care to do a little light editing of that article? For example, it contains the line "Schliemann's work leaves a lot to be desired," which, while true, is probably not in the best encyclopedic style. :-)
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'll take a look for basic style, etc. Awickert (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tan-Tan Figurine

I understand there is a move to merge this article with art of middle paleolithic. I understand the need to merge this article but there are a number of stand-alone works of art from the paleolithic that havent been merged with the paleolithic --- namely the chauvet cave paintings, numerous "venus" figurines et al. The Tan-Tan figurine is a very significant art work considering that it may have been one of the first manuports to have actually been physically worked on. That puts it in league with some of the major works of the late Paleolithic. It is senseless to merge this article because it references a work that is rare for the period during which it was created. If the need to merge is too great then do the same with all the stand-alone works of art in wikipedia. Why should there be an article devoted to the Mona Lisa if the discussion can be facilitated in Leonardo da Vinci for example. Unless there is a bias which suggests that late Paleolithic works are true art there is little reason to merge this article. Perhaps there could be more elaboration made on the Tan-Tan Figurine's significance in the article I'll grant you that but to merge it is silly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.25.125 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder

Project members may wish to be aware that there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Cyrus cylinder about the disputed claim that the Cyrus cylinder is a charter of human rights. Any input or advice would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghost town or former settlement?

What is the most suitable generic term for settlements that have been abandoned or destroyed? A number of categories have been created for sub-sets of these, eg, sunken cities, lost cities, etc. To me "Ghost towns" is also a subset, but there are other editors (mainly US) who favour the use of "ghost towns" for all lost/ abandoned/ destroyed settlements. I usually trot out examples to argue against this, eg, Dunwich, Pompeii, Great Zimbabwe, Chichen Itza, etc. After a short debate elsewhere, I've been working to populate the "Former settlements" family of categories as a suitably named universal umbrella, but the issue remains. Is there a consensus? Folks at 137 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Zorats Karer

I'll admit I'd never heard of it until I came across the article, but apparently Zorats Karer, an Armenian megalithic "temple" and "observatory", replete with its own "university", could date back "7,600 years" or so. Many other claims are made in this wonderful article (the etymology section is mildly amusing as well...). Could somebody on this project please take a look at it? I've left a note at Talk:Zorats Karer, but I'm no expert on Armenian archaeology. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at the Zorats Karer article? You'll find a brief discussion on the Talk page. I've tidied up "around the edges" but I've left the main text intact for now: in my opinion the majority of it is pure speculation and should either go or be relegated to a section clearly labeled "Speculative research" or some such title. This really needs attention: it's a travesty of an article and a disgrace to Wikipedia. If I go ahead and excise most of this junk the article's history suggests that some people will not be pleased. I would prefer to have some peer support as it's not my main area of interest and I've had a bellyful of such affairs. So, if you are interested in ridding the archaeology and early history articles on wikipedia of the fantasies of the lunatic fringe, please take some action here. Enaidmawr (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it myself. Is there anybody actually here or is this project a dodo? There's an impressive list of members but not much activity, it seems. Shame, as this is an important subject which touches on a number of other fields. All I can say is God help us if there are other gems like Zorats Karer scattered around in the archaeology categories - think I'd better not look! Enaidmawr (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell gorget

Is shell gorget (gorget) important enough to have its own article or can it be in incorporated in articles Spiro Mounds and Southeastern Ceremonial Complex only? Were they made only from the lightning whelk Busycon perversum? Could somebody start such article, please? --Snek01 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, check out: shell gorget. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Excellent! --Snek01 (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AAAS subscribers, please help

Acroterion and I are trying to expand Mummy Cave, a significant archaeological site in Wyoming, USA, and we've discovered that it was reviewed in Science in 1968. Does anyone have an AAAS subscription, so that they can get access to the article? Help would be appreciated :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I'll send each of you a wiki email, and once you reply I'll have your addresses and be able to send it as an attachment. Awickert (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See you talk page; thanks a lot! Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Awickert (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Dorset

The above article is Today's Featured Article (8 August) and as it is an archaeological site I thought project members might be interested in keeping an eye on the article and lending a hand keeping out the usual vandalism that occurs on TFAs. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sundial enthusiasts? Mass dial / Scratch dial

BBC News article of 21 August 2009 discusses recent discovery of a "Mass dial" Sundial in Scotland - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8214948.stm .
6,000+ Google hits for "mass dial" - http://www.google.com/search?q=%22mass+dial%22 .
Apparently these are also called "Scratch dial".
Sundial apparently doesn't mention either of these terms. We should add a mention of these to that article, and make Mass dial and Scratch dial redirect there. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn

Parc Cwm long cairn is currently listed as a History good article. I am considering nominating it for WP:FAC, eventually. I would really appreciate it if someone would carry out an academic peer review, prior to WP:REVIEW. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(Calls) Hello! ... hello ... hello ... hello... (silence) - (Calls again) Is there anyone there? ... anyone there ... there ... there... (silence again) - (Thinks) Hmmm. What a shame, this project looks derelict. Oh, the irony. Perhaps someone will excavate it in years to come, wondering what happened. Daicaregos (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to go through channels as to requesting a peer review. I do not have the link for that handy, but if you check around you will find it. skip sievert (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the point of WP:ARCHAEO would be to deal with requests such as this. WP:Peer review is unlikely to have anyone familiar with the Neolithic, so it seems sensible to ask here. Nev1 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Would someone with some knowledge of archaeology mind to take a look at the article Aboriginal peoples in Canada? It has just about all the points cleared up on its Good Article review, just needs to be shortened a bit, and the prehistoric sections relating to archeaological finds are the longest in the article. Thank you very much. SriMesh | talk 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I broke up and copy edited the lead a little. It is normal for about three paragraphs... lead wise. Very interesting article well done... long, but lots of good information. Probably does need shortening, and that is hard to do with good information. skip sievert (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New initiative for editing by Museums, Libraries and Archives professionals

Following a discussion at WP:COI about museums/libraries/archives, we thought it would be good to have a place to discuss issues relevant to, and give specific advice for, professionals in the cultural sector working on Wikipedia. This will probably become WP:MLA and it is currently under development here: User:Witty_lama/Sandbox (and equivalent talkpage). It's not supposed to be a policy page itself, but rather a "one stop shop" for professional archivists, museum professionals, librarians to come and see all the policies/guidelines that apply to them and get advice and assistance. There has already been discussion of various issues on the talk page, which may be of interest. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of History of cats to Cultural depictions of cats

See discussion on talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe#Bibliography

Hi there, I'm from the German Wikipedia and I would like to draw your attention on a very problematic issue. As you can see in the article above, there is a German Book "J. E. Walkowitz: Quantensprünge der Archäologie. In: Varia neolithica IV. Beier und Beran, Langenweissbach 2006, ISBN 3-937517-43-X" given as a source. Please note that the author of this book (de:User:JEW) was permanently banned from the German Wikipedia for WP:NOR, violations of copyright terms and creating wrong content. He is still active there, creating numerous articles and edits per week. His IP Range is 84.61.97.0 − 84.63.127.255. I just wanted to warn you to keep an eye on this issue, whether it concerns translations from de. or possible articles created on basis of his books.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that. The book was added by Athinaios (talk · contribs) in October 2007. It's possible it's the person who's been banned from German Wikipedia, but unlikely as they've not edited since November 2008 and claim to have translated the article from German Wikipedia rather than written it themselves. If this is the case, some of the original research may have been copied. JEW's only edit to the German article was to insert his book in 2006, so I have removed it from the English article as it's a conflict of interest as the book doesn't actually seem to have been used as a source. I didn't notice any edits from his IP range to the German article, so hopefully that's all. Nev1 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: a Google search reveals that the Gobekli article was the only one on the English Wikipedia to mention Walkowitz at all. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyramid archaeology

I realise this project is essentially inactive, but for anyone that's interested a stub article on pyramid archaeology (as opposed to pyramidology) is up for deletion. Opinions from anyone well informed or with sources on the subject would be handy. Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Man-made structures found on seabed off Damsay, Orkney, Scotland

• "A unique discovery of submerged man-made structures on the seabed off Orkney could help find solutions to rising sea levels, experts have said.", BBC News Scotland online

This would appear to be quite an important discovery. Certainly worthy of an expansion of our Damsay and Maritime archaeology articles, and perhaps (in time) an article in its own right, when we have sufficient ext refs and notability is established. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of archaeologists

I was wondering if I could get some input from other editors on this subject, Talk:List of archaeologists#Avocational and pseudo archaeologists?. Another editor and I have a differance of opinion, and I was wanting to find the concensus of the community on this issue. I posted it to the talk page several days ago, but I'm sure that on such an obscure page, many don't have it watchlisted. So far one other person has weighed in, but I'd like to get more than that to see how the community feels about the subject. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was yesterday that I posted it, the Xmas rush has me all wish washy. Apologies. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maritime archeology DYK opportunity

There's a planned press release from at least two Wikimedia chapters (UK and Sweden) for an upcoming image donation from the Mary Rose Trust scheduled for January 3. It's going to be accompanied by a major update of the article on the Mary Rose and the Anthony Roll which are going to be nominated as DYK for the day of the press release. If anyone here is interested in joining in to make that day into a dedicated naval/Tudor era/maritime archaeology theme day for DYK, check out Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scheduling a DYK date.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)