Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
MainDiscussionMonitoringOutlineParticipantsProject organizationAssessmentResourcesShowcase

WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Sinister terminology[edit]

In several articles about helmets (Gevninge helmet fragment, Benty Grange helmet, Coppergate helmet, Pioneer helmet, Shorwell helmet, Sutton Hoo helmet, Nijmegen helmet, Lokrume helmet fragment, Emesa helmet), Usernameunique uses the terms "dexter" and "sinister" rather than "right" and "left" to identify the sides of a helmet, because "right" is putatively ambiguous (the wearer's right or the viewer's right?) because and the "relevant literature" supposedly uses "dexter". But we have only found two cases, from 1947 and 1879, using dexter. On the other hand, at least seven recent articles (1975-2017) speak of right or left helmet cheek guards, and none of dexter or sinister.

He and I have discussed this at (far too great!) length, and have I think pretty much exhausted the arguments without coming to a consensus. So I invite members of this wikiproject to look in on Talk:Gevninge helmet fragment and contribute their wisdom. --Macrakis (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas J. Preston Jr.[edit]

Hello. I've expanded Thomas J. Preston Jr. a bit. Feel free to add more referenced content to the "career" section if you can. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


I was looking for an article mentioning "robbing" in the archaeological sense and found none, but I did find Spolia which is about the subject but doesn't mention the term "robbing" at all although a search on "robbing reusing stones archaeology"[1] gives 4,500 hits vs 3,400[2] when I replace robbing with spolia. Google scholar shows even a greater difference, about 6,450 with "robbing"[3] vs about 2,160 using "spolia".[4]

We do have Robbing but this is about Beekeeping which although it mentions robbing doesn't link to it.

I think the article should be renamed [[Robbing (archaeology)), Robbing renamed [[Robbing (beekeeping), and a dab page created which would include Robbery. Any thoughts? Doug Weller talk 11:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Then, there is Grave robbery (which is about both robbing tombs and body snatching). - Donald Albury 15:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I think "robbing" is more colloquial than scientific and try to use "reuse" or "rework" in my own work. Maybe more suited to a glossary entry than a full article? – Joe (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities[edit]

As always this continues to be a problem. Last night someone tried to remove quite a few cite tags to unsourced material, today someone added an entry with sources but no sources that established any date for continuous occupation as a city, which is what the article is about. see my comments at Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities - the editor had thought that reuse of stones showed continuous inhabitation. Hence my discovery of Spolia. The Guardian article in external links is actually an interesting discussion of the issues involved in such claims. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article[edit]

WikiJournal of Humanities logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.


  • Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
  • Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal


If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

  • Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox pyramid[edit]

Template:Infobox pyramid has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox building. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gerasa (Judaea) that may need your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Plains Village period[edit]

Hi, I created Plains Village period to begin to address the incredible dearth of articles about precontact Great Plains archaeology. Any help in this area from knowledgeable people would be greatly appreciated! Best, Yuchitown (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Radiocarbon calibration[edit]

Recently Nicolas Perrault III created a pair of templates (Template:Clarify radiocarbon calibration & Template:Is this date calibrated?) and a help/guideline page (Help:Radiocarbon calibration) about the calibration of radiocarbon dates. I have some concerns about them and have started a discussion at Help talk:Radiocarbon calibration#Original research and other concerns. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

  • Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
  • I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
    • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
  • Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Importance assessment of Megalithic Temples of Malta[edit]

Currently the article Megalithic Temples of Malta is assessed as being Mid-importance on this project's importance scale. Mid-importance is given to subjects which fill in more minor details, and I don't believe this article falls into that category. I am therefore proposing to reassess the article as Top-importance, since it is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. The Megalithic Temples of Malta are a World Heritage Site, and they are some of the oldest free-standing structures in existence, so I believe it falls into the Top-importance category which according to this project's importance assessment covers:

"Sites with iconic, internationally recognized status, e.g. Pyramids of Giza, Terracotta Army"

At the very least, this article should fall into the High-importance category, which covers:

"Sites notable at an international level, e.g. World Heritage Sites"

Do other members agree with reassessing this article? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say high. Top is best reserved for "wonder of the world"-level monuments that basically everyone has heard of, like the pyramids. The megaliths of Malta are a WHS but aren't quite there. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

List of largest cities throughout history[edit]

I'm just found this article and the sources seem pretty poor and claims suspect. See WP:RSN#Sources for List of largest cities throughout history. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)