This category 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
This category is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This category is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Please do not place this category in the parent category "Lost settlements of the United Kingdom". These hillforts are not "lost" (we know very well where they are located!) and it is also not true to refer to them all as "settlements" either as some where used as only as temporary refuges. On both counts, therefore, the category is incorrect and sounds frankly ludicrous in this context. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed at User talk:Enaidmawr. The intended meaning of "lost" is as stated at the cat page: no longer in existence, not location unknown. These cats are likely to be renamed to resolve the ambiguity. Individual hill forts will be assessed - at least some of them were settlements, according to archaeologists. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
