Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Archaeology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 3 months

Shortcut

WT:ARCHAEOWT:ARCHAEO

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Rebecca Onion (November 18, 2022). "The Ancient Absurdities of Ancient Apocalypse". Slate (magazine). Retrieved April 5, 2023. Oddly enough—and I know journalists might bristle at what I say—Wikipedia is the very best source. It's maintained by nerds, and archaeology Wikipedia is maintained by archaeology nerds, and the articles on it are good! I have a feeling they'll get even better because of this series, because people will want to make sure the information is in there for viewers who may be Googling it.

Machu Picchu at peer review

User:JustEMV has taken the article on Machu Picchu to peer review, with the goal of preparing the article for GA and perhaps FA. I'm in the process of reviewing the page (slowly) and over views would be useful. It is the 4th most-read article within the project's remit so it's important to get right. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth of Egypt I need a review of this edit

[1] Thanks. Their first attempt used a UFO nut as a source Doug Weller talk 14:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:History of Anatolia#Requested move 25 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of Anatolia#Requested move 25 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIDAR images

The recently uploaded images, mostly of archaeological sites, in c:Category:LIDAR images of the United Kingdom may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely!★Trekker (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

"This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Online publications about Wikipedia's roles in archaeological discourse

Below are three papers that discuss Wikipedia's roles in archaeological discourse. They should offer some ideas about how Wikipedia coverage of archaeology can be improved.

Gimmerstam, J., 2022. Wiki on the Rocks–An investigation of Rock Art, Knowledge, and Authority in Wikipedia. PhD dissertation, University of Leicester. 402 pp. open access

Grillo, K.M. and Contreras, D.A., 2019. Public Archaeology's Mammoth in the Room: Engaging Wikipedia as a Tool for Teaching and Outreach. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7(4), pp.435-442. open access PDF

Pentzold, C., Weltevrede, E., Mauri, M., Laniado, D., Kaltenbrunner, A. and Borra, E., 2017. Digging Wikipedia: The online encyclopedia as a digital cultural heritage gateway and site. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 10(1), pp.1-19. abstract Paul H. (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting!★Trekker (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very interesting, & thanks for posting. I'm skimming through Gimmerstam, & the usual wild misunderstandings in academic papers as to how WP works are not hard to find: "According to Wikipedia, the editors on the English language version are white males in their 30s, but it is difficult to say if this is the case for the twenty-three Wikipedia articles as editors use avatars." page 198, cited to nothing. Nice to know that "The peer control on Wikipedia is extremely high and every action is recorded and there is a Big Brother-like overview of every entry", page 198, cited to nothing. The author spends pp. 200-206 speculating about the backgrounds of some main editors, but didn't seem to be aware that in most cases he could have just emailed them directly. The author is very concerned that the modern local population are not consulted/quoted/named - a concern that may be valid in some sites with more recent rock art, but hardly in others. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]