Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Monitoring Outline Participants Project organization Assessment Resources Showcase


WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 

Starčevo–Körös–Criş[edit]

See Talk:Starčevo–Körös culture#Move. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Archaeosphere[edit]

An article on this topic was recently requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Environment and geology#Geologic features and environments. It seems to be a recent (2014-ish) neologism. I've suggested that we should maybe wait to see if the term becomes more commonly used. If anyone here thinks its worthy of an article right now, then maybe they could create a stub on the topic. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of BP in timeline at Upper Paleolithic[edit]

This uses BP dates in the timeline, which seems inappropriate. What do others think? @Dbachmann:, what was your rationale for making the change? Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Aren't these mostly carbon dates? But on the timeline, he just changed BC to BP down to 11,000 BC/BP, which ain't right! Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
BP or kya tends to be the norm in scholarly writings on the Palaeolithic. On an article about something recentish I'd convert to BC(E), since it's more familiar, but the error margins on dates older than 15,000 or so are so wide that quibbling over a couple of millennia doesn't make sense. – Joe (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject[edit]

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Archaeology

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at Point Rosee[edit]

A discussion was initiated at Talk:Point Rosee#RadioCarbon Dates as the dates in the article contradicted the dates in the Nova/PBS program. I tried to correct this but was reverted. I can't find much written after the program was broadcast. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Venus figurines[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Venus figurines regarding the inclusion of post-Palaeolithic figurines. Mr. bobby has been edit-warring for several years to try and remove any mention of them (not just in this article), and is at it again. Some more opinions would be appreciated. @Johnbod and Doug Weller: I think you have both edited the topic in the past. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Aurolithic civilization[edit]

A new(ish) editor adding fringe material on a 'Lost Aurolithic Civilization' to various articles, see Special:Contributions/Wikiknol. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...[edit]

There are requested moves at:

that would benefit from your !vote and rationale. Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Women in archaeology task force update[edit]

Just over a year ago I started a women in archaeology task force to improve our coverage of female archaeologists and women-related topics in archaeology. Since then, WIR's red list of women archaeologists has been halved, and members of the task force have created 32 new biographies. Two of those were featured at DYK and one (Margaret Ursula Jones) was brought up to good article status. We've also tagged and assessed all of the existing articles on women archaeologists (373 total), which helps the task force keep track of the level and quality of coverage. I therefore wanted to thank Ninafundisha, Zakhx150, and, especially, MauraWen, for all their hard work over the past year.

At this rate, I think we can aim to turn all the remaining links on the WIR archaeology red list blue in 2018. I'd also like to focus on improving existing articles. Currently only 12% of women in archaeology articles are classed as B or above, and only three are GAs or FAs.

If anybody would like to help, please do add your name to the participant list at WP:ARCHAEO/WOMEN. – Joe (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank Joe Roe for his help this past year. There is much to learn in writing a biography that meet's Wikipedia guidelines. I probably wouldn't have made it to biography #4 without Joe's sage advice and quick replies to my questions.
I am wondering, at the moment, if we will be able turn all the remaining red links to blue? A number of red list archaeologists are from countries like Japan and Italy, where source information, if available, is not in English. MauraWen (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC on the History Channel, pseudoarchaeology etc[edit]

"The modern far right is crisscrossed with pseudo-scientific research into lost Aryan super-civilizations, biblical giants, ancient astronauts and the occasional inter-dimensional alien." Great stuff. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

New documentary on the Solutrean hypothesis[edit]

"CBC under fire for documentary that says first humans to colonize New World sailed from Europe". This discusses some of the racist users of the hypothesis. It's likely to bring new editors to the page who have little understanding of the subject or Wikipedia, plus hopefully some who do. I see the Haplogroup X argument is in the documentary, although you'd think they might have given up on that. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Good spot. In case it becomes useful, one of the few mainstream geneticists that agreed to be interviewed (and is clearly worried her interviews will have biased edits) has tweeted extensively to rebut the hypothesis: thread here PatHadley (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a paragraph based on her paper to Haplogroup X (mtDNA) and to this article a while ago. Glad to see it's still there! Doug Weller talk 15:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)