Template talk:Infobox ancient site/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

request new field

Can we have a "management" field? This would be to indicate who manages the site today, which can be different from the owners. Thanks. Zero^talk 09:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. • Astynax ^talk 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Zero^talk 21:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Name site in infobox

I noticed that the name of the site is hoovering above the infobox. Usually it is inside the infoboc, with a coloured background (and to be honest, that would look a little bit less awkward as well). Could that be changed? -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The name on top of the box is a part of the main infobox template. However, I have tweaked it so that the box outline now surrounds the name. A colored background has been questioned elsewhere for reasons of readability and compatibility with other infoboxes that readers encounter when reading similar articles. I also like the name/title better when it is within the outline, but if anyone has reasons to go back to the normal infobox format, we can discuss it here. • Astynax ^talk 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot better already! I see the thing with readibility; grey wouldn't be the best background colour. But anyway; thanks! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol colour

Would it be possible to have the site symbol defaulted to black, while allowing for it to be changed to red? This is to allow it to be more readily identified, see for example Dan (ancient city). Chesdovi (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It could certainly be done, although my brain rebels against long lists of if-then statements. If it is done, I think several color options (perhaps red, green, gold and white) should be supplied. If no one else works on this in the interim, I will try to look at it when I have more time. • Astynax ^talk 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Until I or another editor can plug in a choice for the color, I have changed the symbol color from black to a dark red. This should show up a bit better against black lines in maps. • Astynax ^talk 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Epoch

Hi, would it be an idea to change "Epochs" in the infobox to "Periods"? I think I have never ever come across an archaeological publication that uses this term, so to me it looks kind of weird. Just a suggestion. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox will mostly be used in articles more concerned with "Periods", and so I've changed the label that appears when the box is displayed. However, since this infobox is already in use by articles, I've left the field name as "epochs", though that name will not be displayed. If there is a need for a separate "Epoch" label, that could be added later. • Astynax ^talk 20:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Field "Built"

Would it be possible to have the field "Built" changed in "Established" or something similar? For the very large majority of sites, "Built" is not appropriate to describe the first occupation of a site (for example sites that were first occupied by hunter/gatherers that built nothing but left only a flint scatter)? -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This should now be shown as "Founded" in articles where the infobox appears. Since this template is already being used in articles, we cannot change the name of the field itself. So, the field itself is still named "Built", but "Founded" appears next to the date when the template is in use. • Astynax ^talk 18:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

map_caption

When adding a map caption, the template inserts the same caption above and below the map. The one above is centered and the one below is aligned left. Is it possible to correct it by removing the above caption and centering the one below? Thanks. MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just checked, and you are correct. I will look into this. • Astynax ^talk 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Example: Sanxingdui. This seems to have ben the case since this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an automatic caption that draws from the name of the map file that's inserted under the map. When using map-caption, then the new caption overrides the automatic one below and also appears above. The problem is in a case like this where the map name needs capitalizing but we can't change the source name as we lose links with many other templates that don't have this problem. A map caption on this template (the only one with this peculiar situation), that overrides the automatic one but only appears once, seems like the best solution on these few cases. It's preferable from a design standard that it's centered, but it's not critical. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an easy fix, although someone with admin rights needs to fix it. I earlier contacted one who has edited here, and a fix will hopefully be forthcoming (if Redrose64 doesn't get to it first). • Astynax ^talk 02:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the caption above the map is easy. Centring the caption below isn't: it would require amendments to at least three templates in the {{location map}} group. However, I've sandboxed the first one, so check out Template:Infobox ancient site/testcases. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It solves the problem, centering isn't critical. I'll check for pages that need change once the template's edited. Thanks. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a think about this. What if |map= is provided, but |map_type= isn't (example: Bethsaida)? You'd want the |map_caption= to show, but if I go ahead with this change so that it only gets displayed via the {{location map}}, it'll no longer show for |map=.

As a side issue: some of the |map_caption= could do with trimming down, see for example Derventio (Little Chester). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution and I agree a caption isn't necessary. I tried implementing it in Khirbet Qeiyafa but I'm having two problems with the html code. 1) Not able to center the map in the infobox. 2) Calculating exact placement of the bullet for the site. Can you make that edit there as an example and briefly explain how the code works in this case? I'll be alright with the rest once that's clear. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I didn't want to imply that |map= was preferable - all that HTML looks like a horrible hack. Bethsaida was just an example of an article where |map= had been used. What I wanted to do was draw attention to the fact that two methods for showing a map exist, and that fixing up for the majority case (i.e. those using |map_type=) should not damage the minority of pages which use the |map= method. Better examples are Arch of Hadrian and Moatfield Ossuary.

Anyway, I've now amended the sandbox so that if |map= is supplied, the |map_caption= will show below that; and if |map_type= is supplied, the |map_caption= will show below that. This means that |map_caption= will show twice only if both |map= and |map_type= are supplied. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood you as saying the change compromises |map= but either way works. I agree the code is a little more cumbersome but it's manageable and used often for denoting places of specific events or locations that aren't municipalities. At this stage, the HTML code looks better from a design standard because the caption is altogether superfluous in the ancient site maps. It's better that the location and name of the site appear within the map itself. Also, at least 29 pages using this map alone also use the HTML code, adapting it to each location is relatively easy.

Seems there's a need to centralize and institute a method for maps used in the various infobox templates. For example, I wasn't able to center the map in Moatfield Ossuary within the infobox, maybe because it's a template within a template. At any rate, I'm concentrating now on Israel ancient sites and looking for the simplest efficient standard. That's a more limited group of pages and easier to standardize than hunting down the problems across the entire WP project. Keeping the majority method makes sense, though the HTML code does give the best looking results on the finished page. In light of all this, I'll consider your advice on how to proceed. Thanks. --MichaelNetzer (talk)

I looked around and found solutions for code in Khirbet Qeiyafa. I think that solves the problem and can be used in these cases, with bullet location tweaks for each map. If you haven't done it, no reason to change the template anymore. Good thinking and much appreciated. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Migrating all articles using archaelogical site template, issues/questions regarding this template

There is another template, Template:Infobox archaeological site (ARS) which serves the same purpose as this one. Having two templates for archaeological sites is silly, as has already been mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Infobox merger, but nobody has done anything about it yet. When I first started editing articles of archaeological sites I used the ARS template because I didn't know that this one existed. Now that I do I think it's smart to migrate all articles using that template to this one. This template has more options and is used on much more pages (414) than the ARS template (150).

I will change all the articles to which I added the ARS template myself to use this template ASAP. Regarding the other articles using it, I will refer to my message here on the talk page of the ARS template and ask if there is a consensus for migration to this template. If so, I volunteer to change all 150 articles using the ARS template to this template. However, this template also has a few issues. Would the person who can edit this template be so kind to address these issues and, if he agrees with me, change the template?

1. Problem This template is inconsistent with other templates in how it handles coordinates. You can give enter coordinates in either decimal or dms (degrees, minutes and seconds) formats and doesn't display them in a consistent manner. Take a look at the documentation of the ARS template: it uses the latd, latm, lats, latNS, longd, longm, longs and longEW for entering coordinates in dms format and then displays them both inline and in the title. This is also how it's done by the Template:Geobox/type/river and Template:Infobox settlement templates, which you can see in action in Colorado River and Washington, D.C. articles. Solution Implement those entries for the dms format in this template too and make them display coordinates both inline and in the title by default. Don't disable the existing entries for entering coordinates yet, but mention them as deprecated in the template's documentation until every article is migrated to the new entries.
2. Problem The documentation for this template says that the map entry is used for entering the name of the location map, but it turns out that doesn't work. Only entering the location map in the map_type entry will work. And map_type has a deceptive name if that's supposed to be used. Solution Please fix this in the documentation and preferably in the template itself.
3. Problem The ARS template has three entries called elevation, area_m2 and area_km2 which take metric values and automatically convert them to imperial system values, but this template has only area which doesn't convert automatically and doesn't dictate a unit of measurement. It wouldn't be good if one article gave surface area in hectares and others give it in (k)m²). Solution Create three new entries called elevation_m, area_m2 and area_km2 which autoconvert to the imperial system. Then mention in the documentation that area is deprecated and remove it entirely when every article is migrated to the new entries.

   Problems with lower priorities:

4. Problem I've seen some articles which use flag icons in the infobox of this template. Solution Put a reminder on this template's page that flag icons are forbidden, referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags as a source.
5. Problem Many ancient sites are UNESCO World Heritage Sites, so they use the template for that and we don't get a map and all the other useful facts this template has to offer. See Villa Romana del Casale for an example. Solution This of some way to include the World Heritage Site template in this template, as it is done in the article on the Rhine for example. See how the Geobox template does it here: Template:Geobox/legend#Fields.
6. Problem Some articles use regional maps instead of national maps, for example Cuddie Springs and Sanxingdui. In my opinion national maps are much more recognizable. Solution Not sure if everyone agrees with me on this, but can we dictate on the template's page that it is required to use a national map? Maybe with an exception for Template:Location map European Russia, because Template:Location map Russia is simply too big to display comfortably?

AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with most of the proposed changes. However, for the area and elevation, I think it better to direct people to use Template:Convert rather than having this template do the conversion automatically. I also think it better to leave it up to editors which map to use, simply for future flexibility. My main concern, however, is that any proposed changes be done in a sandbox and tested with a variety of the existing articles before asking an admin to take it live. We certainly don't want several hundred editors stuck with a broken infoboxes. • Astynax ^talk 09:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Astyanax. I figured out that the entries for dms coordinates are in fact already supported by this template. All that remained to be done was to change the documentation, where I removed all references to the latitude, longtitude and coordinates entries and replaced them with the entries for dms coordinates. I've also made some other fixes for the documentation, I wonder what you think about the policy for units of measurement of surface area I've come up with. However, there is still one issue: the coordinates still don't automatically display in the title, only inline. For this I do need to edit the template, but I'm totally unfamiliar with that. I did compare the source of this template with that of the ARS template, but I'm really unsure of what should be changed. Could you please take a look? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to change the default for the coordinates display, since it is the same as {{infobox settlement}}. you just set |coordinates_display=title. the only change I might make would be for |coordinates_display=inline to not show the coordinates in the title, which is how {{infobox settlement}} works. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Frietjes, in that case I don't see a need for any change since for this template I could not think of any use case in which we would *not* want the coordinates to be in the title as well. I've adjusted the template's documentation to instruct users to use |coordinates_display=title by default. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I feel there is a possible issue regarding a disconnect between the name of the template and its proposed use, in that not all archaeological sites are "ancient" (in the sense of corresponding with ancient history). Many are only a couple of centuries old, and so a redirect or explicit clarification in the documentation might be ideal explaining this discrepancy. Cheers. Morgan Riley (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a short note at the top of the documentation to widen the scope. Template:Infobox archaeological site is already taken, so it cannot be used as a redirect until those articles (etc.) that use it are changed. On the other hand, the original purpose of this template was to include sites and structures that have not necessarily been subjected to archaeological excavation (early Abbasid constructions in Baghdad, the Hasmonean Baris and other such sites known from literary sources; structures strongly presumed to exist but not confirmed; sites which cannot now be excavated or studied in detail due to current habitation or other uses). • Astynax ^talk 09:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox archaeological site

Template:Infobox archaeological site has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Further thoughts on policy and improvement

As you can see, I've just migrated every article which was still using Template:Infobox archaeological site and proposed that template for deletion (I'm still waiting a few days before I'll insert code in that template to redirect to this template). I noticed Michael! added an entry for relief maps, which was quite useful when I migrated the articles of Peruvian archaeological sites to this template. They were using Template:Infobox archaeological site with a relief map and thanks to the new entry I was able to keep the relief map, useful considering many of those sites are located at high altitudes in the Andes. However, there are some more things which need to be discussed/improved. First of all, policy.

• Don't allow language icons. I decided to be bold and just edited the template documentation to communicate this. Fact is that Category:Language icon templates already states that they're not meant to be used in the context of stating what language a certain name is in. Also in many articles which use Template:Infobox settlement, for example Beijing, there is no indication that the native name is written in Chinese characters. I think it's important to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, less is more when it comes to infoboxes and users can always see the language of a native name in the lead section anyway. I emphasize that I added the advice to use language icons to the documentation of this template myself many months ago, because I noticed the practice when I migrated articles still using Template:Infobox archaeological site: many of them were using language icons for the native name. Now even though I went ahead and changed the documentation already, I would still like to know if everyone agrees with my change? Do we also agree that using the proper Category:Lang-x templates as is done in Apamea, Syria for example should be discouraged?
• Forbid use of lowercase letters to start entry information. Again see Apamea, Syria and some other articles. I always use capitals myself (it looks more pleasing optically) and would like to add a notice in the policy asking other editors to do the same. Do you agree?
• Recommend embedding Template:Designation list. Many articles, such as Pompeii, use Template:Infobox World Heritage Site which is much more limited than our template. Because it's possible to embed the designation list template in our template, I've already converted a few articles which use the WHS template to our template. These articles are: Alyscamps, Buthrotum, Hierapolis, Necropolis of Monterozzi, Velia, Villa Romana del Casale and Xanthos. With the designation list template embedded in our template, we can include all the information the WHS template can present and more. However, before I start migrating articles using the WHS template on a large scale, I should probably ask the people behind the WHS template what they think first. But what do you people think about this?
• Certain entries aren't very useful. Do you know any ancient sites which are not public property? And in almost all cases they are publicly accessible and ruined. Notable exceptions to this are Sarkel, Nikonion and Zeugma, Commagene, which completely and partially submerged. Pompeii is the only site I can think of where you can say it's condition is "preserved". The Vari Cave is the only ancient site I've encountered which is not publicly accessible. My point is, maybe we should advise people not to use these entries at all unless the site is an exception from the rule (submerged, preserved and such) which warrants mentioning such a thing?
• The excavation dates and archaeologists entries are too much of a good thing. Take a look at Morgantina, where I added the infobox. It has seen quite a lot of different excavation seasons and leading archaeologists. It is not easy to match a specific excavation season with a specific archaeologist, you have to count. It would be easier if we would list the leading archaeologist directly after the years of the excavation season, no? However, I think we should entirely refrain from mentioning excavations and archaeologists in the infobox. See suggestions for improvement.
• In some articles our template is downright abused. I'm sure the editors of Knossos had good intentions, but what they did was pure overkill. They produced the antithesis of what is described as "concise" the Help:Infobox article. Now I haven't seen any other article like Knossos, but maybe we should warn against using the template like this in our documentation in some way?

Now some suggestions for improvement:

• An elevation entry. Many articles of ancient sites in Peru I migrated to our template had an elevation entry in their former template, but now miss it because our template has none. Because these sites lie at very high altitudes, I really think the elevation should be mentioned in the infobox. I'm not unwilling to try adding an elevation entry myself in the sandbox, but maybe someone else who has experience with editing templates can do this? And maybe an admin could implement the change right away?
• Entries for discovery/discoverer/first excavation to replace archaeologists/excavations. According to Help:Infobox the goal of infoboxes is to provide information in a concise manner. I think it would be just as interesting and much more concise if we would have optional entries to mention some or all of these three things: in which year was the site discovered (as in identified with a certain settlement known from history, as is often the case for ancient cities from classical antiquity), who discovered the site and in which year did the first excavation take place? Do you people agree it's better to keep excavation dates and archaeologists out of the infobox and mention them only in the text?
• The layout could use improvement. Take a look at Beijing again and Colorado River too. Do you notice these templates don't have headers? In Morgantina the headers "History" and "Site notes" eat some vertical space. You can also see there that our template has extra vertical line spacing. Template:Infobox settlement used in the Beijing article doesn't do either of those things. You can see that in the article for the river, Template:Geobox/type/river is similar to infobox settlement in this regard and seems to use a slightly smaller font (in fact equal font size to our template though, which is nice). Therefore I advise the following to improve our template's layout: remove the headers and replace them with horizontal lines; remove the extra line spacing. This way our template takes less vertical space. This would be useful because it can be quite long, as with Villa Romana del Casale for example. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is "landmark" appended to coordinates?

I just edited the Pompeii article and transferred the dms coordinates entered in the article text with Template:Coord to the infobox of Template:Infobox ancient site. After doing so it occured to me that the infobox appends the "landmark" type to the coordinates, which the former does not. The result is different: compare the result of the link without and the link with the "landmark" type. The former has a WikiMiniAtlas and the latter does not. The WikiMiniAtlas seem useful to me, so can we not append the "landmark" type? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

if you set |coordinates_type= to a blank value, or to |coordinates_type=region:IT the type:landmark is omitted. the type:landmark is useful in setting the default scale, but we could make it not use type:landmark by default, and only add it if specified? Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, when I follow the two links I gave again today, there is no difference because both don't show the WikiMiniAtlas. Strange. To answer your question, I'm not sure what would be the wisest choice here. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New parameters

I've added |volume=, |diameter=, and |circumference=, to allow for compatibility with (and conversion of) articles using {{Geobox}}. I've also added |other_designation=, for types of designation not used by this template's complex code. All these can be seen in use in Black Grave. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

seems you have only added the first two, and not the third. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

also, the article text states the circumference is 125 meters, and not 170 meters. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to raise that is the article talk page; I've done that for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

native_name broken

@Pigsonthewing: In this April 21 edit the "native_name" is passed down to {{infobox}} as "data1". Unfortunately "data1" is re-used further down the template for "alternate_name", so "native_name" is currently ignored. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Coordination

hello, I edited Kish (Sumer) and Ebla and didnt touch the infobox however once I saved the edit the infobox changed .. any page with the infobox is showing this reaction even if the edit isnt in the infobox ... just click edit and save without changing a thing and the infobox will be ruined ... ????--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I'm not sure what happened, but I've fixed those two articles by asking the servers to rebuild them - see WP:PURGE for instructions on doing that, if you find other examples. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Migrating/Merging Infobox Pre-Columbian site

Hi all, this template is great and really flexible. Given Wikipedia's global mission and significant overlap would it be worth migrating instances of Infobox Pre-Columbian site into this template? Too complicated? Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This was merged a few days ago, resulting in some messy location/region parameters with a lot of duplicate links in both fields. Would it be possible to create a "Municipality" parameter? This existed on the Pre-Columbian site infobox, but doesn't anymore, and location isn't really a good substitute. For example, the Maya ruins of Tikal are with the municipality of Flores, but actually 40 miles from the town itself - so putting location=Flores is misleading, whereas muncipality=Flores would be accurate. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Simon Burchell: I was the editor who did the merge (as per the TfD consensus). I forget the exact parameters that were in Pre-Columbian site, but they went something like city, municipality, country. The location parameter was set to equal just that in that order, assuming the parameters were specified. Like you mentioned, you get a non-specific location when city isn't specified, unfortunately. I'm happy to add a municipality parameter if there's consensus to do that, but I think location and region are sufficient. The ideal solution is to add the city in the location as well (which probably should have been there all along), so it reads like "city, municipality". ~ Rob^Talk 11:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how adding a city name would help in an example like above. The ruins of Tikal (they are a good example, being both famous and fairly remote) are sat in the middle of the jungle, the nearest town/city of any size, as mentioned, is about 40 miles away. The best way for describing it location is within its municipality, then using the region for the department (roughly equivalent to a US state or UK county). Although I may be misunderstanding the parameters, since region could be just about anything, from municipality right the way up to country, and there doesn't seem to be a country parameter. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Three dots rather than one

Is there a reason why this infobox indicates map location using three red dots rather than one, as the historic site infobox does? For coastal sites like Doon Castle Broch one dots seems clearer than three:

Doon Castle Broch
Location of Doon Castle Broch in Dumfries and Galloway
Coordinates	54.759777°N 5.005741°W / 54.759777; -5.005741

Doon Castle Broch

Shown within Dumfries and Galloway
Location	Dumfries and Galloway
Coordinates	54.759777°N 5.005741°W / 54.759777; -5.005741

C1614 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Three dots in an upright triangle (as in the "therefore" logic sign) has a long history of being used to denote uninhabited historic, landmark, ruined or cultural sites on maps. It is recognized, does not depend on color perception to distinguish it from other single-dots on large-scale maps (such as used for inhabited towns) and scales better than tight concentric circles or alphabetic lettering that have been used in certain works over the years. More detailed site survey maps do often use other symbols for individual structure types, artifacts, etc., and I suppose it would be possible to allow editors to choose from a selection of alternates should there be a compelling reason, though the three dots do cover many types of ancient sites as a default on the larger-scale geographic maps. • Astynax ^talk 17:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. C1614 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard of this convention. Do you have any more info? On Ordnance Survey maps (the standard in the UK) there are a range of specific symbols for different types of site, and the generic symbol for "site of antiquity" is a cross. I've never come across any convention in archaeological atlases of the Near East (other than simple dots). If three dots is a map agency- or nation-specific convention it's probably not appropriate to adopt it on Wikipedia. I agree with @C1614: that one dot is much clearer and, for readers not aware of the three-dot convention, makes much more sense on a map where there is only one symbol used. Joe Roe (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you do not recall ever having seen the three-dot pyramid symbol used for a ruin or ancient site. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It is hardly novel here. That said, there is no cartographic requirement restricting to using only this symbol, so long as a legend, key, caption or other explanation is given. Some have used outlines of the site, some use variations in font/type, some use symbols representing the nature of various sites (temple, church, home, pyramid, and so forth) within the map, etc. I will note that a simple dot is more often used to designate modern sites, cities, etc. If an alternate is used, colors are insufficiently accessible to a significant portion of the readership for distinguishing between similar symbols. • Astynax ^talk 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You're talking as if this symbol is being used alongside others, but as far as I know it isn't. Is the template even capable of displaying more than one marker on a map? If we're talking about a simple location for a single site, it seems unnecessarily complicated to include a legend, multiple symbols or colours, or inherit a convention used by (some) general-purpose atlases. Of course we shouldn't take away the ability to choose different symbols, but I'm suggesting the default should be a simple, legible dot – surely what most readers would look for on a map that only has one type of marker. Joe Roe (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This discussion goes way beyond the naming of a template. Editors may want to continue their debate outside of this format to reach consensus on which infoboxes should exist and what their exact scope should be. — JFG ^talk 06:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox ancient site → Template:Infobox archaeological site – The old archaeological site infobox was merged into this template to reduce duplication, so the scope of this template has expanded to cover sites that aren't "ancient" (i.e. prehistoric or later historic sites). Its name should reflect this. Joe Roe (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Joe Roe (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the proposal suggests, the scope covered by this template has indeed expanded. I see the term archaeological, however, as narrowing, rather than broadening, the scope as Infobox ancient site is inclusive of sites which have yet to be archaeologically explored, conjectural positions where an exact location is only generally or partially known from literary sources and/or other evidence and similar situations. The word ancient is broad enough to cover historical sites, though I would not be opposed to renaming to something like Infobox historic site, should there be consensus that there is a need for it also to encompass very recent abandoned, destroyed or repurposed sites. • Astynax ^talk 16:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Ancient" is usually understood to refer to things that belong to antiquity or earlier periods. Therefore it excludes not just "very recent" sites, but anything from the medieval period onwards. It certainly excludes prehistoric sites. In contrast, an archaeological site is simply any locality with physical remains of past human activity, regardless of whether they have been investigated or not. The only localities that "archaeological site" would exclude but "ancient site" does not is, like you say, historically attested settlements that are otherwise totally unknown. But since you'd only be able to fill in a handful of fields for such a site anyway, I don't see that being as much of a loss. Renaming it to Infobox historic site would be a total change of focus, in my opinion, which would require us to re-create a separate archaeological site infobox. Joe Roe (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with Joe Roe here. Archaeological is broader than ancient; even 19th and early 20th century sites (think WW I, for example) are nowadays excavated by archaeologists for research purposes. Also, the term archaeological site usually includes sites that have not (yet) been explored, so that would not be a problem. There obviously is a problem with sites that are known from literary sources but have not yet been located on the ground, but that problem is not specific to this infobox but to Wikipedia as a whole.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Although some authors constrain the term ancient to things prior to this or that era, the word and its common usage simply means very old. As previously stated, I have no problem with replacing the word "ancient" with something broader, however, the term "archaeological" is patently not a broader term. Many historical/former sites are not, and may never be, archaeological sites. Some have been completely obliterated and/or cannot foreseeably be subjects of archaeological investigation – whether by later overbuilding or destruction which has removed all cultural remains down to undisturbed soil/rock, by being within precincts permanently off-limits due to cultural or religious constraints where existence of any artifacts is conjectural, locales where in the context of an article the primary importance is nothing to do with archaeological study, etc. • Astynax ^talk 09:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what archaeology is. An archaeological site is not just a site that has been studied by archaeologists; it is, as I said above, "any locality with physical remains of past human activity". Archaeology buried under later building is still archaeology; archaeology that cannot be excavated due to contemporary constraints is still archaeology; archaeology that archaeologists haven't paid any attention to is archaeology. In the interests of the moving the discussion on, could you perhaps provide some examples of pages that currently used this infobox that couldn't be considered "archaeological sites"? I think there will be very, very few.

Similarly, while the word ancient may be (mis)used colloquially to mean "very old", it is very firmly established in reliable sources that it refers to the period of recorded history before the Middle Ages (see Ancient history). And even the colloquial sense would not include, e.g. the 20th century archaeology User:Zoeperkoe mentioned. Joe Roe (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the scope of archaeology, and I am also aware that this template was created to also be useful for articles which barely, or not at all, touch on archaeology. As I pointed out, many ancient sites have NO or NO CONFIRMABLE "physical remains of past human activity". The primary definition of the word ancient in most dictionaries is "very old", not indicating a specific era, and "very old" is neither a "colloquial" usage or a "mis-use" of the term. Authors, academic and otherwise, are all over the place as to their use of the term. Why this attempt to narrow the focus of the template? If there is a valid reason to object to ancient, then you could have proposed something more inclusive by suggesting Template:Historical site, Template:Cultural site or similar. • Astynax ^talk 17:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. As I explicitly stated, my intention with this move is to broaden the named scope of the template to match its current usage. You don't agree that my alternative is a broader term – that's fine, though I still find your understanding of what an archaeological site is rather idiosyncratic. But in principle we agree broader is better, no? So let's wait and see what other editors have to say. Joe Roe (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support unless I can be convinced that there are a significant number of sites this can't cover. Astynax, you seem to think that they are but I'd like some specific examples. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sites such as Thinis, Dilmun and Muziris where we know the approximate location from texts and/or maps, but for which any remains have not been, and possibly may never be, found.

Structures and entire urban areas known from references in texts and maps that no longer exist in sites likely wiped clean by flooding in places like Old Kingdom Memphis, Akkad, Baghdad and Babylon; historic locations obliterated by erosion or other natural disasters such as sites along the Sunda Strait obliterated in the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, Old Winchelsea, etc.

Structures obliterated by or rendered completely inaccessible to archaeological activity due to later construction: from Solomon's Temple to the Kaaba to the Singer Building.

Sites of ephemeral events for which no remains archaeological remains would be expected and/or important to an article such as the meeting between Constantine and Licinius at Mediolanum or the Councils of Nicea held in the Senatus Palace. Although archaeology often expands what we know about historical contexts, there are many instances where what happened there is far more important to articles than any archaeological remains even when pinning down a general location and other information can be useful. I did not start this template with the intent that it be used exclusively to describe archaeological sites. There was already a template for that, which was not accomodating for more general articles. Fields technically specific to archaeology have been added over the years, but it seems that now the proposed title is pushing it back to narrowing it the focus to the field of archaeology. I personally find that limiting, rather than an improvement. • Astynax ^talk 19:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Akkad, The Kaaba, etc are still archaeological sites - technology used by archaeologists has advanced so much that few would say that any site will remain forever inaccessible or has been wiped clean of all possible evidence. For instance, a number of books on archaeology mention the Kaaba.[1]

Archaeologists also discuss Thinis[2] and this Oxford University Press guide to archaeological sites includes Old Winchelsea.[3] Ephemeral events are not sites but they take place on archaeological sites. If the focus is on the event than another template would sound more appropriate. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, all historical sites are not archaeological sites, regardless whether or not they are mentioned in archaeological literature. As I said, many no longer exist as archaeological sites and excavation has shown potential strata that should contain remains of the site dealt with in an article are absent. Again, most articles where this template is used are much more concerned with history than archaeological reports, and many are not concerned with the archaeology at all - past, present or in some speculative future in which technology allows exploration/reconstruction without physical access to a site. Why limit the title to "archaeology" when there are broader alternatives such as "historical"? • Astynax ^talk 17:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you don't know a lot about archaeology? 'Historical' is much narrower, covering at most about 5000 years in a few parts of the world, a few hundred years in other parts of the world. I can't wrap my head around the concept of an archaeological site no longer existing. And of course looking at the fields, it seems obviously aimed at archaeology. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea that EVERY site is an "archaeological" site – historic/prehistoric, cultural, extant or not; the subject of archaeological investigation or not – is bizarre. I am unsure why you are suggesting that I am ignorant of the ambit of archaeology. As I've stated, the term "archaeological" is not a broader designation. Some universities place their archaeological curricula under their history departments/schools, some place it under their sociological or anthropological studies programs. Nor is historical research is limited by constraints imposed by obsolete and artificial period distinctions such as 'historical', 'protohistorical' and/or 'prehistorical' – the story of remains and sites, regardless of time-frame, become historical once the evidence is described and put into context by historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and those working in other disciplines. Historic sites, including archaeological sites – and from both so-called "prehistoric", "historic", "antique" and modern periods – are frequently overseen, funded and maintained by government and private "historical" agencies, societies and departments. A "historical" site can range from planetary beginnings to very recent indeed: from early geologic history to Uluru to Ur to Nasa Launch Sites. It is a huge leap to assume that authors of articles dealing with sites that primarily focus on describing historical, cultural or other sigificant aspects of a site are going to look for a template entitled "archaeological site" – which is why I ruled it out early on. This template seems to have been readily found and deployed in articles that describe both archaeological as well as historic sites, from diverse eras, so I see the proposed change as attempting to cure an illness that may not exist. If an alternative title is truly necessary, then something broader than "archaeological" is warranted. • Astynax ^talk 18:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm working from the academic definitions of the fields. "Archaeology, or archeology,[1] is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture." As an academic discipline, history is normally distinguished from prehistory and doesn't cover planetary beginnings, etc. You seem to be using your own definitions. Archaeology is the broader discipline. By the way, please tell me where it's under a sociological program. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Your definition is narrower - this template is used in relatively few articles that deal in any depth with "the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture". "History is the study of the past. It encompasses every dimension of human interaction, including social life, the economy, culture, thought, and politics. Students of history study individuals, groups, communities, and nations from every imaginable perspective—employing all the techniques of the humanities and social sciences to raise questions and probe for answers [...] as long ago as the most ancient civilizations or as current as yesterday's newspaper".Harvard I admit that there are few archaeological programs that are under departments/schools of sociology these days, as sociology and anthropology overlap and have been merged by many institutions, but it is accurate to say that perhaps a majority are subsumed to departments/schools of "sociology and anthropology", Social Sciences, Humanities, History or similar departmentsU of Tokyo, Wright, Oxford, George Mason, Cambridge, etc. • Astynax ^talk 19:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is all pretty much irrelevant, but you don't seem to understand either the field or academia. My degrees are in other social sciences, but I have studied history, sociology and archaeology at university level as well as having held a tenured teaching position (not in archaeology) at a university, and my degrees are from top universities in the US and UK so I know a bit about the differences. Archaeology is indeed a social science, as is history, sociology, anthropology, economics, etc. Exactly where archaeology is place in a university's departmental hierarchy depends upon a number of factors. For instance, how the discipline developed in the particular country or often particular university. Mergers of departments for economy of scale. Even the political influence of various faculty within a university. Archaeology draws upon a number of disciplines, particularly the physical sciences - we have a list at Archaeology in fact, and it doesn't include sociology. If you look at what's actually taught in history departments I doubt that you'll find many that cover more than the last five or six thousand years, although there may be a few that combine history and archaeology. But I'm quite happy with merging this template with the existing Template:Infobox historic site and unmerging the archaeology template. I can't see any justification for two historic site templates, and everything you've said seems to suggest that a merger would be an appropriate solution. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"most articles where this template is used are much more concerned with history than archaeological reports, and many are not concerned with the archaeology at all"

If this is the case, then perhaps a mistake was made in merging {{Infobox archaeological site}} here? It's clear now that you started this template with this class of "only historic" sites in mind (on a side note, there is also a {{Infobox historic site}}, though), and although I don't think that class is quite as wide as you do, I've no wish to drag the template off in a new direction that its creator didn't intend. Perhaps withdrawing this move request and working on a new archaeological sites infobox that can be tailored specifically to archaeology would be a solution? Joe Roe (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That might make sense. I hadn't noticed the merger. But I'm still concerned about having duplicate Infoboxes and the possibility that we end up with 3 Infoboxes and possible overlaps. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support alternative proposed above: Template:Infobox historical site: Not all archaeological sites are "ancient", and not all ancient sites are necessarily archaeological. The template has broad scope/usage, so name it to match. I can hardly believe people are arguing about it this much, above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Um, there is already a Template:Infobox historic site, right? So exactly what are you suggesting? Doug Weller talk 12:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, well, do we need both? We generally merge redundant templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"Site" infoboxes

Since the discussion above seems to be tended towards a merge and/or split, I had a quick look around for other infoboxes about "sites". There's:

• Formerly, Infobox archaeological site which was a basic template for archaeological sites. The discussion that led to deleting it wasn't very satisfactory as far as I'm concerned; it only had three participants, and took place after User:AlexanderVanLoon had unilaterally migrated ~100 articles to Infobox ancient site (5% of the pages now using this infobox). The decision seemed to be based on the fact that the ancient site template was better developed, without regard for the fact that it had a qualitatively different scope than the archaeological site infobox, and the latter could well have been fleshed out to be more useful.
• This template, Template:Infobox ancient site, which was apparently created with extant historic ruins/buildings in mind, but has since expanded. I still thing there's a focus on the "historic" that makes it slightly awkward to use for archaeological sites, though. There's lots of fields that are specific to standing remains like dimensions, materials, access, etc., but some basic characteristics of scientific interest missing like phasing, chronotypology, absolute dates, catalogue IDs, publications, years of discovery, etc.
• Template:Infobox historic site maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, which is specifically for legally protected historic sites and so probably not a good target for a merge.

• Infoboxes for specific national or regional protections, like Template:Infobox NRHP

• Template:Infobox World Heritage Site maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites, for sites protected at an international level. Also nominated for deletion in 2013 on similar grounds to the archaeological site infobox, but that one failed.

There's obviously a huge amount of overlap here: all sites of past human activity are archaeological sites (sorry, Astynax, they just are); some of those are historic; some are ancient; some are protected nationally; and some are protected by UNESCO. But consolidating them all is unlikely to happen. I'd argue we should embrace our inner splitter and reverse the somewhat hasty deletion of Template:Infobox archaeological site in 2013, so we can maintain all these infoboxes with their slightly (but usefully) different emphases. Joe Roe (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identifiers

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 15 I have tried to switch to this infobox (from historic site) & my first test is at Bat's Castle where the identifiers for NHLE & Atlas show but in edit mode it says:

• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ancient site with unknown parameter "hillfort" (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ancient site with unknown parameter "nhle" (this message is shown only in preview).

Am I doing something wrong or is thus a bug in the infobox code?— Rod ^talk 08:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rod No, the template uses the Module "Check for unknown parameters" which requires a list of acceptable parameters be defined in the template. Neither "hillfort" nor "nhle" were defined, so they generated that message for any pages that used those parms in this template. I've updated the templated a few mins ago to check them. You should no longer get this message. Ahwiv (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

Request to remove |upright={{{image_upright|1.3}}} from the template, i.e. update to match the current sandbox. The upright declaration is only appropriate for lead images which are not part of an infobox. Including it here blows up the images and makes the infobox overly wide. Paul_012 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. |image_upright= is preferred over |image_size=. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing upright=1.3

The upright declaration is usually only appropriate for lead images which are not part of an infobox. Including it here blows up images to a size wider than the infobox's default width. If no one objects, I'll re-submit the edit request in a few days. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-requesting, seeing as nobody has opposed the proposal, to remove |upright={{{image_upright|1.3}}} from the template, i.e. update to match the current sandbox. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 September 2018

Please copy-paste all sandbox code into the live template. Change: added |embed= to the known parameter list. - DePiep (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC) DePiep (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Also DePiep, if you do want to request template editor rights again I would support :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. For now, I enjoy this holyday status. -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternate vs. alternative issue & proposal

The current template includes 'alternate name', which uses a definition of 'alternate' only acceptable in North American English. 'Alternative' would be more appropriate, since it has the same definition across all dialects of English. I propose changing it to 'alternative name' (as per this infobox template), so that where this infobox template is used on an article written in Australian, British, Irish etc. dialects of English, there won't be a conflict between the infobox dialect and the article dialect. 149.5.89.168 (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 October 2018

Please change 'Alternate name' to 'Alternative name' in label1. This was noticed by an editor at Talk:Angkor#'Alternate name' change to 'Alternative name'?, and they are correct: 'alternate' is unclear as it has different meanings in different English varieties. In this case 'alternative' is more appropriate. See also MOS:COMMONALITY. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I support this request. -- Dr Greg  talk  12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Done for the displayed name only. Please update the documentation accordingly. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes added to documentation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2019

Please undo yesterday's edit. It assumes that only one native language exists. That's not the case for e.g. sites in Jerusalem or ancient Greek settlements in modern Turkey. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Please link to a couple of affected articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Midian appears to be one such though that page uses {{infobox settlement}}.

I am currently contemplating an addition to Module:lang/utilities that might handle such cases and unify native-names-use across a range of templates. See the discussion that spawned that at Template talk:Infobox organization.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. @Valentinian: please explain the exact problem with this edit — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

Add "|type=infobox" to the TfD notice to make it small. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

Remove {{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox ancient site|otherpage=Infobox Egyptian tomb|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 27#Template:Infobox Egyptian tomb|type=infobox|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}, the discussion has been closed. TheTVExpert (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

As the infobox has support for a NHLE identifier, could one for Historic Environment Scotland be added - the Scottish equivalent of NHLE. (I would have also suggested it for Cadw (Wales) but unfortuantely the id numbers in the URL and the Reference numbers don't match) I've tested it with sandboxes and didn't find any problems with it. The code needed would be:

| labelXX = [[Historic Environment Scotland]]

| dataXX = {{#if: {{{hes|}}} | [https://portal.historicenvironment.scot/designation/{{{hes}}} {{{hes}}}] }}

XX would be the a number, with subsequent lines changed as necessary (e.g. data45 (embedded) would become data46). Also needed would be to add {{{hes|}}} to header41 (identifiers) and adding hes to the invoke/check section at the end. The documentation could then be updated to list it as an identifier parameter and give its usage e.g. hes = number of the site in the Historic Environment Scotland database, e.g. SM90209 - EdwardUK (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• link to requested change: sandbox version - EdwardUK (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done @EdwardUK: Please update the documentation accordingly. Best, -- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

See also

Template:Infobox historic site

Thanks, TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to documentation page

Please add 

 Not done: you can do this yourself by editing Template:Infobox ancient site/doc, which is unprotected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Thanks - I didn't know that page was there to edit. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Unknown parameter warnings

Hi noticed when editing the documentation page that three preview warnings appear:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ancient site with unknown parameter "demo" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ancient site with unknown parameter "nocat" (this message is shown only in preview).
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox ancient site with unknown parameter "categories" (this message is shown only in preview).

I can't find those parameters in the doc - anyone know what's happening here? Is it a bug? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a bug on this page; that message appears on many infobox template documentation pages. Someone edited one of the transcluded templates in the last year or two to add those two parameters by default, I think, and nobody has bothered to tidy up or revert that change. It's a harmless error message in that there is nothing to be fixed on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Include option "has parts"

The current infobox has a line for "part of", but would it be possible to add the inverse "has parts" as well? Many Near Eastern sites are often a cluster of several smaller sites which separately usually do not deserve a separate article, so it might be interesting to have this option. (for example, a site like Tell Kashkashok (which deserves a better article but anyway) actually consists of Kashkashok I, II, III and IV, which are each separate tells. But it could also be used for very large sites such as Nimrud which has parts that, in excavation reports, are often almost treated as distinct sites ("Northwest Palace", "Fort Shalmaneser") that are often worthy enough to get their own Wikipedia article. Zoeperkoe (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)