Proposal talk:Key:archaeological site
Discussion on definition
I agree that this probably isn't the place to define what an archaeological site is (instead that should probably be done at the historic=archaeological_site
tag level), but I think it probably is worth putting a small definition along the lines of:
"The archaeological_site key is to further define the type of historic=archaeological_site
."
At least then we have an "approved" definition if/when this proposal is accepted (I know this could be inferred from the current site_type=*
definition but there's no harm in being specific. Casey boy (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

historic key
Is historic=archaeological_site
a necessity here, or can archaeological_site=*
be a stand-alone key (similar to defensive_works=*
)? --501ghost (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is meant to replace
site_type=*
which requireshistoric=archaeological_site
. B-unicycling (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
"site_type" by itself doesn't mean much, which is why it has always required a tag that says "archaeological site". Now the key that you're proposing is called "archaeological site", so I'm questioning whether the historic=archaeological_site
tag is still necessary. Personally I think your proposed key makes it more or less redundant. --501ghost (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting point, but archaeological sites are still historic, and not making the historic key a requirement would really mess with histosm.org, for example. B-unicycling (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about experimental archaeology sites. They should probably not get the historic key. However, the ones I have mapped already, I added
historic:civilization=modern
to indicate that they are not "old". B-unicycling (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)- I don't find this appropriate. Key:historic:civilization includes "or is somehow else connected to it" as one criteria. The information would be blocked. Key:castle_type:de has
reconstruction=yes
, aside frombuilding:condition=reconstructed
. --- Kovposch (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)- They're not reconstructions in the sense of "built on/ from the ruins", but they're built from scratch (that's the whole experimental part), usually in a different location so as to not disturb the original archaeological site. In some cases, they're then (usually not deliberately) destroyed and the debris site used for further research, so they're becoming actual excavation sites. B-unicycling (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- My question restated here from before is why not
historic=crannog
+archaeological_site=yes
if it is even a visible structure, since other things can also be and have excavation or reconstruction. --- Kovposch (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)- Because I think
Key=yes
is as bad assite_type
. Furthermore, we already have many established tags forsite_type=*
and it's arguably easier to replacesite_type=*
witharchaeological_site=*
on the map and in mappers' heads than to change two keys.B-unicycling (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)- I'm happy to see
site_type=*
gone. But "approving" both*=city
and*=settlement
looks wrong.settlement_type=*
(includingsettlement_type=crannog
, when you are "approving"archaeological_site=crannog
here?) remains, so ismegalith_type=*
. Another topic is why*=roman_villa
and*=roman_circus
, instead of*=villa
and*=circus
(apparentlybuilding=circus
exists) withhistoric:civilization=ancient_roman
. Despite my disgust towards*type=*
, I recognize it is not the most productive to move without examining each tag. --- Kovposch (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)- I'm not asking to approve
*=city
and and*=settlement
and all those with this proposal. I understand the proposal page template in the way that I have to include all the wiki pages which refer to the tag seeking approval, so as to show the impact the proposal has. If you don't think that should be done, don't approvearchaeological_site=*
. But you can't not approve of that change and also not approve ofsite_type=*
as was done with the crannóg proposal. Either you wantsite_type=*
or you don't. If you have come up with a third solution, I'm looking forward to your proposal. B-unicycling (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)- To clarify, I'm opposed to adding
settlement_type=*
, notsite_type=*
per se. Quite the opposite, if you proposesite_type=crannog
, I have to reluctantly accept it, becausesite_type=*
is "de facto". It will take another proposal to fix it. Butsettlement_type=*
is only "in use" with less than 50 instances. I too find suggesting a vote onhistoric=*
as unreasonable and an undue burden.
What I asked is to decide whether the hierarchy of directlysite_type=city
or firstsite_type=settlement
should be followed. This determines whethersite_type=crannog
orsettlement=crannog
should be chosen. If you usesettlement_type=*
without consideringsite_type=*
, you affirmsite_type=settlement
+settlement_type=*
, risking fragmentation fromsite_type=city
andsite_type=village
tosettlement_type=city
andsettlement_type=village
.
--- Kovposch (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)- But this is proposal is not about
settlement=*
. The tagsettlement_type=crannog
was rejected, and I have abandoned a new proposal for crannogs, because by the looks of it, I'm the only one adding them anyway. I have documented how it is used, i.e. how I'm using it, and that's the end of that. For now anyway. B-unicycling (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- But this is proposal is not about
- To clarify, I'm opposed to adding
- I'm not asking to approve
- I'm happy to see
- Because I think
- I don't find this appropriate. Key:historic:civilization includes "or is somehow else connected to it" as one criteria. The information would be blocked. Key:castle_type:de has
What exactly is this "approving"?
To ask the obvious: Will you only make archaeological_site=*
"approved"; while only moving the site_type=*
, leaving them "in use" or "de facto"? Is this possible, or workable? So in effect, this vote will be "approving" *=crannog
???
Reason is you already have a mistake in site_type=bigstone
. Tag:site_type=bigstone is claimed to be "deprecated" in favor of site_type=megalith
.
--- Kovposch (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I understand from the discussion about the crannog proposal, that we have to take it one step at a time, i.e. approve
historic=*
, get rid ofsite_type=*
for archaeological sites and then tackle the tags for each archaeological site type. B-unicycling (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)- Maybe there is miscommunication. I was more pointing to a bottom-up procedure. --- Kovposch (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think this relates to Kovsposch's question, if not feel free to move it or something, but I was wondering myself why site_type isn't set to depreciated since that seems to be the outcome of this. I understand the need to transition things or whatever, but it just seems weird to say site_type is still de facto and mention it on random pages as such when it clearly got voted down. As a side to that, I noticed that historic=archaeological_site is still de facto. I know it wasn't technically covered by the proposal, but if archaeological_site is approved then I think it makes sense to assume that historic=archaeological_site is also approved by implication. Although I'm not making a recommendation about it, just bringing it up as something I think might warrant looking into or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me; I hadn't gotten around to changing all the relevant pages on the wiki yet. B-unicycling (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think this relates to Kovsposch's question, if not feel free to move it or something, but I was wondering myself why site_type isn't set to depreciated since that seems to be the outcome of this. I understand the need to transition things or whatever, but it just seems weird to say site_type is still de facto and mention it on random pages as such when it clearly got voted down. As a side to that, I noticed that historic=archaeological_site is still de facto. I know it wasn't technically covered by the proposal, but if archaeological_site is approved then I think it makes sense to assume that historic=archaeological_site is also approved by implication. Although I'm not making a recommendation about it, just bringing it up as something I think might warrant looking into or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe there is miscommunication. I was more pointing to a bottom-up procedure. --- Kovposch (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Implementation
How is this being implemented and by whom? Two weeks on, we have quite a bit of a mess with part of the instances replaced, and the other part reverted or not yet touched at all. This seems quite unfortunate. Is there a plan and somebody in charge? See also the discussion in the Germany forum. --ChillyDL (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)