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)

Resolved: B-unicycling (talk) 09:50, 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 requires historic=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 from building: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 as site_type. Furthermore, we already have many established tags for site_type=* and it's arguably easier to replace site_type=* with archaeological_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=* (including settlement_type=crannog, when you are "approving" archaeological_site=crannog here?) remains, so is megalith_type=*. Another topic is why *=roman_villa and *=roman_circus, instead of *=villa and *=circus (apparently building=circus exists) with historic: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 approve archaeological_site=*. But you can't not approve of that change and also not approve of site_type=* as was done with the crannóg proposal. Either you want site_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=*, not site_type=* per se. Quite the opposite, if you propose site_type=crannog, I have to reluctantly accept it, because site_type=* is "de facto". It will take another proposal to fix it. But settlement_type=* is only "in use" with less than 50 instances. I too find suggesting a vote on historic=* as unreasonable and an undue burden.
What I asked is to decide whether the hierarchy of directly site_type=city or first site_type=settlement should be followed. This determines whether site_type=crannog or settlement=crannog should be chosen. If you use settlement_type=* without considering site_type=*, you affirm site_type=settlement + settlement_type=*, risking fragmentation from site_type=city and site_type=village to settlement_type=city and settlement_type=village.
--- Kovposch (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

But this is proposal is not about settlement=*. The tag settlement_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)

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 of site_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)

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)

For implementation by mechanical edit, see here --ChillyDL (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)