This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology

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]

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]

Hi, I created this article and thought I would tell you all since I noticed Oil lamp is part of your wikiproject pages. Feedback, additions welcome! Tiamut (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Boxgrove_Palaeolithic_site#Proposal_to_merge_"Boxgrove_man"_into_this_article. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Teqoa (ancient town)#Requested move 25 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 21:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montpelier Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add more sources. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual diversity in the Huancavilca culture#Requested move 21 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles titled 'Archeology of "Country name", which is grammatically wrong - it should be Archeology in "Country name". Who wants to do a widespread name change? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have different connotations, but both are grammatically correct. -- Avocado (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have different meanings, not connertations, which dictates their use in a sentence, which makes the current title grammatically wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be obnoxiously pedantic in ways that I admit are not meaningfully relevant to what was probably your intention in opening this conversation: while there's an argument to be made that in some cases they are semantically incorrect representations of the article contents, those titles are legitimate syntactical constructions and thus grammatically correct. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is also grammatically correct. -- Avocado (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that depend on the topic of the article? Looking at my bookshelf, I have Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida, Archaeology of the Everglades, Archaeology of North Florida, and Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. If the topic of the article is about what archaeologists have found in a given territory, then I would say that "of" is appropriate. If the article is about the development and practice of the discipline of archaeology in a given territory, then I would say "in" is appropriate. Donald Albury 15:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added three new studies to Talk:Ucanal. Eventually, would someone be willing to review and incorporate them into the article? RanDom 404 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]