This user may have left Wikipedia. Adamsan has not edited Wikipedia since 1 May 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I make archive here and here. You write below. Yes. adamsan 23:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, I've created an article Choirokoitia. It's just a beginning, translated from German and Dutch. I'm not an expert on archaeology, nor do I have any books of reference on the topic. So I hope you and other archaeology enthusiasts can make a more detailed article out of it. (Also posted a message on the discussion page of Neolithic, but didn't know whether someone checks that regularly) NielsF 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Madam/Sir, I edit some material on Northeast Asian Archaeology. In the Korean Peninsula, there are more than 50,000 megalithic burials dating to the Mumun Pottery Period. The article that you started (?) characterizes burials of the British Isles, but megalithic burials are found in many parts of our planet. I dislike the rude and abrupt manner of some of the so-called editors of Wikipedia and wish to conduct myself in a more respectful manner toward others. Would you be upset if I added a section on megaliths outside of the British Isles? Mumun 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Adamsan, regarding the Grotte article, there is not a specific thing that I felt could be cleaned up, it was more the overall tone of the article that to me didn't fit well with an encyclopedic entry. It just seemed to be a bunch of sentences pieced together instead of a paragraph. Example:

"It has also produced more than 20,000 bone fragments from the remains of prehistoric animals. Part of the skull of a nine-year old child from the cave suggests that either homo heidelbergensis or a proto-Neanderthal group occupied it almost two hundred thousand years ago."

I would reword the above to say:

"The Grotte du Lazaret cave has also produced more than 20,000 bone fragments from the remains of prehistoric animals including that of a nine-year old child that suggestting that, almost two-hundred thousand years ago, either Homo Heidelbergensis or a proto-Neanderthal group occupied the cave."

Notice how I sort of blended two sentences into one, but kept the facts. Now, obviously you don't have to go with my wording, but it was just an example to show some ways how I felt the article could be cleaned up, consolidated, and reworded. I noticed you've been the only one contributing to the article to date, and I think you did an excellent job on writing it, don't get me wrong. If you like my above rewording suggesting, I'd be more than happy to help you clean it up a bit. Phaldo 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article John Wymer contains a link to the article "Reading", which is a disambiguation page. I would disambiguate it, but I am not certain which is the correct target. Duckbill 13:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you have some plans to replace this page with another, looking at that could we discess your plans here as this although more globals in scope is perhaps not of the same quality. Is there anyway I can help with this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having made a bit of progress on these articles I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving them the once over to check if I have made any mistakes. Or if you have anything to suggest, offer etc. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did I miss your response, don't want to be rude and ignore you if I have. Regards :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This proposal has been around for some time and most "if not all" the response seems negative, can we not bottom out this one and remove this as a merge proposal. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 11:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just deleted

"Archeological findings indicate that there was some kind of Roman precence in Britain prior to 43, possibly to support local rulers friendly to Rome or to protect trading posts." in Roman conquest of Britain with the comment: "presumed ref to disproved Time Team"

I included that comment originally based on a article in the 'History Today' magazine (8/2005 p 6) as indicated in the editsummary.

Could you please elaborate why you deleted that sentence? Possibly a source that disproves the above statement. (Note that it was sufficiantly vague in saying there was "some" precence as there was clearly no outright rule at the time) Agathoclea 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I add, that if it is clearly disproven it would be worth mentioning in the article as a known fallacy. Agathoclea 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article in question was written by Miles, therefore based on the timeteam research. But published after the reference you mentioned and possibly toned down because of that. Interrestingly your reference says: "I don't think anyone would deny that there was probably a continuous trade presence with Rome in one form or another from the time of Julius Caesar's invasion (and one which would probably account for every artifact which Time Team will bring up)". It might need some more research and thinking of getting the right words (I am German and see "precence" as being there, but I see it could be understood as occupation. Agathoclea 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd just like to say, Adamsan, what a magnificient job you have done with Stonehenge and the other archaeology related articles here at Wiki.

Have a Great Summer Solstice! - Garry Denke 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Long Live Adamsan! - John

Folsom Site and Lindenmeier Site are two articles in List of National Historic Landmarks in Colorado and List of National Historic Landmarks in New Mexico that I am working on. It would be great if you could add to those articles. I copied your pithy paragraph from the Folsom, New Mexico article for the Folsom Site article, thanks for that already. doncram 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated Invasion theory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have a history of working on the article Invasion theory. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest ((unreferenced)) tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Reculverfront.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Reculver -Kent-16Sept2005.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Reculver -Kent-16Sept2005.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Reculverback.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Reculver back -Kent-16Sept2005.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lacouplole.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Coupole Helfaut.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oldburyhillfort.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am here to solicit your help. As of a week ago, the culture article was just a total trainwreck. There was a GA and it elicited many reasonable criticisms. I recently did a major revision of the article, although my approach was conservative: I deleted redundancies, deleted fringe and tangential material, and reorganized what was left in an attempt to highlight distinct approaches and points of view. I explain all this in more detail on the talk page starting here (note: the two people who did the GA think my revision is bad and the earlier version should be restored). I admit that my revision has big holes, and i am hoping other editors can help fill them in.

A major hole involves material culture:

• what do we know about the evolution of tool-use?
• what is the relationship between material culture and symbolic or mental culture?
• how do archeologists conceptualize culture? What are the main debates today among archeologists over how to define and study culture?

I do not want to duplicate the archeology article ... I think Culture should be about "culture" and the different views and approaches to conceptualizing and studying culture. But clearly, archeology should be represented in this.

I know everyone has other things to work on - any edits you can make would be valuable, I am sure. You may also have suggestions about the organization of the article (e.g. should we have separate sections on cultural anthropology and archeology? or should we have separate sections on Taylor's categories, non-material culture, behavioral culture, and material artefacts of the preceding two? Or something else?

Anyway, I appreciate any help you can give! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aubrey Burl, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC -- former academic at a very minor institution.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - please see the comment I left on Talk:Apollonius Dyscolus -- thanks. MithrasPriest (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Category:Madagascan archaeologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Malagasy archaeologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Adamsan, A little bit of help is required on the above, namely confirmation of the authenticity of the carbon dates citation on the Monument, which you inserted originally back in 2004. The question is: is it realistic to expect citation accuracy to one year when the date range spans nearly 800 years? As you were the original editor who made a sizeable contribution to this article you might be interested in returning to it, as it is currently under review. Regards, LouisBB (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Aubrey Burl, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Burl. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oo7565 (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Adamsan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 1,864 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. Christopher Chippindale - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated Migrationism, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migrationism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Adamsan. As you created the article I thought I should let you know that I've nominated the article Henge monument for deletion here. Feel free to join in the discussion or throw some light on the matter. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Vicus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Please delete this dab, as well as Vicus (disambiguation), in order to move Vicus (Rome) here - see discussion on talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nick Number (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claudius Xenophon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudius Xenophon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your upload of File:Aubreyhole.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Blubellhill.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Chidingstone.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Chiddingstone.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coffinstone1.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Methods and principles in archaeology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Transepted gallery grave —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tim1965 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Wedge-shaped gallery grave —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tim1965 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I new at this so tell me if Im choosing the wrong way of taking this up. In the article "Agoge" it's stated that:

"In the event that the baby did not pass the test, he was thrown off of a cliff at a place called the apothetae near Mt. Taygetus for several days in a test to die of exposure or survive the ordeal."

So I'm thinking that if the baby indeed was "thrown" of the cliff - it would have died immediately, no? Otherwise they probably where "put" out at the cliff - to die of exposure and chock etc? So what was it? I'm confused. Please hit me back, sincerely, Anatol, Stockholm Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatolwyss (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Archaeological industry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeological industry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Methods in archaeology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cambercastle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aller%C3%B8d_oscillation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8lling_oscillation prokaryotes (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Adamsan, I am a Prof. in Architecture and I am currently redacting a book titled “History of Interior Design and Furniture” and it will be published in Turkish edition. I would like to use your images from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#/media/File:Stonehenge_plan.jpg. At the end of the book, the name of the beholder of the image is noted in ‘Picture Credits.’ Do you prefer us to use your nick name in Wikipedia or we can note your proper name if you prefer. Best regards, Mustafa Demirkan mustafaemindemirkan@gmail.com Serhatakbak (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:AD9E:5801:81C:7CD9 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Deposit model has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be OR. Tagged since 2009. Few edits over the years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Szzuk (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:Archaeology, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Archaeology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Archaeology during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Monument types has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Palaeolithic cleaver.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

low quality and unused

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Longinus (Roman governor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. No wp:sigcov in secondary sources, because nothing is known about this man – we don't even know his name! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Archaeology images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Asian archaeology has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Archaeology of the Americas has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:African archaeology has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Hallstat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § Hallstat until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]