The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was keep for now. The majority of the opposition (2:1 over the support) feel that there is currently enough distinction between an "ancient" and an "historic" site to keep the two templates separate. There is, however, significant overlap between the two templates, so while I discourage an immediate relisting of the template, if there comes a discussion regarding the terminology and/or a sandbox version is presented that will demonstrate that both can be suitably merged I see no prejudice against relisting. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between these two seems to be unclear (the former is described as being for "sites which have been deemed worthy of protection by local, state, provincial, national, or other governmental bodies.", the latter for "historical and cultural locations"), and many of the parameters are similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, long overdue. – Joe (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Historic sites and ancient sites have different needs entirely. This is a solution looking for a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they have "different needs entirely", what are they? Why are the templates so similar? Why can one template not meet both sets of needs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there is consensus to merge, I would prefer Infobox ancient site merged into Infobox historic site, not the other way around. Something "ancient" can also be "historic". I do not believe most editors think that that the Palace of Westminster, Statue of Liberty, and many other sites are old enough to be considered "ancient". Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Whatever their descriptions, a look at the fields and the articles which use them demonstrates why they are different. Infobox historic site is really all about heritage listings of extant (or recently lost) specific buildings (possibly including gardens and outbuildings) generally with well-defined boundaries (as there is usually some associated legal protection); the fields are all about the designations (and loss of designation) for the heritage listing and the architecture-related fields. Whereas Infobox ancient site is much more about far older sites usually with a large archeological component (my random sampling has most of the articles using the term archelogical site in their first sentence), which tend to be over larger areas (and under other things) with less well-defined boundaries and not really about a specific building as a centrepoint (although obviously some do) and may not have any framework of legal protection. Generally if something is less than 1,000 years old, it turns up as a historic site and it's older, it tends to turn up as an ancient site. Certainly if we did merge them, I agree with Zzyzx11 that the name should be historic site rather than ancient site, since I don't think any of the 1700-ish articles I've done on the Queensland Heritage Register properties could be regarded as "ancient" (typically built 1820-1970). I agree there are a few articles that could be regarded as both and that merging would simplify the need to choose between the infoboxes. But all in all, I am not seeing how we benefit from a merge. Kerry (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Kerry has stated the difference well. Infobox historic site is geared toward present-day preservation status, which is not an inherent feature of ancient sites. Came here from Babylon, an ancient city to which few of the historic site parameters apply and some of those that might are not known with infobox-factoid precision. Maybe add other parameters to I.h.s. if needed for explaining hill forts with historic preservation status. groupuscule (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from its use on the article that equally, few of the parameters of the ancient site template apply to Bablyon also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair point. My main concern is that (within the infobox, which of course tends to occupy prominent real estate within the overall article) information about historic preservation status will unduly (disproportionately) overwhelm information abut the place itself. Perhaps this outcome is avoidable. Or perhaps it is inevitable, or, more optimistically, not related to the template merger. In fact it's already occurring; for example at articles like Xochicalco the infobox (ancient site, not historical site) tells me a lot about historic preservation and not a lot about architecture or history. So maybe my complaint belongs in another forum. groupuscule (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The two templates aren't similar at all. I agree with above comments the infobox ancient site is geared towards archaeology (excavation date, period, archaeologists etc.) - not architect/architecture. Many of these sites are prehistoric (Neolithic etc.), I'm working on an article now for a site the dates back to 6000BC, it's a cave with pottery and shell beads and a flint arrowheads. We shouldn't call it a historic site because it is way out of the scope of anything historians would reasonably study. I don't see any benefit to merging these. Seraphim System(talk) 06:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"not architect/architecture" No; the "Ancient site" template (which, as noted baove, is described as being for "historical and cultural locations"; emboldening added) has |architectural_details= and |architectural_styles=. As also noted above: The general benefits of merging are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Some of the specific benefits are addressed by Rod. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Enough legitimate reasons for keeping separate templates have been articulated above. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both templates serve very different purposes as mentioned in the above comments. Merging would create a very unwieldy template with many, many parameters. It'd even complex to come up with a list of most used parameters since it would depend on the whether the site is a building, an archeological site, a protected site, etc. If the problem is how to reference 2 different sources on hillforts, then just add a section into the appropriate template. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admit that I am new to these templates, but don't understand why a historic site should not also have room for ownership, and don't understand what "ancient site" is supposed to mean, anyway. - Where I come from, I'd often wish I could describe a theatre or a church in an infobox with detailed parameters for both an organization and a building. Not all parameters need to be filled. In ((infobox musical composition)), we have (after a merge with infobox hymn) a subset with the few parameters for hymns in the documentation, and the merged template accepts the parameter names from both former templates, so no major changes to articles were necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, I don't care - but can we get rid of the ugly "this template is being considered for merging" message being splashed across articles? Simon Burchell (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison of the parameters in the two templates suggests that a number of the above objections are based on a false premise, regarding the supposed difference between the two templates. Furthermore, of those parameters in one template, but not the other, many are applicable to both types of site; are simply the same parameters with extra ordinal numbers (e.g. |designation3= to |designation5=), or are synonyms (e.g. |architecture = vs. |architectural_styles=; |built= vs. |founded=; |elevation= vs. |altitude_m=; |owner= vs |ownership=; |governing_body = vs. |management=; the map and native name parameters).
Partial support: I suggest keeping the "Historic site" name and creating a "wrapper" for the content that is primarily useful for "ancient" sites, however defined. While we are at it, there may be a need to consider wrappers for different nations too... not sure. But "historic" and "ancient" aren't the same thing, so some ability to tweak parameters is needed. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with some understanding of why it might be supported as there is a clear overlap at site level. The problem would seem to be that they are named at the 'converging sides' of their intentions. At present 'Archaeological site' redirects to Ancient site, and meets quite a few of those needs. ((Infobox Historic building)) currently redirects to Infobox building, which has no scope for stating statutory protection or special status. The Eiffel Tower and Fishbourne Roman Palace (to pick two random examples) both use ((Infobox building)) suggesting ((Infobox Historic site)) either seemed inappropriate or more likely was not found. For US historic places, there is ((Infobox NRHP)) (which with 62,000 transclusions is presumably not likely to be subject to any merger proposals. My preference is in the main for more distinctive and appropriate infoboxes, which need to be well signposted via categories and navboxes. For example should the UK have ((Infobox Listed Building)), or at least a redirect to whatever is thought to be the appropriate infobox, (which should agree with Historic building) or should the various Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates expect to cope with every phase of history and protection? The aim should be for it to be obvious to editors that they have found (or not found) the right infobox, to provide readers with the right information and helpful 'signposting' on the type of subject they are reading about. Sorry, more questions than answers, but I am not convinced that lumping disparate elements together into vast catchalls is the way forward, (or what is no better, expecting editors to embed disparate extra infoboxes for the bits that don't fit). The ((Infobox UK feature)) helpfully tries to talk editors out of using it, and suggests some more specific alternatives. I can't help thinking that Historic site should probably be doing that, which might usefully reveal both type- and nation-specific boxes, but at present we probably lack quite a few specific infoboxes that would actually be better. RobinLeicester (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).