Inspired by digging for Britain I'm trying to write more about Mither Tap. I thought about creating a category for Pictish hillforts - but should it be Picitish hill forts? Searching under both spellings seems to bring up separate articles, which is a correct search but not good. [1] [2]. Is this a real problem that needs fixing? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

??? Hill fort has redirected to Hillfort since 2016. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply As far as I know one isn't wrong as such, but looking over the bibliographies of a couple of recently published articles hillfort is much more common, eg 1 and eg 2. One word is also preferred by the Hillforts Studies Group and the Atlas of Hillforts (an AHRC funded project centralising information on hillforts in Britain and Ireland). Richard Nevell (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Richard Nevell. Thanks. What do you think about having an RFC on this? I think we need consistency if only because search ent work as it should if we don’t have consistency. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favour of consistency. Would an RfC be held here or another venue? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here I believe. I don’t think we have an MOS or article guidelines to add it to, which is a shame.

@Joe Roe: what do you think? Doug Weller talk 21:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply I don't believe we should impose a single spelling when the relevant RS don't seem to. But I too think "hillfort" is now dominant. It also has the advantage of being only(?) used for prehistoric or early Europe, while "hill fort" means rather different structures in the context of say Early Modern South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod The search problem doesn't bother you? We also have separate categories for hillforts and hill forts. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not all that much - such things are common and inevitable. But if you want to go round taking out all the spaces, please go ahead, but please add links, which many, like Mither Tap, currently lack. As for the categories (I wish you would provide links!), I can find Category:Hill forts, but where is Category:Hillforts? Ideally something should be done to put eg Maiden castle and Bukit Malawati in different categories. Many of the international examples at Hillfort seem from the photos to be on very flat landscapes, btw; I don't know how inclusive we should be there. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod Sorry about the lack of links, ironically there are a number of "Maiden Castles" Mither Tap is a redirect, what link do you want. There is no category Hillforts, but there are categories such as Category:Hillforts in Monmouthshire.. Maiden Castle, Cheshire is interesting. All the citations say "hillfort', not "hill fort", and the navbar is "Iron Age hillforts in England" includes entries with both hillfort and hill fort. Geographical distinction may work although I'm still not sure about the main category. Bukit Malawati is not a hillfort or even a hill fort, that needs to be changed. visitselangor.com. isn't a reliable source, reliable sources just mention a fort. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now you've really confused me, but whatever. Obviously I want a link to hillfort wherever your link ends up, which has the unlinked term in the text. Bukit Malawati most certainly is a hill fort; that is the standard term for the hundreds or thousand of forts on hill tops across Asia, and you can't just wave in an imperialistic way & say they've got their terms wrong (it was us who gave them the term in the first place). It is ones in Europe where hills seem noticeably absent. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod I'm disappointed at your lack of good faith and what could be construed as a personal attack., I would never have expected that of you. I would not change the description of Bukit Malawati if it had been sourced, and I looked for sources under both spellings of Malawaati. Searching again all I can find is mentions of both forts, described as forts or fortresses, except for [3] which only mentions one fort and calls it a hillfort. I don't think that's enough if all the other sources I found at GBooks and GScholar don't user the term. Are you saying we should use it anyway as ithey were forts on a hill?

I also note that Hillfort says that "A hillfort is a type of earthwork used as a fortified refuge or defended settlement, located to exploit a rise in elevation for defensive advantage. They are typically European and of the Bronze Age or Iron Age. Some were used in the post-Roman period. The fortification usually follows the contours of a hill and consists of one or more lines of earthworks, with stockades or defensive walls, and external ditches. If enemies were approaching, the civilians would spot them from a mile away." The forts at Bukit Malawati don't seem to have been earthworks.

I see now I've gone down a rabbit hole. If that's the definition, than Mithen Tap and Tap o' Noth fail that as they are not earthworks. Tap o' Noth even has vitrified walls, ie, it's a Vitrified fort. These are usually found on hills but that's not a surprise, a lot of castles have been built on hills as they make good defensive positions.

See also Hillforts in Britain which says that "Various archaeologists operating in Britain have criticised the use of the term "hillfort" both because of its perceived connection to fortifications and warfare and because not all such sites were actually located on hills". Doug Weller talk 08:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I looked at Hillfort again and it says "Bronze Age and Iron Age hillforts are widely found in Ireland. They are large circular structures between 1 and 40 acres (most commonly 5–10 acres) in size, enclosed by a stone wall or earthen rampart or both." So despite the lead, not necessarily earthworks. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I need to stop reading related Wikipedia articles. I was doing a Google search on definitions of hillforts and found this. Hillforts in Britain says "The spellings "hill fort", "hill-fort" and "hillfort" are all used in the archaeological literature. The Monument Type Thesaurus published by the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage lists hillfort as the preferred term. They all refer to an elevated site with one or more ramparts made of earth, stone and/or wood, with an external ditch. Many small early hillforts were abandoned, with the larger and greater ones being redeveloped at a later date. Some hillforts contain houses.

Similar but smaller and less defendable earthworks are found on the sides of hills. These are known as hill-slope enclosures and may have been animal pens." Doug Weller talk 17:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think we all knew hillfort is a vague term, even if not quite as vague as a read of the lower reaches of hillfort would suggest. You still seem to be telling Asia they aren't allowed to use the term. I suggest you stop doing this, or write to Mr Modi or UNESCO, asking them to rename the Hill Forts of Rajasthan World Heritage Site. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod this isn’t helping at all. Again, you should know better. You could contribute to this discussion, you’re intelligent. I never said that, but I would like to know how you would define a hill fortand if you think it doesn’t matter if sources, in this specific case, don’t use the term. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

(ec) No, I agree this isn't helping at all. Not my fault I think! Any fort (broadly defined) on a hill (broadly defined) is likely to be called a hill fort in several parts of the world. Since Bukit Malawati (picked at random from the category) seems clearly to be a fort, and on a hill, and no doubt there are RS saying so and using the term somewhere. So UNESCO isn't good enough for you? I don't really know what you are arguing about, except you always seem to feel the need. I introduced Asia as a reason to prefer "hillfort", as I don't think that form is often seen in Asia. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually that’s a good reason to use hillfort. I think we should concentrate on the British Isles, probably Western Europe as well because of cultural/ethnic similarities. I’ve been doing some research into the issue of construction and definitions. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, TWICE, but what you for some reason started trying to argue with. Hillfort does indeed "concentrate on the British Isles", and perhaps the forts in marshes in Northern Europe should be shipped out somewhere. The article might benefit from a more local rename. I'd avoid spending too much time trying to find tight definitions - I doubt they can be sustained. Johnbod (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hate to butt in, but that's not at all what Doug is saying; he's only addressed the use of the term "hill fort" on the specific article Bukit Malawati, not the entire category of Asian hill forts. To call his comments "imperialistic" and misconstrue what he's saying is pretty unfair. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not my interpretation of what he's saying. Perhaps he should clarify his views on Hill Forts of Rajasthan. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod you’re misinterpreting me. I was only referring to one specific site. If you aren’t going to engage in the issue of what is a hillfort I don’t see any point in discussing this further with you. Sources do matter, you can’t just say that there must be one out there and we need to look at the majority of sources. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I repeat, you should clarify your views on Hill Forts of Rajasthan. Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think consistency across categories and trunk articles (lists of hillforts etc.) would be nice, at least, and "hillforts" seems the obvious choice. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I'm inclined to agree here, particularly in the case of categories & lists. While 100% consistency isn't super practical, I think it's worth trying to achieve consistency at least for navigational purposes. sawyer * he/they * talk 16:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply I agree. It makes sense to at least attempt to be consistent.RegentsPark (comment) 20:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply Upvoting British Archaeological Reports at Wikipedia Library edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion