Talk:Earthworks

Dab?

Note to self (or anyone else who wants to jump in and do it): All but one of the inward links to this page refers to the normal meaning, rather than the company name. It requires dabbing. Securiger 08:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Industrial Earthworks vs. Ancient Earthworks

It seems odd to me that both modern industrial earthworks are lumped together with ancient earthworks, many of which had ceremonial or funerary purposes that pre-date the industrial age. This article seems like a strange anachronism. I've never attempted to split an article, nor if there is even interest in this by the watchers of this page. I'd like to hear your thoughts and feedback. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Earthworks (archaeology) and Earthworks (engineering) (and more?) have just been merged into this single article. To be fair, merge tags had been placed on both articles and there were no objections. However, no discussion was initiated either and it was not at all clear that the merged article would overwrite the longstanding disambiguation page. I was tempted to revert the whole lot, not least because the disambiguation page was not moved properly to Earthworks (disambiguation). I'm still tempted, but why not talk a bit first, eh? Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lithopsian! I wonder what on earth the rationale was to merge Earthworks (archaeology) with Earthworks (engineering)? There seems no logic to my mind, other than the fact that there is a shared word, Earthwork. Unfortunately, I haven't visited the Earthworks (archaeology) page for some time, and totally missed the merge tags. Do you know where the discussion - or the merge proposal - was archived? What are your thoughts about the merger? Do you think it will help users of the encyclopedia find information they seek, or confuse them? BTW, there are also Earthworks that are modern/contemporary works of Land Art. To my mind each of these should be separate articles. Netherzone (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, since there was no rationale given with the merge tags. There was no merge discussion, not even an initial talk page section created by the proposer. The merge tags were placed on each article on November 23rd, and that's it. The merge did strike me as a little odd, more a WP:DICDEF than anything else, but this isn't my area of expertise. I was just passing through curating new/old redirects and dab pages. Give it a day or two and see if user:Ssolbergj shows up with an explanation. Or if others pile in with opinions. And mentioning such a major change at the relevant project pages probably wouldn't count as canvassing so long as you keep it neutral. Lithopsian (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is odd to merge these pages without discussion. For the moment, I assume no content has been lost and anyone looking for information about the use of the term in archaeology will still find it. However, I think a separate page for archaeological earthworks makes more sense. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to restructure the article to reflect the merge better, but in doing so, I'm even more convinced that the two subjects deserve separate pages. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Restructured the article so that historical earthworks, which is also the subject of archeology, was turned into a History section. I think this arrangement works well. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I added a few terms to the lead (second sentence), however I still feel that these various types of Earthworks would better serve our readership if they were separate pages. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssolbergj has previously been in hot water over making drastic changes like this without consensus. See user talk:Ssolbergj#Undiscussed mass restructuring of Brexit articles. Some people seem to have great difficulty learning from their mistakes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Geotechnical shoring structures and Earthworks (engineering) have also been merged into the new global Earthworks article in the last week or so. These do seem more closely allied to the concept of "earthworks (engineering)", so perhaps any consideration of a de-merge should be discussed separately to avoid muddying the waters? Geotechnical shoring structures was newly-created within the last month. Earthworks (engineering) is a long-standing article that was a fairly short summary article until a few weeks ago, then dramatically expanded, then merged. Lithopsian (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to demerge

I too believe that this merger was an arbitrary decision by one editor without any attempt (that I can find) to invite consensus for what was an unambiguously controversial change. I am very tempted to revert all three articles just as unilaterally, but I will resist. So comments first please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert for reasons given above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert - the merge was not desirable as per WP:MERGETEST, as it made encyclopedic content less accessible and available to readership. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert - the two subjects are sufficiently different that readers will not expect a single page to cover both Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unanimous consensus is to demerge, so I will go ahead. If there is a case to remerge the more detailed engineering earthworks as raised above, that will have to be proposed separately and, if there is a consensus, redone. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted Geotechnical shoring structures to its pre-merge state. It is not a good standalone article and in this case only Ssolbergj (who created it) was right that it belonged in the engineering article. So this is to suggest that they do so again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Geotechnical shoring structures were to be merged, would it not make better sense to merge it with Geotechnical engineering rather than with Earthworks (engineering)? Netherzone (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need an article on Earthworks.org

Earthworks is a 501c3 nonprofit organization tracking methane emissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxocdncntx (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]