Template talk:Infobox historic site/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge with Template:Infobox ancient site

Following this TFD, the decision was made a few months ago to merge {{Infobox ancient site}} with this Infobox. There are a large number of parameters in ancient site that have no equivalent here and therefore need to either be added to this Infobox or dropped completely in order to facilitate the merge. Below is my proposal as to how to address these parameters. The blank ones I have not figured out yet and would LOVE some input on what to do! (No longer following this idea)

Param	Decision
|abandoned=
|altitude_m=
|altitude_ref=
|archaeologists=
|architectural_details=
|architectural_styles=
|circumference=
|condition=
|cultures=
|dependency_of=
|diameter=
|discovered=
|epochs=
|event=
|excavations=
|fetchwikidata=	remove
|grid_name=
|grid_position=
|hes=
|hillfort=
|imagealttext=	replace with |alt=
|imagewidth=	replace with |image_size=
|label=
|management=
|map=	replace with |image_map=
|map_label_position=	remove
|map_overlay=	remove
|map_size=	replace with |map_width=
|map_type=	replace with |locmapin=
|mapwidth=	replace with |map_width=
|marksize=	remove
|material=
|megaj=
|native_name_lang=	replace with |native_language=
|nhle=
|notes=
|occupants=
|other_designation=
|part_of=
|public_access=
|pushpin_label_position=	remove
|region=
|relief=	replace with |map_relief=
|suppressfields=	remove
|volume=
|width=

-- Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Izno, Joy, Ahwiv, Ɱ, and Evad37: as major contributors to both infoboxes, would love to hear your thoughts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Leaning towards WP:SILENCE at this point. I have started towards working on this in the sandbox and would love any input, questions or concerns to be raised BEFORE I move forward. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As there have been zero comments I am moving forward with this merge. The first step was to refactor this Infobox ({{Infobox historic site}}). This refactor was non-destructive (no data removed from any transclusions of the template) so it should be non-controversial. Any objections to the new styling can be easily addressed. A few things achieved with this refactor:

1. Headers added to better separate the Infobox data into section
2. Map moved up to the top regardless of whether there is an image present (again, can easily be reverted)
3. Various parameters from {{Infobox ancient site}} were added to facilitate the merge.

Again, any questions, comments or concerns please let me know! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, Pigsonthewing, Jonesey95, Hike395, Joy, Izno, Evad37, Mdaniels5757, Primefac, AussieLegend, Frietjes, MSGJ, and Joe Roe: You have all worked on {{Infobox ancient site}}... Any thoughts on this merge? There are a few parameters I am dubious about but looking for other input... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to find some time this week to take a look. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If consensus was to merge, with no decision to drop specific parameters, they should be added to the merged template. There can always be a discussion to remove them later, on a case-by-case basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about . I agree that it's odd for locmapin to be preempted by image, if there's also image_map. At the same time, that probably causes/explains the issues like the one described in the section below. It looks like we actually need a data migration to clean up image maps from plain image parameters. --Joy (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

joy Say more... The issue mentioned below predates my changes. Or are you saying there is a different issue that should be addressed? I'm not understanding what you mean by we actually need a data migration to clean up image maps from plain image parameters. Can you expand on that? Happy to perform said migration if I can? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the fact that this preemption existed can mean that there are cases out there where we start rendering a location map that wasn't there previously, and this might not be right in every case. --Joy (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm ok. I will keep an eye out for that. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• One probably unintended consequence that I don't know how to fix -- {{infobox ancient site}} used the three-dots heritage-site symbol (see here) on the map, while {{infobox historic site}} uses the standard Wikipedia red-dot (as at Beulé Gate as it stands). I can't see a way from the documentation to manually tell it to use the "old" symbol instead (which I quite liked): is there one? If so, should the default when converting from {{infobox ancient site}} be to use it, keeping the article's visuals the same as pre-merge? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I figured it out: "historic site" is actually better in that it does allow you to override the icon: you need to add | map_dot_mark = Archaeological site icon (red).svg. I've added this to the documentation. As above, I think this should be done as standard when converting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

    Is there some historic reason that three dots represent an archaeological site? Is that an industry standard or something? I actually find the 3 dot logo harder to see and therefore more of a usability issue... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge with "Ancient Site": Difference of parameter layout

I went to Temple of Apollo Palatinus in an effort to pre-empt the template merge, and noticed some quite important differences of layout between the two:

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox ancient site}}	{{Infobox historic site}}	{{Infobox historic site/sandbox}}
Temple of Apollo Palatinus The surviving remains of the temple's podium, photographed in 1994 Location of the temple within ancient Rome 41°53′20″N 12°29′09″E History Built 28 BCE Built by Octavian Site notes Excavation dates 1863–1870 1937 1958–1984 Archaeologists Pietro Rosa Alfonso Bartoli Gianfilippo Carettoni Stephan Zink Restored 1234 Restored by Joe Smith Condition Ruined Management Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma Public access Yes UNESCO World Heritage Site Designated 1980 Part of Historic Centre of Rome Reference no. 91ter	Temple of Apollo Palatinus The surviving remains of the temple's podium, photographed in 1994 Location of the temple within ancient Rome 41°53′20″N 12°29′09″E History Built 28 BCE Built by Octavian Site notes Excavation dates 1863–1870 1937 1958–1984 Archaeologists Pietro Rosa Alfonso Bartoli Gianfilippo Carettoni Stephan Zink Restored 1234 Restored by Joe Smith Condition Ruined Management Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma Public access Yes UNESCO World Heritage Site Designated 1980 Part of Historic Centre of Rome Reference no. 91ter	Temple of Apollo Palatinus The surviving remains of the temple's podium, photographed in 1994 Location of the temple within ancient Rome 41°53′20″N 12°29′09″E History Built 28 BCE Built by Octavian Site notes Excavation dates 1863–1870 1937 1958–1984 Archaeologists Pietro Rosa Alfonso Bartoli Gianfilippo Carettoni Stephan Zink Restored 1234 Restored by Joe Smith Condition Ruined Management Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma Public access Yes UNESCO World Heritage Site Designated 1980 Part of Historic Centre of Rome Reference no. 91ter

In particular:

• Most significantly: "events" is moved down to "site notes" and relabelled as "important events". This makes it look as if the ruins were destroyed in 363 while under the management of the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma.
• Conversely "archaeologists", "condition" and "excavation dates" are moved out of "site notes" into "history", which seems backwards.
• "Founded" has become "built", which probably won't be appropriate for e.g. a settlement and is a little off for a temple (it was inaugurated in 28, but construction started earlier).
• The location map is considerably smaller than the image, for no reason I can see).
• "Coordinates" is no longer labelled.

I can manually set an override to the "events" and "built" label, but the parameter order needs to be universal. I propose moving "[Important] events" up to the same area as "built", "abandoned" etc, and "archaeologists", "condition" and "excavation dates" etc down to "site notes". Any thoughts on the others? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: The only objection I have to the above is that I prefer the coordinates not being labeled. I just think it looks much cleaner for the coordinates to be located directly below the map/mapframe/pushpin map. Is there really a need to label the coordinates as being coordinates? Other than that, no objections to moving things around. Can I suggest waiting about a week to see if others have any thoughts? Then I'm happy to implement the changes you suggested. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

On the last point: sure. I don't have a major aesthetic or other issue with the coordinates not being labelled, though it's odd to have one parameter that's treated differently to almost all the others (though equally I'd take the point that it's also probably uniquely obvious what it is without the label). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The is precisely why I feel it is better without the label, because (as you say) it is uniquely obvious what it is without the label. In any case, unless any other concerns come up I will implement your changes in a few days! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist take a look at {{Infobox historic site/sandbox}} which is now displayed above. Does that look better? Note that Infobox historic site has |restored= & |restored_by= which were NOT present on {{Infobox ancient site}}. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that together. The sandbox version is pretty much how I'd do it -- except I'd put "excavated" before "restored", since the two events will inevitably come in that order (or else only one will exist, as for e.g. the Parthenon). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Good call. I'll do that now. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we have a |built_label= or similar optional parameter to modify the word "built" if required? Many sites are more accurately "founded", "created", "settled" etc -- I notice the settlement of Guandimiao, which has just had its infobox swapped. I can add it myself but I'll need to look through the documentation of related templates ({{infobox military person}} has it for "Battles" and {{infobox poem}} has it for "written") to remind myself how to do it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: this behavior already exists. Use |beginning_label= & |beginning_date=. Per documentation:

If none of the above labels quite apply to the article's subject (i.e. if the place was "settled" or "discovered"), these parameters can be used to show a customized date. Example: |beginning_label=Settled and |beginning_date=15th century

Let me know if you need something more? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh -- I missed that -- makes things easy! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 05:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Undercover, make sure you are using {{Infobox historic site}} NOT {{Infobox ancient site}} for the above to work... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)