Talk:Artifact (archaeology)

message: I agree with the suggestion cultural artifact could be merged here. Boris 22:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that the merger was not carried out. Further discussion is at Talk:Cultural artifact. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: merger with [[cultural artifact]]

message: at the moment this redirects here, but there is no mention of, or relevant link to, what is surely the commonest use of the word, namely to mean works of art from the ancient world, which may never have had an archaeological phase of existance at all, or whose archaeology is quite unknown. 
Johnbod 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  antiquities 

message: Are these artifacts useful to the people in the past?
Are these useful for us? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.187.184 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  artifacts 

message: Why is "artifact" spelt the American way but "archaeology" spelt the British way? Shouldn't the title be either Artefact (archaeology) or Artifact (archeology)? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been like that since the first edit. Is archeology the exclusive US spelling? Maybe we're in Canadian English. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, both "artifact" and "archeology" are US spellings, although Canada, in all likelihood, has probably borrowed the American spellings. According to Oxford, "archaeology" is actually the most common spelling in America, with archeology a variant. It's possibly because archaeologists prefer older things, and "archaeology" is the older spelling. Well, case solved. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I can't find any evidence that artis means crafted and arte means enclosed or buried item.  In fact the next sentence goes on to say that they are just different spellings from different places.  So the words must have the same meaning. The text from the dictionary link defines the words as "something made or given shape by man, such as a tool or a work of art, esp an object of archaeological interest".  Which fits well in this section.
: "arte" + "factum" is not correct, the Latin root is "artificium", the thing that is made. Regardless, nothing to do with buried items, rather, items that have been crafted (which give evidence of their creators). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the word 

message: We clearly can't claim that artifact is the exclusive US spelling. In any case, the statement was never sources. I've removed it, but I'm not adverse to a replacement stating that both spellings are used in America. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, please add that - there are sources here. The belief that "artefact" is a spelling mistake is incredibly common among passing editors from somewhere, & they are always "correcting" it. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

text: That's completely backwards.  Artefact is the British/Commonwealth spelling, artifact is North American. This is confirmable in sections with major dictionaries , , .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in lead, 'artefact' is a US spelling 

message: This article should be titled
Artefact (archaeology)
Why? Because most of the English speaking world use British English.
There's thousands, maybe even millions of articles/topics/subjects on websites like Wikipedia and Quora, which aren't specific to America, yet use American English, and American titles, even though Americans are in the minority.
That needs to change. The USA need to realise it's not the centre of the Earth, and start using the English language that the world uses, in articles which aren't specific to the USA. Danstarr69 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ENGVAR, and above here. This is well-trodden ground. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artefact (archaeology) 

message: I believe that the article could be better organized. It would be better suited if it started with big ideas and broad categories of artifacts and then dove deeper into these as the article progressed. Skw29 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what it does, sort of? It's very short & that's the trouble as I see it. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of Article [[User:Skw29|Skw29]] ([[User talk:Skw29|talk]]) 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.  Favonian (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 April 2022