Talk:Geophysical survey (archaeology)

message: Several edits have appeared in "External links" (and been subsequently deleted) linking to the commercial websites of practitioners and equipment manufacturers. I don't think this is appropriate, even if they were to contain significant information about the subject. One exception might have been the link to the journal Archaeological Prospection , as this is the principal English-language journal of the discipline. They do not, however, have significant online content available to non-subscribers. - Tapatio 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Commercial Websites 

message: I can imagine that this would be a rather unsatisfying article for a physicist, but it was never intended as a physics article. The intended audiences were archaeologists and non-specialists. I'm all for providing more detailed and technical content regarding the physics, but I would argue that this overview should be readable and non-technical. I think the appropriate way to treat content outside the interest or comprehension of the general reader is in more specialized articles that may be linked from the overview.
If there are inaccuracies within this article we should fix them, of course. It was my intention to convey an intuitive or "common sense" understanding of the methods and of the subject in general. where this has led to excessively vague or incorrect explanations, I would invite others to offer better ones. I would again argue that revisions should be aimed toward a general audience. Tapatio 04:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Class Physics Article? 

message: A new subsection on LiDAR has appeared. LiDAR is a real game-changer in archaeologial inquiry, and is important and exciting, but does it fall under the heading of Geophysical survey (archaeology)? I use it in my own work, and integrate it with ground-based geophysics, but I think it might fall more into the remote-sensing  sphere. Any thoughts? Tapatio (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the non-specialist would expect to find something about all the non-destructive techniques made possible by physics. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly "made possible by physics," but is it geophysics? In terms of methodology, it would seem to be a type of remote sensing, which is usually distinct from ground-based archaeological geophysics. Of course, the distinction is fuzzy because some remote sensing techniques are geophysical, but I'm not sure LiDAR is one of them. In any case I would be interested in (and could  contribute to) developing a more complete treatment of its use in archaeology somewhere. It's briefly treated in remote sensing, LiDAR, and elsewhere. Tapatio (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LiDAR 

message: The article doesn't mention sound radar (sonar), adapted from marine use to work with ground (by using different sound frequencies). If there is a good reason why this technology (which I believe exists) is not used in geological or archaeological surveying, shouldn't the article include it? David Spector (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See Reflection seismology for something very similar, possibly the same. Thanks, User:Andy_Dingley. David Spector (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonar? 

message: The Wikipedia entry on Geophysical survey (archaeology) should be renamed to "Geophysical archaeological prospection" or "Geophysical prospection (archaeology)" since these are the commonly used terms. The expression "Geophysical survey" in regard to "geophysical archaeological prospection" is uncommon.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itrinks (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. There is for example the journal Archaeological Prospection. It contains papers with 'geophysical survey' in the title, so both terms are in use. I wonder if one is more likely to be searched by the general public than the other? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose I saw your question at the Teahouse, and thanks for following the advice for you to ask here. I do understand your reasoning, but would not support it as, like , I don't believe it is the logical term that visitors here (except perhaps those deeply involved in the profession) might expect. In fact, "prospection" appears only four times in that article, whilst "geophysical survey" appears nine time. and "survey" appears 32 times. In addition, there is already a page called Geophysical survey, so Geophysical survey (archaeology) is a logical distinction as a sub-discipline. There is also already a WP:REDIRECT from Geophysical prospection to Geophysical survey, and the WP:HATNOTE on that page makes it clear that Geophysical survey (archaeology) also exists. I see no reason to change. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose - Looking at Google Scholar results, "geophysical survey" archaeology gives 15,100 results, while "geophysical prospection" archaeology gives 3,330 results. "Geophysical archaeological prospection" gets just 122 hits, so that would not be a good alternative in my view. "Geophysical prospection" gives more hits (5,000) and about 2/3 of those are related to archaeology. For what it's worth as a geologist who uses geophysical methods (mainly reflection seismology, gravity and magnetics) I'd never heard of geophysical prospection. Mikenorton (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change of title