Talk:Heian Palace

Link freeze
i propose a link freeze while its a faRankun (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "link freeze," but I can guess. In that spirit, I wonder when would be a good time to edit the third paragraph to insert a new link to Daijō-kan?
 * Proposed edit:The original role of the palace was to manifest the centralised government model adopted by Japan from China in the 7th century -- the Daijō-kan and its subsidiary Eight Ministries. The palace was designed to provide an appropriate setting for the emperor's residence, the conduct of great affairs of state, and the accompanying ceremonies.
 * Work on this court bureaucracy article was only completed this month; and in the normal course of events, there would have been no cause for delay. Perhaps the "Featured Article" status creates special conditions with which I'm as yet unfamiliar? The tag at the top of this page does encourage me to act now ...? In any case, edits can be easily reverted. I would hope this note shows that I gave your proposed caveat the consideration it deserved. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

older entries
I added back the removed geographical coordinates of Suzakumon. They were moved from this article to the article on Suzakumon, where they are obviosly also appropriate. However, the location of the main gate (together with the schematic map of Heian-kyō) provides a convenient way of giving the location of the old palace in the main article and finding it on online maps. Alternatives would be to give the centre point (which would be less useful for locating on maps) or all four corners of the palace (too many coordinates). Stca74 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. Fg2 12:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA fail
I have failed this article based on the GA criteria, which almost seems a shame because bsaed purely on quality of writing and effort expended etc the article is in very good shape, it simply fails to meet a few of the criteria formally demanded of a good article. Some of these are trivial to address but some might take some time to fix. In detail:
 * 1a clear prose and good grammar:
 * A few spelling errors such as "adopted by Japan from Chine". Generally fine though, pass on this criterion

*1b MOS layout:
 * cannot find MOS page referencing it but the constant use of bold text is unnecessary and distracting and I'm sure it doesn't adhere to MOS - fail on this criteria


 * 2a provides references:
 * fail on this criteria, use of ISBN numbers in cites is welcome and good to see but there is no bibliography provided at all
 * 2b cites sources:
 * fails on this criteria due to failure to provide page numbers for the cites


 * 2c no original research
 * passes on this criteria, no evidence of original research at all


 * 3a addresses major topics:
 * passes on this criteria, covers all expected topics


 * 3b stays focused:
 * passes on this criteria


 * 4 netural and unbiased:
 * pass on this criteria, article seems neutral


 * 5 stable:
 * pass on this crtieria, no sign of any ongoing edit war etc


 * 6 images appropriate and licensed:
 * articles seem to be appropriately licences and are relevant to the article. Schematic plans are an unexpected bonus

Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Submitted to GA Review to get clarity on guidelines for citing sources and providing references

 * Thanks for the essentially positive GA review above. I have addressed some of the criteria while leaving some untouched. In more detail:
 * 1b MOS layout: matter of taste. I did not find any guidelines either, but decided to cut most of the bold-faced letters, leaving only the names of the three main compounds within the palace. Don't know if this improves readability or not, but I don't object either.
 * 2a provides references: Here I do not understand the comment. The References section (to which the footnotes point) is the bibliography of the article. In addition to it, further web site bibliography is provided in External links. I checked the GA criteria and the links to WP:CITE according to which (i) a section for listing references separately from notes is optional and (ii) if there is a separate bibliography section, it is usually not meant to repeat the items in the Notes/References section. And in any case, the References section indeed contains all the sources I would incoprprate in a separate Bibliography section.
 * 2b cites sources: According to WP:CITE again, Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. As the references in the article do not fall under the first set of items, page numbers are not required by the GA criteria. In fact, as there are several notes to a reasonably small number of sources, providing the page numbers for each note would require an individual item for each note, with 13 lines for the first article referenced, completely cluttering the article. The articles referenced are also relatively short, and thus finding the corresponding pages for verification purposes is straightforward.
 * My understanding of the GA criteria is that the article indeed passes 2a and 2b. This is further supported by a quick review of recently passed GA articles and also FA articles (e.g., Aikido among Japan-related articles), where the same approach to references and footnotes can be seen. Thus, in order to see if my interpretation of the citation guidelines find support, I'm putting this article up to GA review. Stca74 08:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First, and most importantly, the GA review has not closed. It has exactly one recommendation. Although that recommendation is in your favor, that is not necessarily indicative of what the final outcome will be. Promoting your own article to GA prior to consensus being reached at GA/R is completely unacceptable. I'm assuming you didn't understand the process and promoted it in good faith, however, you are now aware that things don't work that way. As noted at the top of WP:GA/R, several editors will review the article and make recommendations. An archivist will read all of the discussion, weigh the arguments, and determine consensus. Once that determination has been made that archivist will go through the steps to list the article or not.

Past that, there is a template one can use to cite the same reference but with different page numbers on one line. Rather than simply having the alphabet appear beside the reference number, there will be the alphabet with page numbers in parenthesis beside each letter. I'll have to do a little searching to find it, but it shouldn't take long. I just found it a couple days or so ago. Lara Love  14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point that Stca74 did not promote his own article in any way. I did. I was nit aware of the GA/R procedures at the time, and it seemed to me that it was actually passing. This is why I jumped to promotions. Thanks for the GA/R crash course. --SidiLemine 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been listed at WP:GA after unanimous consensus. The archived discussion can be found [Palace|here]. Good work. In improving this article to meet the standards of GA, you have improved Wikipedia. Also notice in the discussion that one editor, who frequent reviews articles nominated for FA, feels that the only thing standing between this article and FA is page numbers. Hopefully those can be obtained. Good luck with the possible future FA nomination. Lara Love  16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous links
[User:Gryffindor]]'s edit removed the following links, identifying them as "superfluous" ...: I have restored them temporarily in order to provide an opportunity for further discussion. My arguments for maintaining these links are three-fold:
 * Kyoto Gosho
 * List of palaces
 * Ōmiya Palace
 * 1) I think they should stay because I personally found them helpful.
 * 2) If they are, in fact, deemed to be superfluous, then I've misunderstood the flexible criteria for deciding what to keep and what to exclude from a list of internal and external links.  I will need to re-visit a number of articles where my decision-making about links has been flawed; and I'll need to re-think  how I view this aspect of editing in future.
 * 3) The links were part of this article in December 2007 when it was determined to be a "Featured Article"; ergo, these specific links in this particular article has received the imprimatur of whatever broad Wiki-consensus preceded that FA designation.  In my view, this means that the removal of links which are effectively "certified" (in a manner of speaking) requires a more expanded explanation than will fit within the limited confineds of an edit summary.

I'm confident that the third of these arguments has merit, but the more ideosyncratic nature of my initial arguments leaves them always open to question. For that reason, my interest in why User:Gryffindor removed these links is not merely rhetorical. I'm interested in the reasoning and evaluation process so that my own decision-making can be better informed when I confront similar situations in future. --Tenmei (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The places are already included in the template at the very bottom, therefore it is not necessary to double-link them in one article. Gryffindor  17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced information on typhoon damage
New content on typhoon destruction to the palace has been added by user:205.202.240.119 (talk) but is unsupported by references to any source. This information can not be found in the standard sources used for the article. Further, the name of the supposed typhoon ("grazana") does not appear to conform to Japanese phonology, making the addition somewhat suspicious. I would ask the anonymous contributor to provide sources for the added information (in addition to fixing the broken language). Otherwise I'm inclined to remove the addition to maintain the article at FA standards. Stca74 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With no sources forthcoming, I've reverted the added text. Stca74 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

rename?
This is a great article, thank you to all the contributors. The name of the article is however rather misleading. It talks about the general Daidairi 大内裏, which translates as "Great Palace" or "Greater Palace", which is the whole compound. This is also the article name in the Japanese Wiki. In Japanese it is not called "Heian Palace" or "Heian Dairi" (although the name "Heian Shrine" from "Heian Jingu" is the correct translation). Are there any suggestions or comments? Gryffindor (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heian Palace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313011022/http://tukineko.pekori.jp/heian/daidai/daidai.html to http://tukineko.pekori.jp/heian/daidai/daidai.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Map's caption is not accurate any more
The caption on the image showing the map of Heian with the old palace in it says that the location of the "Tsuchimikado temporary palace that developed into the current Kyoto Imperial Palace" is also included in the map. This is not true any more, since the map's image was updated in 2019 to "correct a typo and refine the typography", but the rectangle indicating the Tsuchimikado palace was removed as well.

So either the caption should be updated not to mention the Tsuchimikado palace, or the image itself should be updated to include it again. Probably the second option is preferable, since more relevant information will be available that way.

(I don't do the edition myself because I have no experience in Wikipedia edition nor an account which would allow me to modify the image. Thank you for the work on the article! I learned interesting things from it. Nichope) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.245.48 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

FA concerns
This article does not meet current FA standards because it is uncited in many places Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the citation concerns, and low number of sources cited in the article. Are you interested in bringing this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Fffeedback
Hi, and thanks for your great work on this article. I'm optimistic about a Keep at FAR, and I hope I can be helpful. As I noted at FAR, I'm woefully under-informed on this topic, which can be a barrier to copyediting. Would you prefer I act on the bolder side, with you keeping an eye on the changes, or that I bring more concerns/questions here for you to fix?

As I go, I'll place things I can't fix myself (or don't have the time for) below. Feel free to strike them as they are resolved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * First: big thank for volunteering to help! I notice you've got started already, and I'll try to respond to your questions below as soon as I can.
 * As for style of edits, I think what you've done in terms of editing straight away vs. posting questions below works well. Stca74 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Sounds good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Overall
 * Hog Farm brought this up earlier, but there's still an issue with jargon brought up without explanation. I'll fix these as I'm able, but one or both of us should probably do a full review to make sure all Japanese terms are explained on first use. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now combed the text for these, and found only one left after your careful work: the great council of state is now exaplained in the lede. Stca74 (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * While the above is handled, I've spotted at least a couple un-italicized Japanese terms that should be italicized per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the text for italicisation, and found just a few Japanese terms to fix (jingi-kan and kami). The current system has the Japanese names of major parts of the palace italicised when introduced (or reintroduced) but not on subsequent occurrences. I trust that after your careful review this is in accordance with the policy. Stca74 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Stca74, what are your thoughts on including information from Nagaoka: Japan's Forgotten Capital by Ellen Van Goethem. The book is focused on Nagaoka, but has info on Heian-kyo starting in Chapter 10. For example, p. 214 has info on purchasing the land for the palace from peasants and Kanmu ordering the various provinces to be responsible for building the palace gates (with a foonoted caveat). I know over-reliance on the McCulloughs was one reason we discounted other sources (why not just cite a McCullough?), but at a glance Goethem appears to cite them sparingly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I read Van Goethem's excellent book a long while back, and did not think it contained essential information specifically about the later Heian Palace (while it has more relevant information that could be useful to improve Heian-kyō not to mention the sadly underdeveloped article on Nagaoka-kyō itself).
 * I now reread the relevant sections of the book, and I still think there is not much strictly new material information on the Heian Palace (some interesting details, yes). On the other hand, it is an excellent source on a very closely-related topic and should be useful for deeper background, so adding it as a reference makes sense. I think the information about the politics of the palace location might be more relevant/interesting fact, and I have added that to the article with reference to Van Goethem (in addition to McCullough 1999 where it is also covered...). Stca74 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Location
 * Can we drop ōji? I'd like to keep our use of Japanese terms to the ones most critical to an understanding of the palace. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would keep ōji as it is really part of the name of these avenues; for example Nijō ōji (二条大路) is the avenue acting as the northern limit of the second "sector" Nijō (二条) of the city. In particular, Nijō alone has wrong referent. In my mind this is not unlike Avenue Georges V in Paris - we would not lightly drop the "Avenue" part. Stca74 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to remove ōji from the schematic at the top, but from the section "Location". Here ōji is not part of any name. I'd suggest moving the explanation of the term into the schematic, or its caption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the body text, can we move the first mention of (and translation for) the term to the beginning of §Greater Palace (Daidairi)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that makes sense, and I removed "ōji" from the Location section. To me the relevant text in the Greater Palace section looks right as is, without burdening the text with translation of "ōji": Ōmiya ōji is a proper name of an avenue, unitalicised as per the policy and comparable to how, e.g., Friedrichstrasse is used in Berlin, with no translation of "strasse". Stca74 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * some citations are duplicated and should be combined. I started to create ref names, and then figured I'd ask first if you would be ok with a switch to using Template:Sfn. It would mean that the citations link right to the cited sources in the Reference section, an the template automatically combines re-used source/page number combos. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Stca74, this would be a good thing :) I resisted sfns for years, but now I'm a fan. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, sounds very good! I was not aware of this template when adding the new inline refs in the past few months - apparently something to look into for future edits! Stca74 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

History Chōdō-in
 * The beginning of this section could do more to summarize the history leading into the construction of Heian and choice of the city as the capital. Not at length, but more. Hall has some on this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a very short contextualising summary. Happily Heian-kyo has more detail and the article is already linked earlier. Stca74 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Struck. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In what sense was the reconstruction of the Dairi done "systematically". Could we just say "always"? "faithfully"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, could replace with "always". Did that. Stca74 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not clear why the reader needs to know about the location of Kyoto Imperial Palace. Giving directions relative to the otherwise unmentioned Tsuchimikado Mansion comes off as trivial. McCullough also mentions the location this way, but does not name the mansion as Tsuchimikado. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jingi-kan is not explained at all, and the relevance is unclear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added text to explain that Tsuchimikado eventually grew from a sato-dairi into the new permanent palace location (on much smaller scale).
 * Added both short explanation of jingi-kan and pointed out its relevance as the last (known) structure of the palace to remain in some use. Stca74 (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the Chōdō-in also called Hasshō-in? There seems to be a mismatch between the text and diagram. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was indeed an alternative name used for the compound. It apparently dates from the older Naniwa-kyō and Nagaoka-kyō palaces, where the corresponding courtyard indeed contained 8 halls. However, the Heian Palace compound had 12 halls in this courtyard, and correspondingly the more appropriate name used was Jūnidō-in (十二堂院). I will add a clarifying comment and cite Van Goethem for this (I see you have already added Hasshō-in as an alternative name). That reference should also cover the added cn tag. As for the diagram, I had not noticed before but my original was edited late last year, introducing Hasshō-in as the only name for the compound. In addition, Daijōkan had been changed into Dajōkan, which may seem like more common pronunciation of the first kanji (太), but all sources (including dictionaries of both contemporary and classical Japanese) confirm that Daijōkan is correct. I have now reverted the picture in Wikimedia Commons. Stca74 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Daigokuden Buraku-in
 * "the Twelve Halls, where the bureaucracy was seated for ceremonies according to strict order of precedence" is unclear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 09:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Accession Audiences" need some explanation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 09:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reorganised and added clarifying wording (both for the Twelve Halls and the Accession Audience). Stca74 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Better! Any objection to linking order of precedence? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection. It would be better if we had an article on Heian-period precedence structure, but the generic article should do for now. Stca74 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we add a translation for Burakuden? McCullough gives "Hall of Abundant Pleasures" on p. 111. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, that translation seems to be used by later English sources as well. I see you've already added that, thanks! Stca74 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverts and re-edits
 * I found a more appropriate replacement for the removed link "Chinese" in the lead (Ancient Chinese urban planning). Added. Stca74 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added back the comment about excavations of the Buraku-in, paraphrased to avoid copyvio issues. Stca74 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Last bits

Hi. I have a few more items for review. Pinging just to keep you in the loop, and to ask if you wouldn't mind reviewing for SANDWICH issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no sandwiches! I won't be able to catch up here this week, as my son is coming to visit ... hopefully I'll get caught up at FAR the week after. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I'm done with copyedits, though I'd like to do another pass through. I would appreciate a second look to make sure I didn't mess anything up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Kawamoto 2016 citations don't have a corresponding reference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that you had deleted the citations? I had apparently forgotten to add the reference in late October, but now both ref and inline citations are in place. Stca74 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A different editor did, actually. Thanks for adding them back! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we incorporate |this image into the section on the Seiryoden? According to this source, it's a fictional depiction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should definitely use the image. Great that it could be found on wikimedia! Stca74 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added some content in the history section and would appreciate review. `This is the diff to check. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good additions, thanks! I corrected the year of the Hogen rebellion (1156 not 1556). Stca74 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is such a classic FFF mistake to make. So focused on the year and decade that I slip on the century. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any other major historical moments that are related to the palace that need to be mentioned? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is essentially a question of where to set the cut-off point - the palace necessarily was the stage of much that was politically important during the Heian period. Some incidents had specifically to do with the palace itself, such as the Ōtenmon Incident, where accusations and counteraccusations of arson were used to exclude competing factions (in this particular case: to cement the power of the Fujiwara against rivals). But I am not sure we should start to add too many such events here; rather have them have their own pages linking to the palace. The history section is already quite long relative to the whole article. Stca74 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think the incidents that "had specifically to do with the palace itself" should get at least a short mention, with a link to a longer treatment elsewhere. I get what you're saying about the History section being long, but we could break it up into different sections. I made an attempt at this. In my view, the article is imbalanced toward physical description of the palace and more description of its history would help. Since the article is not too large overall, there's room to address the imbalance with content addition, and no need to trim the quality architectural content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The dates in the first couple sentences could use some clarification. Is 1227 the end of the palace's use as the official palace or the end of Heian-kyo as the capital or both? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I handled this in this slight rewrite of the early lead, which I'd also like your thoughts on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The revised text is good. The year 1227 is neither and was apparently introduced by an anonymous edit in December 2007 (an edit I never noticed having taken place - too easy to be blind...). 1227 is the year that the palace largely burned down as stated later on the page, which is where the anon probably picked it up. The correct version stated that Kyoto was the capital 794-1868; it could be useful to retain that piece of information if you see how it could fit with the revised wording. Stca74 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a bit on the city being the capital until 1868 in the body. Do you think it needs to be mentioned in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I added an image (diff) and I wonder (a) if there's any issue with my caption or the image's relevance here and (b) are there any other parts of the Genji Monogatari Emaki that we can use to illustrate the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose this repeats the question "Can we incorporate |this image into the section on the Seiryoden?"?
 * The picture and caption both work perfectly.
 * As for additional pictures: I have not been able to find online another picture from the contemporaneous Genji Monogatari Emaki that depicts a scene at the actual palace (and not just similar architectural settings). Stca74 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we cut mention of the Shōkyōden or elaborate on its purpose/importance? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Added some information from McCullough & McCullough. Stca74 (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "since the late 1970s" is mentioned in the lead but not repeated or sourced in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That was originally in the Primary Sources section, but removed in your . I cannot find my old reference for the excavations in 1970s.
 * But in any case it is probably better to delete that claim since there are again new occasional (and interesting!) excavations going on, such as this. I'll delete the 1970s point from the lead. Stca74 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)