This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Weak oppose Site and village share a name, but they're not the same. I would just move all the archaeology stuff to Mardaman and either mention its existence in the text of the village, or put the site in a See also section. Articles that try to merge information about an archaeological site and a modern settlement tend to become messy so in my opinion it's better to keep them separated. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. I was motivated after watching the OI video on the Bassketi excavations and noticed that these two articles had a lot of overlap, but yeah, just maybe moving some stuff between them makes more sense.Ploversegg (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Our normal practice is to maintain separate articles on archaeological sites and the modern places they're in or near to, since sources rarely address them together and the content of the articles tends to be structured very differently. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I will rm the merger prop and maybe move a few things bet the articles.Ploversegg (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
