Talk:Ghost site

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Louisiana Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Mid-importance).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghost Site Mounds. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2022[edit]

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: moved to Ghost site. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Site Mounds → Ghost site mounds – Alternatively, maybe just Ghost site. The historical marker says "The Ghost site consists of 3 earthen mounds. ..." This book calls it the Ghost site without mentioning mounds, as does this one. I can't find any source that calls this place "Ghost Site Mounds" in a sentence. The title is purely descriptive. Most "XXX site" articles are at lowercase site, as in sources (well, the ones I have fixed at least; there are others). Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not a lot of sources to be found that would show this to be necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. On the other hand, it is intrinsically a descriptive name phrase that appears to have been capitalised for emphasis or significance - but we don't do that per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cinderella. Tony (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not a proper name, but a descriptive term. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157, Tony1, and SMcCandlish: Do you have an opinion on "Ghost site mounds" vs. "Ghost site". I'm leaning toward the latter after looking at sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dicklyon, I have no strong views on this. I might lean very slightly to the original title (other than for capitalisation) being the status quo. However, if the sources are indicating "Ghost site" then this will outweigh retaining the existing. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more WP:CONCISE, but whatever dominates in the sources. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at it, the more I think the short version is preferable. This article isn't about the mounds per se, but about the site as a whole, which includes the mounds. Ghost site already redirects here, and doesn't seem to be ambiguous. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ghost site, WP:CONCISE (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further consideration of the proposal to also remove "mounds" from the title. So far, there is consensus to avoid title-case capitalization. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at more sources, and now strongly prefer Ghost site. It's also supported by SMcCandlish and buidhe, and semi-supported by Cinderella157, and not objected to by anyone, so probably that's where we'll end up. Let's see if we can get more input, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite prepared to accept that DL has acted diligently as to determining that sources support Ghost site. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.