Talk:Hill fort

Comments

This seems like a dup of hill fort; if not, it needs to explain the distinction. Stan 16:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

drat should have checked though in my defence the author(s) of hill fort refer to them as hillforts and even hill-forts. They are the same thing though. I'd argue hillfort is the proper archaeological rendering anyway but then I wrote that one. Probably needs a debate somewhere adamsan 16:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

A Google sniff, plus a check of which seems most common in books by searching Amazon, should be sufficient - I doubt anybody will make a big deal either way. (What I find amusing is to Google both together, see how many pages use both on the same page!) Stan 17:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I pulled as much text as would fit into the hill fort article, which gave me an excuse to reorganize the materials there. (When I wrote the original article, my sources claimed that hill forts were unique to Britain -- a claim I should have known better than to accept.) At least now it gives more attention to the rest of Europe, & ought to stand until someone insists that the Acropolis is a hill fort, yet only called by another name.

I didn't turn this article into a redirect to the other because (1) folks should discuss which is the better term, & (2) some may think that I have a conflict of interest here. (A space, a hyphen, or compounding into one word? I really don't care, but would like to see some evidence of use or preferred style before I bow to anyone's argument.) -- llywrch 02:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Splendid. I have started a discussion in Talk:Archaeology to see what everyone there thinks there. adamsan 14:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)~