Jump to content

Talk:Stonehenge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeStonehenge was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 28, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


New findings about redstone origin

[edit]

Hi ! , here are two articles about a recent discovery related to the origin of the redstone :

It can be used as a source for future edits.Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to split this article

[edit]

It seems to me that it has become too long, too unwieldy and has passed the TL;DR point. How about a split between peer-reviewed archaeology (on the one hand) and popular culture (on the other). The latter would include the Arthurian legends etc.

Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you envisage the split? What remains in the main article - or would be summarised there - and what gets spun off into standalone articles? Richard Nevell (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced. Sending off the "Folklore" section to "cultural depictions of Stonehenge" won't reduce the size appreciably, & I don't see what else you could do. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for the proposal. Could we try to get WP:RECENT events into some sort of proportion at the same time?--AntientNestor (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this is a bad idea. It would likely have the effect that someone with a general interest Stonehenge, but little knowledge, would get diverted to the ‘popular culture’ article, and never find out anything about the real Stonehenge. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Too much weight given to certain aspects of the article, e.g. the recent additions under neopagnism. Disagree that readers will get misdirected to other articles, a search for "Stonehenge" comes to this page, the minutiae and trivia are summarised here with links to relevant articles where they can be explained in detail. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic, not Bronze Age

[edit]

The "quick facts" panel says "Founded Bronze Age". The main text says "Stonehenge was constructed in several phases beginning about 3100 BC". 3100 BC may have been the Bronze Age in the middle east but it certainly wasn't in the British Isles.

86.19.192.41 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic infobox misinformation - changed to "Founded Neolithic and Bronze Age". Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest research

[edit]

Probably also noted by others, but anyway: Scientists think they know why Stonehenge was rebuilt thousands of years ago. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another Mike Parker Pearson theory? Could be added to Theories about Stonehenge. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous ISBN

[edit]

Please note that the correct ISBN for Patricia Southern's book The Story of Stonehenge (2014) is 978-1-4456-1900-2; the mentioned ISBN doesn't exist. Thank you! — Ar choler (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link. The ISBN in the article is correct. AntientNestor (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]