Talk:Stonehenge#Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stonehenge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Stonehenge 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 Date Process Result March 28, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 3, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Wiltshire Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Museums Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Neopaganism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Historic sites Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. World Heritage Sites Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Mike Pitts (February 2011). "Digital guides: more work needed". Council for British Archaeology.

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]

Interesting thought. Should the article include some sort of reference to Data and information visualization. The solar alignments have been shown. The lunar alignments presented. There are constellational/cosmological presentations.

Have to be careful to separate from Astrological and other pseudoscience. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from User Talk:Suriname0. I (Suriname0) reverted the addition of a section on the 1971 disappearance of five teenagers in this edit.)

I see that you removed my video source that showed written information about the disappearance. Do you of a better source that I could use? If so please let me know. It has been published in this wiki: https://creepypasta.fandom.com/wiki/The_Disappearance_of_the_Stonehenge_Hippies. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I went looking and couldn't find a better source! Probably a good sign we shouldn't cover the information on Wikipedia, since it hasn't been published in a reliable source. An editor with access to the British Newspaper Archive might be able to check for contemporaneous reporting. Suriname0 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if verified, it has no relevance to the monument and shouldn't be here. See WP:HTRIV.--AntientNestor (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should go without saying that wikis in general, being user-editable, are not reliable sources. Creepypasta is, by definition, a collection of urban legends and otherwise unverifiable material. If you cant find an actual contemporary news source (for instance through the British Newspaper Archive) then I think it's highly likely that it never happened. Please apply a little critical thinking before rushing to write an entire paragraph on something whose authority is about the same level as 'some guy in the pub told me'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the insertion is also a violation of copyright, being taken verbatim from the creepypasta wiki. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-medieval-england-and-its-n/article/anglosaxon-stonehenge/DEB21B1A256727875B07F5782D64934C

In particular it provides a much greater range for that beheaded saxon "on its own, covering a broad range between the last three decades of the seventh century and the end of the ninth century"

Unfortunately I can't immediately get my hands on the sources it cites.©Geni (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a run-down of early modern history, starting with the Roman era. I've made a start, with a more to follow when I get the time.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Roman history. My sub-head has, rightly, been corrected in the article.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This old talk page post suggests that the image : "Computer rendering…etc" (here in the article) is inaccurate, and it was tagged. Nobody stepped in to defend it, and as it doesn't seem to add much I'm proposing it be deleted.--AntientNestor (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to add anything useful to the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of removing it from the article. If there are concerns about the accuracy of the image it should not be included. Its usability is also limited without knowing what information it was based on and at what point in Stonehenge's development it is intended to show. The creator of the file appears to be a graphic artist with a lot of work, but without context there's only so much that can be done with it.

@AntientNestor: when you say 'delete' do you mean remove from this article or nominate for deletion on Wikimedia Commons? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just the article. There are quibbles on the Commons talk page as well, but that doesn't warrant deletion, AFIK. AntientNestor (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. You're welcome to do the honours of removing it from this article. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]