Archives:1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 100 days
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.
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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 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
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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 articles
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 articles
Close to WP:SNOWBALL levels of consensus to keep the article as BC/AD. No reason for change given in proposal, only reasons in support are ideological and don't really address a good point raised by @Johnbod.
The following discussion 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.
I would like to propose a blanket change from BC to BCE throughout the article when referencing dating. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anyway, but under WP:ERA you are supposed to give reasons specific to the article. Not that it matters all that much, but note that the owners of the site, English Heritage, only use BC. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, totally pointless. Tewdar 21:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no reason to change. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to change. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since the S. site was obviously built by "pagan" people, it would make sense to use BCE as that phrase (with Era at the end), is less theologically-ideologically charged than just BC. 94.21.229.41 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's more inclusive to secularists and non-Christian readers to use a non-religious dating nomenclature. Furthermore, the fields of study surrounding such sites, (archeology, anthropology, and so on) are largely science based fields of endeavour, which are increasingly moving towards adopting the BCE/CE format... Sometimes, though, it's just better to be on the right side of history; is it better, for example, to be considered as a John Butler, or a John Scopes? M R G WIKI999 (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to the suggestion that using BC signifies support for slavery. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick didn't say that it signifies support for slavery, he said that it references slavery, which it objectively did historically. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting take. "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi" means "the year of our Lord Jesus Christ" which predates anything the Romans did...and at the same time, it's interesting to see this is where "Don" came from as a title. – The Grid (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Predates anything the Romans did... what? The Roman Empire was founded in 27 BCE. The anno domini calendar was devised in 525 CE and didn't come into widespread use until the 8th century. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's why confusion happens! I thought it was 27 AD. – The Grid (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see a reason to switch the dating system for this article per WP:ERA. The arguments I'm seeing for the change go beyond this article. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a change of dating system, just a syntax of dating. BC = BCE, and AD = CE... but the numbers would be exactly the the same, where 2023 AD = 2023 CE, just a modification to "Before Common Era" instead of "Before Christ" but numbers are identical. BeefsteakMaters (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all know that! Coming up to its 1st anniversary, this proposal has clearly not met consensus & is closed. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2023 (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.
@GhostInTheMachine: I'm not going to spend any time defending a policy that I consider indefensible, but just for the record: Neolithic henge monument in Wiltshire, England is 46 characters so is not "short enough per guidelines". The "guideline" at WP:HOWTOSD says 40 characters max.
More significantly, the only reason to put the county in the SD is to disambiguate from the other Stonehenge in England. Only there isn't one. So I don't see the point? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was in the mind of them??? 103.54.101.15 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of books and articles debating this subject. No one really knows but we can make some intelligent guesses. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, which Stonehenge do you mean? As the article explains, there were a number of phases of consruction, demolition and reconstruction. We don't even know for sure if the site was used continuously between phases. There are many Henges all over Britain whose purpose is not obvious today, that are like Stonehenge I and II. That it marked the midwinter sunrise seems to have appeared in Stonehenge III (NB this is speculative). The apparent marking of other celestial events came later still. Modern scientific conjectures are not wild guesses but nevertheless are trying to infer the purpose from the physical evidence, in the absence of any contemporary records. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" and above that "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stonehenge article". This thread comes under the former, not the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Maynard Friedman updated the short description from Neolithic henge monument in Wiltshire, England to Neolithic henge monument in England then I changed it to Neolithic stone monument in England with a quote of WP:SDJARGON reading "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject" which Murgatroyd49 reverted saying "it is not just a stone monument". Clearly "henge" is jargon which will be meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the topic and cannot be placed in the short description. I have changed it to simply Neolithic monument in England. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking Stonehenge is not just a Neolithic monument, it is also a Bronze Age monument. :) DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 02:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient monument in England? —DIYeditor (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be sufficiently accurate without any confusion/dispute. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Go ahead. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree - "ancient" is vague, rather implies the Romans, & has confusing links to the legal term "ancient monument", which could mean far later. "Prehistoric" is better, and "stone" should be added. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the simplest short description would be: Stonehenge. That is unambiguous and universally recognised. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't last 5 minutes, as you are not supposed to repeat words in the actual title. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, the point is it doesn't actually matter what is in the short description, the title says it all. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Stone" is just part of the story: the earthworks are just as important although less obvious. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's face it, it's the iconic and still-visible part of the story. This is just a short-desc. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ancient implies the Romans, simply before the fall of the Roman Empire. Of course there are ancient historical civilizations from before that time, but I think the word applies just as well to prehistoric. We could use the word prehistoric, but if Stonehenge is a monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 why not use ancient? If we look at Ancient monument the example picture is Stonehenge...
As far as "stone" or any characterization like that I'm comfortable just omitting it. Ancient monument in England or Prehistoric monument in England work just as well, although I do tend to prefer ancient. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello i am a historian and i am researching about stone henge and would like to add some things to it so i wanted to ask if i can edit this source to add some things Abitd (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly were you thinking of adding? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please do not use the ((Edit semi-protected)) template when you are just asking a question. Only use the template when you are requesting an edit. Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Note: Please do not use the ((Edit semi-protected)) template when you are just asking a question. Only use the template when you are requesting an edit. Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)