Template talk:European megaliths

This template 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

Europe

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope

The Template

I thought it was about time there was a template to link the various European Standing Stone arrangements as although there are many articles, of varying size and quality, nothing really brought them all together.

I am sure I've missed some out. I've chosen most of those I could find which have either articles of their own or significant sections in other articles. I've tried to arrange the countries alphabetically and toyed with the idea of separating the nations of the UK as most of the articles seem to be about the UK, but thought that that would end up in an edit war like many similar situations so opted to have a single group for the UK, but to split the UK nations into separate sub-gtoups (I'd be happy to be corrected on whether Jersey should be with the UK or separate).

Feel free to either add other standing stones / standing stone articles, or if you are not sure of the syntax of the template, leave a list of links to any Wikipedia page that should be added and it can be easily done.

To add the template to any page, use {{European Standing Stones}}. -MRM (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Adding

List any article that should be added below.

Picture

Not convinced that adding a picture does anything for an already busy template. If one is to be used, a portrait format of a single stone may be better than a landscape group. MRM (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RemovedMRM (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Template moved. Ucucha 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European Standing Stones → Template:European megaliths — To match the title displayed, and to avoid unnecessary capitals as per WP:MOSCAPS. Deskford (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add new items.

Maybe add next items.

Ireland:

--Averaver (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove items?

As this template is for European megaliths why do we have lists for Lebanon and Syria ?

(Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Bull Ring, Derbyshire

There's no standing stone at the The Bull Ring (though there may have been in the past) – just earthworks. What are the inclusion criteria? Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the inclusion criteria are. Some of the entries are odd and don't meet what most people would think of as a megalith. This might be the legacy of the template's name having been European Standing Stones. Here are a few oddities found in the template.

Some sites such as the Nuraghe don't appear in the list although the wiki article describes them as megalithic edifice.

Węsiory leads to page about the village and contains litle information on the Węsiory sites. The same can be said about the Odry,_Poland link.

The pages Grzybnica,_Koszalin_County, and Brąchnówko have no information which would merit their inclussion in the template.

If Brown Willy Cairns is in the template then should all other cairns be in the list?

Not sure if the entry Runestone should be in the list.

Paddaghju has no mention of a megalith.

Hunebed redirects to the Dolmen site and might be better if it was deleted.

Carlin stone - another collective term which appears to include natural features.

The High cross entry appears out of place to me. Early christian crosses aren't generally regarded as megaliths.

The Thunder Stone appears to be an 18th century pedestal on which a statue was mounted.

The Reask entry is for a 7th century christian site and looks out of place to me.

The Russian Geoglyph looks out of place to me and I would exclude all geoglyphs.

Picture stones also appear to be out of place on the list, as do Pictish stones.

Obviously only European sites should be in the list. I removed a few non-European links in 2012. I don't have strong feelings about whether a site has an existing stone, so long as their is evidence that one existed in the past. That would leave the Bull Ring in the list. If it is excluded then Whetstones (stone circle) might also be a candidate for removal.

Can I suggest that the best selection criteria are that the structure should be non christian iron age or earlier and that evidence of a present of past stone structure exists. I would also include structures that have been relocated elsewhere such as museums or other sites such as Menhir de Champ-Dolent (not in the template at present) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waugh Bacon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. We really need to clean this up. Doug Weller (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for The Bull Ring, the article does say, with a source, there was a standing stone, and see [1] [2] [3] Doug Weller (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

I tried to add a new section on Spain but must have got the programming wrong. Can someone help? Thanks. Roundtheworld (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was a stray space in "list 15" (should have been "list15"). I've fixed it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]