Talk:Stonehenge

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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 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

England Top‑importance

	England portal 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

	Architecture portal 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

	museums portal 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

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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 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.

New findings about redstone origin

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

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]

I would split it at Stonehenge#Modern history, since almost everything from that point on was/is speculation and mythology (the subsection Stonehenge#Archaeological research and restoration would go in the scientific section). "In popular culture" is not new: the Arthurian stuff was no better by being old. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems about right: would deal with the WP:RECENT concerns.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic, not Bronze Age

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

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

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]

Data and information visualization

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]