Talk:Star Carr

message: I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf.  Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it.  Cheers! --PopUpPirate 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Megalith

message: Hi all,
I'm new on here but really keen to get going and thought I'd better start on my home-turf! I've been involved in the Star Carr project for 3 years (I'll try and maintain an NPOV - but I don't think there's anything too controversial anyway!).
I'm planning to lengthen and update the main Star Carr piece.
To many archaeologists (myself included) the site is as important as Stonehenge so it's information on here should reflect that. I think the house should be part of the main article personally along with sections for the original excavations, the other work in the Vale of Pickering (Schadla-Hall, Lane and Mellars etc.) and the subsequent re-interpretations of the site.
Until I get some feedback I'll just do some fairly minor edits.
What do people think?
PatHadley (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think merging the stuff from Star Carr house into this article and turning it into a redirect is a reasonable approach. The reason it has its own article is probably due more to the reflex of Wikipedians seeing the news coverage rather than taking it in the context of the site. Who knows though, if the article grows really large and there's a lot that can be said about the house that can't be fitted in the main article then it would be ok to have an offshoot again. At the moment though, it seems unnecessary. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ace. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm working on the article now off-line - the structural changes are so big that incremental changes would just mess up the sense of it on here. Is it ok to post the whole piece to the talk page for crit before it goes 'live'? PatHadley (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work fine. Alternatively, you could work in a personal sandbox (eg: User:PatHadley/Sandbox) where it's on Wikipedia, you can see that the formatting works and play about with the structure or whatever as much as you want and this article remains as it is. Then the two can be merged. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice. Learning all the time! :D I've just dumped my text back into the sandbox (from word) and the map isn't there. I'm assuming that won't matter when I come to update the final article? Any comments/tweaks to the sandbox article are more than welcome. PatHadley (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with the 'Star Carr house' article? 

message: Substituted at 06:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Why is it called Star Carr? I've been searching around trying to find out but no one mentions why it has such a stupid name. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Pretty much everything you could want to know. The last 15 years of fieldwork and lab analysis, plus lots of interpretation, summaries of all the previous literature and links up to the site database. Unfortunately they've put an NC on the media licenses but I guess you can't have everything... PatHadley (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [https://universitypress.whiterose.ac.uk/site/booktext/  New excavation reports published and available for free]