Talk:Megaliths/Archive 2

message: This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (Abtract 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nabta Playa

message: this article is t laid out well and could include all the info contained in Megalithic architectural elements which is in it self a merge of several small articles scattered in a rather unhelpful cat called Category:archaeological features which clashes with the term feature in Category: Methods and principles in archaeology Boris 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal to merge megalithic archetictural elements with this

message: Meta: Reddi, can edit one article without putting 200 entries into the history? Also these drive-by article extensions done by Google books searches without actually reading the references you give, are essentially unasked for.
IMHO the further reading sections should give our readers some advice for good summary article and books on different levels. We cannot seriously attempt to create a complete bibliography here, but perhaps we can link existing ones? Also, references and further reading applying to specific subtopics should better be given at the corresponding sub-articles.
Pjacobi 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem 

message: Removal of primary sources, secondary sources, and tertiary sources. J. D. Redding
Any reason for the ignorant (eg., a lack of knowledge or uninformed) and POV (aka., anti-paranormal) edit WMC?
Mainly about stonehenge ... but has info about megaliths in general ... and astroarchaeology ....
* Lancaster Brown, P. (1976). Megaliths, myths, and men: an introduction to astro-archaeology. New York: Taplinger Pub. Co.  
About megaliths and alil' astro-archaeology ..
* Kaulins, A. (2003). Stars, stones and scholars: the decipherment of the megaliths as an ancient survey of the earth by astronomy. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford Pub.
Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...  
* Knight-Jadczyk, L. (2005) The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive. Red Pill Press.  	
Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...  
* Wilson, Colin (2006). Mysteries: An Investigation Into the Occult, the Paranormal And the Supernatural. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 667 pages. 
J. D. Redding 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be added as source it should have been read and used by a contributor. Nor robot-like harvested from Google books. --Pjacobi 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added them as sources ... I did read many pages of these.  I was going to use them.  'Fact based research (eg., All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.) with the help of Google books. J. D. Redding 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: *Merge   I propose that European Megalithic Culture be merged into this article because that article is mainly about structures rather than culture and the limited mentions of culture are an uncited combination of opinion, speculation and OR which could better be summarised in one section in this Megalith article. Abtract 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment this experiment looks promising. Abtract is on the right track I'd say. Grunty Thraveswain 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the timeline? And why shouldn't people who want to find out about European megaliths have their own article? TharkunColl 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about timeline, I overlooked it but have added it now. As to "why shouldn't people ... have their own article?" I just can't see it. We are not here to provide articles aimed at special interest groups, we are trying to create an encyclopedia where information is grouped into articles that hang together around a central topic - I believe "Megalith" does just that. If certain sections were ever to get too large in the future, they could be hived off to separate articles - though there is no sign of that yet. We have the opportunity to create quite a useful article here, one where info on a near world-wide phenomenum is grouped together in such a way where the reader can easily compare megaliths from around the world, can discover how and when these structures were built, how methods spread, what they were used for etc. Redirects will lead special interest readers here.Abtract 23:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks really good, Abtract! Good job!  This is shaping up to be just what I had in mind - a solid article that covers all the bases, and could eventually reach FA status.  TharkunColl, I have to agree with Abtract here, one well-rounded and thoroughly-sourced article serves the 'pedia far better than a scattered collection of unsourced and redundant ones.  We can easily make redirects to the sub-sections, for those searching for info from a particular culture. Example: European megaliths -> Megalith#European megaliths, etc. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do actually rather like the way the new article is shaping up, and have no further objections to the merger.TharkunColl 08:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal