Talk:Silbury Hill

message: Could you compare it to the Pyramids of Gizeh? Which is bigger?
:Well, this one is small in comparsion. The hill is about 40 metres high, the largest pyramids are about three times taller. You can fit something like 15 "hills" inside a pyramid, (approx, the sides of the pyramids are much steeper than the hillsides so it is a little hard to estimate). // Solkoll 23:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pyramid

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 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Megalith

message: These are NOT positive crop marks: they are two crop circles made in a field which has since been harvested.  Positive crop marks are caused by underground features (ditches, walls etc); crop circles are caused above ground by drunken young farmers or Army types on secret night-time missions, or crazed hippies. Take your pick. 81.157.196.251 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd pic

message: Moses Cotsworth is given pride of place in this section, but his theory isn't referenced. I'm guessing this came from his 1904 book  	The Rational Almanac: tracing the evolution of modern almanacs from ancient ideas of time, and suggesting improvements ... 180 illustrations explaining the mystery of the Pyramids, etc  but this isn't a mainstream work. Cotsworth was a railway accounts clerk who sought to make his work easier by having the year "in all Nations" divided into months of equal length to avoid his having to work late balancing "the ever-changing differences between monthly totals for Income and Expenditure". Can anyone provide more, or perhaps we should expand the section so that it doesn't rely so heavily on Cotsworth? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cotsworth removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scientific theories" 

message: In the section on scientific theories, there's suddenly mention of a step just below the summit which, as as an invisible editing note points out, hasn't been mentioned at all prior to this. As this step appears to be pretty integral to Devereux' theory (and possibly others), the article would definitely benefit greatly from information about this step being woven into the description of the hill: probably in paragraph two of the "Structure" section. I don't have any source material to attempt a description of the step or I'd add this info myself  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done or, at least started. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work - that now hangs together much better :-)  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Step?

message: This edit was rightly reverted, citing completely valid concerns over WP:COI. However parts of the external site, which do not deal with the personal circumstances of the contributor, contain useful material. Would it be in order if another, disinterested editor restored the more closely targeted link? Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise not to add it, the major purpose of the sites content is another agenda entirely and Wikipedia should not really be involved in his personal disputes.TeapotgeorgeTalk 14:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past when someone has posted a clear COI link I have deleted it, but left it in place if someone else other than the site owner subsequently posted it for good reason. However in this case I agree, no soapboxing however useful some of the content might seem to be. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a very good site indeed and well worth linking to. We can simply link to the homepage or a different page from the one extolling Fachtna's virtues. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is actually work linking to? All I see (from the "Home" link down) is a set of grievances that an employee has against his management and colleagues. It's your archetypal "i've been hard done by so I'm going to have my say" site. Under WP:ELNO it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, I was thinking of another site - just checked it out and you are correct Simple Bob, it's a personal grievance site with lots of legal issues in it. I take the above comment back - correct not to link to it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: James, you have whetted our curiosity now—what was the "very good site indeed and well worth linking to"? --08:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent re-shuffle of a couple of paragraphs, now reverted, helped me pick up James's thread. My last question was unnecessary, and my original question has been decisively answered. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: We have lost a link to useful material

message: The lede gives the height as 39.3m; the body gives it as 40m.  These are from different sources, both apparently good and very close in time.  Over to experts.  Wikiain (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 40m can be approximation of 39.3m, but what do you do with 30m which is the height in English Heritage site, which runs the place? אביהו (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I have removed the comparison of the size of the Roman village to a multiple of football pitches as a football pitch is neither standardised or an internationally recognised unit of measurement. The Reuters article referenced doesn't give a size for the village. If anyone has a source for the size of the village in hectares or square metres, please add it. --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of Roman village

message: It's a real stretch equating Silbury with that pyramid. There is probably a Mesoamerican pyramid that is a better comparison. 99.229.34.174 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Silbury Hill is larger by volume than the pyramid of Menkaure, though Menkaure is taller. Menkaure was built around 2500 BC and Silbury Hill around 2400 BC. Ario1234 (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menkaure