Talk:Sweet Track

message: Hi,
I believe that it is proper Wikipedia etiquette to anounce the adding of external links to a page in the discussion section, so I thought that I better had.
I've added a link to 'The Willows' at http://www.thewillows-westhay.com The Willows lies at Westhay, just outside of Glastonbury on the Avalon Marshes (next to the Peat Moors Visitor Centre) and provide a good base to explore the Avalon Marshes and other areas of the Somerset Levels. I hope that this is ok.
With Kind Regards
Paul
:Hello Paul, thanks for your courteous notification on this page and SSSI. You'll see that both the links have been reverted, as they don't fit in with Wikipedia guidelines on external links. But don't be discouraged - why not register for a username and do some more editing- I'm sure you've got plenty of contributions on these topics you can make. Naturenet | Talk 18:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an external link 

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: Regarding this sentence:
:"Radiocarbon dating of the peat in which the axe head was discovered suggests that it was deposited in about 3200 BC,[20] although more recent work has suggested a similar age to the track."
I'm not sure what this is saying. Is it saying the track might be dated to 3200 BC, or the axe head might be dated to 3806 BC? I think it's trying to say the axe head is dated to the same age as the track, but it reads like the track is dated to the same (possible) age of the axe head (3200BC). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is discussing the deliberate (votive) deposition of the axe. I read ref 20 as saying that the layer of peat immediately under the axe was dated to about 3200 BC: i.e. The axe was lying on the peat; and since the peat was dated, the axe would not have been placed earlier than that date. The rest of the sentence is saying that the track is of a similar age. So in summary, the track has the "same age" as the votive placing of the axe on the peat. I don't think the axe head itself was dated: radiocardon dating does not work on Jadeite. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the sentence fragment "although more recent work has suggested a similar age to the track." is un-sourced, source [20] is for the first part of the sentence. What is the "more recent work"? Would anyone object to removing that part of the sentence, since it's unclear what "similar age to the track" means, and there is no source for it? If it's saying the track is 3200 BC, that is a very big statement that contradicts everything else in the article, it shouldn't stay without a source (and expanded upon). Green Cardamom (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your statement: It looks like the sentence fragment "although more recent work has suggested a similar age to the track." is un-sourced. There is no cite provided for it, and ref 20 does not provide verification. Since the article is an FA, such a compound claim needs to be WP:Verifiable. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with a sentence 

message: The lead contains two adjacent sentences containing the adverb "largely", which seems a little clunky. Is there any way to change on or the other? "Predominantly" might work, but implies >50% of something. Brammers (talk/c) 08:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about substantially or in the main? Just two from a very quick dip into Roget. I don't think there's a problem with your predominantly, though. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tweak 

message: The second sentence is unusually precise in its dates; "It was built in 3807 or 3806 BC and ...".  Strangely for a featured article, none of the lede section is provided with a reference and statements like "... has been claimed to be the oldest road in the world" are allowed to stand without an explanation of who is making this claim.  I would normally request some references be added by putting  or   where I thought necessary, but this is today's featured article and I suspect the rules might be slightly different. I thought Wikipedia's standards for selecting the day's featured article were higher than this.  Astronaut (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it's all referenced in the main body of the text. The lead is a summary of what's said in the article and doesn't need references. Richerman   (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I should have read the rest of the article before coming here with my comment.  Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: [..] until the 2009 discovery of a 6,000-year-old trackway in Plumstead, London. - No reference? Once found, this datum may be of benefit to readers of the Plumstead article. 92.29.18.107 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section of a Wikipedia article should not normally be referenced as it is supposed to be just summary of the rest of the article. If you read the full article you will find that there is a reference for this information further down. Richerman   (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wot abaht Plumstead? 

message: What was the length of the track? Nowhere is even an estimate given. Abductive (reasoning) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total length 

message: User:RichardAB added this link to a YouTube 3D film of the track to the lead of this article. I moved this to the external links section but they have reverted my edit. Do others think it should stay in the lead?— Rod talk 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be in the external links section.  Is there sufficient source information for it to be described in the body as well? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  You Tube video in the lead  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sweet Track. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324051317/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/HES_150_Years_Chapter_11.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/HES_150_Years_Chapter_11.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sweet Track. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409184902/http://www.ccanw.co.uk/assets/files/Wood_Wisdom_Panels.pdf to http://www.ccanw.co.uk/assets/files/Wood_Wisdom_Panels.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest that the Post Track article should be merged with this one. Rwood128 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you suggest the rationale for this? They are two separate structures, although they cover a similar path. This was not suggested during the articles FA candidate discussion.— Rod talk 17:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Sweet track and the Post Track are two different ancient structures/sites. It does not make sense to group them together until more research takes place. It is thought that the Post track may have been the "scaffold" used to build the Sweet track - but it is 30 years older, a generation, so the theory that it may be the remains of a more ancient track is possible. I understand why merging would make sense, but perhaps not at this time. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the advice. I will remove the banners. Rwood128 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Post Track" article  here?