Cerne Abbas Giant has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
I have noticed that many measurements in the article have been flipped so that the display is feet first. In the archived discussion one editor asked for "metric/imperial units plz" while another editor said "In the 'Description' section, I've made all measurements, imperial units first, which I think is still the preferred unit in the UK, and tends to be the one used in most of the references, even though in UK science, it tends to use metric first. At least we should be consistent." On the other hand, MOSNUM, while giving preference for miles in UK articles, does not make an exception for other measures, including feet, square feet and acres. How do other editors feel about conforming with MOSNUM for these measurements? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Changes made as proposed on 11 March. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Reversed as I came in after 11 March. The UK is historically uses feet for dimensions such as these. Why not keep it that way here? That some references used show metres is more likely because they were chosen for that very reason rather than that they are typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what weight you think the Ordnance Survey's corporate choice of units for height brings here. I could similarly argue that the giant's owner, the National Trust, use feet when describing it. The fact is, the UK at large still use feet as they always have done. I'm not sure what benefit deviating from that norm would bring here. And the "signature" is added automatically I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the order to make the article MOSNUM compliant. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As we cannot agree that the change is required, I have restored the previous state for now. I cannot see how you can assert that a historical figure such as this, on British soil, for which most of the reliable and trusted sources, including those from the BBC and the NT, give its dimensions in feet, should have its dimensions given here primarily in metres. Timpace ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There are two sources for the size of the Movember moustache. One is the BBC report, which gives the size as 36ft (11m) wide and 9ft (2.7m) deep [1], and the report from the National Trust, where one of the installers of the moustache, Mr Richard Brown of British Seed Houses, gives the dimensions of the moustache as 39 ft (12 m) wide and 9.8 feet (3 m) deep. [2] This information can be heard in the video that is embedded in the web page. The video clip is entitled 'Watch our Cerne Giant Movember video' and Richard Brown is the second speaker. He gives the information about 40 seconds into the video clip.
As the two measures are different, the question arises as to which is more accurate, the measurement given by one of installers or the BBC report. In this case I believe that the dimensions given by the installer should be preferred. After all, he should know.
Nevertheless, if we go by the National Trust's figures, the actual video needs to be cited clearly so that it cannot be missed.
I propose to restore the citation to the National Trust web page, but this time I'll try to make sure that the link is to the video clip. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There are many more than two sources for the size of the moustache. Most seem to agree with the BBC, although there are some that do agree with Richard Brown too. However, although the Richard Brown video is hosted on the National Trust website, the figures that the NT themselves give, on both their main website and on their press release site, give the same figures as the BBC website. So it seems that the BBC's figures probably came from the NT press release. Did the NT measure the moustache, or pace it out, and found it to be slightly smaller than Mr Brown thought? Who knows? And, to be honest: who cares?! I'd stick with the NT press release figures though, as it is their giant after all, and they should know. :-)
- National Trust Press Office release: https://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/giant-support-for-movember-is-a-sight-to-behold/
- National Trust main website entry: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355809508227/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Does WP:MOSUNIT not apply to this article? The application of MOSUNIT is being resisted at this article (see discussion at 'Display of measurements' above), but the reasons given for not adhering to MOSUNIT do not seem sufficient to me. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 13:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems that this discussion has agreed that MOS Units applies to this article. However, opinion is divided on whether the rules as printed should prevail, or whether Footnote 10 should override them. I believe that the standard rules should prevail, and this is for the following reasons:
I therefore recommend that we follow the general advice from MOSNUM in this article. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I thought as much. Nevertheless, MOSNUM recommends otherwise. Now let's wait and see what others say. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The RfC above is not a consensus to change the article. That question was not asked. Arguments for showing metres seem strongest, but that is not the same thing as an "adjudication". Feel free to ask that specific question. Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is that question, I hope it is specific enough not to be misunderstood: Should this article put metres first for the dimensions of the Cerne Giant? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think we should both step back and let other people comment. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cerne Abbas Giant. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
In the words of Dr. Mark Hows at http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/hillfigs/mainwh.htm , "A piece of experimental fieldwork by students from Bournmouth University resulted in the creation of a temporary Giantess next to the Cerne Abbas Giant for two days 10-11 July 1997." Is this worth including in the article, albeit with a different source, perhaps a local newspaper article?-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 11:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of the illustrations look like they were made for some homework assignment (in the 21st century, not hundreds of years ago or thousands by some primitive cavemen). Just sayin', could be legit, but it seems really weird :P 80.197.107.218 ( talk) 03:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Sources are provided, where the images can be checked. -- Iantresman ( talk) 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cerne Abbas Giant. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"British archaeologist Stuart Piggott agreed, and like Hercules, should also be carrying a lion-skin."
Personally I don't agree that Stuart Piggott should be carrying a lion-skin. It's a very awkward thing to lug around with you all the time. 82.28.107.46 ( talk) 19:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This edit quotes the report from the National Trust as offering a specific date of construction of 908 CE. I couldn't find it in the report [1] and offering such a specific date seems quite hard to justify, given the the technique they used.
References
Material taken from the deepest layer (1m) yielded a date range of 700-1100AD which suggests the giant was first made by late Saxons.
-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
References
-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 07:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Cerne Abbey, and more on the dating, is in the ==Interpretation== section, below. I'm considering applying WP:LEDE and cutting back here, then sorting out "Interpretation" a bit. Any good?-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 09:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that I have the academic chops search down the study referred to in this article and integrate it into the article here, but assuming this is accurate there seems to be important new information that should probably be incorporated. Edit: I see that a sentence summary of the study has been added, but if the results are conclusive, then they should potentially be reflected in the lede and elsewhere. Earlier references to the giant's existence in the historical literature than those listed here also seem to be implied. BlackholeWA ( talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Cerne Abbas Giant has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
I have noticed that many measurements in the article have been flipped so that the display is feet first. In the archived discussion one editor asked for "metric/imperial units plz" while another editor said "In the 'Description' section, I've made all measurements, imperial units first, which I think is still the preferred unit in the UK, and tends to be the one used in most of the references, even though in UK science, it tends to use metric first. At least we should be consistent." On the other hand, MOSNUM, while giving preference for miles in UK articles, does not make an exception for other measures, including feet, square feet and acres. How do other editors feel about conforming with MOSNUM for these measurements? Michael Glass ( talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Changes made as proposed on 11 March. Michael Glass ( talk) 23:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Reversed as I came in after 11 March. The UK is historically uses feet for dimensions such as these. Why not keep it that way here? That some references used show metres is more likely because they were chosen for that very reason rather than that they are typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what weight you think the Ordnance Survey's corporate choice of units for height brings here. I could similarly argue that the giant's owner, the National Trust, use feet when describing it. The fact is, the UK at large still use feet as they always have done. I'm not sure what benefit deviating from that norm would bring here. And the "signature" is added automatically I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the order to make the article MOSNUM compliant. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As we cannot agree that the change is required, I have restored the previous state for now. I cannot see how you can assert that a historical figure such as this, on British soil, for which most of the reliable and trusted sources, including those from the BBC and the NT, give its dimensions in feet, should have its dimensions given here primarily in metres. Timpace ( talk) 08:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There are two sources for the size of the Movember moustache. One is the BBC report, which gives the size as 36ft (11m) wide and 9ft (2.7m) deep [1], and the report from the National Trust, where one of the installers of the moustache, Mr Richard Brown of British Seed Houses, gives the dimensions of the moustache as 39 ft (12 m) wide and 9.8 feet (3 m) deep. [2] This information can be heard in the video that is embedded in the web page. The video clip is entitled 'Watch our Cerne Giant Movember video' and Richard Brown is the second speaker. He gives the information about 40 seconds into the video clip.
As the two measures are different, the question arises as to which is more accurate, the measurement given by one of installers or the BBC report. In this case I believe that the dimensions given by the installer should be preferred. After all, he should know.
Nevertheless, if we go by the National Trust's figures, the actual video needs to be cited clearly so that it cannot be missed.
I propose to restore the citation to the National Trust web page, but this time I'll try to make sure that the link is to the video clip. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There are many more than two sources for the size of the moustache. Most seem to agree with the BBC, although there are some that do agree with Richard Brown too. However, although the Richard Brown video is hosted on the National Trust website, the figures that the NT themselves give, on both their main website and on their press release site, give the same figures as the BBC website. So it seems that the BBC's figures probably came from the NT press release. Did the NT measure the moustache, or pace it out, and found it to be slightly smaller than Mr Brown thought? Who knows? And, to be honest: who cares?! I'd stick with the NT press release figures though, as it is their giant after all, and they should know. :-)
- National Trust Press Office release: https://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/giant-support-for-movember-is-a-sight-to-behold/
- National Trust main website entry: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1355809508227/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Does WP:MOSUNIT not apply to this article? The application of MOSUNIT is being resisted at this article (see discussion at 'Display of measurements' above), but the reasons given for not adhering to MOSUNIT do not seem sufficient to me. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 13:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems that this discussion has agreed that MOS Units applies to this article. However, opinion is divided on whether the rules as printed should prevail, or whether Footnote 10 should override them. I believe that the standard rules should prevail, and this is for the following reasons:
I therefore recommend that we follow the general advice from MOSNUM in this article. Michael Glass ( talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I thought as much. Nevertheless, MOSNUM recommends otherwise. Now let's wait and see what others say. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The RfC above is not a consensus to change the article. That question was not asked. Arguments for showing metres seem strongest, but that is not the same thing as an "adjudication". Feel free to ask that specific question. Guy ( Help!) 22:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is that question, I hope it is specific enough not to be misunderstood: Should this article put metres first for the dimensions of the Cerne Giant? Michael Glass ( talk) 10:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think we should both step back and let other people comment. Michael Glass ( talk) 11:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cerne Abbas Giant. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
In the words of Dr. Mark Hows at http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/hillfigs/mainwh.htm , "A piece of experimental fieldwork by students from Bournmouth University resulted in the creation of a temporary Giantess next to the Cerne Abbas Giant for two days 10-11 July 1997." Is this worth including in the article, albeit with a different source, perhaps a local newspaper article?-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 11:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of the illustrations look like they were made for some homework assignment (in the 21st century, not hundreds of years ago or thousands by some primitive cavemen). Just sayin', could be legit, but it seems really weird :P 80.197.107.218 ( talk) 03:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Sources are provided, where the images can be checked. -- Iantresman ( talk) 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cerne Abbas Giant. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"British archaeologist Stuart Piggott agreed, and like Hercules, should also be carrying a lion-skin."
Personally I don't agree that Stuart Piggott should be carrying a lion-skin. It's a very awkward thing to lug around with you all the time. 82.28.107.46 ( talk) 19:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This edit quotes the report from the National Trust as offering a specific date of construction of 908 CE. I couldn't find it in the report [1] and offering such a specific date seems quite hard to justify, given the the technique they used.
References
Material taken from the deepest layer (1m) yielded a date range of 700-1100AD which suggests the giant was first made by late Saxons.
-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
References
-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 07:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Cerne Abbey, and more on the dating, is in the ==Interpretation== section, below. I'm considering applying WP:LEDE and cutting back here, then sorting out "Interpretation" a bit. Any good?-- 217.155.32.221 ( talk) 09:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that I have the academic chops search down the study referred to in this article and integrate it into the article here, but assuming this is accurate there seems to be important new information that should probably be incorporated. Edit: I see that a sentence summary of the study has been added, but if the results are conclusive, then they should potentially be reflected in the lede and elsewhere. Earlier references to the giant's existence in the historical literature than those listed here also seem to be implied. BlackholeWA ( talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)