Talk:Boxgrove Palaeolithic site

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Template:Megalith

[edit]

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)[reply]

Add past maps

[edit]

Britain didn't look the same in the past. This fact is of crucial significance. Please add maps for all eras mentioned.

04:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:3E00:508D:83CC:4F16:19E4 (talk)

Title of article: Eartham Pit

[edit]

It would be useful if the article explained that the title, "Eartham Pit, Boxgrove", is the official name of the SSSI that is more usually known as "Boxgrove Quarry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British English is a language variant, but not a place

[edit]

I am replacing the following text:

... in the British-English county of West Sussex.

with

... in the English county of West Sussex.

I would rather hope that the reason for the change is obvious, but recent experience suggests otherwise. Therefore I am noting here that the term British English refers only to the variant of the English language spoken in Great Britain (and even then is not hyphenated). Thanks, from ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was added on 9 May 2010 by an IP with a handful of unconstructive edits. Thanks for spotting it and fixing it: sometimes one can't see the wood for the trees! Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 09:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant?

[edit]

Zero relevance to the article. Trivial:

"In 2011, Roberts told interviewers from the student-produced archaeological magazine Artifact that Boxgrove was "a fickle mistress indeed" and that whilst he wouldn't change his experience in investigating the site, the excavations "extracted a very heavy price" from him, "a price that I am only just at the point of paying the final instalment on". For this reason he found that he often hummed The Specials' 1979 song "Too Much Too Young" to himself when thinking about the project.[5]"

31.50.48.124 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge "Boxgrove man" into this article

[edit]

I do not think that Boxgrove Man needs to be a separate article from the site itself and should be merged into this article. The remains of hominins at the site are pretty fragmentary, comprising one leg bone and a few teeth, so there is little to say about them separately from the broader archaeological site and it makes sense to cover the human remains as well as the human created archaeological sites in one article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Boxgrove Man is quite short, but substantial compared with many articles. It is helpful for readers who want to read just about the human fossils but not the site to have a separate article. Also, you should not make the proposal manually. You should use Template:Merge, which will notify watchers of merge proposals and alert administrators to monitor and close the proposal when the comments have been assessed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an article is "short" or substantial" does not matter as to whether they should be covered in the same article. There is not much to say about these human remains in comparison to the Sima de los Huesos hominins for example, which justifies having that be a separate article from the Archaeological site of Atapuerca. Much of the Boxgrove Man article's content is duplicative of the scope of the Boxgrove site article. People who are interested in the human remains are also likely to be interested in the other archaeological aspects of Boxgrove, like the horse butchery site, which were probably made by the same people. I intend to dedicate an entire section of the article to the Boxgrove Man remains. I made the merge proposal in accordance with the guidance given at Wikipedia:Merging#Procedure and do not understand your criticism here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are using an alternative procedure for merging so I withdraw my comment on that point. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some people who are interested in the human remains will not want to read a broader article. Those who are interested in other aspects are referred to the main site article. There is some duplication, but that is universal in the many articles about specific aspects of a subject. I do not see the problem in having two articles. It is more flexible as the rapid advances in techniques are likely to produce further information in the future. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose per Dudley Miles, but I can see both sides here. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose. The site and fossil are both notable in their own right. While the notability has not been contested, I thought that worth explicitly stating. The article on Boxgrove Man includes some information on the Boxgrove Paleolithic site to provide appropriate context, discuss the find itself, and analysis. Beyond what is already present, there could be a bit more information on the circumstances of the discovery in 1993 (ie: why the site was being investigated) and more of the object biography (eg: we know the outcome of the analyses but not the process; where is it stored, and what conservation is taking place). Merging the content would mean losing some of the detail and potential. While I am sympathetic to the point that the fossil could be adequately described within the article on the site, a full description requires an independent article. I think that in its present state the article serves a clear purpose, and there is the possibility of further expansion. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]