This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
this is a copy from the talk page of History of Wales: from the article: "the earliest known human remains discovered in modern-day Wales is a human tooth, found in a cave in the valley of the River Elwy in north Wales, whose owner lived about 250,000 years ago in the Lower Palaeolithic period". 250,000 years ago? according to the "evolution" section in the human article "Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago." no matter what book it's from i do not believe that humans were in wales 250kya. though this link claims that neanderthals were in wales "between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago." i believe the claim that humans were in wales 250kya is absurd for many reasons. not only does this contradict the examples given but it also a date close to the estimated emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens itself. it should be removed. seeing as that i do not have the book to refrence i would appreciate it if someone could double check it. though i am tempted to remove it and probably will.
there is no way that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were in Wales or even in Europe 225kya. it should be changed and needs to be changed. this is terrible that misinformation like this is on wikipedia.--Tainter03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from this article: "The earliest known human remains discovered in modern-day Wales is a human tooth, found in a cave in the valley of the River Elwy in north Wales, whose owner probably lived during a temperate phase between 225,000 and 186,000 years ago in the Lower Palaeolithic period and is usually classified as early Neanderthal. [1] This is the furthest north-westerly site at which Neanderthal remains have been found. The remains of classic Neanderthals were found at Coygan Cave and have been dated to about 50,000 years ago." Aldhouse-Green and Lynch are not using the term "human" to mean Homo sapiens sapiens here - if you READ the above you will see that it actually says "early Neanderthal", who were in Europe before 300,000 years ago. Still have it your own way - I have had enough and am quitting Wikipedia. Rhion09:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see Rhion is right and Tainter did not read the article properly. Neandethal man was indeed around in NW Europe at that time, long before the emergence of H. sap. sap. Rhion- please do not quit! Tainter- OK, we all make mistakes; at least you discussed before editing.
Best Wishes,
IceDragon6422:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Ario1234: Understandable there is a lot of great imagery for Wales from before and after the Bronze Age. But now the article is full of unreferenced images. When I added text and images recently, I did so directly to the text. It's a better idea to add text supporting the images used please. Cltjames (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. The image file says it is a reconstruction of a prehistoric bridle, though the caption should also say this. There are too many images in galleries - the text areas should be filled first, and the final gallery is as yet uncaptioned. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be relevant in general context, the text does not provide such. So if trimming is needed on the many images, those not actually mentioned should be considered first, unless ofc (preferred) the text is expanded. That image just seemed clearly out of place to me. But I am not following this too closely, and be free to argue either way. DankJae19:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is a rough explanation about images, e.g. gold, chariots etc. But most of the new images aren't supported directly to the text, with only 1 referenced, the mace-head weapon which is in the Neolithic section but weaponry is mentioned in the Bronze Age section. The additions seem to be without planning and without consistency to the written text. Maybe some can be kept with relevance, but on the most part they seem unprofessionally positioned in the article and need a further explanation to reinforce their position in the article (sorry about the criticism). Cltjames (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ario1234: That's pretty much the deal. If you look at my addition (Din Ligwy- Prehistoric Wales#The Iron Age), I specifically write a paragraph with references directly associated with the text, and then I can add an image related to the text and reference all together. You've added images, but the text does not explain what those images are. There needs to be more relevance between images and text. I don't have enough reading material to support all the images you've added, maybe you could start by adding some sentences, or deleting some images? Cltjames (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE means. The captions give some information on the images and they are all relevant to the topic. If there's any that you particularly dislike then remove them, but I don't see the point of making the page less informative than it could be by not showing artefacts or relevant images. Ario1234 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ario1234:. Look, I researched the Cadw website and only found 1 reference from my searches for the Neolithic Ages. No offense, but you have to include much more references for your images. I tried to use Cadw whilst searching the titles of the images, but I could not find anything. I don't understand your issue with MOS:Relevance, but your images are mostly not referenced, and they do not fit into the structure of an encyclopedia article. Please support your image with references. Cltjames (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the images and then click on the blue 'more details' button in the bottom right-hand corner, it takes you to the image page on Wikimedia Commons which usually has more information. Ario1234 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
