Talk:The Bridestones

Archaeology Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cheshire Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discovered in 1764

User:Dimadick added this article to Category:1764 archaeological discoveries, one the grounds that 1764 is apparently the year the Bridestones were first documented. I even find that unlikely (I'll bet they're shown on older maps, for example), but either way I don't think "first documented" is the same as "discovered", and I don't think this article belongs in that category - no-one would ever look for it there. The Bridestones are pretty obvious and will have been known since time immemorial. I don't want this to become an edit war. Any thoughts? Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the 1764 reference is to the use of the monument as a source of roadstone and several sources suggest it was larger before this damage occurred. I think this supports my argument. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article specifies that it was not recorded at all in a 1723 survey, so it was not "known since time immemorial". Dimadick (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]