Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant

Display of measurements

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)

My understanding is that miles are given preference over kilometres in UK articles because that reflects usage in the UK, as well as all roadsigns being in miles. However the same cannot be said for feet/metres: usage is mixed, and official bodies tend to use metres. I am unsure about acres/hectares. I would prefer compliance with MOSNUM if only because not doing so results in the article appearing a little anachronistic. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:54, 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)

Please see WP:MOSUNIT. The fact that feet have historically been used in the UK is not a reason for use now. The Ordnance Survey haven't used feet for decades. Also, please sign your posts. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:03, 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)

Regardless of anyone's personal opinions on how widespread the use of imperial or metric measurements is within the UK, WP:MOSUNIT applies. Please read it. Also please note that although a signature may be added automatically by Sinebot, it is preferable (and not difficult) if you add it yourself using four tildes (i.e. ~~~~). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:52, 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)

Please read WP:MOSUNIT, which applies. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please also check the citations. The most important measurements for the Cerne Giant are given in metres. Your edit not only made the article less compliant with MOSNUM but also less compliant with the most important of the measures. Michael Glass (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

MOSUNIT doesn't support this sort of defiance. The selected citations may give metric, but that is irrelevant. You could just as easily use citations that use feet. Is that how we are supposed to work here, we carefully find a reference that uses our favourite measures, then chance the article to reflect them? I hope not. Timpace (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not "defiance". MOSUNIT is part of this encyclopaedia's manual of style; it has been devised as the guide for how to present articles, including this one. Unless a very good reason is given otherwise, MOSUNIT applies. Please acquaint yourself with how this encyclopaedia functions. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The "very good reason" is that there is no agreement to change it, and it was written that way originally. It was written that way because that is how measurements have traditionally been given in England, and they are the measurements given in most of the reliable and informed sources covering this subject. Timpace (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Timplace, you are edit warring. Please listen to what others have said. The most important measurements about the Cerne Giant were given in metric measures. There was agreement to make the change and it was only then that you challenged it. Remember, this is Wikipedia. It is not the British Weights and Measures Association. Michael Glass (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have instigated an RfC on this matter - see below. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Size of the Movember Moustache

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, 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. 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)

Here is why Richard Brown the designer of the moustache is right and the BBC and others are wrong. Mr Brown said the moustache was 12 metres by 3 metres, and he would know because he designed the moustache. The BBC took the two measurements, multiplied by 3 and got 36 feet by 9 feet. These figures have then been taken up by all and sundry, including the National Trust. However, they are wrong. 12 metres is more than 39ft while 3 metres is 9ft 10.11inches, or close to 10ft.

So we have two choices: the designer's figures or the BBC's rough and ready rendition into feet. In this matter it is preferable to go with the designer's figures than the rough and ready miscalculations of the BBC and others. Michael Glass (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have therefore restored the more accurate measurements to the text, together with a note to draw attention to the video clip. Michael Glass (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

All interesting speculation, but better to stick with the National Trust's official press release figures (https://ntpressoffice.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/giant-support-for-movember-is-a-sight-to-behold/), as reflected in the BBC item, I think, at least while this discussion is ongoing. So, for now, I've restored the original values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace (talk • contribs) 07:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Logical analysis suggests that Michael Glass is likely to be correct. The National Trust did not commission the moustache; they were approached by British Seed Houses and merely accommodated their wish to have the moustache displayed. So the Trust will not have specified measurements. It is unlikely the Trust will have measured the moustache themselves, as it was only in place for one day, and they must have already been given dimensions by British Seed Houses. Why would the National Trust measure such a temporary structure when its creator has already given them measurements? And why would Richard Brown design a structure that has measurements that seemingly are whole units in the imperial scale (as per the BBC and NT), but then publicly describe the structure using metric? Lastly, on these pages the Trust gives all its measurements in feet rather than metres, so it seems likely that they did indeed do a rough-and-ready conversion of the measurements supplied by British Seed Houses. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What PaleCloudedWhite has written above makes sense. There is no reason for Richard Brown to give the measurements of the moustache in metres if it had been designed in feet. Why is this usage even an issue? Michael Glass (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I've covered all bases now with my last-but-one edit. It gives the official NT and mainstream news view and the designers intent. It's hardly a big deal really a few inches here or there on a one-day grass moustache! I think everyone will be happy now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpace (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that solution has merit provided the designer's figures go first. After all, they are the primary measures. Hence my latest edit, which I hope will be acceptable to all. Michael Glass (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Does WP:MOSUNIT not apply to this article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

MOSUNIT applies. What that means for the content of the article, is something else again, though the arguments for preferring metres seem strongest. The problem is that the RfC asked the wrong question, in that one could argue either from MOSUNIT, since this only prefers metric for "most quantities". So, my reading based on this debate is metres first, and if you want it another way then have a specific RfC on that. And if you do, I insist that the FFF system be presented as an alternative, for balance. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 31 May 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)

Yes, MOSNUM applies. Michael Glass (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, MOSNUM applies, and is, as far as I can tell, fully complied with now (footnote 10 is pretty clear). What's the problem? Timpace (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed with Timpace. (Editor directed to RfC by Wikipedia:Feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style serves at least 2 functions: first, it provides a template for a house style, so that all articles are presented in a roughly similar manner, and second, it therefore should prevent hours of wasted time spent discussing the same issue over and over again at multitudes of articles. Footnote 10 may state "If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article" but it also advises discussing the issue at WP:MOSNUM—which has not been done—and it states, in reference to discussions, "Note the style guides of British publications such as The Times". The linked style guide of The Times states "In general, we should prefer the metric, with imperial conversions in brackets at first mention ... for areas prefer hectares and square metres to acres and square yards". So invoking this footnote as support for placing imperial units as primary in this article, is perhaps not applying the footnote in the way it was intended. In addition, on a more general point, using the footnote in this way seems to be in opposition to the two previously outlined benefits of the MOS. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically, it says if you can't agree a change then don't make the change. We don't seem to be agreeing to change to metric first, so let's leave it for now. Timpace (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't just state that. If that were its intended interpretation it would effectively nullify the whole guideline. What's the point of a guideline if it has a footnote saying, "don't implement this if you don't agree with it"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of the footnote is obviously to cover rare cases where the exact interpretation of the substantive rule is genuinely unclear. If that is not obvious to everyone, we need to revisit the guideline and amend the text to make that crystal clear. If the mixing of behavioural advice (in the footnote) with the substantive rule of the style guideline allows the waters to be muddied, the footnote needs to be fixed or removed entirely. --Boson (talk) 19:00, 16 April 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:

• The talk page shows that the question of which unit should come first has been in play for some time.
• The sources quoted for the dimensions of the giant comes not from the popular media but from learned journals.
• No argument has been given to justify the flipping of the display, apart from a reference to Footnote 10 of MOSNUM.

I therefore recommend that we follow the general advice from MOSNUM in this article. Michael Glass (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no strong case for change. We can find sources that give the units any way we like, so that certain sources give it a certain way is not a convincing reason for doing it that way. Let's keep the status quo, and thus avoid further disruption. Timpace (talk) 06:26, 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unit display

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)

No, that's not specific enough. The question is whether the article should continue to put imperial units first as it has historically done, or should it be converted to metric.

As it had been stable with imperial first for some time, although recently added details relating to the Movember moustache were changed to give metric first, I believe it should continue with imperial first for all measures, including the Movember stuff. The reason being its historical context and the fact that its construction pre-dates the metric era and it has always historically been described in the literature in imperial units, including in the first known drawing of it from 1764. You have to make a very determined effort to search out sources giving its details in metric units, even from more recent literature. Timpace (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the Cerne Giant was drawn up in any units, regardless of the way it was described in 1764 or at other times.
• There is clear evidence that the Movember Moustache was drawn up in metric units. See the discussion on the Movember Moustache above.
• MOSNUM is clear that metric units should be preferred for these measurements.
• In the discussion immediately above, Guy said: "So, my reading based on this debate is metres first..." This seems pretty clear to me,

At this point I think we should both step back and let other people comment. Michael Glass (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You'd first need to find someone who cares (hint: RfC). For the time being, there is no consensus to change the article so it should stay at Imperial-first. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Then what is the point of MOSUNIT? I am not obsessed with measurements, but the advice at MOSUNIT seems to make sense, apart from the peculiar footnote that seems to encourage disagreement across articles. Why have a guideline that, as it seems to be being applied here, seems to advise neither one way nor the other? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again we see Americans imposing their system on a British article. It should use the metric system, as is in every way possible more applicable. There's no need to stonewall it. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330011530/http://www.weymouth.gov.uk:80/home.asp?sv=295 to http://www.weymouth.gov.uk/home.asp?sv=295

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

1997 Giantess

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)

Is this for real or a hoax?

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)

Is what a hoax - the entire article? The giant is very real, and if you want to check you can always arrange to visit it yourself. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources are provided, where the images can be checked. --Iantresman (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/w-archaeology/w-archaeology-places_to_visit/w-archaeology-cerne_abbas_giant.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041021140701/http://www.aiartists.com/wmcglaughlin/reviews.html to http://liveweb.archive.org/http:/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunate syntax

"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)

Specific date in NT report

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 and offering such a specific date seems quite hard to justify, given the the technique they used.

References

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The NT report may not say that, but the Washington Post report refers to "...the highest probability of A.D. 908, the scientists say...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's not even that certain; the NT report says that this early date was suggested by only one sample, while others suggested later ones (their explanation is that it could have been abandoned for a time then recut, in line with the sudden appearance in records in the late 17th cent). I suspect this hasn't been reported that accurately Svejk74 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: The National trust commissioned Allen Environmental Archaeology to do the work. Allen's actual result, quoted in New Scientist, was "between AD 650 and 1310…with the year AD 980 falling in the middle of that window.". Thus the Washington Post's misleading "highest probability of A.D. 908" seems not only to have misinterpreted but also misquoted the originator of the report.

References

--217.155.32.221 (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"908" for "980" seems likely to be a simple typo, and I suspect the New Scientist report is more likely to be correct. If the "980" date is simply an arithmetical midpoint between two dates 660 years apart, it seems barely worth mentioning here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete it?--217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It certainly needs rewording, and I'd suggest adding a mention of Cerne Abbey, which is from a date similar to that postulated for the giant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 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)

Cross post. User Ghmyrtle has fixed this.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't "fixed" anything, I merely adjusted the lede. If you want to move things around between that and the Interpretation section, no problem so far as I'm concerned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

OK--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New research on origin/role per BBC?

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)

User:Throughthemind added the study, with the Speculum journal paper as the source here. I moved it back to the earlier discussion on Hercules here, as I thought it was not really "archaeology". That BBC article looks like a useful secondary source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)