Talk:Stonehenge World Heritage Site

Is there some reason this needs to be a separate article from Stonehenge? I see none, but I don't know the area. (WT-en) Pashley 06:50, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

No, there isn't. Merge it back. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:10, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I added this section seperately as the majority of visitors to Stonehenge visit the stones only. The UNESCO site is over 2000 hectares of open fields with other Neolithic earthworks. The reasons for visiting the landscape can be entirely different from the stones, and indeed it is popular with walkers and naturists. I considered adding it to Stonehenge, but felt Stonehenge itself deserved its own article, rather than being buried in a 'Stonehenge Landscape' article. I'll happily move it to Stonehenge, but a lot of people will consider this two seperate attractions. (WT-en) Psychostevouk 12:36, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Saying that, according to the article guidelines, it looks more like Stonehenge should be merged with this article really - as in the case of Taj Mahal redirecting to Agra. Would this be the case? If so I would happily merge the two articles with Stonehenge as a redirect to something like 'Stonehenge Landscape' for example. I do know the area, and the Stonehenge title doesn't do the other monuments nearby - such as Woodhenge or Durrington Walls - any sort of justice. (WT-en) Psychostevouk 12:47, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

If the name doesn't do it justice, I think the best way to address that would be to write about it in the "Understand" section of Stonehenge. As a matter of fact, I think it would be worthwhile to rework your comment above and move basically everything you just said into the Stonehenge "Understand" section. I think we should keep the content at Stonehenge, simply because that is the most common name. And, as you say, the majority of visitors visit the stones only. It's common Wikivoyage practice (and policy) to cover nearby sights within an article for a more prominent destination (e.g., we cover Uplistsikhe in Gori, although it's located miles from the city). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:02, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'll rework the Stonehenge article (which is somewhat lacking) and incoroprate the other material into the see, do and understand sections. Will this be ok with everyone? (WT-en) Psychostevouk 13:11, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:19, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Cool! Check back tomorrow! (WT-en) Psychostevouk 13:23, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree, great resolution, and thanks for the contributions, Psychostevouk. (WT-en) OldPine 14:22, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy with any solution that gives just one article, with the other a redirect. I mildly prefer making this one the article and Stonehenge a redirect. That seems more consistent with actions elsewhere, for example see Talk:Royal_Tyrrell_Museum_of_Palaeontology. (WT-en) Pashley 19:44, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I strongly prefer making Stonehenge the main article. We're supposed to use the most common name, and people certainly don't use name "Stonehenge World Heritage Site", they call it Stonehenge, period. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:58, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, how about in the future we consider changing the name of the Stonehenge article to something that takes the entire area into account? Something like Stonehenge Historic Landscape? This then takes into account the whole landscape (which recieved UNESCO status, not just the stones), but makes the main focus of the article the major attraction in that area. I agree, two articles isn't ideal, as I said I just wanted to ensure that Stonehenge didn't get lost in a different article. Incorporating the landscape stuff into the main Stones article in the other sections seems ideal to me, and the name is slightly less important. (WT-en) Psychostevouk 03:27, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

I've moved all the necessary's over to Stonehenge. As nothing links to this article and as Jpatokal says, this name isn't widely used, this page could probably be deleted now, and then decide about a correct name later on. (WT-en) Psychostevouk 05:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, it looks good! I've redirected, rather than deleted, this article, because that's simpler. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT)